HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 20, 2000 St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 20, 2000
Room 101 at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Lancaster, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner
11I; Dawnelle Lewis, Administrative Secretary
~kpril 20, 2000
page 1
CALL, TO ORDER
Chai~xnan Matthes called the meeting to order at 7'05p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes.
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
There were no announcements by staff or members of the board.
Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items
are heard, Staff will give a Very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have
an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and
closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations and
then take action.
April 20, 2000
page 2
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 2000
Room 101 at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Merdtt, Mr. Matthes, Mr, Lounds, Mr. Heam, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias
,MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Moore, Mr. McCurdy (Mr. Moore was excused prior to the meeting.)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Lancaster, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner
III; Dawnelle Lewis, Office Assistant llI
CALL TO ORDER
,,
Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7'05p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes.
,ANNOI JNCEMENTS:
There were no announcements by staff or members
Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items
are heard, Staff will give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have
an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and
closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations.
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Kelly stated that this item needed to be passed on.
AGENDA ITEM 2: RZ-00-003, COVENANT PROJECT DEVEI~OPMNET
,CO~ORATION
Mr. Flores stated that Agenda Item #2 is the application of Covenant Project Development
Corporation for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project to be known as
Lake Forest Park, PUD and a change in zoning from the RS-4 Zoning District to the Planned
Unit Development, Lake Forest Park Zoning District for 12.1 acres of property located on the
West side of South 25th Street, approximately 900 feet North of Edwards Road. The applicant is
proposing the development of a 59 Unit multiple-family residential development, consisting of
19 duplex units and 7 triplex units.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any questions of staff at this time.
Mr. Grande stated that on Item #5, there is a recommendation for a waiver on the transportation
impact report. He would like to know why there is a recommendation for that waiver is there.
Mr. Flores replied that staff was just informed that the applicant had applied for a waiver from
the requirements of the transportation impact reports. He also stated that this has not gone to the
Board of County Commissioners at this time, but it will in the future. The Traffic Engineer, Scott
Herring looked over the request and approved it. Thus, meaning it will be forwarded with a
recommendation for approval.
Mr. Heam stated that on 4/2, the wording for relating to the preservation of the environmentally
sensitive wetlands uses the word encourages. This is a word he is not real comfortable with,
when talking about preserving sensitive wetlands. He asked if there could be a more definitive
word uses that will mandate the preservation or something to that affect.
Mr. Flores replied that in all projects staff tries to urge the protection of environmentally
sensitive properties on sites. In fact on this property the wetland will be preserved in its entirety.
Mr. Heam replied that he understands staff will encourage it. But in a case like this where this
board is voting on the Planned Unit Development, he would like to vote on something that he
knows will be preserved, rather than subjective to developer's wishes later. He does not think
that is the case in this situation. He would rather see stronger wording t'or that. Also, on 4/2, he
called the Planning office and never got a return call. He would have handled this by phone if he
had received that returned call. It states that this Planned Unit Development will result in a lesser
density than which would be allowed under current zoning. He is not sure if that is correct.
Mr. Flores replied that was taken in to account if took in to account the underlined future land
use, Residential Urban allows 5 buildings per acre and the Residential Medium allows 9 dwelling
units per acre.
Mr. Heam replied he assumes his confusion is where is it says under current zoning would be
allowed..
Chairman Matthes interjected that it would require a rezoning to get those 97 units and that is
what we are looking at now.
Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative. If this was maximized under the PUD that is what would
possible',.
Chairman Matthes stated that is exactly what is being done at this meeting for the rezoning.
Mr. Trias asked since this was a rezoning to a PUD, and then is the site plan is part of that
rezoning. Some of these questions might not really be relevant since there is a specific site plan.
If someone wanted to do something different, would they have to rezone it again.
Mr. Flores replied that once it is rezoned to a PUD, the zoning would be tied to this specific site
plan.
Ms. Dreyer asked if someone could tell her what the actual density of the property to the west
and what it has been developed at. She understands it is similar to RS-4, is that what it is
developed as.
Mr. Flores replied that he is not quite sure what the density is. It looks to be about quarter acre
lots, so that would mean about 4 per acre. He stated that Mr. Kelly just informed him that they
are about an acre each.
Ms. Dreyer stated her only concern with this site plan is it does seem to be an appropriate
location for this type of facility. She does have a little bit of concern about the density of the units
on the west portion of the property bordering the larger lots. If indeed they are acre lots it would
seem to be quite a bit of difference between the neighboring properties. She asked if all
neighboring property owners' would have been notified.
Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative and stated every property owner in 500 feet.
Chairman Matthes stated that in Section 7.01.03, the code requires a minimum 15 % of native
upland habitat preserved in natural condition. In reviewing this site plan, he does not see where
the 15% is. He asked for clarification on staff's position on how the 15% is obtained and where it
can be located.
Mr. Flores replied that according to the environmental report 3.9 acres, approximately 7.5 acre
under the environmental plan.
Chairman Matthes reiterated that there are only 3.9 acres of native Oakland habitat currently.
Then 15% of that habitat would be .75 acres.
Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative according to the environmental report.
Chairman Matthes stated that if the applicant is present and would like to address the board this
would be the time to do so.
Mr. Aquart, introduced himself he is with CPH Engineers. They are the site planners and
engineers for the applicant. The representing applicant is also in attendance. He briefly would
like to address some of the site plan issues and then ask the applicant representative to address
some other issues.
Mr. Aquart stated that there are 59 units proposed in duplex and triplex building. The access is
off of South 25th Street, with an internal roadway going in to two cul-de-sacs. The existing lake
on site in the North West comer will be preserved. In addition to that the wetland will also be
preserved. The road to the South of that area was taken so that the entire wetland area can be
preserved. The upland preserve area has been located around the wetland and in front of the
property. That has the best existing vegetation that is there with Pine and Palmettos. That will
make a very nice entry in to the property. He will answer any questions on the site plan.
Mr. Poloskey wanted to clarify the purpose of the project. It was described as a multi-family
P~, however more specifically it is an independent retirement community. It is intended to
work in conjunction with the assisted living facility that is under construction to the North of this
property. It will eventually have common ownership. He just wanted to clarify that. The resulting
single or may be married that: theY are concerned about issues of safety and security, These types
of activities will be on that site working with the assisted living to the north. It is a
gated community. There wi a community center on site and a around the lake itself.
So he wanted to clarify that project is going to be low impact.
Chairman Matthes o'
the public that wished
record.
public hearing for comment. He explained any member of
comment for them to state their name and address for the
Mr. Driscoll, 2906 Grove Drive, he lives immediately West of the proposed property. His main
concern is if there will be screening on the west side of the property that would protect the
neighbors. He has not looked at the information close enough to tell if there is a screening on the
West side.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Flores who he would rather answer the screening question.
Mr. Flores replied that in the landscape plan it does show a hedge along the North and West
boundary to Wildwood Lane. That landscape plan also shows trees every thirty feet.
Chairman Matthes asked if the members had a copy of the landscape plan.
Mr. Flores replied in the negative.
Chairman Matthes asked if the landscape plan is something being voted on as part of the PUD at
this meeting.
Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other members of the public willing to speak.
Ms. Englishman introduced herself as the managing partner for the property South on 25th Street.
She can understand that concern from the property owners. She would like to bring up the fact
that the property South of the proposed PUD project, and their prime interest is to sell that
property for commercial use. She is fully aware that intersections are already designated for
commercial use. She would like to raise several questions. The developer made the comment that
this would be a low income. She perhaps miSunderstood the commentt But would like to know if
the units in this project will be privately owned or owned by a corpora(ion with renters living in
the units.
Mr. Grande replied that he believed the developer stated it would be low impact, as opposed to
low income.
Ms. Englishman stated she stood corrected on the low-income issue. She would still like to know
if these units will be privately owned or will the units be rentals.
Chairman Matthes stated that he would like the applicant to answer the questions point by point.
Ms. Englishman stated that she is not familiar with the PUD zoning. She would like to know if
there are other PUD zoned areas in this County. If so, she would like to know where to use as
reference.
Chairman Matthes stated that he would explain a PUD very briefly, and then let staff pick up
what he might have missed. PUD is a planned unit development it gives the applicant the
opportunity to lay out the entire scheme and the land development plan during the rezoning
process. Rather than go through two different processes to change zonipg and then show what he
plans to develop. It gives the ability to lo°k at a project in its entirety dCring conception. He
stated there is a lot more to it, but that explains why there are plans in being reviewed tonight
instead of just a straight rezOning. He asked Mr. Kelly to elaborate on this definition some more.
Mr. Kelly stated he thinks the Chairman has covered the definition pretty well. The follow up
question was if there were examples of any PUDs in the County to use, for reference. The answer
is yes there are examples but they are not always helpful, because a PUD for a nonresidential
development can be a convenience store all the way up to the Reserve. So the intent is for the
developer to come in and present a site plan and the rezoning becomes that site plan. In other
words there are no two PUD that are the same they are each individually defined by that
particular development.
Chairman Matthes asked her to point out which property on the overhead map was the CG
property she managed. He then asked Mr. Poloskey to address the low-income question and then
the ownership of the units.
Mr. Poloskey replied that this is not a low-income project. However, one of the objectives is to
be as affordable as possible, considering there are not any subsidies available. They would like to
be as responsive to the economic profile of the area. This is not subsidized or low-income
housing. (He showed photos of what the units will look like to the board and public.) He feels
this loolk is very typical of the hOusing in the general area. One of the things they have tried to do
for the purpose of the project is to create a lot of buffers along the street and make it more
isolated.. People passing by will not be able to see much of the project because of the preserved
buffers on 25th: Street. The developer and applicant do not feel it is a problem that there is a
commercial project on one side. As far as the financial arrangement, it is a rental community.
That is 'the most responsive to the targeted persons.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Poloskey for his comments.
Mr. Merritt would like to clarify that this is not a subsidized housing of any kind.
Mr. Poloskey replied in the affirmative. This is privately financed.
Mr. Merritt asked if they would object to the screening on the West side of the property being
increaSed with additional hedging and trees.
Mr. Poloskey stated he is happy to make it effective. It is not currently effective with the natural
screening enhanced with the landscape plan. If that is the decision of the Planning & Zoning
Board that it needs to be enhanced then it will be done. He feels with the current landscape plan
will provide a decent buffer.
Mr. Merritt asked what is currently there that would create screening ii? it is not natural habitat.
Mr. Poloskey replied that there is natural habitat there currently, w~th ~he addition to the
landscape plan it will be augmented with a planting seed.
Mr. Trias stated that it would be good to be able to see the landscape plan.
(The landscape plan was passed to the board from staff.)
Chairman Matthes asked staff if there was a cleating plan also and was. there a vegetation
removal permit applied for.
Mr. Flores replied in the negative, referencing a vegetation removal p,
project then the vegetation removal permit will be applied for.
.t. After approval of the
Mr. Kelly stated that the landscape plan indicates with "x" the trees th will be removed.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if he could ask him a question, since
information that Mr. Lounds has it shows a 35 ft. drainage fight of
between this development and the area of concern for Mr. Driscoll.
controls that fight of way.
would be a neighbor. The
that is apparently
~vould like to know who
Mr. Dfiscoll replied that the County comes in and mows the fight of way once in a great while.
Mr. Lounds asked if he had to call the County to get the fight of way ~owed.
Mr. Dfiscoll replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Lounds asked if there was native vegetation between the east area of the properties and the
fight of way. He al:so asked if the fight of way is in Mr. Driscoll's development.
Mr. Driscoll replied that the fight of way backs up against his lot. The amount of vegetation
varies by the lot. His has a gmat deal and his neighbor to the south does not have a whole lot.
The neighbor to the North has a lot. That lake is so deep no one will do anything with that.
Mr. Lounds asked the engineers if they planned on the water from this development stay in this
development, or will it go in to the fight of way.
Mr. Poloskey replied that the proposed discharge will go in to that ditch. There is a fairly limited
discharge that is allowed for the property by the Water Management District and Water Control
District. But there will be an 0utfall going in to the ditch.
Mr. Lounds reiterated that the ditch was between his property and groves. He asked where the
outfall and overflow of the lake will go.
Mr. Poloskey replied it will be at the same location of the existing outfall.
Mr. Lounds asked if currently the natural drainage from that property to that drainage right of
way or will it be enhanced.
Mr. Poloskey stated that there is a portion of the property that drains to the lake, which then
outfalls to that ditch. All of the property does not currently drain in that direction.
Mr. Lounds has two concerns that he would like' to share. One is he feels the landscape barrier
should be enhanced between your property and the property to the west. He is concerned with the
added drainage that is going to be from that property to the thirty-five foot water fight of way.
This will intern have an impact on the residents on the western area and those residents have not
been confronted with.
Mr. Poloskey stated in response to the second question. This site had previously been approved
as a sub-division, part of that approval included a drainage plan. The drainage plan had been
approved bY the Water Management District and North St. Lucie River Water Control ,District
with the outfall to that location. That drainage plan has been reviewed by Mr. Poloskey s office
and governmental agencies. There was an entire drainage study done for that pond. The proposed
discharge to the outfall is conSistent with that. He does not have the exact numbers. Basically, the
discharge is very limited. He does not feel there Will be a big concern for the discharge.
Mr. Lounds asked him where he lived. He asked if he understood how wet St. Lucie County gets.
He asked where the water will go when it leaves that drainage ditch.
Mr. Poloskey replied, that he li,ved in West Palm and he understands how wet all of South Florida
gets. He stated that the water Will go to the North St. Lucie River Canal//9.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if them is a current drainage problem in this neighborhood after a
heavy rain.
Mr. Ddscoll replied that a number of years ago there was a problem. He stated he would like to
ask the engineers a question. There is a culvert that exits from that drainage fight of way in the
back of his property and goes in the North St. Lucie Canal. He would like to know if it has been
evaluated and will it be changed. He does not know what it is.
Mr. Poloskey replied that the culvert was reviewed. The culvert was found to be adequate and it
will not be changed. The size of the discharge pipe that is going to be put in will be the same size
or even. smaller.
Chairman Matthes added that there will be a permit from the South Florida Water Management.
The requirements that are involved completely, will stop them from creating more discharge
from the current amount of discharge.
Mr. Dniscoll wanted to add that all of the houses to the west of this property are on septic tanks
and if there is a drainage problem it could become a bigger problem.
Mr. Heam asked what percentage of the lots in this subdivision have homes on them.
Mr. Dniscoll replied there are 15 building lots and there are only 4 vacant lots.
Mr. Heam shares Mr. Lounds' concern for.the buffer on the west. The homes on 1 acre parcel of
land compared to 6 per acre. It brings a completely different landscape situation. He would like
to see the buffer strengthened.
Mr. Lounds stated that his concern is not just the residents in the sub-division, but also to give a
barrier to the cliental that Mr. Poloskey is looking for. He would feel more comfortable if the
landscape to the west is strengthened. He is satisfied that South Florida Water Management will
do their purpose of dealing with the drainage some what. Then it will all be passed back to the
County. He thinks this board can ask if the landscape barrier on the west can be enhanced.
Mr. Poloskey stated he does not see a problem with the requested enhancement. He is asking for
a guidance as to what should be added to please the board.
Chairman Matthes stated the Public Hearing is still open and he would like to hear the rest of
public comment.
Mr. Digiuseppi introduced himself he lives on the comer of 29th Street and Grove Drive. There
has already been a problem up to the point of his home. There is a section there that the County
has not maintained and it backs up every time it rains. If there is any more water added to that the
people to the rear will get flooded. That is his only comment.
Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Trias stated to staff that the cul-de-sac is extremely long and asked if it meets the code
requirement.
Mr. Flores replied that he has not received any information from any of the departments that have
reviewed the site plan that there is a possible problem.
Mr. Trias stated that he thinks there is a maximum length that a cul-de-sac can be. He imagines
one of the issues that may let them get away with not meeting that requirement is it is a rental and
there is only one parcel. That is an issue that might want to be looked in to.
Mr. Kelly replied that he knows that is a concern of at least one County Commissioner that
thinks the roadway should be linked to the North at Wildwood Lane. ~he Commissioner's
concern was .rather than a cul-de-sac there was a connection in there. Mr. Kelly feels it is
important to note the rational for this and for the traffic. This type of community, which is an
elderly rental community and more elderly than rental is the key, made it inappropriate to link it
to the North. The traffic report also relied on a lowered trip generation because of experience in
other areas with that particular age group. If it was not designated to the elderly the trips would
be expected to be higher. It is important to note that the elderly slant is there.
Mr. Trias stated that that sometimes there can be emergency connections that are done. Not
necessarily on opened streets and make it a little better and safer. He is not going to make any
comments on the quality of the grid around this area or the type of urban development that
happens. He does not have any particular objections since the same method is being continued.
He did state that there are some issues in reference to safety, the cul-de-sacs are very long. That is
a code issue.
Mr. Kelly replied 1,000 feet is the length for the cul-de-sac to meet code.
Ms. Dreyer stated she is understands that there will not be a separate manager on site, but that the
management of this community will be governed by the ALF to the North. She asked if this was
a correct assumption.
Mr. Poloskey replied that the two projects together will be operated as one campus. There will be
staff associated with the functions required as far as maintenance, activities, and security. The
general manager of the project would likely reside in the other building's office.
Ms. Dreyer asked staff how this project would be monitored to make sure it will be a retirement
community. It is being approved on the basis of it being for elderly, is there a mechanism to
ensure that is what it will be used for.
Mr. Kelly replied that it was a very good question but he is not sure if he has a good answer at
this time. If that question is referenced in the motion then he will have an answer before it goes
before the County Commission.
Ms. Dreyer stated that if it were a few simple lots then maybe deed restrictions would be an
avenue. This is a rental community and she does not think that would work in this case.
Mr. Kelly stated that with the companion project under construction to the North and working
with the developer and knowing his intent of going through with this group living thing staff had
not seen a problem. He stated maybe there is a need to lock that down and if referenced it would
give Staff time to check in to it.
Ms. Dreyer stated that there is a need to reference it and research it.
Mr. Heam has two concems. There three structures at the east end of road leading in to the
property. He wants to be sure there is enough room for traffic to exit 25th Street and not be
backed up in anyway. He understands that this is an elderly community and there probably will
not be that much traffic. Several months ago when he was on the Board of AdjUstment, they had
to deal with a project on North Hutchinson Island. They were denied their request to have a gate
~n front, due to concerns of traffic. If there is room to meet code there that is fine.
Mr. Poloskey replied in reference to the gated entrance, they have the requirements from the
County Code. This entrance does meet that particular code.
Mr. Heam asked which one of those structures is where there cars will stop. He asked if it was
the center structure.
Mr. Poloskey replied in the affirmative to the center structure.
Mr. Hearn asked how much distance is between that and the road.
Mr. Acquart replied that it is about 80 feet.
Mr. Heam stated that it should be fine.
Mr. Acquart wanted to point out that as a licensed assisted living facility there is no age
limitation to move in to one. However, the reality is younger people and families do not want to
live in a setting that is geared toward the elderly. The social programs, services offered, and
activities are very geared toward the elderly. He does not have a problem creating an age
limitation that they are allowed to create. But from a practical matter they have never had a
middle age person with a family want to move in to one of the retirement projects. It just is not a
compatible living arrangement.
Mr. Merritt stated there is a parcel in the middle of the map that is marked "not included". He
asked if that parcel is owned by this corporation or by someone else.
Mr. Acquart stated that is a separate owner entirely.
Mr. Merritt asked where their access is.
Mr. Acquart replied that he believes it is Wildwood Lane. Wildwood Lane runs fight up to that
lot.
Mr. Poloskey explained that the way staff is showing it is different.
Chairman Matthes reiterated that this is not a separate parcel, it is part of the whole.
Mr. Merritt asked if the zoning for that parcel is also RS-4.
Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative. Everything in yellow on the map is RS-4 and the ALF is
Institutional.
Mr. Merritt asked about the screening takes in that parcel, since he did not have a landscape plan
to look at.
Mr. Flores said the screening goes up the north and west property lines.
Mr. Merritt asked why there were not be a screening requirement.
Mr. Flores stated that to his understanding from Residential to Residential there is not a
requirement for screening. He stated that is something the developer and engineering firm put on
their property, this board could condition that the screening is extended.
Mr. Merritt stated that his concern is that there is a special type project and more less an enclave
in the middle that will not get in protection from screening.
Chairman. Matthes asked if at this point do they know what the enclave is going to be.
Mr. Flores replied it is currently used as a pasture.
Mr. Acquart stated he has been out to the site and it is a heavily wooded lot.
Mr. Trias asked what type of screening would be satisfactory. There have been several comments
to that issue and there has not been a specific proposal. It would be useful if someone can make a
specific recommendation.
Chairman Matthes asked for any comments.
Mr. Acquart asked if a 6 foot high opaque screening. He asked if that would accomplish any
concerns any one has.
Mr. Lounds stated that 8-ft might be more conducive. There will be more height at a distance and
a thicker sound barrier. There have been several things that have been used for vegetative barriers
from red cedars, that are native to Florida to anything thick. Trees are not as good sound barrier
as to a vegetative hedge would be. He would not ask anyone to put up a fence because no one
will maintain it.
Mr. Acquart stated to clarify there is a vegetative hedge already proposed as in transition with the
trees.
Mr. Lounds stated he did not see that but he will look at it closer.
AGENDA ITEM #3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
Chairman Matthes declared that the Board was now meeting as the Local Planning Agency.
Mr. Kelly stated that in the packet was the last part of the Comprehensive Plan that will be seen
for awhile. This is the Capitol Improvements Element, it is one of the most difficult to put
together. Part of that reason is because the financial picture of the County is not always rosy.
There is one table in this element that is still blank and will be referenced at a later time during
this meeting. The reason for the table being blank is the budget is still be worked on and it is
hard to get the numbers until that is done. This does have a data and analysis section and a goals,
objectives, and policies section. It is broken down in to four areas. One is the overview of the
Capital needs ................................................. Explaining .....
Mr. Grzmde stated that the Goals, Objectives and Policies, page 1 of 28, Objective 11.1.1 the
second line establishes, should be establish and on the third line determines, should be
determine. He believes these are just typos, but these need to be changed to be consistent with the
previous. On page 10, Policy 11.1.1.27 on the second line it mentions the Port of Fort Pierce, that
should be struck out. On page 14, Policy 11.1.2.4 B Existing Development, he asked if on the
first line it should say that 'Existing Development shall pay for the Capital Improvements, rather
than the facilities improvements'.
Mr. Kelly replied that he believes it should change. This is an area that did not change, so this is
the wording that came out of the existing plan. That does not make it fight, he just has to change
it.
Mr. Grande stated he agreed with that comment. The reason why he asked the question is with
that change if you go back to the top of that page Policy 11.1.2.2, then that entire paragraph
should be deleted. That paragraph defines the existing development requirements, Which are
then defined a second time as a counter point to future development. So "B" is existing
development and the second definition is correct. He suggests deleting Policy 11.1.2.2 and
leaving the 11.1.2.4 B Existing Development definition.
Mr. Kelly reiterated the definition and explained he was trying to think in his own mind why
there would be two definitions there.
Mr. Grande stated that he looked at this very closely. He thinks the second one was added and at
the time it was added the first one should have been eliminated.
Mr. Kelly replied that he would scratch it and read it very carefully later. At this time it appears
Mr. Grande is correct.
Mr. Grande stated on page 19, Item #6 at the top of the page should be deleted. If you go back to
page 9, the Neighborhood Park land has been deleted, so it should also be deleted off page 19.
Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Grande stated that on page 28 "G" should be deleted that one is referencing Port facilities.
Mr. Kelly stated that Port facilities were not deleted for a reason. The reason is because the
County might still have an obligation in the Channel. If it is called a facility, that would be a
place that there could be publicly funded infrastructure. He mentioned that instead of deleting, it
just needs to be clarified.
Mr. Grande stated that the reference on page 28 only relates to Port facilities in Coastal high
hazard areas. If you look on the bottom of page 27, the last part is strictly the Coastal high hazard
area portion. He does not believe the County has intentions of having Port facilities in the
Coastal high hazard area.
Mr. Kelly concurred.
Mr. Heam stated that on page 1 of 28, where it says "Needs Delineation", he would like an
explanation of that meaning.
Mr. Kelly replied that is a title that was in the previous plan. In his mind it is kind of odd and
different from all of the other Goals, .Objectives and Policies because they do not have a little
centered, title above each goal. The intent was to say that the needs were being looked at with
this. The most important thing is the goal rather than that title. On page 19 there is a title that
says "Coordinating Capital Improvements with Land Development". He does not know how
useful these little titles are and possibly they should be deleted. These were just Wordings that
were in the prior plan.
Mr. Hearn had no objective with the title, but would like to see something that is a little easier to
understand or know the purpose of it. It just seems like incorrect wording and also seems out of
place.
There was a general discussion of other wording that could be used in replace of the titles as they
are currently.
Mr. Hearn stated that he was not sure what should be used there. He is just stating that he is not
comfortable with the way it is. On page 7 of 28, the new table, he would like to make one
comment. As a member of this board he sometimes feels a little uncomfortable approving
documents that the table is blank or incomplete. He would like this comment sent to the
Commissioners. On page 8 of 28, Policy 11.1.1.13, Section C, he would like that sentence to end
in a period and place Section D behind it. It should then read, "Amend the plan to lower the
level of service at the next opportunity. The purpose of providing for the temporary operation
below the adopted level of service is to provide a reasonable period of time to restore the level of
service through appropriate improvements to roads that are forecast to operate at the adopted
level of service, but which may unexpectedly operate at a lower level of service." Then have
Section D as "Not issue any development permits in the impacted areas." It seems like it would
make more sense to have it read that way.
Mr. Kelly stated he followed what Mr. Heam suggested, but he did not follow when he suggested
it read like something else.
Mr. Heam replied that Section C would read exactly as it is with a period after "opportunity".
Then continue C with section D after the first sentence.
Mr. Kelly stated that he understood and had just got confused some how.
Mr. Lounds asked if that will change the intent at all.
Mr. Heam believes the change will clarify it.
Ms. Dreyer stated that she was confused on this issue also. Section D states "not issue any
development permits in the impactedarea", but then goes on to talk about providing for
temporary operation below the adopted level of service. She said that did not seem to be
consistent with itself and made no sense to her. She stated obviously no one would be putting up
a barricade to stop all the traffic. In her mind "provide for temporary operations" would be to
issue permits, unless she is missing something.
Mr. Kelly stated that there is a situation where a road is one level of service of it's adopted
standard. Then we have liste~ four items that may be utilized to fix that situation. The first one
of them is to enter a contract which will result in additional capacity within 6 months. The
second one is an enforceable 4eveloper's agreement that specifies new development will provide
for the upgraded facility. The t~ird one is to amend a plan to a lOwer level of service at the next
opportunity. That is a pretty permanent decision in change and linking something temporary to
that. He does not think makes any sense. What is being said is there is an adopted level of service
standard in C and then find out it is operating in D ........
Ms. Dreyer stated that as she looks at it the "purpose of providing" should not belong with D at
all. It actually is a continuation of the introductory paragraph at the top. She thinks it is a
formatting error.
Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Dreyer's comments but that is not consistent with what Mr. Heam
has suggested.
Mr. Trias asked if this particular "D" ever happened.
Mr. Kelly replied that we have not ever got to a point where we refused to issue any permit.
There has been a point where a developer has come in with a site plan for 20,000 sq ft of retail
and the developer has been told the roadway can only handle 4,000 sq ft .................
Mr. Merritt asked if we refuse to issue development fights. Are we not taking the property fights
and can the County sue.
Mr. Lancaster stated that was a complex issue. The easiest way to look at it is if there are vested
fights there. Then they have a fight to build at that time. Without any other consideration it would
be difficult for the County to say no. It is more of a vested fights issue.
Mr. Merritt asked if the vested fight if the zoning said something conflicting.
Mr. Lancaster replied that just zoning does not give a vested fight. Generally it takes some
movement toward preceding with a development investing money to get final approval.
Mr. Merritt stated that at a certain point either by the applicant or property owners, there would
be vested fights to proceeding to a certain point.
Mr. Lancaster stated that was the theory of vested fights. Now how that works with issues are in
conflict with an existing Comprehensive Plan. 'He is not sure if that has been litigated or not.
Mr. Grande stated he does believe that having this type of series of possibilities in the
Comprehensive Plan would actually be helpful in the litigation situation. That is the more that is
here defining the situation, more than likely the easier it would be to avoid or settle litigation if it
came. He thinks if this kind of thing was not here, we would be much more likely to have
litigation due to the ambiguity. He also believes that the prior comment was correct that is
Section D should be a single sentence and the rest. of "D" picking up with the word "The" from
the first line should go back out to "when any county". Make this an overall policy commenting
to A through D.
Mr. Hearn stated that he is comfortable with that. He asked to look at "C" and add the word
"temporarily amend the plan to lower the level of service at the next opportunity". He is not sure
if he wants to permanently lower the level of service.
Mr. Kelly stated that he does not know if amending the plan temporarily is possible. There is no
mechanism to force the LPA to come back and there are sunset provisions. Mr. Lancaster needs
to speak to all of that issue. He would like to point out that there may me a time when we might
wish to permanently amend the plan. In a more urban setting, someone Mr. Matthes explained
level of service.
Mr. Heam said okay
Mr. Grande wanted to comment on the using the word "temporary" on Section C. That is not an
indication that must be done. It is an indication that if lowering the plan made sense it is an
option that is available.
Mr. Kelly stated not an option.
Ms. Dreyer stated that on the question of stopping all development. She believes the Courts have
ruled that reasonable regulatory delays are acceptable. She believes that the different options that
are provided here would constitute the reasonable regulatory delays so one of those options could
be used.
Mr. Kelly prefer to avoid those situations.
Mr. Heard- pg 9 Policy 11.1.1.16 thru 24, They all start out with all the same wording and he
would like them all to be consistent wording. To make the document more compatible. On.
11.1.1.16 and 17 he would like David to go explain the 88 gallons per day vs. the 130 gallons.
Kelly does not remember
Heam stated it had to do with potable water and grey water.
Kelly stated FPUA standards' does not remember differece.
Matthes stated diffemce is one is potable water and the other is sanitary sewer.
Grande believes that is not the case. He believes both are potable water standards. He thinks 17 is
the standard for potable h20 in areas that are served with sanitary sewer by FPUA.
Kelly that was consistent with discussion
Grande thinks the standards were based on experience reported these two systems. They came
from Bill Blazak. FPUA served area is the islands where the sewer is and that is the reported
information. He thinks the are accurate.
Kelly some rational does not remember
Stef can not remember
Heam stated if both were potable water then the word needs to be used on both of them.
He just wants clarification. On pg 14 policy 11.1.2.3" County will allocate the cost of any new
public facilities on basis of the benefir.. "He would like to strike "an urban sprawl -at~ "
" p rem and
replace with "will not subsidize new development" so it is consistent with other parts of comp
plan. If you eliminate those four words you are covering the whole county.
Trias does not understand what that means. What is the practical application of that
Heam is saying that new devel has to pay
Trias understands the theory he is asking about policy does it mean high impact fees
Kelly explained new public facilities will be funded in some manner.
Merritt (HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HE UttERED
Grande stated on requested change it should be 5 words "an urban sprawl pattern of" and just say
residents wil! not subsidize new development.
Heam agrees
Grande believes that change makes that paragraph consistent with all others
Heam, on page 16 11.1.2.10 suggests wording "Alternatively, this Comp Plan may be amended
to adjust for the lack of " ' ~
revenues. He would hke the rest of the words in that sentence deleted.
"in any of the following ways" so it will read "amended to adjust for the lack of revenues by an
increasing of use of other sources revenue" and strike 2,3,4 He feels it is more consistent with the
overall comp plan.
Dreyer has a problem in doing that. Because she is not sure the County always has other sources
of revenue. The County g' y State. She is afraid this
only has sources of revenues that are ~ven b the
would put us in a bad situation. She would rather let the bUdget officer find ways to address those
issued, Rather than just ~ncrease other sources of revenue, sometimes yotl must accept a lower
level of service.
Heam #2 he wasn't happy with but #3 bothered him more. He did not want to see this as an
option
Men'itt concur with Dreyer, Matthes concur with Dreyer,
Grande concurs. Elected officials need to make the decision.
Heam pg 21 #2 he made a note. ' In the event of bankruptcy by the developer the entire process
will have to be repeated.' He is concerned if developer goes bankrupt it is not in the best interest
of SLC to just sell the development fights. There was a discussion held by study group
Kelly needs to read the whole policy in context to look at the #2.
Hearn stated that the study group people should expand on that a little bit.
Heam pg 27 Section C, flood proofing water and sanitary sewerage facilities. He feels should
says ' flood proofing existing water and sanitary sewage facilities'
Grande states County is in the business and still will' be in the business in the future to provide
H2o and sewer facilities in the Coastal high hazard areas. County currently considering purchase
of existing facilities from FPUA or Martin county. He asked Heam why he would want to strike
that
Heam stated if want Grande says is true then he is wrong for wanting to strike that.
Grande negotiations are in order
Kelly thinks Heam recognized that we he suggested it change it to existing. That would allow the
flood proofing of existing plants.
Grande greater probability for H20.
Heam understands what Grande is saying. His intent was to limit the flood proofing to existing,
not realizing they wanted to build new ones.
Heam would like to mention the grammatical errors and spelling areas.
TURN THEM OVER TO STAFF
Kelly if it borders on policy it needs to be discussed.
Heam pg. 3, 3rd paragraph down "County does not provide swr, water, or mass transit areawide
i~ · o
n County. Mass Transit ~spg°ing to have to be dealt with. The language needs: to be in the Comp
Plan for plans in the future, age 4, discusses annexation in to the City. It does not have to take
place immediately.
Trias the annexation takes place when it becomes contiguous to the City.
Heam is concerned about the language "should unincorporated area from either utility they are
required to annex in to the municipality". He would like some language to change that clarifying
of when the annexation takes place.
Heam pg 6, 4th paragraph down talks about amending the boundary of the urban service area. His
a
question is how does that mendment take place is them provisions or is it just staff's call.
Kelly distance 1500ft can be done by BCC w/out plan amendment.
Heam asked if that was a public heating
Kelly replied in the affirmative
Heam pgl 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence "SLC depends greatly on the agriculture and
construction industries to create a solid economic environment." He would like to see the tourist
industry in that same sentence. In the next paragraph at the end of the paragraph" SLC will have
to depend very heavily on the increase in land valuation" He thinks that is something everyone
needs to realize and put a lot of emphasis on when discussing developing the County.
Heam same page "Revenue sources for SLC" the table 11.2 on the next page. The heading on
the left is "fiscal year e-net-'" some of the other tables do not have the same heading. He thinks it
would be a good idea if all the tables matched
Heam Pt; 13, he has a note "the County also receives funds from occupational licensed collected
by the Tax Collector". He has been in business here since 1961 and the occupational license fee
has not increased at all.
Trias stated that the City of Fort Pierce had the same problem and the City Clerk just changed
them.
Heam the rest just typos will give them to staff.
Trias has some questions "What are the Capitol Improvements that are going to happen?" He is
concerned about the fundamental idea behind all of this that all the decisions are driven by the
level of service. Which means they are driven by new growth. Given the fact that there is limited
money in this County and in this world. That would be a direct policy of this investment of
whatever roads, libraries, or any other facilities that are in places that are already existing.
"When someone says there are not any money for a project" He wants to know what that means.
Lounds asked what the difference between a community park and a neighborhood park is by
definition.
Kelly definition is the area that it serves ............
Lounds asked about the Lakewood Park Park and that it is used heavily.
Kelly stated that goes with the recreational element. He doesn't think eliminating "Neighborhod
Park" means you could never have another park that served that small area. It was a designation
thing and all parks were put somewhere. There were no parks closed over this.
Lounds problem is eliminating future growth of a development from having a nice community
park that is specific for that development areas needs.
Murphy stated he doesn't think there is anything in the plan that says "no one will ever have a
small service area park". The main thing that needs to be looked at in the Capital Improvement
Element is "level of service" and that is where you are dealing with.the community and regional
sixe parks ........
Trias asked what the process for doing a neighborhood park was.
Murphy stated that the process is a neighborhood group would contact there County
Commissioner and then it would trickle down and then staff would come back and say if it could
be done or not.
General discussion between Murphy and Trias.
Lounds asked if the language in this document means there will not be a new Sports complex
built in PSL if the money is not earmarked or funded for that.
Murphy said NO
Lounds asked if it was developed and the plans and the money for that park does not materialize
does it prevent the County from picking it up and doing it.
Murphy replied if the money is not available to construct the County facility from the variety of
sources that are being pulled. Then the project will not proceded.
Dreyer page 11-23 data analysis, Economic Environment, "Board of County Comm. have
supporting SLC growth opportunity team" she does not believe there is such an entity.
Murphy said Not anymore
Dreyer stated BCC has been supporting the Econ. Dev of the Chamber of Commerce. She thinks
it needs to be expanded: Column 5 believes the amount of money in that column does not go to
the chamber. Back to GOPS, pg 5 second. Paragraph, 2nd sentence must have got dropped. It
makes no sense to her.
Dreyer pg 7-8 she does not understand the difference between B and C. are you just list specific
roads under B and then everything else goes under C.
Matthes stated once the table is there it will be clearer.
Dreyer pg I0, Port of Fort Pierce, chanel maintenance. It was taken out of the definitions on page
2. Does anything need to be in there governing any remaining interest that the county has
regarding to the Port, recreational property and so on.
Grande's understanding is the concept of that area as "Port of Fort Pierce" has kind of faded
away. He [hinks what has happened here they have attempted eliminate the concept of the 'Port"
of having separate standardS
Dreyer stated she understands now. Pagel 1 she wants to know what the level of service, that are
identified roadway segments.
Kelly & Murphy answered.
Matthes asked if that was with committed trips.
Murphy explained more
Dreyer reiterated that D was suppose to be the improved level of service. She is not certain if this
paragraph would then allow an increase of 5% a year indefinitely. Because there has not been a
year of improvement programmed.
Murphy and Matthes agreed.
Dreyer stated this whole section of the plan needed a chart to showing what the level of service
are on the roads that may exceed what we are proPosing in our plan.
Matthes opened the Public Heating.
Shirley Burlingham, blah blah blah County needs to delineate (change the title) pg 2, 11.1.1.2,
Section C & D "Federal State and Municipal Government" should say 'Federal State or
Municipal Government' in both C & D.Page 8,//21 C-3 "Comprehensive Plan" if you read
section C, it can be interpreted as being either Comp Plan or Dev Plan You recognize it on 21
but not D. '
Kelly reiterated.
Burlingham will be a lot of renumbering
Kelly they decided they to not renumber until the end
Burlingham pg 21, she has been going through this whole area. She believes the whole type sheet
that she submitted way back in the beginning about impact fees had a lot to do with what is here.
History shows that people used to put pilings out on the island and leave them there for years and
tben bulldoze them out and start Putting up buildings. There have been a lot of resale out there
and things have been grandfathered in for the last 20 years. She told the story of certain
developers on the beach that have cleared land partially built and now they are at a standstill and
all work has stopped. The property has been abandoned. This property will either go through
bankruptcy or resale. When she looks at this section she wonders if you can put wording in there
that will take care of the person and/or business that is buying this abandoned propertY. She
wants to make Sure that when someone buys an existing development that has not been
completed that is a sore eye and we do not have the letters of credit and performance bonds. She
would like to know if something can be added that in the event of bankruptcy or resale that they
would have: to go through this process again. No. 3 on the bottom says "amend this comp plan"
She does not like to use the word "amend" because currently we are amending the plan. She
would hate to think that there is nOt language in there that would take care of the next 5 years and
be concerned with amending during that 5 year period.
Arena, in data section, page 11-1, 4th paragraph, middle of it "Future needs can not be meet to
existing soUrces" that should be changed from "meet" to "met".page 2, overview, 2nd paragrah.
"An iterative process" he would like to know what "iterative" is?
Kelly stated it is the correct word
Matthes specified location of word.
Kelly will check it. "do it over again until you get it fight" is definition
Arena, bottom paragraph, "Recreation and Open Space were developed with info supplied by
SLC and Solid Waste and drainage were obtained by Public Works Department" to him it seems
like the first half should say from "Comm Dev Dept"
Kelly's got it
Arena page 11-4 the first sentence "provide school and capacities as well as..." Is that what it is
suppose to be? ( very difficult to understand what he said)
Kelly made the change
Arena page 5, bottom paragraph "the district is conducting feasibility study on a reservoir in the
southern western portion of the County" he said he thinks that changed from one reservoir to a
couple different small ones.
Kelly can change that
Arena, GOPS, front page, of transmittal memo it says "Coals"
Kelly okay sorry
Heam where is that at?
Arena, page 8, policy 1.1.11 in his opinion A & B should be switched, because redevelopment
should come first. Page 8, Policy 1.1.14 "No Mass Transit" should be removed. Then say Mass
Transit is ]Economically feasible.
Grande back to page '6, his understanding once that order is approved it is considered a done deal
of vested interest. He is thinking that existing A, Band C are correct. Where redevelopment is
discussed it is actually new order for redevelopment which are lowering the priority scheme then
previously...
Arena has a different opinion but Grande is probably correct. On page 10 of 28 Section D should
be a list of policies on the preceeding page. You have policy 19 standard for level of service
Matthes reiterated that D is not really a level of service and therefore shouldn't be shown a such.
Grande stated it should be part of the paragraph under 11.1.19, A
Arena, page 13 Objective 1.2 "provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the
County to fund." He thinks "the facilities" should be removed. Then it goes on and should have
an "in" in between "share contributions" and a comma after contributions.
Arena has a question on Policy 1.2.1 it refers to rejected by referendum on the bottom 9. Does
SLC have referendums?
Kelly explained
Arena page 21 "amend the Comp Plan" he thinks the business of the County should be to uphold
the standards of the community.
Kelly thinks he is correct. To say it is never amended is to say it is always fight and he does not
want to go there
Arena, every third page it mentions amendment to the Comp Plan. On the back of data and
analysis it refers to this on page 4 "Implement statutory concurrence condition quoted
above ....... "He doesn't think it should be on every 3 or 4 page
Heam would like to agree with Arena. It needs other language that could say as a last resort we
could amend the Comp Plan. To make it so acceptable to do that if we are going to raise our
standards
Grande feels everyone is running ahead of ourselves, on//3 pg 21 is within the context of the "C"
that is above it. What they are saying is that amending the Comp Plan would only be done within
the context of allowing a exception.
Arena, why not amend the Comp Plan now and make room for exception.
Grande the term "amend the Comp Plan" is the exception process that has been chosen. He
agrees it is not the most comfortable language.
Matthes the Comp Plan is a comprehensive document.
Grande stated that the "C" is a very tight phrase
Arena page 24 of 28 why woUld policy 11.1.4.7 be struck out. It seems it should be there
Kelly believes it came out of~the evaluation and appraisal report
General Discussion.
Matthes asked if the Comp Plan is only updated 5 years.
Kelly stated that is correct but there is a policy to review it annually.
Murphy Capital Improv Element is suppose to be updated annually. It is the only one part of the
Comp Plan that is allowed to be self amending. Normally you must have a formal amendment
process to amend the process.
Matthes should this policy be in or out?
Murphy it should stay in. At least 11.1.4.6 should stay and 11.1.4.7 should stay
Matthes could this be referenced somewhere else
Kelly does not recall referencing elsewhere.. He will put them back in and check if they are
referenced elsewhere.
Wells pg 8 of 28 GOPS,11.1.13, Section C & D she wondered if it was possible to say
"temporarily amend the plan to lower the level of service at the next opportunity until the road is
improved"
Matthes you don't want to do a temporary amendment.
General discussion
Wells, Section D, "not issue any development permits in the impacted areas" is that going to be
taken out
Matthes NO
Wells, it should be in there as a Possibility. There is a state law that governs that.
Matthes D will stay as a single sentence
Wells last line of explanation. "this policy shOuld not impair the County's fight to refuse the
issue of a development order, if it is constituted the order were constitute a threat to public
safety".
Matthes ROAD RAGE
Wells, not saying to take out just saying to consider adding something to cover ourselves.
Lancaster that is a very BROAD issue
Grande narrow for a person BROAD for an attorney
Wells, page 11 of 28 the insertion of roadways that were "back logged" That word needs defining
Kelly Thank you
Wells, are those 4 roads in no need for improvement.
Matthes NO mam they are on a list for improvement. There is not any funding
Wells, perhaps there should be wording to not allow us to overcrowd a backlogged road.
Matthes the intent is to allow some development to occur
General discussion on general discussion on how the roadway process works
Wells concerned about this due to ROAD RAGE. You constantly hear of people moving up here
to get away from bad traffic situation.
Wells, page 27, discussion of flood-proofing, would it be prudent to make the change Heam
suggested.
Heam from the comments he heard there will be a need for new facilities
Grande on this specific item, this is North and South Hutch Island. Very unique situations.
(explained to Wells what he explained to Heam earlier)
Matthes close the public hearing
Lounds asked Lancaster if the County can ask a new development buying an uncompleted
development (resale or bankruptcy)come back and resubmit and is it in the plan or do they only
come back: to change what has currently been done
Lancaster within the context of that particular part the bond will cover a period of time.
Lounds stated in one of the plans we extended from 5 years to 8 years on development request.
Murphy them was a modification of vegetation issues. (explained general changes)
Grande motions forward the Capital Improvement Element to the County Commission with the
recommendatiOn of approval With the changes that have been made at the meeting this evening as
recorded by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Merritt seconded the motion. All in favor
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
r¸o·
FROM:
Planning and Zoning Commission Board Members
David P. Kelly, Planning Manager~~d~
DATE: April 17, 2000
SUBJECT:
Meeting Minutes for February 17, 2000
The February 17, 2000 Meeting Minutes will not be acted on at the April 20, 2000 meeting. The
attached is in draft form, and the edited copies will be distributed and approved for the May meeting.
If you have any question, please do not.hesitate to call 462-1586. Thank you.
DPK/dml
h:\wp\wpknemo
cc:
Community Development Director
St. Lucie County .Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Regular Meeting
St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room I01
April 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
AGENDA
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B, Roll Call
'C. Announcements
D. Disclosures.
AGENDA iTEMI_~ FiLE NO.. RZ,00-004, WAYNE SKINNER
Petition of Wayne Skinner, fora Change in Zoning from the AG-2~5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.Sacres) Zoning District
to the RF (Religious. Facility) Zoning District. Staff comment~ by Hank Flores.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #1: Staff Report and Site Location Maps
AGENDA.iTEM 2~ FILE NO. CU-00-003,. BETTY WARRE~
Petition of Betty Warren' for'a Conditional Use Permit to allow a family residential home within 1,000 feet of
another family residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, i Single-family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District. Staff
comments by Cyndi Shay.
· Action Recommended: Forward Reconunendation to County Commission
· Exhibit #2- Staff Report and Site Location Maps
AGENDA ITEM 3~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY GROUP
Presentation of overall Comprehensive Plan Goal and Preamble.
OTHER.BUSINESS~
A.
ADJOURN
Other business at Commission Members'discretion.
Next re~lar.Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency meeting will be held on
May 18, 2000, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building.
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 bv the Planning and
Zoning Commissio~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 purposes, he may need to insure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and eVidence upon which the appeal is based.
Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a 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.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County
Community Set-vices Manager at 561/462-1777 or TDD 561/462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the
meeting.
Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586.
PLANNING AND ZONING. COMMISSION REVIEW-04/20/00
File Number CU-00_003
ME M ORA ND UM
TO:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Manager
April 13, 2OOO
UBJECT:
LOCATION:
Application of'Betty Warren, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a family
residential home'within 1,000 feet of another family residential home in.the RS-
4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 du/acre) ZOning District.
ZONING DESIGNATION:
LAND USE DESIGNATION,:
PARCEL 'SIZE:
PROPOSED USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
UTILITY SERVICE:
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF'WAY
ADEQUACY:
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
-11.0 Essex Drive (approximately 400 feet south of-the
intersection of Essex Drive and Juhnita AvenUe)
RS-4 (Residential, single-Family_ 4 du/acre)
RU (Residential Urban)
0.18 acre
Family residential home located within 1 00.0 feet of another
family residential home. '
RS-4 (Residential, Single - Family - 4 du/acre) to the north,
south, east, and west.
Residential single-family homes
RU (Residential Urban) to.the north, south, east, and west.
Station '# 4 (2850 Aviation Way) is located approximately 1.5
miles to the north. '
Water and sewer service is provided by Ft. Pierce Utility
Authority.
The existing fight-of, way width for Essex Drive is 60 feet.
None
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED.
Certificate of Capacity.
April 13, 2000
Page 2
Petition: Betty Warren
File No.-: CU-00:003
STANDARDS OF ~VIEW AS SET FORTH.IN SECTION 11.07.03,
ST. LUCiE COUNTY LAND ~DEVELOPMENT CODE
In ~reviewing'this application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider and make the following detemfinations:
Whether the proposed.conditional use is in conflict with any apPlicable portions of the St-
Lucie County. Land Development Code;
The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable p°rtions of the St.-Lucie
Count:Land Development Code. SectiOn 3.01,03(J)(6), RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family_ 4-
du/aCre) zOning Distfict,~ allows family residential ~hOmes that are located within 1,000 feet of'
another family residential home as conditional uses, subject to approval by the. Board of County
Commissioners. '
e
Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse
impact on nearby properties;
The proposed, conditional, use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties.
There are three .existing licensed homes located within :this neighborhood: '--
Tax ID # Center Name.
Center Address
1432-805-0102-000/6
1432-805-0091-000/5
t 43 2- 807-0048-000/5
Avant Group Home (Marlene Hadden)
Maflene Hadden Group Home 1
Johnson's Group Home
207 Essex Drive.
204 Essex Drive
2604 Bennett DriVe
These three facilitieS, concentrate on adult care. The applicant is proposing an adult living
facility, which will have a maximum of six clients and three employees. Upon applying for a
license to .operate the adult living facility, the applicant was apprized of the code requirement
for.a conditional use when a family residential home is located within 1 000 feet of another
farni'ly 'reSidential home. '
e
We would like for the Planning & Zoning ~Commission to be aware that this would be'the fourth-
home in this area. The requirement for a conditional use permit for family residential homes
within 1,000 feet of each other Was placed in the code to' prevent, a concentration of such homes.
Such a concentration has the potential to impact a single-family neighborhOod.
whether and tile extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by
adequate pUblic facilities and services, including roads, police, protection, solid waste
disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit;
April 13, 2000
Page 3
Petition: Betty Warren
File No.- CU-00-003
This conditional use is not expected t° create 'significant additional demands on any public
facilities in this area. The applicant has applied for license to operate an adult, living, faciliW in
the State of Florida. Upon applying for the-license and confirming the appropriate zoning, it.was
determined that due to the eXistence of three family residential homes within 1,000 feet of the
subject property, a conditional use permit would .be required.
Whether.and the extent to which the proposed conditiOnal use would result in significant
adVerse impacts on the natural environment;
The propOsed conditional use is nOt anticipated to create adveme impacts on .the natural
environment.
COMMt_~
The applicant, Betty Warren, has .applied for the requested conditional use in order to operate a licensed
family residential hOme within 1,000 feet of another fami!y residential home 'for property located at110'
Essex Drive. ~The subject property is located inthe RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family-.4 du/acre) Zoning
Dis~ct. Family residential homes are permitted within this zoning district. When there is an existing
family residential home located Within 1,000 feet of'another family residential home a conditional us{
is required.
The character of the area in which the subject proper~ is located is primarily residential in nature.
There are three existing residential day care facilities located within 1,000 feet of the proposed facility.
Upon applying for a state license and confirming the appropriate zoning for the subject property, it was
determined that a conditional use is necessary when another facility is located within 1,000 feet of the
subject property.
We would like for the Planning & Zoning Commission to be aware that this would be the fourth home
in this area. The requirement for a conditional use permit for family residential homes within 1,000 feet
of each other was placed in the code to prevent a concentration of sUch homes. Such a concentration
has the-potential to impact a single-family neighborhood. Staff has identified no negative imPacts
associated with this petition or the concentration of family residential homes in this area.
Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as-set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St.
Lucie County Land Development Code and.is not'in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies Of
the St. Lucie County COmprehensive Plan. Staff recommends .that you forward this petition to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of .approvai. No special conditions have been .
recommended.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
Attachment
CS
cc: Betty Warren
Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use.
MOTION TO~~_~
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLI.C HEARING,
INCLUDING :STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.07..03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND D.EV.ELOPMENT CODE, ! HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
CO~UNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT 'APPROVAL TO 'THE
APPLICATION OF BETTY WARREN, .FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME WITHIN 1,000 'FEET OF ANOTHER FAMILy RESiDENTiAL
_
HOME IN THE RS-4. (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY- 4 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT:
BECAUoE...
'[CITE REASON(S)WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
M_O_TJ_QI~7 0 DENY:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11,07,03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ! HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND'THAT THE ST. LUCIE
·
COUNTY BOARD OF cOUNTy cOMMisSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BETTY
WARREN, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME
WITHIN. 1,000 FEET OF ANOTHER FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME IN THE RS-4
(RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY-4 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT:
BECAUSE...
[CITE.REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
8'. '. '. '. .....
'TRO~C
C U-()0-003
' ' ' DRIVE'' .......... .o.. -
·
!.
. .
r'
r'
0
,
1 , ,
BOULEVARD .
,
.
-7.
J,
.
.
.5.
.
Section 3.01.03
Zoning District Use. Regulations
RS-. 4
Purpose
'The purpose-of this district is -to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-famil:~
dWellings 'at a maXimum densitg ,of four (4)dwelling units per' gross acre, together with such otheI
uses as may be necessary for and compatible With Iow density residential surroundings. The number
o
defined in Section '2.00.00 of this code.
Permitted 'Uses
ac
Family day care homes.
Family residential ,homes provided tJ~at such homes shall not be located within ,a radius .of
one-thousand (1:000) :feet of anotl~er., existing such family residential, home and provided that
the sponsoring ~agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies
the: Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed
~by HRS.
Single-family detached dwellings.
Lot Size Requirements
Lot size 'reqUirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
DimensiOnal Regulations
Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with-Section 7.04.00.
Off-street Parking Requirements
Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00.
Conditional Uses
a. family FamilYresidentialresidential home.h°mes(..9)l°cated withrin a radius of one thousand ( 1000 ) feet of another such
b. Telecommunication towers - subject, to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (~)
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.,00.00.
Adopted August1,1990
107
Revised Through 09/07/99
J
OV'OU NNff~
o¥o~t 033NS
s 9£ .i
:
'%
'%.
Zor .in
· Juanita
:
BettY Warren
D r iv e
A v e n :u e
.
Gotham
Tr'o ic
Essex
e
Sheraton
~oule-verd
Boulevard
i
64 42
6~ 4!
62 40
, ~
61 39
60 38
59 37
lC & S.F.F.'C.D
I
.I
!
........ , I
Canal C-25
C:U
00 00'3
.This pattern indicates
subject parcel
,.<f.~~':i~ Community Development
.,,~,~.:.,~.~, ~.-:.~ Geographic Information .Systems
\, ,<.,~,~ Map prepared March 23, 2000
[-and
Use
Jua.nita
Betty W arren
Drive
145 i 144 ' 14,,~ 14~. ' 141 ~9 - 158 157 136
Avenue
Gotham
Tr.o ,lc
Essex
CU
Sheraton
onshire
t
Boulevord
,, 66 44
6J 41
6~ 4O ,
·
61 59
6O 58
· ,
59 37 ,
Boulevard
0C)-:003
~ S.F.F.C.D C.anal C-25 i
' This Pattern indicates
subject parcel
Community Development ~-
Geographic Information Systems - ,i
Map prepared March 23, 2000 -
e eve~, e.on has been made ~o p~o~de ~he ~, .- -~, ;~ e~ .... ,. ~t
._ .......... s, c~r~ ~ ~ ac~ale ,
~t~ ~ss~.. a ~ ~ ~ I~ use ~ a ~Oa~ ~ ~, ~ ,
Betty Warren-
C~U ~00-003
~ ~ ;~ ~' ,¥d~!~ c~ ~ . COmmunity DevelOpment
~~///~~ £~~~N.,\~~) GeograPhiC ,nl~ormation SYstems
:ThiS patter, n indiCate.s ['~q~ ..... ~'
subject parc.el- '~;~ ,a~ prepared MarCh 23,2000 ~
AGENDA- PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, t 999
7:00 P.M.
Petition of BETTY WARREN, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a family residential home within 1, 000
j~et of anOther family residential home in..the RS-4 (Residential, Single-fatal& 4 du/acre) Zontng District for the
jbllowing desCribed property:
(Location: 110 ESsex Drive)
,
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
If it becomes necesxa~, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all
Proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. Ifa person decides to appeal
.any decision made by the Planning and Zoning COmmission 'with respect to .any matter considered at such 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 theproceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon'which the
a~vpeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals-testifying during a hearing will
be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any. individual testifying
during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be
considered.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent .to all adjacent property oWners on April 7, 2000.
Legal notice was pUbliShed in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune newspapers of general circulation in St.
Lucie County, on April 7, 2000.
FILE NO. CU-00-003
..
:!
:.(.~
'[ ~ ........:'"4 .....
o~ O{ O~
o
No. 2285
ST. LUCiE COUNIY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.;
PUBUC HEARING AGENDA ' :'. ' ' .:',:-;' "'-'
· .
· April 20, 2000 ,
TOWHOM IT MAY .CONCERN:i " '";.': './-
·
Nc~TICE' Is hereby given In accordance wllh SecltOn.:].,1,;0~,03 I
· of ,lhe',Sl.::. Lucle County Land.'Development~Code';~~:
.,proVislo~.:'Of the St. Lucre Coun~ i:0mhrehenslve
'.' ~oilowtng applicants have 'requesled lhal the $l. LuCle
Planning and Zoning COmmission consider their folloWing'
request: .,
I
rom from'AG-2,5 (Agricullure~ Residenlial,1
RF[Reiigious Facilities] Zoning District In SI. Lu¢Ie county f~ lt~ /
foll0WingdesOri~PrOperly:. _ -- ' ' . ... ,.., -,..~.. _
' Haflie Ct~amberlain .$/D in 28 35 39 Tra¢ls I & 2,Less S 888.44
FT *' (6.80 AC] (OR 988-2686]
[Pad of Tax ID~ No. 2328-501-000.1-00/8]
[Location: Soulheasl corner of the intersection of Okeech~bee
Road and Eleven Mile Road]
.
operaliOn of. a community residential facility wilhln 100 feet of
another such la¢ility 'in lhe RS-4 (Residenliali Single,familY * 4
alu/acre] Zoning District in'.St. Lucle County for lhe fotiowing
described properly:
·
Sheraton 'Plaza unit 2 Replat Lot 93 [or 270-1145]
(Part of Tax ID. No. 1432:805-0093.000/9} ..
[Location: 110 Essex Drive]
PUBUC HEARINGS will be held in Room 101, SI, Lucte County
Administration Building., 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,
Florida on April 20, 2000,. beginning al 7:00 RM. or as
soon lhereafter as possible.
PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Slalutes, if a per~on
decides 1o apPeal any decision made by a board, agency,
or commission wilh respect lo any mafler considered al a
meeting or hearing, he will need a record of lhe proceedings,
and lhal, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of lhe proceedings is made, which 'record
includes lhe leslimony and evidence upon Which Ibc'appeal
is Io be based
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/Stefan Matthes, CHAIRMAN
PUBLISH: April 7, 2000
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW:
File Number RZ-00-004
MEM O~RA ND UM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
F·
ROM.
DATE:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Manager ~
April 14, 2000
S~JECT:
Application of Wayne Skinner, for a Change in Zoning from the
(Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) Zoning District to the
Facilities) Zoning District.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of the intersection of Okeechobee Ro
Eleven Mile Road
EXISTING ZONING:
AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 1 du/2.5 acres)
PROPOSED zONING:
RF (Religious Facilities)
FUT~ L~ USE:
AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 2.5)
PARCEL SIZE:
6.'80 acres
PROPOSED USE:
Church Facility
PE~ITTED USES:
Attachment "A"
- Section 3.01.03(Y) RF (Reli
Facilities) - contains the designated uses which are
by fight, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted
the COnditional use process. Any use desi
"Conditional Use" is required to undergo further revi,
approvals. Any use not found within the zoning
regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that
S~OUNDING ZONING:
AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 1 du/2.5 acres) to the north, so~
east, and west.
April 14, 2000
Page 2
Petition: Wayne Skinner
File No.: RZ-00-004
SURRO~ING LAND USES:
FI~/EMS PROTECTION:
The general existing use surrounding the property is
.residential to the sou~. A grove service business is located
to the west, and'a residential driveway is located to the east..
The Furore Land Use Classification of the .immediate
surrounding area is AG-2,5, which permits a density of 1
dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
Station #11 (Shinn Road), is located approximately 3.5 ~les
to the west.
· UTILITY SERVICE:
TRA ATION IMPACTS
The subject property will be served by an on-site well and
septic system.
ADEQUACY:
The existing right-of-way for Eleven Mile Road is 45 feet
and Okeechobee Road is 200 feet. Right-of-way dedication
shall be required for part of any future deVelopment and the
use of the property.
SCHED~ED
IMPROVEMENTS:
None.
TYPE OF CONC NCy
COncurrency Deferral Affidavit.
STA~ARDS OF ~VIEW AS' SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06'03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY L~ DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Pla~g and Zoning Commission'
shall consider and make the following determinations-
le
Whether the proposed rezOning is in conflict with any applicable portions of
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St.
Development Code.
Lucie County Land
Ap61 14, 2000
Page 3
Petition.: Wayne Skinner
File No.: ~-00-004
e
Whether the prOposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St'
:Lucie County. Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elemems of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. The AG-2.5 Land Use allows the RF Zoning
District.
e
4~
e
Se
Whether and the e~ent, to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed land uses; .
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing and proposed land uses in the :area.
The general use of the. immediate surrounding area of the subject property is
residential to the south. A grove service business is located to the west, and a
residential driveway is located to the east. Churches may be compatible with
residential uses:~
Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment;
Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment.
W~hether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities,
including but not limited-to transportation facilities, sewage t~' cfi~t~es, water
a· · ·
supply, par~, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency
medical facilities;
The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional
demands on any public facilities in this area. Prior to the approval of any proposed
development, the applicant will need to provide docUmentation verifying that
sufficient faCilities are in place to support the development.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The proposed amendment is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural
environment. The applicant will be required to comply with all federal, state, and
April 14, 2000
Page 4
Petition: Wayne Skinner
File No.' RZ~00-004
local environmental regulations.
e
ge
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an
· · : :e ·
orderly and logical, development pattern specffically ~dent~fy~ng any negative
affects of such patterns;
An orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this ,change in zo~ng.
The surrounding parcels of property are designated for residential uses.
Whether the proposed amendment would be 'in. conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmOny with the purpose and intent of'this Code;
The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and is
inharmony with the purpose and intent °fthe St. Lucie County Land Development
Code.
COMMENTS
The petitioner, Wayne Skinner, has requested this change in zoning from the AG-2.5
(Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 .acreS) Zoning. District to .the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning. District in
order to sell the property to a religious organ~ation for use asa church facility.
Attached is a copy of'Section 3'.01.03(Y)-.RF (Religious Facilities), of the St. Lucie County
Land Development Code, which delineates the permitted, accessow, and conditional uses allowed
in tlhe Religious Facilities Zoning Dis~ct. If the change in zoning request is approved, the applicant,
by fight, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use
trader the Accessory Uses section woUld be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exists
on the subject property, Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first
receives approval through the Board of. County Co~issioners.
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of
review as set forth in the St. Lucie Coun~ Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County.. ComprehenSiVe Plan. Staff recommends
that you forward~ this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of.
approval.
Please contact thiS office if you have any questions on this matter.
April 14, 2000
Page 5
Petition: Wayne
File No.: RZ,00-
Attachment
hf
cc' Wayne Skinner
File
Suggested :motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning.
AFTER CONSIDE~NG THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED D~NG THE
INCLUDING STAFF'COMMENTS, AND THE STANDA~S OF ~VIEW AS SET
IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I
MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~COMMEND THA
ST. LUCIE COUNTY ~BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROV
THE APPLICATION OF WA~ S~NNER FOR A CHANGE IN
2.5 (AG~CULTU ~RAL_ 1 DU/2.5 AC~S) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE ~~
FACILITIES) ZONING DIST~CT, BECAUSE .....
[CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
MOTION TO DENY:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET
IN SECTION 11,06,03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I H
MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOA~ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE
OF WAYNE S~NNER FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE A
(AGRtCULTU~L- 1 DU/ 2.5 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RF (
FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE .....
[CITE REASON WHY -'PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
Section
Zoning District Use Re
Y. .RF.
.
,,.
,.
.
.
o
.
Purpose
RELIGIOUS FACILITIES
The purpose.of this District.is to provide and protect an environment suitable for
and operation of chumhes, synagogues, temples, and similar uses. The numberin "0" followin
identified, use corres:ponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.0.1.02(B). The nu~
999 apPlies.to a use not defined under: the SIC code but may be further defined in Section
of this code.
Permitted Uses
a. Churches, synagogues, temples, and similar uses.
Lot SiZe Requirements _
_
Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
'Dimensional Regulations
Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements
Off-street parking and lOading requirements are subject to Section 7.06:00.
Landscaping Requirements.
Landscaping requirements are subject to. Section 7.09.00.
Conditional Uses
a.
b.
Day care .facilities, .associated and operated by the principal religious use located on
property. This would inClude the operation of a day care facility during the
week, as licensed bY the State of .Florida-, as well as during any religious function
associated .activity. (sss)
Educational services, associated with and operated by the principal religious use located
o
c.
(999)
Telecommunication tOwers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10,23 (999)
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the~ following:
a.
d.
Parking lots & parking areas, together with related circulation elements.
Enclosed storage structures.
Playgrounds and athletic fields (no artificial lights) provided that no activity area shall be
permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of the perimeter of the property.
Private water and sewage utility services provided that they are for the sole use of the
particular private development, are not intended to be a sub-regional system, and do ndt
involve industrial wastewater as defined.
Adopted August 1, 1990
134 Revised Through 09/07/99
Zoning District Use Re
SJnglre family: dWelling :(detached or as part of .the principal structure).
(1) Private swimming pool. accesso
- ., ry to the single family dwelling provided th
swimming pools, shall be:walled or fenced to prevent uncontrolled' access
swimming pool from the: street or .from adjacent properties.
(2) Non-commercial, garages accessory to the Single family dwelling.
Adopted August 1, 1990
135
Revised Through
B. .... .AG'2.5
1. Purpose
o
o
.
.
.,
.
AGRICULTURAL - 2,~5
Zoning DiStrict Use.
The purpose of this district .is to provide and protect an environment' suitable for
commercial agriculture~ together with such other uses as may be necessary
Productive agricultural-sUrroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a m
dwelling, unit. per' two and one half (2.5) gross acres. The number i "i"n 0 followIng' each
corresponds to.the SlCcode reference-described in Section 3,01.02(B). The number 999
a use not defined Under the SIC code but may'be further'defined in Section 2,00,00 of
permitted 'Uses
Agricultuml. pr'oduction - crops (o~) '
AgricUltural production- ,livestock & animal specialties (o2)
Agdculfura~ services (o?) -. .
Family day care homes.
Family residential homeS provided that s,uch homes shall not be located within ara
-one thousand (1 '000) feet of another existing such faro
the spons agenw or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
home occupancy that:the home is
by HRS. (~)
Fishing, hunting & trapping (09)
Forestry (0~)
Kennels., (0752)
Research Facilities, 'Noncommercial (8733)'
Riding stables.
Single-family detached dwellings.
Lot Size Requirements
Lot size requirements shall' be in accordanCe with 'Section 7.04.00.
Dimensional Regulations
Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with' Section 7.04.00.
Off-street 'Parking and LOading Requirements
Off-street parking and loading requirements arre subject to Section 7.:06.00.
Landscaping. Requirements
Landscaping ,requirements are subject,to Section 7.09.00
Conditional Uses
ao
b.
e.
Agricultural labor housing. (999)
AirCraft storage and equipment maintenance. (4581)
Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. (4584)
Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another s
family reSidential home. (999) '
Farm products warehousing and storage. (4224/4222)
Adopted August, 1, 1990
96
Revised Through 09/0
.
Gasoline service stations..
Industrial wastewater disposal. (~)
Manufacturing:
(1) Agricultural chemicals (287)
(2) Food. & kindred products (2o)
(3) Lumber & wood products, except furniture (24)
Mining. and quarrying, of nonmetalic minerals, except fuels. ¢4)
Radio, televisionr, and microwave communication stations ~and towers..
Retail t'rade:
(1) Farm equipment and related accessories.
(2) Apparel & accessory stores. (ss)
Sewage .disposal subject to the requirements of. SeCtion 7. I0,13.
Camps -sporting.and recreational. (7032)
Outdoor shooting ranges,.providingrsite· ~ plan approval'is, obtained according to the l
of Sections 11.02.07 .thmugh 11.02.09 and Section 7,10.19 of this Code.
Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following:
ao
RMObile homes subjeCt 'to the requirements of Section 7.10.05.
etail trade and~W~°lesale trade- subordinate to the primary authorized use. or activity.
Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04.
Adopted August 1, 1990
97
Revised Through 09/07/99
o¥ou
,L.I_NCIOO
f
33EIOH033>IO
/
zo' Wayne Skinner
.OV..eech°b
~,.ooc~
!
!
!
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
!
I
!
!
I
i
t
I
I
I
I
!
R7 00-003
This pattern indicates
subject parcel
Community Deveio
Geographic Information S'
Map :revised March 24,200~
'l-his map has been ¢~'~pited for
While even/ elfo¢l has been made lo provide
information possible, it is not intended tol' use as a legally binding
Land Use
Wayne
Skinner
AG - 2.5
B,oa6
RZ
This pattern indicates
subject parcel
Community
Geographic Info
Map revised
This map has been compiled
Whi~e eve~, effOft has'been made [o
information possible, it is nol inlerlded
AGENDA- PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSIO
T~SDAY, ApRiL 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Petition.of WA ~E SKINNER, for a Change tn ZOning from the ~4~G-2.5 Mgricultural 1
the ~ (Religious· FaCilities)Zoning District for the following, deseribed property:
(£oeation: Southeast corner of the inter, eCtion of Okeechobee Road and
T~E PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON
If it become~ necessary, these Public hearings may be continued from time to time.
proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a~
a~y decision made by the Planning~and. Zoning .Commission with respect to any matter considered a
or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purp°ses;he may need
verbatim record of the proceedings-is made, which record includes the testimonv and evidence
appeal is W be based. Upon the request of any party W the proceeding, individuals testifying during
be swOrn in. An, vparty to theproceeding will be granted an opportuni~ to cross-examine any
during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public h,
considered.
Prior W this public hearing, 'notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners on~,
Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune newspapers of
Lucie County, on ?Ipril 7, 2000.
FILE NO
No. 2285
ST. LUCIE COUN~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
- PUBUC~HEARING AGENDA ' :'. '
1'O WHOM I1' MAY~RN: . ' ·
NO'~::E'Is hereby given In aCcordance with Secflo~ ..1;,l:.O~,Q3.
.of.;,.~e,' §ti:.;.Lucle (~ounty Land'DevelOpment
'PrOViSion-Of lhe SI Lucle coun" ~'"
,: ~ol; ..7.; ,... :: ty omprehenstve :Ptan, ~..
.~.o{,!0~ng appllcanls.nave requesied lhat the St, Lucle C~~
'.'Flannl.ng and Zoning' Commission Consider 'lhelr
requesl: · · ',~ .....
. . ·
-.
~ ..Residential-1 unil/2,5
;Haffie Cl~amberlain S/D in 28 35 39 Tracts 1 & 2-Less S 883,44
FT *' (6.80 AC} (OR 988-2686]
[Part. of Tax: ID. No. 2328-501-0001-00/8]
[Location: Southeast corner of the infersection of Okeech~bee
R~d 'and Eleven Mile :ROad]
Use . I:~m-a Io ~ -Ihe
operation of a Community' residential facility within 100 feel of
another suCh facility in lhe RS-4 [ReSidenllal~ Single,family .* 4
alu/acre] Zoning Dislricf in .St. LUcle Counh/ for fhe following
deSCri~ properlY: ·
·
Sheralon Plaza unit. 2 Replat Lot 93 [or 270-1 ] 45]
(Part Of:TaX ID. NO. 1432~805-0093.000/9) ,
.(Location:' 110' Essex Drive]
PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Room 101, St. Lucle County
Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,
Florida 'on: April 20, ~000, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as
soon lhereafter as possible.
PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Slatutes, if a person
decides 10 appeal any decision made by a board, agency,
or commission with respecl .to any matter considered at a
meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings,
and that, for such purposes, he may need Io ensure thai' a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made~ ~ich "record
includes the lesfimon¥ and eviden(~e upon which the aPpeal
is to be based. ·
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUN~ FLORIDA
/S/Slefan Maflhes, CHAIRMAN
PUBLISH: April 7, 2000
St. Lucie-'County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2000
.Room 101 at '7:00 p.m.
Mr. David Kelly called'the meeting to order, because there was neither a Chairman nora ViCe
Chairman.
Mr. Kelly introduced Carol ~Moler; the secretary tahng over for Dawnelle who has a health
problem.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Menftt, ~. Matthes, ~Mr, ~unds, ~. Heam, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande and Mr. Moore.
OTHERS. PRESENT:..
~Mr. Dan Mclntrye, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores,
Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner II; Ms. Amy Mott, Resource Protection; Carol Moler,
Office Assistant m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 1
ANNOUNCE~NTS:
~ ,
Mr. Moore stated that.because ~pact Fees are on the agenda and he has ~some strong feelings
about .them. He said he would like to be present for the whole meeting, but he has a trial .early in
the morning 'and may not be able to stay for'the whole meeting. He ~said he was happy .to see that
there was more.th~ a quorum to be able to 'handle this. He apologized if he has to leave 'before
that part of'the meeting, is conCluded.
DISCLOSES.
Mr. Merritt stated .that he has a Conflict of interest on Agenda Item 2 and would be stepping.
down on that item. - -
Mr. Kelly .advised that he was aware that M~. Merritt haS the proper papers that Will be filed
through the Attorney's Office.
Mr. Matthes indicated that although he does not have a conflict of interest with Agenda Item 2,
but he did original work-on that site. He said he has no affiliation with the work and he just
wanted to state that for the record.
Mr. Matthes stated that'on Items 4 through 7, he was a member of the Advisory Co~ttee that
formulated the recommendations and he asked the County Attorney for guidance to 'see if he did
have a conflict of interest or whether he can stay as a member of the Board.
Mr. Mclntrye said no, you have to abstain if you had a monetary conflict, in other words if Your
firm had done work something, but in this instance you did not.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
Mr. Kelly asked for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Merritt nominated ~. Matthes for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Dreyer seconded the 'nomination:
There was a motion for the nominations to be closed.
Mr. Kelly.said since.there was only one nomination, he asked for all those in favor and the
motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.
Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Matthes to proceed from this point.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 2
Chairman: Matthes aSked' for :nominations for the Vice.Chairman.
Mr. Lounds nominated Mr,. McCurdy,
Ms.. Dreyer seconded the motion.
There was a motion'.for the nOminations to be.closed.
Chai~an Matthes ~said. since~there was .only one no~.nation, all those in favor and the motion
passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.
Chairman Matthes. expl'ained :the procedureS for Planning and Zoning Meetings for the ~members
of the public 'in attendance. He .stated that they bring an agenda item up; a very cursor review of
the item is brOught to the Board by staff. He stated that they then allow the petitioner to give the
presentation over the petition. He said after that they open it to Public Hearing, at which time
after all public comments are taken; '.they close it and allOw staff to make their recommendation.
He stated at that--time this Board makes the deciding vote on the issue.
Chairman Matthes had ~another question on for some of the later issues such as the changes in the
Land Development .Code, when this meeting is closed as the Planning and Zoning Commission
and is opened as the ~ Planning Board.
Mr. Kelly correctly called it the Local Planning Agency.
Chairman Matthes said that being said,'he welcomed everybody.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 3
AGE~A ITEM 2: FI!,E NO. RZ-00-002 ~W HORIZONS OF THE T~AS~
COAST
Ms. Snay presented staff comments. She stated that Agenda Item 2 is petition of~New Horizons
of the Treasure CoaSt fOr achang¢ in zoning from the AR-1 (AgricUltural, Residential - 1
du/acre) Zoning District to their(Institutional) Zoning District for :a 9,06 acre parcel of land
located at 4500 W..Midway Road.
Mr. Richard Mills, Chief Ex~utiVe. of New Horizons, spoke to the Board. He brought a letter,
which .he. distributed to the members ~of the Board, which gives a brief overview of their intent-for
the propeay next door,~if this zoning is approved. He said New Horizons has-been on Midway
Road for about 3 years. Hes.aid they moved ~to Midway Road and opened a 60-bed short-term
treatment facility, 20 beds for detox, 30 beds for.adult psychiatric, and I0 beds for child
psychiatric. He stated th;at these were the first children psychiatric crises'unit beds in this four
county area..He s~d .they have been very pleased to have these beds available and he said 'he
could tell you that these'are almost ~always filled, all 10 of those beds. He said one of the things
that were ~ssing was a vocal point for an outpatient service for children and their families.. He
stated that they made an offer to purchase the' property next-door contingent upon this zoning
change, which :would make it compatible with their current operation on Midway Road, in order
to have ~an outpatient, se~ice for children and their fa~lies. He stated that the ~gislature has
appropriated $500,000: for.the purchase :of this prope~y, so what they need to do now'iS t0 have-
that zoning change to be compatible with~ where they are. He said: they have no Other intent, at
this time, to do an~hing other 'than what he has said, Which is to have an out-patient se~ice for
children and their families. He said he has alluded in that letter to other possibilities down the
road, but that is just what one guy talhng about what might be.. He stated that neither he nor the
Board of Directors have intent to do anything other than what he has said.
Chairman Matthes asked for comments or questions from the .Board.
Mr. Lounds said you are current located next .to this piece of.property that the Prudent's have,
Mr. Mills said yes.
Mr. Lounds stated that your headquarters is there between the Sheriff's Department and the
Prudent's property.
Mr. Mills said yes..
Mr. Heam asked staff, looking at the zoning map, the entire area in green is AR-1.
Ms. S.nay said that's ~ correct.
Planning and ZOning .Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 4
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Mills. He said he'had a question for staff also. He stated that in
the ~write up it ~was alluded to that onE. Midway Road has a proposed operates at a level of
service at "F" and he believes .that is County committed trips.
Ms. Snay said yes it i.s.
Chairman Matthes.said :actually at a reality standpoint, it operates at a better level of service. He
stated that if everybody:developed that could, it would be ara level "F."
Ms. Snay said that was fight.
Chairman Matthes opened~the public, heating. He asked for those who wish to address the Board;
to come up oneat a time to the podium, state your name. for the record.
Ms. Andrea .Salinger, who lives on FaVorite Road, spoke to the Board. She said that none of us
have seen the letter he spoke about. She said that their worries am what is down the road, not
necess~ly what is them now. She :said .that they live on this road and have farm animals that
will be adjacent.to the 'back of this property. She stated that they also have a lot of children and
they need to know
what is going 'to be down the road. She asked :if he wants to.develop .the road, continue it to the
back of this ~propegy. She stared that they need to know what,s going on later down the road,
besides what is going on fight now.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Kelly or Ms. Snay, since this is a rezoning, is this going to have to
come in for site plan condition in the account of approval.
Ms. Snay said yes, it would have to come in as a modification.to their existing approval.
Chai~an. Matthes asked, .then at 'that ti:me the residents who have concerns over what actually
will be proposed for this property, will have .an .opportunity to see that or is this a smaller site
plan that will be administratively approved.
Ms. Snay'confers with Mr. Flores'. She stated that it is going to depend on the amount of
adjustment to the exiSting site plan, whether it is a major or a minor adjustment.
Ms. Barbara Swegles stated that she and her husband own the property that is directly adjacent to
~epi'ope~y in-question,:--She'-said:she ~would just like-the, assurance of a security fence 'and good
security for that property. She stated that they have animals; they like their privacy and they also
have small children who play on their road and are just concerned about security. She thanked
the Board.
Chairman Matthes asked if anyone else wished to speak at this public heating. Heating none, he
closed the public heating.
Ms. Snay said the applicant's request is consistent with the surrounding land use and zoning
Planning and Zoning'Commission Page 5.
February 17, 2000
districts. She stated that the area in queStion from this .point farther, has become centralized
institutional .core within the County, therefore, staff.is recommending approval.of this petition.
Ms. Dreyer asked for staff to display the-map and indicate whe.re the existing facilitY is.
Ms. Snay stated that the existing: facility is in this area., .and she pointed to the map.
Ms. Dmyer asked if this is the entire~blue portion or just the eastern portion of it.
Ms. Snay indicated that it was in the entire blue parcel.
Mr. Kelly explained that the blue- ~parcel is the existing facility and.the blue .parcel moving in this
direction, (he motionedon the map), are the Sheriff's Department and the Post Office. He stated
that they are:all out them together and they would all be I (Institutional) Zoning.
Ms. Dreyer asked' how the current facility done through a.Conditional Use, or do you know.
Mr. Kelly stated that it was 'a Major Site Plan; he asked staff if there was a Conditional Use, and
he replied just a'Major Site Plan, He .said. that, of course, them was a rezoning prior to that.
Mr. He:am had a' question ~for staff. He Said that AR-1 is of course, Agricultural-Residential
property and in most instances, residential is heavily used in these areas. He stated that his
question is, 'would the recent revisions of our screening between commercial and residential
property, Will that affect this particular parcel in any way.
Ms. Snay confers ~with ~.. Flores. She stated that they would have to check to see if it says
commemial .or non-residential. Staff checks the Code.
Mr. Kelly explained 'to the.audience, while staff was checking, 'that the County Commission has
recently required that additional screening between 'residential and other uses. He stated that they
have confirmed that this is non-residential, so that the additional screening would be applicable
here.
Chairman Matthes asked staff to explain what this screening involves.
Mr. Kelly said sometimes with these new things, staff knows the old Code fairly well, and need
~to-check.the new~ He indieated~i{4s~a~fenee~-watl~4ands, eaped-b.erm~o~.~ontinuous hedge~ and this
is from the new Code. He further stated, a masonry wall or opaque Wood fence of at least 8feet
in height With screen between the uses. He said it goes into that, it shall .be landscaped with a
continuous hedge along the both the inside and the outside of a wall or fence and require one
tree each 30 lineal feet. He advised that it goes into more detail, but generally it is an 8-foot wall
or fence with landscaping.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Kelly and he thanked Mr. Heam for asking that question.
Planning and Zoning Co~ssion
February 17, 2000
Page 6
Mr. Heam said, as he. ~understands it, this parcel, this portion that the Board is dealing with
tonight, will be .required to'have this landscaping.
Mr. Kelly Said yes, between residential and non-residential.
Chairman Matthes for further qUestions of staff.
Mr. Lounds asked staff What sort of screening would be involved along the north side of the road
for this project, for' the benefit of the people who live across that road'.
Ms. Shay reported that. it would be required to'be screened.
Chairman .Matthes asked if there were any mOre questions. Hearing none, he said he would
entertain a motion.
Mr. Hearn made.a motion for approvaLMr. ~unds seconded the motion. Upon the roll call,
the motion was passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Merritt abstained.
Chairman Matthes informed the ~petitioner that ~his petition had passed and this Board would
forward this on.to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval.
Mr. Mills thanked the Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 7
Ms. Shay presented staff co ~mments. She'stated Agenda Item 3 is the petition of Carlos Munoz-
Quintanafor~a Conditiona! Use Permit to allow a mini-warehouse and-self storage facility to be
~own as' Po~ .St. Lucie Moving and Storage, in the~CG (Commercial,General) Zoning District
'for prope~Y located.approximately 654 feet south of Ulrich Road on U,S. 1, Which is directly
south of LarrY's Ca~et.
Ms. Cheryl. Chumh, secmt~ fOr.the Carlos MUnoz-Quintana, and she was joined by her
.engineer, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Paul Welch, from Paul Welch Engineering, Inc. addressed the Board.
Chairman Matthes .asked if~they would like.to make a presentation.
Ms. Church stated that she hadn't prepared anything.
M~. Welch'stated that they were'before the Board to present this. Conditional Use. He said that is
pretty straightfo~ard and if there are any questions, they Would be happy to answer them.
~Mr. Grande said he noticed in the application that there is an indication that palm trees will be
preserved as part of the landscaping. -He asked if it would be a problem for them to preserve
those pine trees as boundary landscaping was made part of the Conditional Use.
Mr. Welch said there would be no problem and they intended to do 'that.
Mr. Heam questioned staff in the RS'2 zoning to the west, he assumes that this would require the
new screening.
Ms. Snay said that's comect, She said that, s part of the'Code and they will be required to screen
that.
Mr. Heam asked that this would be required even though the Property is now CG and they are
just getting a conditiOnal use, it would affect that.
Ms. Snay.said yes, during the site plan, they will be required to put the wall or fence with the
landscaping.
Chairman Matthes asked if them were any further questions. Heating none, he opened the public
heating.
Chairman Matthes asked if anyone who wishes to speak for or against this Conditional Use
Application. Hearing none, he closed the pUblic heating. /
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 8
Ms, Snay stated that...the proposed use of this .parcel is not expected to ~adversely impact the
.surrounding properties Or'the environment, She stated that it is consistent with the
C'omprehensive- Plan and the Land'Development ~Code; therefore, staff is recommended approval
of this application.
Chairman Matthes asked if them were any other questions of staff.
Mr. Heam said the point to point 'between the CG to RS-2 t° the southwest, would that require
screening .also.
Mr. Kelly checked the-map.
Mr. Heam stated that if it does not, could this Board require that as a part of the conditional use.
Mr. Kelly replied yes, you could make that part of the conditional use, you clearly can,-but he
added he would have to gO back and carefully read the whole thing 'again. He stated that the
simple solution would be that you just require it and then i~'s done.
Mr. Heam .didn't think it was necessary to go to the U.S. 1 portion, but he did.feel that them
needs to be some screening.
Mr. Kelly ~agreed that if there is sOme need to screen along the property line, for this visual, (and
he pointed to .the map), then it ~certainly is within your purview to make that recommendation.
~Mr. Merritt asked ~. Heam, what type of a screen would you require there.
Mr. He ~arn said at the moment he was looking at sornething that would equal the back part of the
lot and that was all he was loohng at. He said he didn't think that they need a major area of
screening. -He said he thinks that they do need to protect the RS,2 zoning them from the visual
pollution of the commercial area. ~
Mr. Lounds stated that he could understand maybe war, ting to screen Yrom the property line to the
property line to screen it. He said he has a little problem with them wanting to screen their
property because they did not have in effect have the other property owners do that at the time,
because it wasn't in - the people north and south of them. He stated that he feels they .may be
penalizing these people because they didn't do it for the people north and south of them.
Mr. Heam said regarding that, he thinks that sometimes that property values are affected
tremendously by the adjacent commercial use through residential properties and he thinks that if
the petitioner is willing to put up that screening as part of his conditional use,-'he would :be very
much in favor of that. He stated that he thinks that it would add to the property values of the
residential pro.perty there.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 9
Chairman Matthes stated:that he was looking .at'the site plan and this isa conditional use, so will
this 'site plan be made'a .p~of that conditional :approval. He stated'that it appears that only ~/2 of'
the front of the property is acm'allY being impacted by the: development. He stated that it also
appears that the .petitioner.is planning on using the 16-foot wide area almost directly :adjacent to
the southern prope~y'line as his.potential retention area. He said'he.is not sure of what type of
screening he is.:going m~be able.to get up against.the line in order to make that work. He .asked
for the aPplicant's engineer to please come back to the.podium, he had-another.question.
Chairman Matthes asked ~, Welchif this property is currently 'cleared ~or is wooded. He asked
what is .the state of the back part of the parcel.
Mr. Welch stated that the back pa~ of the property is wooded.
Chairman Matthes asked with what...is itxtensely 'forested, is it just some palm trees...
Mr. Welch stated that there'is a little bit of everything. He stated that.there are palm trees there,
~basically alOng the south property line and along the north property line. He stated that the back
portion: is not intended to. be .clewed fight now. He stated that in PhaSe II or in Phase m, it would
be .cleared at a later time. He said.he doesn't anticipate doing that fight now, but if landscaping
or a buffer of some kind would be recommended, they have.no objection to that.
Chairman Matthes stated that he believes that the question fight now is, whether or not have you
buffer that entire., or at least a portion of that, south property line. He said he is not sure if.at this
time, with this Phase I site plan, that this is quite necessary.
Chairman Matthes-asked staff the question, if they come back, do they have to do a Vegetation
Removal Plan.
Ms. Snay stated-that .this site is heavily vegetated with Melaleuca and .Brazilian Peppers, so that
will have to be removed,
Chairman Matthes stated that they then would have to remove the majority.
Ms. Church stated that this was pretty much what was towards the rear of the property.
Chairman Matthes asked if staff would require that they remove that.
..... . ~. .... ~ ........ ,_. ~-~ .~ ~ ,. ~,~, ~.....~ .~. ,...,~ :,~
Ms. Snay said yes.
Ms. Dreyer stated that when this Board discussed the buffeting that Mr. Heam brought up, she
asked if this buffer would be applicably at the rear of the property line, when the site plan-is only
for the front ~/2 of the property,
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 10
Ms. Snay stated that it depends upon-how much of.the site is removed. She stated that if the
majority.of it is Brazilian .Pepper, w-hen that.comes out, it leaves it open and .yes it will be
required.
Ms. Dmyer said O'K. thank you.
Ms, I~unds stated .that he appreciates Mr. Hearn's concern for. the people who live on the back
side of the.pmpeay.and if cle~ng the property or not clearing it would have an impact on that
screen, he woUld like to seeit done when construction is started, so that this Board is assured that
it is ~completed for .the benefit of the people ~that own the land behind it.
Mr, Merritt asked~.Mr. Welch where is the. water retention going to be out here.
Mr. Welch stated that the water.retention would be divided at'the south property line witha
swale. He stated that this is basically where :the retentiOn is provided at the present time.
Chairman'Matthes asked if there were any'other comments from the Board. He thanked-Mr.
Welch.
Mr. Grande .stated. that after considering the testimony.presented during the public hearing,
including the.staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St.
Lucie County .Land DevelOpment Code, he hereby move that the Planning and Zoning
CommisSion recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant
approval to the'application of Carlos Munoz-Quintant, for a conditional use permit to allow
the operation-ofa mini-warehouse and self. storage facility in the CG (Commercial, General)
Zoning DistHCt with the conditiOn that the palm trees currently on the site be saved and used
as part of the landscaping alOng the boundary lines. Mr. Merritt seconded the motion. Upon the
roll call, the motion was passed with a unanimously vote of 7-0.
Chairman Matthes informed Ms. Chumh that her application has been approved and will be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval with the recommendation of
approval.
Ms. Church thanked the Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 11
Mr. Kelly .asked before getting, in:to Agenda item 4, he would like submit a couple of brief
comments. He Stated that.under Agenda Items 4 through 7, all.of these, have to do with the
Landscaping Code and are ve~-closely related. He said.he thought that in order to speed the
.meeting along, (as you .all ~oW from :other hemngs), that.it is impossible to separate the
discussions, so~ While they haveto be four separate public hearings 'and four separate, votes, he
would like as ~staff~to make a presentation that really looks at the Landscape Code and all of the
changes as theY have been made, He stared that he .thinks that in the first public heating, you
may .Simply from., the. audience to know which hearing you are.speahng m, if you could grant
some latitude .and allow comments for-all four, and after.that you can ask for each public heating
if there .'are additional comments for that specific and move.through fairly quickly.
Mr. Kelly introduced'Ms. Amy MOtt, He said that Ms. Mott is the Resource Protection Specialist
and has been terfi'blyinvolved in writing these 'things and she .and Ms. Snay will make the
presentation and answer the questions. He stated that just as a procedural matter, he thought that
they should group them all.
Chairman Matthes stated he 'thought.that this was a good idea procedurally, He.asked if he was
supposed to close this as the.Planning and Zoning on this and open up the as the Local Planning
Agency.
Mr. Kelly said yes you do.
Chairman Matthes officially.closed the ~St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Board and
reconvene as the LoCal Planning Agency.
Mr. Lounds asked counsel to share thought with him at the moment. He stated that he is
involved in a landscaping company in St. Lucie County and'wanted to know if that would impair
his abilitY to 'sit on this item.
Mr. Mclntyre said he didn't believe so. He stated that there is no special benefit to you other than
that this would benefit other people as well and not you paaicularly.
Mr. Lounds said thank you.
Chairman Matthes opened up the presentation for Rems 4 through 7.
Ms. Mott stated that first of all, she wanted to point out an error .on the first memo for Ordinance
00-010. She stated that it reads that, the Proposed Revision Impact Fee Program and it is
supposed to read, PropoSed Revisions to the Ordinance 00-010.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 12
Ms. Mott stated that for a little background, in the fall of 199'9,-the County Commission
eStablislhed a Vegetation ProteCtion AdvisOry Committee whose charge was to amend the
County's current Landscaping ~and Vegetation'Protection GUidelines, and .to make any
modifications, as it felt neCessary to further the objective of tree and habitat preservation. She
.stated that the Committee met six .times from June to December 1999. She stated that Draft
Ordinance No.. 00-010proposes to amend Sections 6.00,00, Vegetation Protection and
preservatiOn, and 11.05.06, Vegetation Remova1 Permits, to provide for clarification and general
amendS as 'follows:
Ms. Mott stated that on page 3., .under Section 6.00.00, there were ~nor language clarifications
and references to'the'Public Works Director and Community-Development Director, that were
c.hanged :. to reflect.current internal departmental responsibilities and these were made throughout
all of these sections.
Ms. Mott stated that .on page 5, under Section 6.00.04(E), the exemption section was amended by
increasing the. period from 5 years to 8 years, when a property must remain in agriculture if it is
cleared without the benefit of an agricultural exemption being in place.
Ms. Mott stated that .on page 5, under Section 6.00.04(G), by-reducing the minimum size of a
parcel required' to submit a Vegetation Removal Permit Application from one (1) acre to one half
(1/2) acre.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(c), language was added to strengthen the
standards for protecting vegetation to be preserved on site throughout permitted lands, during
clearing activities on.site development.
Ms, Mott stated that on page'7, under Section 6.00.05(C)(1)(b), the minimum distance between
the trunk and-the protected barrier was changed ~from six (6) feet to (10) feet and after that to
decrease the. root. compaction and damage to protected trees during construction.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(C)(2), the distance between stakes was
decreased from fifty (50).feet apart to two (20) feet apart and the burning of that has been
specified that the b~ers, shall be constructed to form a continuous unbroken perimeter around
the areas to be protected from clearing activities.
.... Ms:-Mott stated-~that-on'~e-7;,under Section .6.00.05(C)(3), the section was added authorizing
the Public Works Director to 'stop all land clearing .on site alteration work in the event that any .of
the standards .of this Section are violated, until the banSers are restored and if necessary
corrective actions is taken to repair or replant any vegetation removed or damaged as a result of
these encroachments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 13
Ms.. Mott stated thaton .page 8, under Section 6.00.05(C)(5), the section was added explaining
that any unavoidable activities in the root:area of protected trees follows the latest edition of the
Tree P otectton Manual for Builders and Developers "published by the Division of Forestry...or
a similarly recognized reference manual.
Ms. Mott stated that on page.8, under Section 6,00.05(D), this section was amended by
decreasing the size .of a tree that requires mitigation .from 20 inches to 14 inches, (except for
palms which shall be.measured m have minimum clear trunk of ten (10) feet.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 9, under Section 6.00.05(D)(1) through (3), the quantity of
replacement trees for ali native-trees species approved for removal was increased from one inch
to two .inches d.~b.h. 'and reqUired ~tigated credits per one inch d,:b.h, removed~with approval.
She stated that ~all ~tigation trees shaIl'.meet the requirements of Section 7.09.03(E), landscaping
and screening, which basically states that they need to be 12 feet overall height, 5 foot crown
.
spread and Florida Number 1-in~uality, as well as, measure at least 3 inches d~b.h. She stated
that the formulas for calculating mitigation credits were simplified. She stated that all native
trees which meet these requirements will count as a credit towards the required mitigation at a
ratio of one inch .prese~ing located or planted, over the 3 inch minimum :for one inCh removal.
She said'~she believes that the table clegs up all of that language, She stated that each palm tree
preserved through on-site promction or relocation with the minimum clear ~trunk of' 10 feet would
count towards any required palm tree mitigation requirements 3 to 1 palm trees preserved,
planted or relocated to one palm tree removed.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 10, Section 6.00.05(D)(6), the section on that is requiting inspection
of any mitigation trees 18 months after the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. She stated that
if it is dete~ned if the trees ~e dead, diseased or otherwise not in compliance with the
provisions of this Code and the original approved mitigation plan, the property owner shall be
provided notice and directed to correct any preserved deficiencies and replace all noncompliant
trees within 60 days.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 11, Section 11.05.06, changes were made throughout this Section to
reflect changes in 'Section 6.00..00.
Ms. Mott stated that 'on page 12, Section 11.05.06(B)(2)(a)(4), this section was changed to
require the existing' definition of County-protected trees, which are trees greater than five (5)
inches d.b.h or greater than fifteen (15) feet in height, regardless of d.b.h., within all proposed
improvements .and .twenty-(20) fee-t~of--.al:l~-p~opos~i:mpr-oveme~t-s- shall: b~-shown-on-a-Vegetation.
Inventory or Tree Survey.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 14
AGENDA ITEM 5. F ,LE NO. ORD-00-011
Ms. Mott stated that Draft Ordinances00-011, proposes to amend Section 7.09.00 LandScaping
and Screening.
Ms. Mott stated that-on page 3, Section 7,09.01, was added to show that this Section of the Code
.would be working in conjUnction with Section 6,00.00, and the County's priority intent to protect
and preserve native vegetation where iris possible.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 4, Section 7.09,03(A), a requirement was added that all 1.ands'caping
plans for all non-residential uses, be prepared, signed .and sealed by a Florida registered
Landscape Architect oras may be.pemtted 'under Florida Statutes, Section 481.329.
Ms. Mott stated that on page.5cSection 7:09,03(D), indicates that the final inspection
requirement for landscaping health and survival scheduled for 18 months after the completion of
construction was added for the time period of 60 days to correct any violations,
Ms. Mort stated that'on page 6, Section 7.09.03(E)-through (F), several additional non-native
invasive tree and plant species were~added to the list, restricting their uses in St. Lucie COunty.
Ms. Mott stated on page 8, Section 7.09.03(E)(2)(i),(j), and (k), the percentage of required native
tree species was reduced from 100% to 715%.
Ms. Mort stated that sections requiting the use of plant species from specific lists were also
included when development is to occur on North or South Hutchinson Island or when a site is
determined to contain Scrub Habitat.
Mr. Grande asked a question., prior.to leaving page 8., he stated that he has been unable to find the
references in p~agrap.h 0), the last 2 added paragraphs pointing to Section 7.09.04(i)(8) and
7,09.04(i)(9).
Ms. Mott explained that as staff was putting these ordinances together, them were several
sections that needed to be cleaned up for the final. She stated that they are actually
referenced...7,09.04(1) and 7:09:04(m) and 7.09.04(n). She stated that staff would Change that to
the three different plant lists.
Mr. Grande said then-that the refereneos<hat-'g.~m£~mnc4ng.(i-)~,should
Ms. Mott said yes.
Ms. Grande asked if she knew what each of the two...the last two paragraphs, the added
paragraphs in 9, he asked if she knew what these references should be.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 15
Ms. MOtt looked. 'through :her notes and'replied yes...Section 7.09.04(1), and Section 7.09.04(m)
and then Section 7.09.04(n).
~Mr. Grande stated ~that he was :only finding two and he was not sure why she was giving three.
He asked which 'one is he missing.
Ms, Mott read, or~othe-r species listed in Section 7.09.04(I), which 'stretched the core and the
second one, whichsaid, where .native and drought tolerant - (e) through (j).
Ms. ~Dreyer asked if:Ms. Mott was referring to references in.paragraph (i), (j) and (k).
Mr. Grande ~stated that :he was refeffing to the references in paragraPh (i) only to start with. He
said he had two references .... he apologized and said he is actually referring to references in (j) and
(k). He stated that these are the two that he Was looking at. He stated that (j) references Section
7.09.04(i)(8).
Ms. MOtt stated that you would find those lists.in Ordinance No. 00-012, that's what you are
ashng about. She.restated that this would be covered in Ordinance No. 00-'012.
Mr. Grande said O,K., thank you.
Ms, Mott continued with pages 9 and 10, Section 7.'09.04(E)(3), a requirement was added of 2.5%
of all planted shrubs be of native species.
Ms. Mott stat:ed that pages 10 and 11, Section 7.09.04(E)(8), was added outlining incentives and
standards for using existing preserved trees towards landscape credits. She ~stated that a
preserved tree .that meets the standards of the Section may be substituted for any trees required by
the landscaping requirements of this Section at a ratio to .the d.b.h, of the preserved 'tree, as
covered by the table.
Ms. Mott stated :that on page 11, Section 7.09.04, wording .was added to this Section to point out
the relationship .between the Landscaping Section and the Vegetation Protection Section.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 12, Section 7.09.04(B), the 'height requirements for land buffers
between parking and vehicular use areas and abutting properties were decreased from six (6) feet
to four (4) feet, at the time of planning and to be allowed to be maintained at a minimum of six
(6)~ feet ~in~-heigh t~at~maturit-y-:
Ms. Mott stated that on page I4, Section 7.09.04(C)(4), a sentence was added to make sure that
the interior landscape barrier requirements may be altered to accommodate existing trees and a
clarification that one (1) shade tree be planted in each. interior landscaping island.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 15, Section 7.09.04(C)(7), existing reserved parking standards were
incorporated into this Section.
Planning .and Zoning Commission
February I7, 2000
Page 16
Ms. Mott stated that on page I6, Section 7.09.~04(E), buffering between all residential 'family
dwelling units with throe units .or mom. and ~Single or twO family uses was added to-the 8 :foot
high landscape separation :requirements. She stated that additional.landscape requirements
should include a maSonry Wall .or opaque wOod fence of at least eight (8)feet in ~height that
forms a continuous screen'be~een :the ~uses. All mason~ Walls or opaque wood fences shall .be
landscaped with a continuous hedge along both the inside and outside base of the wall or fence.
One tree shall .be along the wall or fencefor each thirty (30).linear feet Or major fraction
o:rffnce, She stated that the existing' native be
used to satisfy requirements upon approval of the ~mrnunity
Devel 'Director'.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 17
AGENDArITEM 6: FILE-NO, ORD,00-012
Ms. Mott stated that Ordinance No. 00-012 .proposes to amend Section 2.00.00 Definitions and
7.09.'06, Standards for Native and Drought-Tolerant Vegetation.
Ms. Mott stated that on.page 3, Section 2, the definition of Scrub habitat was expanded.
Ms. Mott.sta.ted that 'also .on page ~3, Section 7.09.06...the 'existing Section 7..09.06. Standards for
Native and Drought-Tolerant Vegetation is to be deleted and moved to a reserved status. The
text from Section 7.~09.06 is to .be inco~°rated in Section 7,09.04, General Landscaping
Requirements. She stated that paragraphs (a)and (b)were deleted and the remaining paragraphs
were.renumbered to meet the structure of the Land Development Code.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 4, .Section 7.09.04(L), .this Section was amended to Provide for
proper spe-cies list references; Secfi6n 7.09,04(L)(2) for native and drought-tolerant vegetation;
and Section 7.09.04(M)'for North and South Hutchinson Island vegetation; and Section
7.09.04(N) for Scrub habitat vegetation.
Ms. Mott stated that pages 4 .and 8, Section 7.09.04(L)(2), is the list of native and water-wise
plant materials that may be used to meet the intent of this section was modified.
Ms, Mott stated that page 8, Section 7.09.04(L)(3), prohibits the use of Cypress mulch as it is
related to compliance with the requirements of this section.
Ms. Mott stated that on pages 10 through 12, the new Section 7.09.04(M), Special Landscaping
Requirements for North & South Hutchinson Island, was' added stating that if any development is
to occur on a site located on North or South Hutchinson Island, 75% of the new landsCaping
material to be planted shall.consist of species from a designated list. The community
Development Director may redUce ~the minimum size requirements to the largest plant sizes
available if .the listed plant material is unavailable in the sizes set forth in 7.09.03(E)(2) and (3).
Each type of required landScaping, such as trees, shrubs, vines, and lawn areas shall be
calculated separately, and each type shall meet the required percentage minimum of plant
materials.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 12, Section 7.09.04(N), Special Landscaping Standards for
Development 'in Areas Determined to Contain Scrub Habitat, was added setting the same
-standards-~as- wetk for'-Semb:, ...................................................................................
Planning and Zoning .Commission.
February 17, 2000
Page 18
AGENDA ITEM 7: FILE NO. 00-13.
Ms, Mott stated, that Ordinance No.. 00-013 proposes to amend Section 7.09.05 (A)(1),
Landscaping and Screening, ~Removal of Exotic. Vegetation to clarify the type of exotic
vegetation: that is required to be removed.during all new development activities as well as other
general, amendments.
Ms. Mott .stated on. :pages 3 and'4, SeCtion 7.09.05(A) and (B), the requirement was added, to
these that chemical herbicide treatment., of any remaining stumps remaining left from exotic tree
removal, . the species'to be removed, . prohibited .to ~be planted, and to be monitored as nuisances
were changed to include all species listed as ',Category !"in .the latest~edition of the Florida
~ ° e
Exotic Pest Plant Councils ~.~l. ost Invastv . Species List."
Ms. Mott stated that the Community Development Director might waive the requirements of this
section for undeveloped portions of Single-Fa~ly residences greater than 1 acre.
Ms. Mott stated that it was also added that the Board of County Commission should review
appeals at a public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date the appeal is received by the
County Administrator.
Ms. ~Mott stated that the per lot ad~nistrative charge was changed from $2.00 to $200 per lot.
Chairman Matthes asked Ms.. Mott if this was the conclusion of her presentation.
Ms. Mott said yes.
Chairman Matthes stated that he.had before him a letter' that he believes that the rest of the Board
has been given, from Plant ~Haven Wholesale Nursery. He asked if this was .something that needs
to be read into the record or discussed.
Mr~. Mclntyre asked that it be read into-the record.
Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Snay to read the letter into the record.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 19
Ms. Snay stated that this isa letter from Bruce Hopper, ornamental Horticulturist, with Plant
Haven Wholesale Numery, Inc. She :read the body of the letter:
Dear Mr, McCurdy,
It has come .to my attention that ordinances amending the St. Luce Co. Land Development
Landscape Codes.are being considered. Asa profession landscape contractor and a concerned
-citizen I would like you to consider the following recommendations:
le
To change the size of 'code 'tree' to 10 x 4 - 5 feet with a 1-1/2" caliper d.b.h. ((at a height
of 4-1/2'feet of the ~trunk) and a caliper.of 2" at a 'height of 6" up the trunk. Possibly to
-imprOve the overall look, 'larger size trees could be included, up to 3-4 on the property,
and used in focal points, without breaking the budget of the businessperson just getting
sta~d: The larger trees could be 14 feet +/- with. the realistic Caliper of 2-1/2" d.b.h, and
3-4" calipers6" up the trunk. The difference in the price of these sizes of trees is about
2 2"
$200.. The current codeis for a 10' tree with a -1/.. caliper d.b,h. This size caliper
increases the size of the tree to 12 feet 'or more and results in an unrealistic-cost to the
consumer. If the caliper is realistic on the ~smaller trees, the cost reduces for these .and
there is usually enough left in the budget for a coUple of larger trees to enhance the
overall look of the project.
e
A realistic size for the hedge material required is 18-24" 'height. ~These are grown in 3-
gallon containers and are easily affordable and will achieve the necessary ~effect when
planted no more than 2-1/2 fleet apaa~.
The fact.is that the economy being the way it is. and with the building boom going on, the stock
of good quality trees in t~he 10'to 14 foot range is being rapidly depleted.
The I~gest problem with the commercial landscaping is.maintenance. If proper maintenance
programs are enfomed, you will see .a vast improvement over what is ta~ng place, now without
mahng changes to the ordinance. ~ you drive arOund the County and observe what is happening
to the landscaping after installation, it tells all. Most, actually almost all, of the commemial
landscaping is deficient in feailizer, over or under watered, improperly pruned and generally not
maintained. This dimcfl.y effects the way the newly installed plant material grows out and can
make or break 'it. No matter how may or how large of trees and shrubs are installed, if they are
not. properly~maintain~r-~ 4~ a-totat~v~t~e-ogmoney~an&a.~fi-.me~o· the entimCounty.
I am willing to invest my own time to establish help on a committee or as a consultant to help
develop a realistic code of landscaping and landscape maintenance. Please feel free to contact
me at any time at the above numbers.
Thank you.
Bruce Hopper, Ornamental Horticulturist
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 20
Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Mott if she would like to respond in any way to that letter.
Ms. Mott said .she does have some responses. She stated that first, of all, he says that the current
Code is 'fora 10 feet overallheight tree with a 2-I/2 d,b.h, caliper. She said that's not-tree. She
stated that on April 19, !999, the Landscape Code was amended so-that its 10 feet. overall height
and 2-1/2" d:b,h, that is on page 6 of your Ordinance 00-011.
Ms..Mott stated that also when the Vegetation :Protection Advisory Co~ttee ~met for 6 months,
they had 3 nurserymen and one landscape architect as .well as engineers, and they found that they
weren't having trouble finding the trees at that size. She said, in fact, one (Hayslip) said that.he
usually 'uses larger materials.
Chairman Matthes said he also remembers that discussion.
Ms. Mott said//2, for.the ..second question, he suggests that'the County require our hedges to ~be
24" in height and that is also in the current Code.
Ms. Mott stated that in.his final paragraph about improper maintenance and so far, Code
Enfomement is not following up on the landscaping on properties, that.is one of the things that
was .added to the Ordinance00-01 I, page 5, (D)(2), with the 18 month post landscape Certificate
of Occupancy inspection.
Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Mott. He asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Heam had a comment on the maintenance of the shrubbery after' it.is .planted. He said he
thinks ~that you mentioned that this is. a.:Code Enforcement problem, He said it seems that the
County is reactive rather than proactive in Code Enfomement and he can't see too many people
complaining that there are some shrubs dying in the neighborhood. 'He said he thinks that this
needs to be looked at a little closer and.try to accomplish ~what the County is setting out to do in
our Ordinances. He said he didn't think thatthis should be left to Code'Enfomement, because he
doesn't 'think that they are...
Ms. Mott stated :that she believed that this was addressed. She stated at this time, she Would like
to introduce some of the members of the Vegetation Protection Advisory Committee and if they
would like to help with any of the questions as well. She introduced Ms. Betty Lou Wells, Mr.
Sabina Lange-Marcks, Mr. ~e Mitchell and Mr. Sam Comer. She said--that.~the¥~-ght~-haYe
answers for these questions as well. She added :that they did inco~orate into the Landscape
Code, a requirement for a post Certificate of Occupancy for every site. She said those 18 months
after 'that there would be a landscape inspection.
Mr. Heam asked if that would be mandatory.
Ms. Mott said yes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 21
Chairman Matthes added that there would bea permit,fee in:that to cover that cost for the.County
to 'do that.
Chairman Matthes :asked for .further.comments 'from the Board. Heating. none, he opened the
public heatings. He mentiOned that .whathe would like to do is just open up' one at'this time and
what they will do, .is that anyonewho .would like to address it...we could discuss them .all whole.
scale at once, but voteon themlater, separately. He asked for speakers to reference whether it is
Ord. 10, '11, 12 or .13 in your discussion, so that in that way ~staff and the Board has the ability to
read along with you.
Chairman Matthes oPened:the .public. he~ng. He asked anyone wi:th anything to say. regarding
the four proposed Ordinances to please come fo~ard and,state your.name. He then, asked if any
of the Advisory Committee would like to make any comments at this point.
Ms. Betty ~u Wells, from Ft. Pierce, statedthat the'Committee was a hard Working, informed,
unvested interest group, that did an excellent job in~ putting this whole compliCated think
together..She complimented all the members and Ms. Mott for her good leadership in continuing
to :keeping people up to .snuff on this.
Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Wells and said she beathim to the punch. He asked for' any
further comments. Hea~ng none, 'he closed the public ~hearing.
Chairman Matthes asked for comment:~ from the Board.
Mr. Lounds .stated that'he has to agree with ~. Hopper's assessment of the maintenance on the
commercial end of the landscaping. He thinks that he is on target, in that if it isn't maintained, it
falls back on to the. propeffy owner. He said that the provision of going from 12 to 18 months, is
that to enhance that time pefiOd..,and if it is, does it put the'pressure back on the landsCape
contractor tO confront-the land Owner commercially to maintain the property or are you asking
the landscaper to maintain it for the landowner.
.Ms. Mott stated that.she was under the assumption that the landscape contractor will have his
own length of time contracted when he has to replace said died mamfia!s...and whenever the 18
months comes along, thatif the County does the reinspection, if it is then still under contract by
the landscape contractor, he may be actually responsible for replacing the material. She stated
that if that contract has mn' 0ut;-then tt-.wou
Mr. Lounds said if you plant a hedge around Mr. Kelly's commercial property, and your
landscape contract with him is that you will guarantee .the plants in that ~hedge for 12 months, and
14 months later he tums the water off and says the heck with it...who is responsible.
Ms. Mott said the property owner.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 22
Mr. Mclntyre stated that the enforcement by the County will be against the landowner, then.the
landowner ~himself, as a matmr of contr, act would, go to his contractor-'his landscaper, so as m
'the County, the landowner-would be the one on the hook, basically.
Mr. LoUndS asked, if the contract to.-landscape a particular piece of Property isfor 12 months and
this is 14 .months later, then it is up to the landowner or.property owner to stand good for the
Code.
Mr, Mclntyre stated that thiS is a matter of contract law, sure,
~Mr, Lounds ~ked.what staff recommends using in lieu of Cypress mulch. He asked was this for
any landscaping in St. Lucie County or just commemial.
Ms. MOtt stated that this was under Section 7.09,04 in the General Landscaping Requirements, so
that would 'be for co~emial landscape, non-residential landscape, or any:other landscape 'that
you oPt to use the water-wise option to use in the Landscape Code.
Mr. Lounds asked does this mean that you cannot use'Cypress mulch for a residential house in
St. Lucie County.
Ms. Mott s-aid no, because residential is not 7,09.04, which has 'the General Landscaping.
Mr, Lounds asked in lieu of Cypress, what do you recommend.
Ms. Mott stated 'there is a great deal of variety out there.
Ms. Lange-Marcks addressed the Board and it would be up the landscape architect to decide what
materials were. to be Used. She said you could always add-more language to recommend the use
.or recycled mulch.
Mr. Lounds asked if the that Co~ttee felt like they specifically did not want to use Cypress
mulch and would leave the choice of mulch up to the architeCt to specify.
Ms. Lange-Marcks said fight.
Mr. Merritt asked what was the purpose of eliminating the Cypress mulch.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that it is better environmentally, because Cypress is a protected tree or
a native tree and it is very often used just for mulch. She said a lot of times Cypress is harvested
for building, but more lately just for mulch purposes only. She stated that the Committee felt that
they didn't want to condone that type of use.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 23
Mr. Me~tt said he thinks that is admirable, but he thought that .every County in the State would
have'to do that in o~er to..make a dentin the Cypress that is being harvested for mulch.
Ms. Mott ~stated that this is 'a reflection of some changes being made in the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan fight now.
~. ~unds asked What other counties .are trying, to adopt a non-use of Cypress mulch...is that
info~ation available.
Ms. Mott ~said she didn't has that.right now.
Mr. Same Comer, landscape contractor, . addressed the Board. He stated ~that there are mulches
made from invasive exotics. He approached the pOdium. He said there are numerous mulches
available that are beneficial to the environment such as 'Melaleuca,-whiCh is made from an
invasive eXotic. He mentioned Eucalyptus, which 'is the same. He said there is also 'recycled
which is made :from land clea~ng :debris versus ~Cypress, which is ha~esting a desirable native
tree, just for mulch. He stated that this is why the Co~ttee felt that way.
Mr. Lounds said one of the things that the .landscapers have gotten into. mulching and 'has .gotten
away from one of the basic, reasons for.mUlch was to conserve water and dryness. He stated then
they got into the aesthetic value of it. He asked them if they could help. this group, with some of
the improvements~ that have come in the place of 'mulch. . . such as pine needles, Eucalyptus and
things for the aesthetic value of Cypress mulch.
Ms. Lange-Marcks, from Thomas Lucido & Associates, stated that there are some mulches out
there that are actually colored, bUt there is ,some question fight now as to whether colors are
actually bleaching or not. She said it is ve~ often the public perception and there couldbe some
public information 'and education that could change the tastes of people regarding the use of
Cypress mulch.
Mr. Lounds asked if there is a difference in the length of longevity of Cypress mulch vs. recycled
mulch or EUcalyptus mulch or Melaleuca mulch.
Ms. Lange-M~cks mc-ailed reading on some studies on that and she believes that Eucalyptus,
Pine Bark, and Cypress are the throe that would last the longest, verses pine needles, which .cave
pretty'quick, She .said she wouldn't want to be quoted on that.---She~said-she--k~ows-.{ha~hey°aave .....................
done some studies on the. durability of mulch.
Mr. Comer .stated that in breaking down of mulch, you actually enrich the soils and is the benefit
of it breaking down. He said breaking down isn't all bad. He stated that it is for moisture
retention and fOr building up your soils, so he thinks that all things weighed out, this is a good
move for South Florida, instead of using desirable native trees for mulch.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 24
Mr. Comer said on'another subject, on the maintenance -the mason that it was changed to 18
months was at the'request of one of the other people on the Committee who felt that .at 12
months, it would 'fall to'the landscape contractor if the inspection were right: at 12 months. He
stated that i.f the homeowner hadn't been~takJng care. of it, the landscape contractor could be on
the hook, whereas, if you waited another 6 :months, then the owner would be responsible,.
Mr. :~..~'unds stated that from'his ~experience from the landscape contracting business, he :doesn't
have aProblem~of it going to 1.8 months, providing that the iandscape contractor and the owner
have an agreement that when his. -time is up,.it goes back to the:commercial land owner, He said
'too.many times,: they have :pianted plants, the landscapers planted plants and the commercial
operation will get.a C'O. and from that point on, they forget 'the landscaping. He stated, that he
thinks 'that this.is what :you ~e familiar with~ trying to overcome and he thinks that this is what
staff is 'trying to:do. He applauds your need for that. He stated that it: is definitely need, not only
after 18 months, but he thinks ~that Code Enforcement' needs to~ forever and ever maintain .that..
He s'aid there are people in St. Lucie 'County that .maintain they're landscaping on a commercial
basis, and .theysure look good. He stated that ~those who don't, make it look bad.
Mr. Comer stated that the thought was that they would have to put it back in order and the
County woUld go to the. property owner and it would be that the property owner would be
responsible and what he. works.out with his landscape contractor is not our business.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that they also added the change that the plans have to be signed and
sealed bya licensed landscape architect, which means that there are specific specifications in
there regarding the maintenance period and it Will also clarify how long the contractor is
responsible for his Work.
~, Lounds statedthat in one of your lists' of plants that. you like, Lantana is part of that, and has
been used extensively in some ground covers, although in the agricultural community Lantana is
a noxious weed,
Ms. Lange-MamkS stated that them are two-different species involved. She stated that the
cultivated Lantana and another species and she thinks that the cultivated one is not listed as the
invasive one.
Mr. I~unds just wanted that in the record.
Mr. Lounds asked staff on page 7, of Ordinance 00'012, he mentioned that you have Vibirnum
eeee
and there is no odos. He asked is there a reason for that or is that an oversight.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated, that the Committee wanted that list to be a recommendation and not a
necessity.
Planning and Zoning Commission
FebrUary 17, 2000
Page 25
Mr. Lounds~.asked.then :this list .is 'a.recommendation and not an ONLY list, He asked if that was
in the language.
Ms. Mott ~said yes, She stated that only'25% of shrubs don't need to be of native-species and the
rest is the developer's choice.
Mr. ~unds. asked when you talk of :palms on Hutchinson Island, do you .specific the type of
palm.
Ms, Mort stated ag~n, that they are.required to choose 75% from that list and the other 25% as
long as it's notan exotic on Category I.
~Mr. Lounds stated that the other 25% could be the architect's choice.
Ms. Mort said yes, :as long as it is not .on .the Category I. She stated that so far, they have
Cabbage .Palm listed as the one palm ~on that list, but with the 25% other, they can.choose what
they want.
Mr. Lounds said you could use Queen'Palms, W.ashingtonians, you could use anything.
Ms. Mott said .she didn,t think them was a palm tree on. the Category I list.
Mr. Merritt wondered if the use of: Melaleuca mulch would propagate Melaleuca.
Ms, Lange-Marcks said not if it was properly Processed.
Mr. Merritt wondered how you would prevent the seeds...
Ms. Lange-Marcks said them is.a certain requirement that it is processed at a certain temperature
so that the germs (seeds) get ~destroyed. She stated that it is the same as with soils that gets
composted, so .that the heat will maintain it. She said if it is at a certain temperature, it causes the
seed to die.
Mr. Merritt wondered who was going to 'do that.
Mr. Comer stated that they have been using it for a number of years, and he has never seen a
Melaleuca Tree sprout.
Mr. Merritt said he has seen them sprout all over the County.
Mr. Comer Said not from mulch that has been commercially developed for Melaleuca mulch. He
has never seen one sprout.
Mr. Merritt worded about the guy who has his own chipper. He said he would rather see
Melaleuca taken completely out rather than see it part of the requirement.
Planning and Zoni,ng Commission Page 26
February 17, 2000
Chairman Matthes said it is not required.
Mr.. Me~.tt asked how is-the 'County Inspector going to know .that this Melaleuca comes from a
legitimate operation.
Ms.. ~Lange-M~Cks stated, that it would be possible to make ... on this and work with the
Extension S~ce ~on this .and they would be happy to provide.
M~..Comer advised that instead of.burning the trees or land filling, to reuse them in a beneficial
way, why not do:it. He sai.d most of this is not produced locally an~ay. He stated as a
landscape architect, he certainly wouldn't put anything.out there that would cause a weed
problem, because they wOUld come' back to him to pull the weeds. He said. this is a buyer be
aware issue.
Chairman Matthes stated that it is not specifically in the Ordinance that you are allowed to use
Melaleuca mulch. He said he believes that Mr. Comer just made a statement dufi. ng his
presentation that this would be.an alternative. He said it is not an alternative, and is.not
.specifically referencedin, the Ordinance that Melaleuca can be used. He said'if you have a real
problem with it and you .want m change the Ordinance to.specifiCally remove Melaleuca, that
would be something else, but if your concern is that people will read the Ordinance and say they
can use Melaleuca, he didn't believe that they would get that from that. He Said that this is just.
his comment from sitting on the Committee.
Mr. Merritt stated.that ~he has lived in this area all his life. During his childhood them was not any
Melaleuca-in this area. People thought that Melaleuca looked good and brought them in and put
them in thek-yards. The trees, grew too large and the people -trimmed them. At that point all the
limbs and tri~ngs were dumped in' the Savannahs. He does not care how Melaleuca.is
disposed of, but he does not want.it· mulched and placed back in yards.
Chairman Matthes stated that staff should take information from that and possibly change the
ordinance, if that is the ~desire 'of the board.
Mr. Lounds concurs with Mri Merritt and he also agrees with trying to do something with an
exotic that needs: to be done if it can be used. He asked ~. Comer when purchasing-Melaleuca
mulch coming from Florida Forestry Resource, is it certified to by tree to type and non-noxious
' m~tte~'a'l?
Mr. Comer replied that he could not answer that. The mulch was purchased commercially in bags
by a coInpany named Florida Mulch. He is a member of the Native Plant Society and probably
dislikes Melaleuca more than anyone in this room. He would not come before this board if
thought this mulch would spread Melaleuca trees. This is merely an option that is not mentioned
in the ordinance. This type of commercial mulch is available at the Home Depot and Lowes. He
does not perceive it .as a threat.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 27
Ms. Lange-'Marcks made a suggestion .to add language stating to .use only commercially produced
mulches in the countY' 'This would keep it controlled. There are certain standards a commercial
producer has to adhere to.
Mr. ~unds will agree with that ~suggestion if it 'will help Mr. Merritt with this problem. If it
commercially harvested at a pmicular time conducive to good mulch. This would mean chopped,
bagged and processed. 'He thinks if the language can'be done from a commercial'provider will
alleviam private citizens grinding mak. ing their .own Melaleuca mulch. He would not want re.see
any pfiwately'made.:mulCh in this gea. He asked Mr. Meffitt if this would help .him-at all.
Mr'. Merritt replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were .any further comments on this topic.
Mr. Heam asked Mr. Lounds if he meant to prohibit using any mulch other than commercially
produced mulch in St.. Lucie County.
~. Lounds replied in the. negative. He wo.uld like to encourage to using mulch. He would like to
· see the 'County :encourage ~m use more ~mUlch than is being used, especially recycled mulch. He
.does not know if St. Lucie County or South FlOrida is conducive to Pine Mulch. Although, it is a
good mulch due to the looks and'the'aesthetic value. It breaks down qUickly, as compared to
others. He concurs With staff and committee with cypress mulch. He feels .that one day they will
look back .and think that. we wished'we had not. No matter if you go to Pine Mulch or Pine Bark
Mulch, it will go back to the same situation with that. He also can appreciate Mr.. Merritt's
concern with the Melaleuca mulch~ or mulch that comes from Brazilian peppers that have not
been properly cured. He thinkS if the language is added stating that it is from a certified
commercial mulch company. This Would stop-someone from putting up .a chipper and doing fresh
Brazilian peppers.
Mr. MenStt stated the language should add mulch that is free from noxious seeds.
Mr, Heam stated~that to his understanding if you bum Melaleuca, the seeds will explode and
spread the seed through out the area. This is one of the unique characteristics of the Melaleuca.
He would like to be very carefUl in recommending burning it. It would .not be a bad idea and
some times of the year., but in other times it creates huge problems.
.
Mr. Lounds stated that if you bum the Melaleuca hot enough it will destroy the seed. He believes
the burning of Melaleuca is through a forest fire. It does scarify the seed and allow the seed to be
sprouted with an open bum.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr..Lancaster if there should be three other public hearings for the
other.ordinances or is the one public hearing sufficient.
Mr. Lancaster replied that the requirement is to have a public hearing and that has been covered.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28
February 17, 2000
He would recommend that each-ordinance .be voted :on individually.
Ms. Dryer :Stated. she feels-the changes are overall very good, Some of them are from .existing
ordinances. On .page :6 .of Ordinanc:e. #:10, i'tem.A-2, she believes A through D is all required. She
suggests re:add'an an ~ter p~agraph C, On Ordinance #12, the asterisks and daggers in the
table confused her. She was not.sure what was coming out .or being..added back in.
Ms, Mott replied that they are'coming .out.
Ms, Dryer stated that there are. a few-on .page 8, and recommended Ms. Mott go back and clean
the table upa little bit. ~-
Mr. I~unds asked staff.which ordinance pertained to sod. His question is if the language that
would all6w seeding 'a-used or li~ed area of a commercial endeavor,
Ms.. Mott replied.that there were actually several sections that cover that information. In
.Ordinance #00-011, page 10; it discusses both ground cOvers and lawn grass in areas that are not
otherwise landscaped.
Mr. ~unds reiterated that .you could use sod or seeding in a large co~ercial area.
Mr..Lounds'.mo~onedforapproval of Ordinance//00,010 as written. Mr. Hearn seconded the
motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lounds motioned for approval of Ordinance//00,0!1, Ms. Dryer seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote .the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hearn motioned for appoval of Ordinance//00'012; adding language stating the mulch
must be free from noxious seedS. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the
motion paSsed unanimously.
Ms. Dryer.motioned for approval of Ordinance//00-013. Mr. Moore seconded the motion.
Upon a rOll call vote the motion passed unanimouslY.
Chairman Matthes stated he would like to thank the committee. It was a very enlightening
· endeavo~ for~him~-to~tak~..part~in~e~£e, eLs.it ha~ done. ~somegood, and~_expresses..his .gratitude for
the people have taken part in it. This will be forwarded to the Board of County Commission with
the recommendation of approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 29
AGENOA ITEM#8: FiLE NO, .ORD. ~00.-00!
Mr, Mushy stated ,. that the binder, distribUted is regarding the County's Impact Fee Program,
This issue is being presented.to this ~board as the I~cal Planning Agency and Advisory
Committee ' to the. Board of County Co~ssion on basic land use mattem for the County, This
bogd is being asked two fundamental qUestion.s this evening the first item is to dete~ne if the
prOpoSed impact fee ~ordinances are.or are not .consistent with the County :Comprehensive Plan,
These specific, ances ~e. in the bindem referenced-as exhibit's I through N. At .the conclusion
and raise queStiOnS about the propOsed impact lee'schedule, their development, what the
proposed amendments ge and ~ else that might come to mind that relates to this
p~icUlartopic that iyou feel Board of County Commissioners may need to conSider on their
deliberations in this matter scheduled for March 21 and April 4 of 2000.
~. Murphy introduced the Econo~c 'Consultant, -Mr. Nicholas of the University of Horida that
helped develop these :fees. Professor .Julian Juergensemyer is not in attendance but worked with
~. Nicholas on the development of these fees. Both of these gentlemen have been working with
the County on the development of the Impact Fee Program since 1985. There experience is on a
National level and they are very qualified in their fields. The County has been very fortunate and
pleased with the results in the past.
Mr. Murphy would like to briefly go through the exhibits in the packets. Them is a copy in
Exhibit A of the technical memorandum regarding roads, libraries, schools, public buildings,
public parks, and a proposed fire rescue impact fee program. This was prepared by Dr. Nicholas
Feb. 2, it *shOuld say 2000 not 1999. This will be changed in the final draft of-the report. This
repog basically outlines the scope of the changes made and the perimeters that were used
developing the changes. As far as the Fire Fees, establishing the new rates to the excess. This is a
similar document to'what sOme of this board.may have seen dealing with the impact fees in the
past.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 30
He stated that Exhibit C is a summ~ table that.provides a comparison.of ~County by,County of
various impact fees levied as it..stands with proposed rates of St. Lucie County. The shaded band
is St. Lucie County in the~table. There are examples of information regarding roads, schools'
parks, libr~es, public .buildings and Fire EMS. The information Shown in this table was
odginally derived from reports :and information :supPlied~from Sarasota County, which last
·
summer did a.statewide.su~ey~of, impact fees. ThOse. fee numbers were uPdated with the best
available
be noted that there ge
updates m fee scheduleS.
Se~nOle,.~citms,
County is .doing
andis reflectedon this
reviewing and:cons
St~ Lucie
n :from other Counties. He stated it Should
list that are: 'in one stage or another of~doing
in. the ~ddle of these processes are Palm Beach,
, Smasota, Marion, and Orange. Hillsborough
M~in~COunty has just amended their fee schedule
there ~e a number ~of jurisdictions in the process of
It'is important to note, since ~the .beginning
COunty in the Stale to adopt road impact fees back 19-85.
.(Changed tape)
Mr. Moore. stated that one of the fallacies he has read about it' The reason Why these impact fees
are different even.-though they are a lot higher than property taxes is because it is going to affect
developers :and people ¢o~ng in to this County. He thinks it is naive for anYbody, including
members of this board to say that raising impact fees to the proposed level is not going to affect
the residence of this County..
Chairman Matthes stated at ~this time for Agenda Rem #8: File Ordinance #00-001, the hearing
has been opened for public comment on the Educational Facilities Impact Fees.
Mr. Harrell, St. Lucie County School Board Attorney reiterating the.comments by Mr. Murphy.
The School Board has specifically requested that the Planning and Zoning Co~ssion take no
action at this time. This recommendatiOn is due to the I~gislation-possible changing some
procedures that will affect impact fees.
Mr. Grande stated that he does not disagree with the recommendation. He would like to verifY
what the School Board is ashng which would be if the Legislature takes no action following the
end of the session we would remain with the existing level of school impact fees. He asked if that
was. the correct understanding.
...... ~ ....... ~.
Mr. Harrell replied in the affirmative. If there were no action in the Legislation Session on impact
fees them would be no replacement source of revenue. The fee levels for school would be at the
current level. As ~. Murphy indicated at some point in time after that the School Board would
come back to this board with a recommendation. The School Board would want to see the status
at that time, prior to making recommendations. So, the. School Board has not taken a position
about the level of proposed fees in Dr. Nicholas' report. They are simply suggesting for all the
previously explained reasons that no action occur at this time.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 31
Mr. Grande thanked .him .for :the verification.
Chai~an Matthes stated that .this was still the Public Hearing for the specific Educational Impact
Fees.
Mr. Sasser of 31.24 McNeil Road .stated that he is in favor of impact fees. In spite of the staff
mco~endation, he would recommend.passing the Educational Impact Fees along with the other
fees. So 'that'itmay be adjusted after-the ~gislation.ends to'take the necessary steps at that time.
Staff.must .have. some .hndof proposal readY and'them is no need avoidi-ng it. He is in favor of all
the fees. He.does not see.'any need in leaving.something off and addresSing it later. He would like
it in place, if the State does or does not it will still be there,
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Sasser for his comments. He asked if them were any.other
comments for the.board .during the Public 'Heating. There b~ing no.further comments from the
public the hearing was closed.
Mr. Lounds 'asked if the Planning and Zoning Com~ssion went ahead and voted for the current
impact fees on the school .and the state changes it.does it make it null and void.
Chairman Matthes replied he did not know th:at answer. He asked Mr. Murphy to answer that
question.
Mr. Murphy replied that staff is suggesting no action, because if action is taken fight it could
cause problems later, due to whatever the state decides, If there is no action taken at all:, it stays
the same until after'~gisl, ative action. There are so many variables at work fight now in this
arena that staff stands behind the recorranendation of no action. He does not know what is going
to happen in Tallahassee, so he cannot answer Mr. Lounds question. That is the reason for the
recommendation 'of no .action. The reason it is in front of this board this evening is due to it
already being adve~ised.. He stated there is already a fee in place that can be lawfully collected
and will go to the School Board.
-Mr. Lounds asked Mr,. Murphy if he was referring to the fee already in ~place without an increase.
Mr. Murphy replied that nothing is going to affect that.
Mr. Lounds stated that he .still was not ~eeing: the-whole pie~tt~f~:'IIe-'go*e~'~n'ox~trt~emanctxhe~-lo'gic~
why 'we would not say;"if it doesn't change b'y the .~ gislative vote we will then have the new
imp:act feeS for the Educational Facilities." He asked for someone to explain this to him to clear
up his confusion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 32
Mr. ~Grande replied that he does not believe Mr. Lounds is: confused at all. He concurs with Mr.
Lounds comments. The only question remaining is, .since the School Board and the staff.have
agreed on a course.of action, which'is to take no action at this time, does.this boardhave to
choose to follow-that.recommendation or can' this board take what seems to be the logical state of
putting the correct numbers: in plaCe incase the State decides not to ~act.
Mr, Pershun stated ~that.he goes back on this issue before- Dr. Nicholas. He .thinks the 'fear is
bizarre but-could happen. The ~-giSlatUm could pass a .thing stating that they will do something
for the Counties, :but any countythat has a threshold of impact fees ' :beyond a certain level can
continue on their .own. That is the"main cOncern and is. why the recommendation is to wait on the
Legislative decision.
Mr. Heam would like to compliment .Chairman Matthes on allowing a member of the public to
speak and help the bo~d understand an'issue. He .knows from personal experience when you are
a member of the audience and know you can help the board but are not allowed to-speak,
Chairman Matthes stated that would not be normal protocol.
Mr. Merritt'motioned for-no action on Ordinance #00-001. Mr. Grande seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote the motiOn passed unanimously.
Chairman Matthes stated that the next public hem g he will open would be for the remainder of
ordinances under consideration tonight, which are, Library Impact Fees, Fire EMS Protection,
Road & Bridges impact Fees, Parks Impact Fees and Public Building Impact Fees. The public
can come and .discuss any and all. He does request the comments are li~ted Without being
repetitive. He understands this is going to take a while. He asked for any other comments from
staff on the issues just mentioned.
Mr. Murphy reiterated that~ each ordinance would need separate .action.
Chairman Matthes oPened the Public Hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 33
Ms. Wells:, of 11~24 Jasmine AVenue, Fort Pierce, she is sPeaking on behalf of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan Study Group. Early inthe study of the Comp .Plan of 1990, the
study :~oup agreed that a priority would be recommending policies to :make.new growth pay for
it's impact. The study group feels stronglY that new residence and new bUsiness costs should not
fall on present residence in the fora of more sales tax, bond issues or other actions that would
increase propegy Dr, Nmhola. recent-report to-the County the study group
voted in. support of h :ase current impact fees. So the cost for building
the facilities that~new' businesses and' new residence require would be paid for by them. After ~.
County told the Strategic Planning Session last
month that St. Luc of borrowing power, thus making impact
fees one of the onll To cOmply~with~the adopted Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.1.2,4
needs robe out in part, "Future development shall pay for 100% of
the Capital to address the impact of such developments. FUture
developments propogion of the cost of capital improvements needed to address the impact of
such development .shall be~ determined in part by-the County Impact Fee Ordinances, which shall
include credits for other by future develOpments. Impact .fees enterprise fund user
charges connection other User fees paid by new ~development shall be review every two
provision was diScovered in the Comprehensive Plan. The study group urges the ~support of Dr.
Nicholas new fee scheduled.
Chairman Matthes asked if what she meant that the study group supports' all issues of increasing
the fees that have been proposed.
Ms. Wells replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Lounds asked if the current plan stated that these fees would be reviewed every two ye~s or
is this study group recOmmendation.
Ms. Wells replied that was the current plan that was adopted in 1990. She does not know if it is
being reviewed as stated, but it does say that is what she be done.
Mr. Murphy stated that all .the current impact fee ordinances do have an annual CPI adjustment
provision that is reviewed on an annual basis. There is another clause that speaks to the complete
~fev'i'~w; 'which" is every five years. That would be the cycle currently, the five year update. So
there is always some adjustment for inflation factors and whatever else goes in to it. Every five
years the. base assumptions that go in to the fees are reviewed to determine if they are still valid.
In this particular update, it was foUnd that are a number of variances with construction cost. This
is a big change and the value of facilities changed. An~ime that there is a change in the County's
base tax structure that to will require a change to the fees. If there were an opportunity to increase
taxes for transportation improvements, the fees would have to reviewed and adjusted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 34
Mr. Bangert .of'Holiday Pines, congratulated 'Chairman Matthes on his new responsibilities. He
would like to remark on one of Mr. Moore' s questions. Developer's and others argue that impact
fees increase the cost of a home.- AH costs associated with housing .remain exactly the same with
or without impact fees. The question is, "who is paying the .cOst?" Impact fees shift more of the
cost burden from ~the ~present taxpayer to the :new homebUyer who receives the benefit's.
~.' Bangert .has been'fortunate to be a part of a co~ttee, who has been worhng for the last
~severa! months. This co~ittee has no officers; it is just a co--tree who discuss the situation.
Bud Adams of Cattleman's ~Association, Brant Sherard'of F~ Bureau, Buddy lohnson of
System Fleet, Grace Stock of the Conse~ation Alliance, and ~. Bag~ of the Homeowners
AssoCiation make up this cO~ttee. All of these groups have shown agreement with the
proposed impact fees.
There is a definite groWth pro. blem .in St. LuCie County and a need for a definite solution
immediately. The proposed increase on impact fees is not the entire solution, but they are a step
in the fight direction. Property designed impact fees charge new developments only .for a
proportioned share of capital costs. I_mpact fees shift more of the cost of the burden from the
general~ taxpayer to the new constructiOn that receives the benefits.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Bangart for'his comments.
Mr.. Heam stated that when there are impact fees that are realistic, the citizen tends to help
improve the vacant hOmes and buildings in the County. He feels this is a huge problem with in
the community. In the discussions that he has had over the 'last several months pertaining to
impact fees, there, are two groups that seem to be divided from the group that stand to gain if the
fees are raised and the other group that will not be. affected, other than they will lose with higher
taxes if impact .fees .are not raised. He'thinks that is a very ~fair.evaluation of the two sides. He'
hopes in fairness to the ~ residents of the COunty, that this board will support the impact fees and
suppo~ :the program-that Dr. Nicholas has come forward with. Inhis opinion it is only common
.sense that the people who cause the additional cost that they are the ones that should be paying
the cost.
Mr. Lounds stated.that the one thing he would like to hear answered from the general public in
their comments is whether or not you think impact fees would slow down development. He
.............................. would like that question addressed and if the public does feel that development will slow down,
will that be good or bad. Also, what areas does the public feel will slow down?
Mr, Bangert stated them was an article in the Kipplen Finance Report .that pointed out twenty
cities that will have~ the greatest appreciation in property value over the next ten years. Third were
Naples, FL, Fourth, Orlando, FL, the Tenth, Tampa, FL, and the Eleventh, Fort Pierce, FL that
was the only one on the east coast of Florida. The expect property values over the next ten years
to increase 67.2%.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1'7, 2000'
Page 35
Mr, NiXon, of Remax Realty ~stated he-is .for the abolition of the impact fees. The reason is
because.no onehas .really done a study on' what the long-term detrimental affects impact ~fees has
on a community. He went on the intemet .and fOund a report, by the ELPN, he gave a copY to Mr.
Grande: earlier and' the County Commissioners have a copy as well. It basically outlines why
impact' fees are in fact'worse in .the long mn than not having them at' all.
~, Nixon would'like to .get.to some specific problems. He stated ~one could be a very realistic
issue. He.came to 'this cOmmunity in 1989~90, he .has a wife and two children, He bought a house
in South' St. ~Lucie-County. If-he wanted to build a~new home in this County. He would have to
pay impact fees, asif he :was a new resident. He feels that is unfair. When he sells' his existing
home tothe out of.state person that maY have four children, t'hat is coming in to the county. That
person will-not pay any fees, ~. Nixon will be penalized for being here by paying impact fees.
While~the out Of'state'resident pumhasing the existing home is not paying any impact.fees. This
is one problem initself.
Mr, Nixon spoke with Mr.-Grande 'this morning, because he had thoughts that he had never
thought .about. These thoughts had m do with the Home-Depot situation. Obviously, they started
to.come.in and-then~stated they would not come in because impact.fees were too high. He does
not know if that is the fact of.the.matter or not, ~There were. some discussion of people stating
there are a lot of empty'building and why not try to fill those building first before adding new
construction. In theory that sounds all fight, except if you !ook to gain revenue that is like
shooting yourself in the foot. ~ a company is co~ng in and decide to go to an empty building
first that means .they will not pay any impact, fees. The building that already exists is paying
property rexes even though it is empty. The new. business that comes in that is building, if you do
not charge the .impact fees and they coming in because of the growth. They are going build an
asset on a piece of propegy that this community will gain property taxes from, Not to mention,
construction wOrkers will be.hired.that will yield payroll t~es and those hired workers will pay
sales tax for the necessities they need to survive~ That growth is going to give the county even
more money than the business going in to :an existing'building. There are many reasons why
those existing buildings ~e not being occupied, either due to price or location, So, there are quite
of few problems-here.
In referenCe.to Mr. Lounds-question, Mr. Nixon does believe that impact fees will stifle growth
in certain aspects. Due to the fact that certain businesses will not come in because they have a
bottom line. The perfect example is the Home Depot that decided not to come here. If the Home
· Depo~-ha6~come.qn~~otdd~ave~ beoa.~an~onomic~- engine~ that-~this county needs-.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 36
Mr. NixOn keeps he.~ng that the County .is turning to impact fees because there is no other place
to go for 'money. The County needs to get incentives to get an economic.engine i'n .to the County.
ThiS would produce-a lot of revenue and property taxes. Manufacturing industry pays .far greamr
in taxes than the se~ices they.require, unlike residential, which does not .pay it's fair share of'the
services they require, Them is. an econo~c engine in the County right now, which is ~L Power
Plant. A power plant.is a hUge economic engine. The reason being they.get a big capital
improvement.: They.do not employee a lotof people,.but they pay a tremendous amount of tax
.doll,s for the~se~iCes they ~receive. TheY do not req , That is where this
coUntY needs mget the revenue. We need incentiVes to bring businesse here to spend dollars
the~.wmng things m-do. R Should be considered :to ~keep them the same ~or ~even .reducing them.
Mr. Grande stated that ~. Nixon brought upa first example of an out of state person pumhasing
a resale house. That isone of the main misunderstandings that seem to be: clouding the issue.
Impact, feeS are not like income tax and not aimed at' people. They are aimed at the new
development that requires or creates an impact of new infrastructure requirement. If a resident is
building a.new house, that new house creates an impact.: The new family coming in to an existing
facility, the ,impact of that facility has already paid for at the time it was built. So, that.new family
should not have to'pay ~for an impact that was already made and paid for. The resident building
the new home is not covered and will need to. pay impact fees.
Mr. Grande stated'the second example was the Home Depot situation. He thinks it is very
unfortunate at this. stage of this discussion to even bring up that situation. It has been abundantly
clear by now that impact fees have no bearing on that decision made by Home Depot. That
situation like any economic engine would have paid no impact fees under the old schedule and
would pay no impact fees under the new schedule, because the infrastructure requirements that
Home Depot would :be required to do would have given them credits that more than offset any
proposed impact fees. He stated that it was unfortunate that the people dealing with Home Depot
initially.chose not to make that clear to them, Instead, they used Home Depot as a flag to try fight
something .that is desperately needed in this CountY' He would think bynow this particular case
would not be brought up.
Mr. Nixon stated it was odd to him that a community would require a Home Depot to put in
'~-~-$2;500;000:00~f'im~vements-t~get~a-eredit-of $250,000;00.on impact fees. That is absurd in
his opinion.
Mr. Grande replied that type of statement is exactly what caused the flap. There is no relationship
between how credit they would get for how much work they did. He thinks the only thing said to
Home Depot, was if them work exceeded the amount of impact fees the credits were offset.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 37
Mr. Nixon stated.that ~.' Coward was at the County. Co~ssion meeting when he stated toMr.
NixOn that'the City' of.Port St. 'Lucie required Home Depot to put in these road improvements..
He ask ~d if that was accurate.
Mr. Coward was in attendance of'this meeting as a member of the public. He replied that the
requirement was.by the'City of Poa~St. Lucie. To his understanding, the City of Port St. Lucie
was t~ing m setup a special, taxing district to come up with the several million dollars with
several ~pmpe:~y owners. Home Depot was one of these propeay owners. The other two property
owners pulled oUt. leaving the full amount at Home Depot. This was app~ently thecause of the
concern to them.
Mr. Nixon stated-that was-the $2,500,000,00 they would have to. make, to get the .credit of the
impact fee.
Mr. Grande replied tha the$2,500,000.00 improvement that they would have to make anyway. It
had nothing to do with an impact fee, Coincidentally, because they were warranted to make that
improvement, any impact fee they.would have been charge would have been waived.
Mr. Nixon staed.that Home Depot's concurrency fee would have only been about $900,000~00.
Mr.. Coward replied in the affirmative. If the other selected property owners been willing to split
the improvement cost then it would have worked fine. It had nothing to do with the impact fees.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has worked with Home Depot as a developer. He can tell you for a fact
that impact fees, land costs, and building costs are a big impact on. them making a' decision on
where they will locate.
Mr. Nixon concurred.
Mr. Grande stated he also agreed with Mr. Merritt, but the impact fees that would have been
calculated in 'would be zero.
Chairman Matthes stated what he Would like to do is ask the board if they have specific questions
for the public. He would like to have the-deliberation after the public hearing is closed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1'7, 2000
Page 38
Mr. Fimt stated before'he spe.aks .on his own behalf, he is here initially as Chairman of the
County.Budget Committee. That:co~ttee looks at the financial shOrt falls that ~the County has
and .try to come up with SOme guidance and helpful suggestions, They have looked at this, gas
taxes and many things :over the years and-unfortunately:them simply must be revenue for the
things ~that this community deemS, that they want.' The co~ttee looks at it.from the Citizen's
Budget Advisory Co~ttee.andfor certain, this county ~has some real serious .revenue problems.
Growth does~ nottake 'you away from financial problems, it brings you additional financial
problems if you do not.plan forit or
support
is a si
this:is.the cost. It is not.his
costs, If this co--unity
new people do not have to~'
the right m do it that is
make that decision. It
things that is What the cost
you cost.
His committee voted ~unanimously to
because they feel they are justified and needed. It
, he gathem the data and. stated
a community Should those
we would all that growth and
the ~democratic Choice, we .have
five elected Cx)mnfissioners, So, that tt~ey~can.ultimately
Nichols' decision, he can only simply roll you that~if you do these
the bill do what you want with it. He is only telling
~. First stated leaving his 'hat from the Budget Comn~ttee, because the rest of it goes back to
him being the originator of impact fees in this .County. He i.s going to mn through some of the
things he has he'gd 'this evening. Once again, these are his .personal comments, not comments by
the Chairman of the.Budget Co~ttee. The budget co~ttee voted' in support Of it and feels it
is necess~. That ils their official pOsition and he has relayed it. The following comments are his
Personal comments. All the arguments that he-has heard have been done much better by the
attorney's for general deVelopment and many other developers.. The general development assured
him one time that he would be the demise of their companies if he made-them do. impact fees.
There was ce~ainly an imposition of them to have any government bo:dy or anyone else interfere
'with their, development with sUch frivolous things, To them frivolous is being told that the road
should be built to a standard, that-~ainage is really important, and that it really d0es make .a
company. This all because you .are making them pay the cost related to the things~ like' the roads
that were needed the drains.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 39
Mr. First was 'serving on the School Board at that time. He was amazed that the School Board
shOwed school sites on their ~maps, most of them were not big~enough to build a schoOl on. They
made the taxpayers buy them and there was no revenue for it. The arguments .have not really
changed that much and neither has the issue. The old misconception was that growth was
profitable and you ~wanted to have it. He is a realtor and served as treasurer twice because the first
time he got ~the position, it. wasso~far in the red it took two terms to get out the~red. ~The realtors
had the same problem the community did. They thought~if they had more members:they would be
profitable, like that.'He has been in
devel°pment and like :~. the issues. The developer cannot leave the
citizens or County the burden :of the .cost without someone figufi~ng out ~who is going to pay for it.
They are all: coSts related m ~develoPment. The best example .and answer he can give, some of the
very pre.ere areas in the. ythat have been mentioned. They have high impact fees and
high will rain the relationship. . The growth ~is going to be there for
reasons other fees. question is do you make them pay their fair Share ~or figure
out how you can get later ~and whom. The two options is eRher the developer pay or the
citiZens' pay, The real 'issue is the best !development currently in the community is St. Lucie
West,
Mr. First worked .with Mr. White Sr. when he came to town. His approach was unique. First of
all, he pointed out all of the school site requirements were too small. The kind. of community he
wanted to have and the lrjnd of people he wanted to attract would demand a better site. So in fact,
he insisted the size requirements be increased on the land that he was going to give. He had the
best road, central water and sewer, and all these things. It caused Mr. First to move in to his
development. He moved from and: existing home and paid all the impact fees, hook up fees, and
the drainage fees: the highest fees in the County then and now were in that development. The
absorption rate is faster than anyone anticipated. Everybody is amazed how quick it is moving.
The fees are the highest, that drainage is doubled'what eve~one else is'. He has never.met a
resident at St. LuCie West complain about what they paid in construction fees to get in.
Mr. First has not seen a study that could show conclusively that it did or.did not. He can see lots
of examples where the impact fees seem to go counter to the theory that it is the problem. He can
be in the most successful areas. He does not feel that is even-the issue. The issue is there is a bill
that goes with this develOpment and who is going to pay it. He thinks the question of, "because
the econo~c conditions in our community are weak, perhaps less prepared to handle theSe fees",
he feels it is a fair question. The follow up to the question is if that is the economic condition
does it not lOgically follow that if the community is in worse conditions economically than-other .........
places then our citizens can less afford to subsidize.the:developers in a more prosperous area".
Planning and Zoning Commission
February il 7, 2000
Page 40
Mr. First can submit to you that they can. He is like everyone; he would like to pay fewer taxes
and certainly does not want:to pay.any mom fees than he has to. But he thinks when you put on
your different hatS you will mn in .to ~diffemnt angles of these issues. If you.do not haVe funding
sources, then stop'.the development or ~make the development pay as' it goes. He has not seen in
.the 20 plUs ye~s he-has .been inVolved in it any new answers.. He.does not think what we have is
the most eq does not have a problem .with transfer taxeS or sales taxes. He stated to
pick the tax rn the.revenue stream and he will gO for it. But do not tell-him that..in the
inte~m all this otheris going to :be free and'a.way will be found later.. The way needs to be found
first or.do.not let. it happen. The history.has been if no way. has been found then the problem is
increased.
Mr.. First stated that we are all caught .up sometime in the dilemma that is not our doing, but we
must deal with it. As a former'School Board member,, he can tell you that the State of Florida
backed .out of their.responsibility to the citizens, it was a state responsibility, not a local one to
provide education. The State opted-out by saYing, "we. provide the.operations, but if you have
proof that exceeds to state level then it is a local problem not a state problem and we can not be
responsible for the funding. ," That -state told us to take of it locally..(Tape change)
There will either' :be a way found or live with the situation as it stands: which are inadequate
transpoffation.situations, which he thinks, is a bigger hindrance to growth, than the fees. He has
· worked With a lot of developers. The Wal-Mart Building in Fort Pierce is another good example.
a? ,~
They had a perfectly good building with p ~d fees and everything was going well They went
behind the building and bought the new property. Then they paid a whole new set of fees and
built a new facility. Thus, 'leaving the: old facility vacant. He remarked that he does not think that
the Wal-Mart staff sat down: and planned it so that St. Lucie County got paid some extra fees, nor
did they stop the new facility because of the fees. This was strictly a business decision. Wal-Mart
made a lot of money in the old facility and knew a bigger facility 'would make them a lot more
T
money, hey paid their money and fixed the roads. The fact that they have an enormously
-expensive piece of property sitting their vacant. This community will not drive the econo, cs ~of
these fees, because they have understood that growth .does not make them money, it costs them
money. He stated what General Development did in Port St. Lucie has cost us money. NoW, what
Mr. White did in Port St. Lucie has made us money. Those are the choices and if you do it fight
everyone benefits and if you do it wrong everyone suffers. Those are the choices. - ...........
Chairman' Matthes thanked Mr. First for his comments.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. First's opinion on if the impact fees would slow down growth and if it
does would improve our ability to fix our infrastructure that may suffer if we do not have it fixed
to begin with.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 41
Mr. First replied that on the first questiOn .no one would know the answer, He Would suggest the
evidence 'would show that the last time he checked other counties were not suffering a dramatic
:slow down in development growth. Even if~development growth did slow down the queStion still
has. to be who is going to pay for it 'if it is. not profitable. If it is not cost efficient, .then ~who is
going to pay if they don't. He does not think anyone should be punished and he does not think it
should cost one.cent more~than the cost, He never wanted a nickel mom for the school situation
than what coUld be best measured for impact fees. If it was 'too high it can be lowered it.
Mr..Lounds asked if the impact fees slow down the growth, would that growth probablY not
come in this community, due to the inadequate infrastructure in the .first place?
Mr. First replied to Mr. Lounds stating that infrastructure is far more h~ful than impact fees.
This community has lost coUntless opportunities here for lack of central water and sewer. He has
seen a lot of commerCial ventures, which simply could not come here because no one was able to
provide'water and sewer. It only.has been in the recent years that the water and sewer has been
extended. There was a small-centralized area in Port St. Lucie and a small-centralized area in
Fort Pierce. In .the north end of the county, you cannot locate major people without-central water
and sewer. Just as roads are important, you look at the corridors and the commemial development'
in St. Lucie West. It is' not a lot of major commercial stuff, but it is profitable stuff. It is
ever~hing from the ~S, Federal Express, and that type of business. They need those road
corridOrs and they need transpogation along with ordinary faciIities.
Mr. First spoke to' the QVC people when they relocated. One of the most attractiwe things about
this area was the first class Community College system that could aid them in the training entry-
level workers. The college did not become what it i's overnight. It is an asset that was impoffant
to the QVC. Educational facilities and the facilities that they see for their people ,when. they come
are very. important, Every business would like some:body else to pay the cOst, if thht was possible.
Business decisions are based on good business and not having proper facilities are not good
business.
Mr. Merritt stated that DuVall County is probably the most successful county in the state. That
County does not have impact fees.. Our commemial base took off and went to Vero Beach and
Martin County. This community has no industrial base and if we do not build our commercial
and indUstrial base back up. Then all the impact fees in the world out them and the situation is
going to get worse.
~. First stated that before there were even impact fees in this county, these industrial and
commercial issues were still here. He does not think there is a relationship to the impact fees and
these types of businesses leaving.. They went to Vero Beach and Martin and there are impact fees
there. There are other business factors and it is not related to these fees.
Mr. Merritt stated that he does not think you can take a $784,000.00 impact and put it on a
160,000 square foot building, Those people are going absorb that and move in to this county. He
believes this will not happen.
Planning and Zoning Commission: Page 42
February I'7, 2000
Mr. First asked him if he .belieVed that Home.Depot would not build in Martin or St. Lucie
County ~anytime in .the near.future.
~. Meffitt replied that he does not'think that they will build and pay the .price of land. Wal-Mart
bought the l'and they moved on for $.90-a square foot. The average developer is getting $4.00 a
squ~e .foot.
Mr. First stated the 'bottom line is noone knows. Everyone has a theory. He can almost bet that
within 12 months Home Depot will announce a new facility between Port St.. Lucie Blvd and
their current facility. At that time they will pay impact fees.
Mr. Meffi.tt replied that it would probably be in Martin County,
Mr. First rePlied if it is in Martin County that they will pay an impact fee there also.
Mr. Merritt asked why this community would mn Home Depot to Martin County.
Mr. First .stated that his whole point is the decision was not .based on impact fees. If they go to
Martin County instead of.St, Lucie County they will still pay an impact fee.
Mr. Meffitt stated his point is to put the impact fee away and entice them here.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other questions of Mr. First. There being no more
:questions for him. Chairman Matthes reminded everyone it is still a public heating.
Mr. Rivett from the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce stated he' would .try to be brief. He
would like to state.the .current policy of the Chamber of Codeine regarding impact fees. The
Chamber has not been opposed to them and at times they have supported increases in the fees.
Them is a fine line that we mn in regards to fees, providing the infrastructure that we need in
order to have development. Yet, not having too much in ways of fees that we hinder our ability to
do so.
Mr. Rivett stated 'that another thing that is important to note is in regard to philosophy, when it
comes to the Chamber of Commerce :and our Economic Development activities. First of all, the
Chamber is under contract with St. Lucie County fOr the pu~ose of trying to market our
....................... community:~ Primarily ~for the purpose of industrial development. The chamber sees Economic
Development not being recruitment of people.' He thinks that'is very important for everyone to
understand. They are trying to provide emploYment opportunities fOr those residents that are
already here. They Understand that some people may come as a result of additional employment
opportunities. That is not the goal or intent. Their intent is to t~ to broaden the community tax
base and provide employment opportunities for those that are-here. It is done primarily through
industrial development and some in regard to commercial development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 43
These comments are not .to be pem.eiVed as the Chamber being opposed to any increase of impact
fees. They~do. feel there is room for increase in these 'fees. There are two 'areas of concern, one in
regard to industrial.:develOpment and two in regard to retail development. These two concerns are
for two different reasons.
Mr. Rivett would like to .first talk about industrial development. Unlike, the Home Depots of the
world that go Wh.em' the market is. Manufacturem have'a much broader scope available to them.
They are going to .go .primarily where the labor is located. With all else being equal it is a cost
decision. It is a cost decision just like.retail. Their costs and location criteria are much different
then retail. They do'nOt follow the market. They can be just about anywhere they would like to be
and often are. Depending on the whims of the President of the company. He has seen companies
locate, because the 'Wife of the-President likes the shopping in the various.area. It can be for
various reasons, but.ultimately the communities that ~e-narrowed down for selectiOn are because
they are in a competitive situation. They are 'basically the same when it comes to the costs of
doing business from those ,sites.
Mr. Rivett would like to.indicate to the board that the Chamber of Commerce believes that the
co--unity needs.to be competitive, particularly with the neighboring communities. ~.you look
atthe impact fee information provided this evening. He is looking at Exhibit.C. Even with our
increase the mean is :684 for manufacturing and we are almost twice that with the propOsed rates,
That is out of 64 counties surveyed. He would like to further indicate to you that if you look at
he nexghbonng co~umt~es, we are.just shghtly below Mart~n County and significantly lower
than Indian RiVer COunty. While loohng at the sheet On the overhead he did some brief
calculations. It appe~s to him for:the sake of argument.if we .had a 100,000 square foot
manufacturing facility in St. Lucie.County then'that is .$1,443.00 per 1,000 square feet for almost
a $1.50,000.00' in impact fees for that facility. The same approach in Indian River County you are
loohng at approximately $5.0,000.00 in impact fees for the same hcility. A 3'% increase is being
looked at for impact fees with :what has been proposed in St. Lucie County verses a 1% increase
in the cost of the building in hdian River County, Now all else being equal where would you go.
If you have an oppo~unity to go 'to hdian River County fOr .a similar type of a project, you :still
coUld use St. Lucie County labor pool, He had a meeting today with their counter parts at Indian
River, Martin, and Okeechobee Counties that they regUlarly visit, One of the .comments was how
surprising the amount of people live in St. Lucie County actually work in Indian RiVer County.
So they do have the same advantages of our labOr pool for a lesser price. He is not going to say
that is the only ~reason that a company would locate here. Mr. First is correct in .saying there are a
lot of considerations~
why
companies
locate St. Lucie West. It is not because of the fees, but because of the quality of the project. He
thinks that is a variable that needs to be looked at, is emphasizing quality in all of the projects
that are being done.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 44
Hopefully, therecan be an agreement in time that there.will be .consistent on that. Another thing
that Mr. First indicated is who will 'pay the bills. The first question that Mr. RiVett would ask is"
Who.provides the impact? 'He :does not think it is .businesses th'at do. The example.sited earlier is
Flohda Power & Light. The problems ,can be seen that the Scho°l Board, Fire District, and
County ~have had as a result of the discrepancies of how: much they should pay, You can see. the
.real impact of business and indust~ on the co--unity and the tax base. He feels we need to.do
to businesses to locate, hem. This can be ~done in one of two ways. For
man the job growth incentiVe fUnd and as a critehon for those communities we want.
A fees for: them. He believes the BOard of COunty
Co] .~s~oner s do just that, ~s questi-on would be what about~speculafi.ve
buil One .of induStrial .development is the need. for existing space.~ This area does
not have a lot that..~s.question.Would,be ff we were going to be-provided a mechanism for
paying a develOPer for' bUilding sPeCulative space for manufacturing sOmething that we desire in
.
~. Rivett feels' the. entire issue of Home Depot.is unfortunate. He feels it was more of
miscommunication than anything. The fact that it has been in the papers, he thinks is making a
negative projection of this .ommumty s intent. This community does desire to have quality
projects, In the case .of Home Depot, they do have an option than can go to Martin County,
According to information provided by staff, their-fees about $1000.00 per 1,000 square foot less
in Martin County than in St'. Lucie'COunty~ He .feels this could make a difference for them,
It haS .definitely made a statement:if this is the type of.business that this community wants, if this
is the message we are sending.
~. Rivett stated that oneof the things Commi'ssioner Coward has been a leader on is Smm~t
Growth. The Chamber of Commeme endorses that type of approach on development in this
community. 'The one thing that is important to do is to facilitate retail establishments, so that
there ~e fewer trips on our roads. The Chamber Members would love for this County to have the
Dillards, Burdines and other stores we must go outside the County for. He woUld like to see more
encouragement of that type of development. He does not think it is the businesses providing the
problems. We need'to do more to encourage them. He will stand corrected, but he believes in the
past the trip allocation'has been worked on to be 60% residential and 40% commercial,
industrial. He does not think anything, that stops us from adjusting it further to provide mom of a
burden. Perhaps, the burden should be shifted.
~. Meffitt .asked,-Mr:~Rivett.4g QV~ ~-Was,giver~_~ · a 4ot-of e¢onomi~ ~inoemi v -~.to-loca~ h~e. ....
Mr. Rivett replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Merritt asked if those incentives offset the impact fees.
Mr. Rivett stated he does not know if QVC did look specifically at the impact fees. They did
receive in excess of $1,000,000.00 total between the City and the County.
Planning and ZOning COmmission
February 17, 2000-
Page 45
Mr..Merritt asked how .big of a building was put up by QVC.
Mr. Rivett replied a 70,000 square foot'building.
~Mr. Merritt stated that was .his point. The incentives offset the impact fees.
Mr. Rivett stated that in that p~icu!ar case them was the job growth incentive fund, It was
available'to the County Co~s.sion to provide 'an incentive. He does not know if that was part
of the package. The County did have an opportunity to pay. the impact fees through .that fund.
Them is an opportunity m: do ~that with certain companies, but not all companies are eligible for
that grant and retail is not one .of them.
Mr. Merritt stated he understood ~. Rivett's point. He was doing a development in Highlands
County. The development begged his company to apply for a $650,000.00 CDBG Grant to bring
in the employees that would be needed for the retail. The development wanted this because of the
sales tax it would generate for that county.
Mr. Rivett stated the ~St. Lucie County-has the same opportunity. The Community Development
Department is currently trying to. put together.a CDBG Grant for a project unspecified .at this
point. The fight project with the fight amount of jobs must be. in line in order to qualify for that
grant. He stated that this. County has'been ve~ progressive in trying to offer businesses
incentives. These incentives can be offered in one of two ways..One way is the business, can be
given to the business once the business is here. Second way, is to encourage :them to locate here
by not charging fee's-that othe~ise would chase them away. The instance of Home Depot, whO
knows-how many businesses, may :have read the paper With headlines stating the Home Depot is
not coming because of impact fees, .Due t° that phbliCity there is n° way to know h°w many.
businesses that would not even let this area ~ow they were interested in locating here.
~. Grande stated he thinkS it is clear with the Home Depot situation. The programs are in .pi.ace.
This .County does have the ability to charge fair and equitable impact fees, then either offset them
or subSidize them if this county chooses to. When them is something that will ~be an asset to the
community. If there is Something that will not be an asset to the community then offsetting the
fees will not be ~necessary. That gives this community a really .tremendous ~dvantage.
~. Grande has a specific question for ~. Rivett. In the middle of his discussion he brought up
FP&L. He thinks eye.one has-admitted by now that the handling of the impact fee situation:with
the Home Depot problem. This was a very negative effect that never should have happened. He
hates to say this directly to ~. Rivett but he feels it.happens because of the hnd.of thing that
Mr. Rivett just did. He does not ~ow an easy way to say this. FP&L has very unique
depreciation problems as a nuclear power plant. Most of which are not understood by most
people, but they have created fOr us an ongoing annual problem between their Calculation of what
they should contribute and oUr Calculation of what they should contribute. It certai~.!y has nothing
to'with impact fees and he wouldlhate for anyone to walk out of this room and say ~hat impact
fees are related to FP&L. That is exaCtly .what took place-With Home Depot.
Planning and Zoning Commission'
February 17, 2000 Page 46
Mr. Rivett stated he appreciates .Mr, Grande bringing that up and giving him opportunity to
clarify his comments. H~s cogent on FP&L was only an example of the impact that business
has .on ()ur .tax .structures. It has nothing to do with impact fees. It is an example of our need to
diversify our economy in order~to bring in types of investments that will pay more. :in the way .of
prope~y 'taxes ~that ~wiI1 benefit the whole community,
Mr. Lounds stated ~that some of Mr.. Rivett's corn_ments he appreciates very much. He does feel
that St. Lucie County is on a move and.he thinks our industrial base is growing, in example
places like the ~ngs ~ghway Industrial .Park and the area around Selvitz Road. He feels what
the County .Officials, County. ssioners, CoUnty DevelOpment, Co--unity Development,
Tourism Development, and occasionally the Chamber of Commerce are doing well. Them is still
a problem. Them are industries, co~ng to St, Lucie County, it mi'.ght be unique for the type of
development that We offer, it ~ght be unique to our labor base, ii maybe U~ique to a lot of
things to the :Community. He thinks .the Counties above and below us 'have said.that'.they do not
the our County, Community, andCity Officials as well havenot been trying 'to do a job of
bringing industry here. There are several Real Estate Companies that have done an excellent job
of doing it. He feels.our:industrial base is growing and when it does it creates mom problems, if
we do not solve .the pmbtems by an impact tax or impact fee, then the landowner pays the ~bill.
He is tired of that situation.
Mr. Rivett stated that his first.comment was not to take his comments as the Chamber of being
opposed to impact fees or an increase in.impact fees.'The Chamber is in favor to reasonable fees,
the question is what is reasonable. The Chamber has tried to indicate to you that the competition
needs to be considered in regard to .detemfining what that is. He is a little offended because he
thought that very cle~ly he complimented the County specifically on the efforts to work on
industrial develOpment, The chamber Perceives itself as being in partnership with the County
and the two cities and work at improving that relatiOnship: all the time, He feels .the Chamber has.
done a good job regardless of s'ome ~of the pemeption that is out them. He would like. to indicate
that at what point dowe keep putting a roadblock in front of us. If impact fees ~e one piece of
the puzzle, but a piece of the puzzle that need to be Considered. Are our fees competitive or are
they three times higher to our neighboring counties. If manufacturers have a choice they will
make a business decision and will go to the choice that has their best interest at heart.
~. Lounds replied that when that happens then we begin to pull our problem in line: Dr. Nichols
said this is what it is going to cost. He has also stated that if something is not done it will not
correct itself.
Mr. Rivett stated that his other point that he feels industrial development is .the type of business
that this community needs in order to broaden our tax base. The Chamber of Commerce
comment has always been who has the impact. He does not think it is business.
There was a general discussion on the impacts of FP&L as an example.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 47
Mr. Grande would like to .have the.. hamber s'react~on on. a question, To his understanding them
C~ ~ ·
have been a couple of i.mpact fee increases ~since they were put in 'to place. It is also to his
understanding.that, our growth following those increases were not curtailed but in fact 'increased.
He feels his ~understanding. is, strangely. · enough, .the higher, the impact fees have gone, not only
the more we have grown: but also the.faster our growth has accelerated.
Mr. Rivett said hisquestion would~be what hnd of growth, is it population growth or
co~ercial andindustfial growth is' being looked at..He does not know or will he.dispute~ that
· we may have groWn .faster haying had higher impact fees. There is continual population growth;
people will continue to come. hem. But them must be a reason in benefit provided for business,
paaicularly.:manufacturer to come here.. There does not need to be another ba~er in front of us to
hinder our ability todo that.
Mr. Heam stated.he appreciates ~. 'Rivett's comments. He has spoken to a lot of people and has
read a lot about residential, retail, ~and industrial growth. He has yet to have an example shown to
him :that shows ~owth means lower taxes. That is his concern more than anything else. He also
has a concern that this County has sOmething special here and we should not have to beg to bring
people and indUst~.- ;to come here. He uses the term "begs" very looSely.. He stated that Mr. Rivett
mentioned that some: people would locate due to very unusual masons. He submits to Mr. Rivett
that people will locate in this County for the natural resources in this area. Until someone shows
him that growth will lower ~his taxes,, then he will not even be able to begin to support any notion
that we should not consider the tree costs that has been presented, He isnot anti-growth. He likes
good growth, bUt his ideas of" ' ' "
good growth and someone else's idea issue probably as different
as black and white, He understands Mr. Rivett has a job to do and he is doing it well, As a new
member of this board ~he .has to express that in some inStances growth scares him. He wants to go
very cautiously :on this area grows and where we grow and how 'we groW. He does agree that the
bar has to be raised On the quality of growth in this co ~mmUnity. FOr so long this community has
sold itself sho~. · '
Mr. Rivett stated that population growth will always happen regardless of impact fees. It is much
more likely to have people decide to reside here, because of the natural amenities, than have
people make business decisions here because of it. The question would be "what type of growth
do we. want to have?" Residential growth may or may not be the growth we want depending on
the type. There is a.lot of vacant land in Port St, Lucie that does not lend itself to the t~e that
~would~ .~n~a~nough tax. es to ,pay,for itself. It is-the Chamber's contingent' that we need good
commercial and industrial development in order to offset that situation. He appreciates the kind
words regarding his job performance.
Chairman Matthes stated this is still a public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 48
Mr. Mitchell, 1837 SE Hideaway Circle, 'Port St, Lucie, He has lived in St. Lucie County for 24
years, lie is employed.by-the Postal.Service, he sorts mail in this county. He may be a little 'more
'aware of the growth, than most people are. It is unbelievable the growth that he has 'seen here in
hi
can'be paid
alii
poi
for
sO
want
or
we
some
i:
.suppog of the.impact fees, because he feels itis the fairest.way that the growth
Hethinks that if you dug a mote around this county with
fence, andit would not stop the growth. The growth will.not stop and
that. He thinks it is fair for the people whO are
share the cost. He stated there is a large
has. 609 ~days until :he retires, so he is getting .ready to prepare
nc'omo scenmos. Them are a lot of people in thi~ who 'have done
rationed sugar and
~e here building schools
it is fair m :hand them the bills for'
roads. He is !ate eye. here he goes anymore.
because we have up with: infrastructure. He encourages:
~nd not: hand the bills.to Older citizens on fixed incomes.
and now they
have children
percentages
gridloCk in
to support
Chairman Matthes asked for any comments or questions.
Mr. Sasser stated he has: a question for the people who deVised this plan. As far as. Law
Enforcement, them seems to be a little bit of everything for imPact fees. He would like .to know if
the State requires or disqualify us from asking for impact fees for Law Enforcement.
Mr, Murphy replied 'that we disqualified ourselves. The reason being is that currently the City of
Port St. Lucie has a Law Enfomement Fee for all development with in the City under a sliding
formula scale. It was looked at :considering levying a Law Enforcement fee for the COunty,
because of the current unique structure that we have in financing the road patrol operations in the
benefit. He stated that this is only with road patrols. He stated that under Public Buildings there
is a component that addresses the countywide functions of the Board of County C'o~ssion
~:otated-to La~ Enfo~m~nt-and that:is-a~correction component. The Police Departments and the
Cities do not pay for housing the County must do it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 49
~, Sasser replied that he knows the County chokes every time the budget for the Sh nfl s
Departrnent comes up-. He is definitely for the impact fees. He believes that,we have a quality of
life here that we ,need to,.'have controlled growth, He has not ~heard anyone mention controlled
growth.: Some people seem to 'be Worrying that the impact fees.will stagnate growth or inhibit
growth and using the-Word, controlled growth.seems to be a negative, We ~e growing
,and the' population is just sprouting ~ up all over. There is no wayto keep people
outof' CoUnty. ~ we 'make the people who ¢omehere pay there fair shoe Up front, eve~one
~ill be better off inClUding the people ¢o~ng.in to this area. If they cannot afford to pay our fees
hen let them go elsewhere;, because we do ~n°t need it.
~, Grande ~stated he would'like to.spend, one moment on the Law EnfOmement comment. He
would like Dr. NiCholaS correct him if he is wrong. It is to his: understanding, that the impact fees
are restricted strictly.to.the one time Capital Improvement Cost. We do not use impact fees for
the operational cost. So an impact' fee for Offsetting mad~ patrol for example is not something :that
would 'be'considered, nor is conceivable. We.haVe impact fees to build the jails, but we would
not have an impact.fees to pay the Correctional Officers.
Mr. Sasser stated'he understood.
Chai~an MattheS asked if anyone else would like to speak.
~. Nixon stated that he has heard quite a few things that he agrees with. He would like to
ad.ess ~Mr. Heam with the t~e of growth. Residential development does not pay for itself.
Industry and business, dOes pay fOr quite, a bit more than their shoe. All he is saying is the type of
growth that we want should be.addressed that way. He stated that Mr. Heam is ve~ fight in
saying that all the growth that we have is residential. Them has not been the manufacturing or
indust~ that we need. He asked Mr' I~unds what industry he thinks has came in here and where
it is.
Tape changed.
Mr. Heam stated he does not want to get in to a debate about who paYs what and where. He haS
relatives in the North East part of the country, which is where MR. Nixon came from. There is no
place that he would rather not live, than the North East part of the Country. The .places like
Newark, New Jersey and Manhattan are so full of industry that it makes you sick to live there. He
apologizes but-he does ~not want-:St~-.:Imoi~-ounty~.m~x-p~emce~t~at-
in that area' of the county have taxes that are 3 and 4 times higher than down here.
Chairman Matthes stated this is still a public hearing. There being no further public comment the
public hearing is closed. He stated that at 'this time the board would deliberate and discuss the
items. He asked if the board had any questions or comments for staff. He asked the pleasure of
the board as to Whether to go in to each impact fee separately and discuss them individually or
does the board want to have general.discuSsion and then go through.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 50
Mr. Grande stated he ~would.not mind a .single discussion for the whole topic and :for the benefit
of the 'record have.individual voting on each 'fee.
Chairman Matthes.asked for discussion.
Mr. Grande s.tated as a closing comment he would like to go back to page 11, exhibit A. He
stated that we-have a c:ost to pay and we are going~to pay it, there is no question about that. There
has been a lot of work done.to come up with eve~.other soume of income that we have to apply
to each of those costs, What'is left is.the~bill. The Comprehensive Plan says very clearly that the
· exi'sfing population pays the ongoing cost of the operating cost, The new incoming.population
that causes the impact..of the growth is to pay I'00% of the cos.t of the growth. That is not even a
decision that is being asked to make it is p-m .of the Comprehensive Plan. The first thing staff
~mportant to him is nobody has S.hown: a.single place .where any short fall could be made up. if the
impact fees were.reduced, Until such time that someone, is able to pUll out of the ~r those magic
dollars, they are going to.pay.for the impact of the new business, and residence, He is not willing
to reduce those costs, because he ~ows there are only two places they can come from. They can
come from the new ,people as impact fees or they can .come from-the existing people as taxes.
This County has 'already decided for us and: directed us to make sure. that~the costs for the new
infrastructure comes-from the people causing that impact.
Mr. Merritt stated that 'we are in trouble because of the past, not because of what is coming. Most
of the new development'will be required to put in road, sewer, .and water infrastructure. If them is
a way to go back and cOllect impact fees to people that have moved in here the last thirty years,
he would vote for it in a hea~beat. Unfortunately, that cannot be done and unless there is
reallocation of these impact fees from Commercial and Industrial growth back to Residential, he
will not and cannot support it.
Mr. Lounds appreciates Mr. Merritt's feelings. He agrees that we are suffering from a past
illness. He is not sure that the infrastructure within a development is what we are Suffering from
as much as it is the support roads, ditches, bridges, culverts, and facilities outside of the
individual developments. The connector roads and main roads that the~State has g~ven us, but we
have to maintain them. He also wishes he could find another way to fix it. He thinks Mr. Grande
had a point that' two people have to help pay for it. Either the new people coming in or the people
that am here will have to do it. Inthe end that-means we att~-~ing~to-ha~e~to-do~it:.t.f.a-
company comes in and the impact fees means they raise the price of their product. Then we buy
their product, and then we are helping to overcome that fee. There was a statement made in a
movie one time the character was telling the Vice-President of the United States, he said,"
knowing the difference between fight and wrong, is really.not hard. Once you have made that
decision doing the fight th' ' ~ ~ ' ' "
~ng ~'s extremely difficult. He feels we are caught in that point. We
know what we have to do and doing it is tough. It is not near as tough on us, as it is going to be
on the five people who sent on the Board of County Commissioners and some are UP for re-
election. That is going to be tough and we are going to see what they are made of.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000 Page 51
Ms. Dreyer stated she does not feel them is any question that the impact fees and an increase in
the impact fees are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. There have been a lot of impacts on
our local .govemments:.over the last couple of decades ~that .have cause, shifts of responsibility of
all~soas of things robe pushed doWn to the lowest level' of Government. That puts it fight on our
local officials and consequently on the taxpayers in our.County, She feels that we have to find a
the co'sts to all of.uS~ both cu~ent existing residence ~and new msidency~with industry alike. She
does not think lowering the. level of Se~ice will.give us the hnd.of community that everyone
wants to live in, nor. will it attract the type of business we :want .to have. We ~need to find a way to
pay for the roadS we need, the.water and sewer,. . and. . the other types, of infrastructure in~ our
co--unit thinks that altematiVe revenue soumes need to be looked for, out there.
.fees can go .on forever. It is a road we
they can. She wOuld see the ~County support other new soumes of revenue'. She. thinks the
real looked at. It ~ght not be 'an option this year, but it does need
to be looked.: futura to spread the burden among different industries and :di'ffemnt
economies, ia our co~unifies. She thinks we should look to the State to pick .up its shoe of the
bUrdens. S feels their needs to be ore econormc divemity. She does not want to live in the
m. ~
type :that was discussed 'in the North East p~ of the Country. Them are all sorts
of clean industries that do Create a much broader tax base and wOuld help to provide the relief for
the property taxes, which at some point will not be able to be increased anymore. She does feel
the Fire .and EMS Impact Fees should be them. The Fire Service needs a source of revenue; they
are_.__~_...~ ~_getting pretty well 'close of being capped out. She would like to see more emphasis on
suppomng that our community would like to have come in here. Maybe not
through no ng them impact fees, but through letting them know there are ways to. relieve
those She has a hard time dealing with the increases that are proposed. She would
like to see a way of reducing them or phasing-them in over a period of time. We have to pay for
the services and that we need. Our new development coming in certainly does have to
Share its burden, taxpayers have 'to share their burden. She wishes them was a better
solution than What we have.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Heam if'he has any comments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 179 2000
Page 52
Mr. Heam stated that it all boils down to the 'fact that we have a cost. He knows this has been
said many times this evening, but who is going to pay for that-cost. The people that create the
cost or the people that live here now. He agrees 'that maybe there are other ways that we can help
the tax base. But at the present ~time this is the only show that is playing. He would encourage
this board to bite.the 'bullet and say that we:have problem.and we.recognize that we have problem
and the.problem.is 'not going to go. away unless'we take action to cure the problem. He frankly
and personally will vote to support, staff's recommendation for these impact fees. We have the
problem.and it is not going to go away unless we take some positive action to make it go away.
The tax is a tax no matter how you lOok at it. The citizens .of St. Lucie County are going: to have
to pay a tax if.you put taxes on transaction, All that is, is taking money from one jar
rather than anOther jg, The are causing the impact on our co ~mmunity need to pay. He
is not t~ing to ~stop growth, possible source of funding has been exhausted other than ·
making~the lOcal Tax Payer fit the bill and 'he is not ready~to'do that.
Mr. Menitt stated that he has sit on this impact review once before, probably he is the oldest
member of this board. He has heard all.of these arguments before. Then the vote was to cut the
proposed~fees in half. The impact fees-were still put in and it did not solve anything. We can vote
these impact fees in tonight and two years from now we are going to go through this all over
again, It is not the answ.er to the problem. The :money is going to have to be taken Out of the local
tax payer's pocket to make up for this stuff, just as well as ta~.ng it from the new comer co~ng
in. Whether everybody likes it or not, everyone will have to pony up. He can not see putting an
obstacle in 'front of the commemial industrial base that we need and running them in to M~in
and Indian River COunty and ~using St. Lucie County for employment to mn their companies.
Chairman Matthes stated he.needed to interject for a moment. He has never been against Impact
Fees; he supported them from day one. He actually worked on County Staff in 1985 when they
were first implemented. He understands how they work and want they are supposed to do. He is
he engineer s representative on this board, as well as the newly appointed Chairman to this
board. He has not been able to satisfy in his mind that the Impact Fees are correct. That is not to
say that they are not correct and it is not to say that the work that was done by Dr. Nicholas is not
tree and correct. He stated he couldn't'say they are proportioned correctly in his mind. He cannot
vote on these proposed fees tonight. He can vote on the Fire Impact Fee, because there is no fire
impact that has been impacted before. But at this moment he can not say from the material that
he has reviewed in the short time he has had to review it that the fees that are being levied are
tree and correct to what they should be. The information is probably them, he has been remiss
and ..has not looked at it. He has spent a couple of three days looking through this information, but
he has not drawn a conclusion himself. He does not know how anyone else feels or has to say
about this but he cannot vote on this issue in .the positive.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 53
Mr. Grande motioned for approval of Ordinance//00.002 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioner& Mr. Lound, ~econded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion pa~ed with Mr.~ Me, and Mr. Matthes voting 'against it.
Mr. Hearn. motioned for approval of Ordinance t/00-003 and forwarding to the Board of
Coun~ Commissioners. Mr. Grande ~e¢onded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 5-1, the
motion pa*sed with Mr. Merritt voting against it.
Ms. Dreyer would like to .ask a question of Ordinance #00~004. She has heard a number of
c-o~ents about'the fact that our fight.of way acquisitions costs were much higher than other
co~unifies he,by, She ~.ows that Dr' Nicholas mentioned that the fight of way acquisition
laws have changed which increase those fees. She would like to ~ow-if that is the mason this
communities costs.are so much higher and is she correct in saying that.
Dr. Nicholas replied that to hiis review~th~s' .commumty' "s costs~ are 'not significantly different than
1 ~
anyone, e se s and they .are actually about the same. In every impact fee adoption them is always a
bit of negotiation 'on some of the parameters. The roads are where the big money usually is. That
is where the negofiati:on takes place and one of the factors that are most frequently negotiated is
that cost, because that .is what drives the whole model. He can .assure everyone that the cost of
cement is no different here than it is anyplace else. The cost of the.machinery and 'the fight of
way costs will v~ from co--unity to community. That is. why in Palm Beach County they are
running at $1..6 ~Ition per lane mile and this community is running $1.1 million per lane mile.
The difference is exactly the'fight of way.
Ms. Dreyer stated that answered her question. She stated that this is the fee that creates the
biggest difficulty inher mind. She has to take the information that has been given on it as
accurate.
Mr. Grande motioned for approval of Ordinance//00-004 and forwarding to the Board of
County 'Commissioners. Mr..Lounds seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Mr. Hearn motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-005 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4.2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Mr. Grande motioned for approv~]'~'~r~'~'~'~'~e-~"O0".'~O~ and forWarding to the Board of
Coun~ Commissioners. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 54
Ms. Dreyer motioned for the Board of County Commissioners continue to look in s.upport of
other alternative revenue sources 'to decrease both the impact on the advalorem tax payers, as
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Matthes :asked~. Kelly if them ~would be any other business at this meeting.
Mr. Kelly replied'in.the negative.
Chairman Matthes ~Stated the next regul~ meeting would be March 16, 2000. Them will 'be a
Comprehensive Pian meeting on Marcl~2,~2000. He asked if there was any other business that
any board members wOuld like to bring up.
AD JOiNT
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 2000
Page 55
'MEMORANDUM
COMM,UNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
To':
From:
Local. Planni,ng Agency
David Kelly,, .Planning 'Manager ~~\~'"
Date: April 17, 200.0
SUbject:
Comprehensive Plan -Overall Goal and Preamble
Please find attached copies dra~ of an overall goal along with objective, s and
policies, a proamble, and the~letter transmitting same to the COmmission Chairman. The
Compm. hensive PI,an .Study 'Group is scheduled to present these ite-ms to you at your
meeting of Th-ursday night .......
This d,raft was provided to staff after your packets had been sent.
April 5, 2000
Mr. John Bruhn
Chairman, Board of County Commission
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 3'4982
Dear Mr. B uhn.
r~ . ~
-During its two years'of:existence, the St.. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan Study ~Group has submitted a number of sugg:estion$
for changes to the Local Planning Agency.
Now, as the i
t ~me nears for the Board of County Commissioners to
act upon Amendment recommendations, we hope you will find the
following summary of our priority recommendations helpful. These five
points have had intensive study and discussion by ~our group. We
respectfully: requ'est your consideration and support of them:
1)
Adopt the Preamble and th.e Overall Plan Goal in order to make the Plan
specific to St.. LuCie County.
2)
3)
Strengthen Future Land Use policies for stability, predictability,
accountability, and a stronger county economy.
Ensure that growth pays its way and does not degrade present
service levels.
4) Increase public participation in Plan formation and implementation.
5) Protect the environment beyond current levels.
Our positions are explained by Exhibits A - ~, attached.
We hope that you will keep these for reference during public
hearings this montl~ and next. Tl~ank you for your consideration during
this important process.
Betty Leu Wells for
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group
The overall goal of this Plan is to ensrure the best
n. ~
community, and living e vlronment possible, built on the
needs .and desires of-the residents of St. Lucie County.
The Goal shall be reinforced by-the Preamble to the
Plan, t shall be implOmonted by tnctl¥ enfor¢od
bullding, zoning and de¥olopment {:odes ba$od on o×pert
pinnning p
The purpose of this Plan is to protect and enhance
the health, safety, and welfare of St. Lucie County's
citizens and of our county's natural and man-made
resources.
The following ObJeCtive and pOrlicies support the Overall Plan Goal.
.ObJective: To improve St, Luci.e..County's economy while retaining its
cultural' a-nd n a~tural resources.
Policy .1.....Plans for devrelopment 'or re, development shall be
i '
cons stent with th'e Overall Pla.n Goal and .with as many of the Preamble
statements as possible, recognizing that community factors such as
"frien~dltr:ness'' are real, observable .and are St. Lucie County va'lu~es, but
are not readily subject to protectring or achleving through Plan policies.
olicy 2.....The Board of AdJuStment, the Planning and Zoning
Board, the Code Enforcement Board, the Board of ~County Commissioners
and/or any other decision-mak!.ng body when acting u.pon matters
covered by the £ompreh-ensive Plan or by the Land Oevelopment Code
shall reference ~the Overall Goal ancl Preamble.
Policy 3....'The Local Planning Agency shall conduct an annual
workshop to review and rev'lse, if members so decide, the Preamble's
vision of St. Lucie~County. '
N m
ote. 4/5/00 The above is to be presented ~to the LPA at its ~next meeting.
11/11/99: Be/ow .is .a foreword , .or Preamble, to St. Lucie County's Comprehensive
Plan. When tl~e StUdy Group formocl two years ago ~o study the Plan, participants
began bylisting what they most valued in our community. The group came to
consensus on ti~ese values cl~ri~q.several subsequent meetings.
PREAMBLE TO' THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ST. LUCIE .COUNTY
St-Lu~cie County is a u~nique Florida community. People born here
love it and .want to stay o-r return ... non-natives are charmed by its
unusually frien, dl.y people and its varied, natural beauty.
The following is a partial list of Characteristics, some physical
and some social, that are sPecial about St. Lucie County at this time
and that are of Such value that they should guid.e the Objectives,
Goals, and Policies of our Comp~'ehensive Plan. By enumerating these
St. Lucie County attributes., we seek to remind o~urselves of our
treasures so that we Will maintain them despite the changes that
come with growth. This we believe is true growth management and
the reason for adopting and implementing a strong county
comprehensive plan.
1. Spectacularly beautiful landscapes 'enhanced by open space
and open sky. Prized features are the ever-changing Atlantic Ocean
and its beaches, the tranquil Indian River Lagoon, the lovely St. Lucie
River, the Everglades-like north and south Savannas, vast green
Exhibit A, page 2
citrus groves and Old-Florida ranches.
2. Friendly people, helpful to strangers, who participrate in large
numbers for community betterment.
3. People of diverse backgrounds and cultures, providing a
variety o~f orga.niz:a.tions, customs, foods, festivals and arts.
4. Clean air.
5. Comparatively uncrowded roads.
6. Relatiuel§ small population.
7. World-renowned and .economically prized research facilities
and affiliated businesses: Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution,
the Smit:hsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, USDR Research Facility.
8. Outsta.nding educational facilities: public and private K
through 12', Indian River Community College,' access' to courses being
.offered by Barry College, FlOrida Atlantic University, Nova University,
and the University of Florida; plans for a comprehensive state
· .
university; excellent, well-located public libraries.
9. Unique recreation/education facilities at St. Lucie County
Historical Museum, VDT SEAL Museum, Manatee Observation and
Education Center, Heathcote Botanical Gardens, Hallstrom Planetarium,
Florida Power and Light Energy Encounter, the upcoming Children's
Environmental Learning Center, the Thomas J. White Stadium, the PGA
Golf Learning Cent.er and'outstanding golf courses.
18. Excellent c'ult:u,ral opportunities including the Backus and
other art galleries; the Treasure Coast Opera Society; the Treasure
Coast Sy-mpho~ny Orchestra; several.jazz organizations; the St. Lucie
Community Theater, IRCC's professional artist series and their
student music and drama department presentations; award winning
plays, band, and orchestra performances by public schools.
11. Rbundant public beach accesses, saua~nnas, parks and othe~
natural lands, protected through public ownership, which provide
opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation.
12. Three incorp.orated communities with active goals
preservation (St. Lucie Uillage), proseruation and improvement
Pierce), growth and creation of an identity (Port St. Lucie).
1 3. Increasing support
governments.
for cooperation by city and county
14 World-famous recreational fis ' ·
· h~ng, boating and .marinas;
economicall, y productiue commercial fisheries and related induslries
all made possible because of ".the most diverse estuary in North
America" and conuenient access to nearshore and Gulf Stream
fisheries.
for
(Ft.
15. A rapidly growing eco-heritage
awareness of need for sustainability.
16. A thriving agricultural economy.
tourism economy with
17. Finally, and .mo::st i~mportant, an energiz.ed citizenry desirous
of impro.uing St-Lucie's economic, cultural'and aesthetic potentials
but determine'd to retain its.unique cultural, historic, and natural
resources and its Old Florida, relaxed life st.yle.
Stability. Predictability. a .. d~Accountab~!~.tv
St. Lucie County-. t~zens, planners, as well as Planning and Zoning
n e
Boards and Cou tY Commission members have ago· n~zed' over rezoning
req~u.ests rot the past 4'0 years. The issue ol~ property rights vs. impacts on
nearby properties has breen the topic ol~ extensive discussion prior to
final vote on many requested rezonings.
As you know,r~ezoni.ng' .of property is a potentially far-reaching
event that is usually presented as a benign request. However, rezonings
are often requ.ested only to raise the value or'the petitioner's property.
The discussion pr!or to taking action on a rezoning request usually
includ~es poring over an extensive list of permitted uses that the rezoning
would allow. Often' the thought is expressed that, "There must be a better
and less impacting way to help this property owner with his or her
request."
We are proposing what we feel is a better way to ail'ow special uses
without penaliZing djo~n~ng I~roperty owners:
A. Create, and encourage use of, an option within each
zoning category called."Sl~eciftc Use." The al~plicant seeking' a zoning'
change coUld, by Choosing the S.pecific Use option, spell out exactly what
use was being applied for and submit details similar t° those called for in
a Planned Unit'Oevelopment (PUD). Commissioners in other counties have
welcomed this ~m~ethod to d.ecide the merits of a rezoning request without
opening the "Pandora's Box" ofa~iong list of permitted, accessory and
conditional uses.
B. Require a Super MaJority vote by Board of County
Commissioners for any rezoning except for a Planned Unit Oevelopment.
This provision should make all property owners feel that they can rely
upon zoning protections. Actually, a study of rezoning request votes by
St. Lucie's BCC during the past two years reveals only two instances in
which there was not either a Unanimous or a 4 to 1, Super Majority, vote.
Exhibit C for Priority.Three.' Ensure that Growth Pays its Way
and ~Oes NOt ~egrnde Present Level of ServiceS.
mmmmmmmmmmm'mmmmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mm-mmmmmm
The Study Group strongly su~pports adoption and collection of
Impact Fees .We found that impact fees arecontroversial" and not
popular rwith anyone; however, if new'growth is to have necessary
~nf ~,~,,~,.-......r~o...~,,,~ a.nd services (which present residents should'not .have to
provide a'nd clearly do ~n.ot wish to provide)., impact fees seem the most
practical choice anyone has been able to come up with.
The fees shoul.d be fair, reasonable and scientifically calculated.
They .should come.as close as possible to covering the costs for which
they are needed. St.. Lucie County was one of the first counties' in-Florida
'to adopt impaCt fees and has repeatedly hired qualified consultants to
calculate and ju tify them. '-' See Capital ImprOvements
Equally important in providing for growth that pays its way is
adoption of Urban Service lines which will channel growth not willy nilly
but close to already established infrastructure (fire stations, schools,
water mains, roads, parks, etc.) so that. again, present residents will not
be burdened with unnecessary costs to extend the infrastructure and pay
for more costly services for new developments that were permitted and
built outside the Urban Service lines.
"Contain Urban Sprawl", the battle cry of planners and
governments alike these day. s, not only saves everyone's tax dollars, up
front and forevermore, but has the added benefit in still natural St. Lucie
County of carrying out citizens' constantly expresseddesires' to retain as
much as possible of its native growth and wildlife. See Future Land USe
Exhibit D for Priority 4, PUblic Partict~pation
Public participation i.n the Comprehensive Plan process is given lip
service, minimum attention i
~ - - - - : n most Dlnns we'vestudied, flnving gotten
into the study of our own 1000 Plan and the'EAI1 [or this Amendment
process, we are conVinced that much wider public participatiOn is
e$$entiel to having e plen thet fits our county end that citizens will be
aware of and support.
However the provisions are described, what really matters is that
the BCC nn-d the Community Development Department ngree thnt our Plnn
needs the publi:c participation that the State Act also says is essential end
will continue to ectively seek ways to expand and incorporate that
participation in the entire COmprehensive Plan process.
We have suggested wording for this element that calls for
continuation of a Study Group in some form that, with the guidance of an
assigned .staff person, would monitor the workings of the adopted Plan
and not just come together every five years nt amendment time.
We also recommend that all county departments should
participate in an :on-
going eveluetion of how the Plen meshes with their
functions and 'that Community Development will ~ormalize on-going
monitoring, and evaluation procedures.
4/4/00 This' element will be brought to LPA et its next meeting.