Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 15, 2001PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z) ROLL CALL SHEET For Meeting: February 15, 2001 MR. MERRITT MR. McCURDY MR. LOUNDS MR. ~HEARN MR. TRIAS MR. JONES MR. GRANDE MR. AIKENS MR. MATTHES Excused Excused H: I WPI WP~P&Z~PZ-DOCSIrollcall.p&z rev. 12/99 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/(P&Z) QUORUM SHEET Meeting Date: February 15, 2001 Ed Lounds Charles Grande 59-5,2525 229-9878 IO',Z! ]1 Russell Aikens 489-4671 ~--" EO Mg.r[!.tt ! 464-9728 46o-22oo II ' . II 1['' Fred R'' J°nes 'Il 468-9859 II ..... I1' ' 11.BillHeam ,!1.... 46117526 II . II ' Ii Carson McCurdv. ViceChair Ii 466-7600 i I 5 for quorum H:\WP\WPXP&Z~PZ-DOCS\quorum.sht Rev01/01 Agenda Item # ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DATE: February 15, 2001 Petition: APPROVED DENIED MR. MERRITT MR. MC C UR D Y MR. LOUNDS MR. GRANDE MR. TRIAS MR AIKENS MR. JONES MR. HEARN MR. MATTHES OTHERS INA TTENDA NCE : H: I WPI WPtP&Z~PZ-DOCSIvote rev. 12/98 ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Agenda Item DATE: February 15, 2001 Petition: A PPR 0 VED DENIED MR. MERRITT MR. MCCURDY MR. LOUNDS MR. GRANDE MR. TRIAS MR AIKENS MR. JONES MR. HEARN MR. MATTHES OTHERS IN H: I WPt WP~P&Z~PZ-DOCSIvote rev. 12/98 Agenda Item ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DA TE: Februar}, 15, 2001 Petition' MR. MERRITT MR. MCC URD Y , MR. L 0 UNO S { ~~- , MR. GRANDE APPROVED DENIED MR. TRIAS MR AIKENS MR. JONES MR. HEARN MR. MATTHES OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE.. H: I WPI WP ~P &Z~PZ-DOCSI vote rev. 12/98 ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Agenda Item DATE: February 15, 2001 Petition: APPROVED DENIED MR. MERRITT MR. MCCURDY MR. LOUNDS MR. GRANDE MR. TRIAS MR AIKENS MR. JONES MR. HEARN MR. MATTHES 0 THERS IN ATTENDANCE: H: I WP I WP IP &Z~PZ-DOCSl vote rev. 12/98 Agenda Item # ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DATE: February 15, 2001 Petition: APPROVED DENIED MR. MERRITT MR. MCC URD Y MR. LOUNDS MR. GRANDE MR. TRIAS MR AIKENS MR. JONES MR. HEARN MR. MATTHES OTHERS INA TTENDANCE : H: I WPI WP[P&Z[PZ-DOCSIvote rev. 12/98 Agenda Item ST. L UCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DATE: February 15, 2001 , APPROVED DENIED MR. MERRITT MR.' MCCURD Y __ , MR. ~TTHES 0 THERS IN ATTENDANCE: , H: I WPIWP[P&Z~PZ-DOCSIvote rev. 12/98 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency .Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd floor Roger Poitras Annex February 15, 2001 7:00 P.M. .CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 1:. MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 18, 200.! ' ' Action Recommended: ApproVal '/ Exhibit #1: Minutes of the January 18, 2001 'i~~ AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ 01~001 ROSE KYLE PROPERTIE~' Petition of Rose Kyle Properties, for a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commerieal Office Zoning.District. Staff.comments by Hank Flores. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission ExMbit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan and Site Location Maps ~ AGENDA.ITEM 3: FILE NO, R~01-002 VEDIC CULTURAL SOCIETY, INC. Petition-of Vedic Cultural SoCiety, Inc. for a change in zoning .from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities).Zoning District. Staff comments :by Cyndi Shay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site: Location Maps .AGENDA ITEM 4: .WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMET COMPANy '. Petition of WestehesterDevelopment Company, for a boundary change to a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development approval for the Project ~known as Westchester, PMUD. Staff comments by David P. Kelly. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 5: WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Petition of Westchester Development Company, for a boundary change to a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Unit DevelOpment approval for the Project known as Westchester, PUD. Staff comments by David P. Kelly. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report and Site Location Maps .~ AGENDA ITEM 6: FILE NO. ~00,018 MIDWAy ENERGY CENTER J : Petition of of MidWay Energy Center, for Preliminary Planned Nonresidential Development approval for the Project Known as Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, and for a Change in Zoning from the AG-I (Agricultural- 1 alu/acre) and AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 1 alu/2.5 acres) Zoning Districts to the PN~ (Planned Nonresidential Development- Cooney-Midway Grove) Zoning District and partial final PNRD approval for a 35,97 acre land tract to bc known as Midway Energy Center to allow the construction of a 132,550 square foot (building - 13,980 square feeti equipment - 65,059 square feet, tanks 53,511 square feet), 510 Megawatt, electric generating plant. Staff comments by CYndi Shay.. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM #2: ~FILE NO. RZ 01-001 ROSE KYLE PROPERTIES ~. Flores 'said Agenda Item//2 is the application of Rose Kyle Properties 'for a change in zoning from: the Commercial, Neighborhood District to the Commercial, Office Zoning District for 2.09 acres of property located on the .southside of west Midway Road approximately 200 feet east of ~SoUth 25th Street. Its proposed use is a medical office. There is RS-2 .zoning to the soUth and com_memial neighborhood zoning is to the west. There is the co~emial general .zoning to the north and the northwest and AR-1 zoning is to the east. General .existing use surrounding the property is vacant and residential to the south and several commemial uses to the west and north. White City Park is located further to the:east. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth: in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is therefore.recommending forwarding this petition to the Board of County co~ssioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Mr. Matthes asked if the petitioner or a.mpresentative there of was present. Please come forward and state you name. Ms. ~Rose Kyle corrected the record and stated that it is not a~medical office it is a dermatolOgy office. Ms. Kyle had bought the property so she could go into business there, she has taken a lot of courses, and she had Worked.under Dr..Cooper from Stuart and several other' dermatologists and now she.feels she is qualified to open up her own office so she bought the property for her. She sold her house in New York .so that she would be able to do this for her, Chairman Matthes asked if she was current resident of the propegy. Mrs. Rose Kyle said no, it was Irene Reese Real Estate before and she has one building and part of it she lived inand the other part was her office. My granddaughter is taking over the whole thing. Chairman Matthes asked if is currently occupied 'other than by Irene Reese. PUBLIC HEARING: There being no one the public hearing ia closed. .Mr. Heam. said he had one question on the future land use, Residential Urban is that compatible with Commercial Office Neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Kelly said yes itis there is a section in the Future Land Use Element it is Policy 1.1.8.4 we refer to it fairly often and it allows for Commercial Neighborhood or Cormnercial Office on land :designated for residential if about seven different standards are met, they-have to be on major roadways and things like that. Mr. McCurdy said after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff.comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie Count l~nd Development code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie Board of County-Commissioners grant approval to ~the application of ROse Kyle Properties for a change in zoning from CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District because there .is a it fronts on a heavily traveled street. Mr. jones seconded the Upon a roll call vote the' motion passed unanimously. Planning and 'Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 3 =Agenda Item #3: File No. RZ-01-002 Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. Mr. Flores' stated that Agenda Item #3 is the application of Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. for a change in zoning from the Commercial, General Zoning District to the Religious Facilities Zoning district for 1.'55 acres of property located on the Northside of Ulrich Road, approximately 200 feet west of 'South U S Highway #1. The applicant is proposing a religious worship facility. The surrounding zoning is commercial general to the East, North, .South, and West. The SoUthwest has RS-2 zoning. The general existing use surrounding property is commercial to the South and further to the West. Staff has reviewed this. petition and determined that it is consistent with the Standards of Review as set forth in the Land Development code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded Commissioners with a reco.mmendation of approval. with the Board of County Mr. Lounds asked what the structures were at the comer of U S Highway 1 and Ulrich Road. Mr. Kelly .replied that there is a Texaco Station immediately in front of this parcel and the Budget Rent-a-Car is to the north of that. Mr.-Mayer, President of the Vedic Cultural SoCiety, stated that the facility will be essentially a worship base for about 15 Indian Families that reside here in this county. Chairrnan Matthes asked what would the typical hours, .days, and times of worship. Mr. Mayer replied that most of the families are professionals and would be at night and weekends. Mr. Jones asked if a church being immediately adjacent to the Texaco Station had any impact on their fight to Sell alcohol. Mr. Kelly replied that it is a pre-existing use, so it will not have any beating. Chairman Matthes stated that a letter was received from ~a citizen and asked that it be read in to the record. (attached) PUBLIC HEARING Seeing no one the public hearing was closed. Mr. Heam asked if the letter that was just read said that "they went through the proper channels to obtain CG Zoning" but reading the map it says RS-2 Zoning, Lots 40 through 45. Planning-and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Februm'y 15, 2001 Page 4 Mr, Kelly said that Mr. Hearn was fight Lots 40 through 45 are residentially zoned properties. Mr. Heam said the letter indicates that they are CG. Chairman Matthes said that the way he read it is that they are owners of 40 to 50; they are not making the claim that everything they own is CG. Mr. Heam 'said the letter states that they went through the proper channels to obtain CG Zoning. Mr. Kelly said that they might have to go back and look. They may have dOne that for Lots 46 through 50, they own the whole block, 46 through 50 is an exotic bird sales place, that was rezoned. Chairman Matthes asked if that is their propertY. Mr. Kelly replied that it appears that it is. Although they reference that they own all of 40 through 50, they may own it all and only rezoned a portion for their business. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Fl'ores if he would answer the point that was made with respect to spot zoning in the letter. Mr. Kelly said 'he would answer that. Staff looked at that and when they look at spot zoning it isn't just truly a different zoning for a piece of land. Spot zoning really is .an incomPatible zoning in' the middle of something else. This is a non-residential use that staff didn't think would impact the Commemial General in any negative manner nor did the applicant believe that the Commercial General would negatively impact his use. As long as we had compatibility we didn't put the spot label zoning on it. Mr. Lounds ~made motion to approve, the petition for the Vedic Cultural Society and forward it-on the County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Motion was seconded. Roll call: Mr. McCurdy; Mr. Akins; Mr. Men'itt; Mr. Hearn; Mr. Jones; Mr. Lounds; Chairman Matthes Chairman Matthes instructed Mr. Mayer that. the Petition would be forwarded to the Board of. County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 5 02/09/01 Board of County Commissioners 230.0 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 Re: Property location- North side of Ulrich Road, approximately 250 feet west of South US Hwy #1 To Whom It May Concem: As property owners of lots 40-50 and section 243 we do object to the request for rezoning to RF from CG. It would be spot zoning as CG is on the East side and then we have CG on the West side of thi's .property and CG is on the Northside also.. We went through the proper channels to obtain ~CG zoning and the zoning .is continuous:from US# 1 as CG. When we obtained our. zoning we had to buy lots 49-50 as Y6u would not spot zone aroUnd it- We object ~t0 any.rezoning other than these properties remaining CG. Millard P. Hill MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division To: -Board of County Commissioners From: David Kelly, Planning Manager -Date: March 19, 2001 Subject: Enron -Midway Energy Center- Draft P & Z Minutes.- Please 'find attached the draft, minutes from the February 15, 2001 Planning and Zoning hearing on the Enron -. Midway Energy Center. Technical problems required that we .recreate portions of them over the weekend. -! hope this.:has not been too much .of .an inconvenience. Please call me if you h~ave questi,ons. " ... cc: County Administrator County Attorney Community ,Development Director AGENDA ITEM #6: ENRON , MIDWAY ENERGY CENTFFI Chairman ~Matthes and Mr. Merritt recused themselves based on conflicts of interest and took leave ~from the ~board. The gavel was turned over to Vice-Chai rman Carson McCurdy. Mr. Kelly stated'that Ms. Snay would be making the staff comments in reference to the Midway Energy Center. He would like to give a brief review of Planned Development applications In this case it is a PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development). He explained that the board's responsibilities are to look at the aroa and make a d.etermi.nation on t'hre 'zoning, that is, .is this the appropriate place, in this case for a power plant. There will be details concerning the site .:plan shown-in the presentation but the~site ~Plan is not being reviewed. You ~are reviewing the site plan as much'as necessary~for you to determine if it is an appropriate zoning. Ms. Snay stated that Agenda Item #6 is the petition of Midway Energy Center for a rezoning from AG-1 (Agricultural 1 alu/acre) and AG-2.5 (Agricultural- I du/2.5 acres) to PNRD. The applicant is requesting preliminary PNRD for the entire 116.60 acres of land and final PNRD for 35.97.'acres of land. The applicant is proposing to' provide 'for a 39,04-acre tract of land to remain as open space ..and 41.59 .acres as vacant land.for future development. ,. The property, which is the subject of the final PNRD is designated on the.Future Land Use 'Map as · MXD - Midway Road. 'Within the 'MXD-Midway. Road designation, .the property is designated with a Low Intensity. According to Policy 1.1.7.5 of ~the Future Land Use Map, the subject .property is allowed the following intensities: Residential . Institutional 'Professional Services/Office General Commercial Public Service/.Utility 5 du/acre .5 FAR .5 FAR .5 FAR '.25 FAR Mr. Kelly interjected to define-FAR for anyone who might not be familiar'.with the. term. Itis an acronym for Floor Area Ratio. In the example in the chart it will allow for each ac:re of' ground to have one half acre of floor. The intensity of uses in these areas 'is controlled by.these ratios.' Ms Snay continued, this res._~ults in the. preliminrary PNRD being permitted the following development intensity on the,entire !! $.60-acro site: Residential Institutional 583 du (5 du/acre) 2,539,548 s.f. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 1 Professional Services/Office General Commercial Public Service / Utility 2,539,548 s.f. 2,539,548 s.f. 1,269'774 s.f. The applicant is proposing a final PNRD .development on 35.97 acres of the site. Based upon the intensity ratio, this site is permitted: Residential i.nstitutional Professional Services /Office General Commercial Public Service / Utility 180 du (5 du/acre) 783,423 s.f. 783,423 s.f. 783,423 s.f. 391,713 s.f. The applicant's proposal for '132:,550 square feet of development meets the FAR criteria allowed within the Comprehensive Plan under the Public Service / Utility land use category. The subject property is surrounded to the north, east and west by AG-2-5 zoning and to the south and east by AG-1 zoning. The surrounding land use to the north, east and west is AG-2,5 and MXD to the~east and south. The applicant's request has been determined to not be in conflict with any provision of the-Land Development Code. Within Section 7.02.02 of the PNRD Zoning Regulations.the.allowed permitted use for'the MXD - Land Use are those uses allowed:as permitted, condi'tional or accessory uses within .the CN, CO, CG, IL, IH, U and ! zoning di.stricts and any non-residential permitted or accessory use identified in the AG-l, AG-2.5, AG-5 Zoning District. In addition, Sectio-n 7.02.03 .designates the minimum size for the PNRD designation allowed' within the Commercial, Industrial or Mixed Use Land Use ClassifiCations as those in the CG. The proposed project, has a designated set aside as open space of 39.04 acres of land. The minimum required is 40.81 acres of 'land., Upon .development of the pr°posed future pamel an additional 1.77 acres of land will-be required to be designated as open space. Also, the' applicant's proposed project, is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated the ComPrehensive Plan designates the proposed property as MXD-Mixed Use- Midway.Road land use. Therefore, the County has designated the area under question to' be of a more. intense ~development thran is currently existing within the area. The proposed change in zoning ~and accompanying Preliminary PNRD and partial Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes - Midway Energy Center Page 2 final PN~RD Will continue the existing modification of development within the surroUnding area: The Ten Mile Creek-Attenuation Facility is located to the north of the proposed site, there is a large tract of Heavy InduStrial zoned land and .Utilities (FPL Booster Station) located just east of !-95 and so.uth of West Midway Road. Further,. east onthe nO.rrthside of West Midway Road is the St. Lucie~ County Land 'Fill 'and'the Tropicana ~Fa¢ility. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding area. The subject proPerty will result in minimal demand on public facilities. The proposed project will be serviced potable water and sewer through an on-site well and. septic system. The el~ectrical plant has applied for permission from the SFWMD to permit th:e property to-withdraw water from the Fioridian Aquifer, which will not affect the surrounding properties water levels. The proposed project will not affect the natural environment. The subject property is an abandoned citrus grove with portions of the site being overrun by Brazilian Pepper. There are no unique species located on the site_ and therefore no .preservation of species is required. Stormwater will be handled through the widening of an existing stormwater pond on the proposed Parcel 3. This stormwater pond Will be utilized and enlarged tO handle the runoff of the entire 116.6-acre PNRD. The electrical power plant, will be located Within thre center of the proposed subdMsion (Parcel 2). The northern most land parcel is to be utilized as open space. The southern 41.59 acres will be left in its natural state and designated for' future development. The power plant .site has met the criteria for air emissi°ns established by EPA. The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from EPA for the operation of the electrical generating plant. The applicant's sound report indicates that the electrical power plant will be within the.allowable thresholds.of the St: LuCie CountY Code of Ordinances., 65 decibels during daytime hours and 55 decibels during night time hours. The applicant is proposing to operate the electrical power.plant for a maximum of 3,500 hours a year. They are requesting the opportunity to produce the Power when necessary by oil for a maximum of 1,000 hours. The total' time frame permitted for operation is a function of the EPA permit :process. The applicant will be required to operate the facility under any restrictions placed on them by EPA and by SFWMD. Planning and-Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 3 Staff is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions found on page 8 :of the staff report, with the following modifications: Condition 7- The applicant shall .connect to central water and sewer services upon the installation of central water and sewer lines along West Midway Road for potable'water and domestic sewer services. The use of the private well shall be .discontinued except for irrigation use until such time as an alternative water' resource for irrigation is available. Condition .9- All' Power lines for the proposerd subdivision shall be required to be placed underground, except for the transmission lines from Lot 2 to the FP&L facilities. Condition 12 - Prior to the applicant being permitted to increase the number ~of hours of operation-for oil or gas, the applicant shall be required to submit a modified PNRD *application to be approved by the Board of C ' Cou.nty ~ romm~.ssioner. The applicant will be permitted a total-operation. ti'me of 3,500 hours, upon ~ approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Condition 1~3 - Prior to the issuance of any building permits-for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be. removed. Mr. Malefatto representin~g the West. Palm Beach law. fi~rm of Greenberg & Traurig on behalf of the applicant stated that he is joined by a team of experts and consultants.at this meeting and is well prepared to .address any questions by the public .or members of the board. He will be saying a few words this eveni-ng. Mr. Crouse, the project manager will then give a more detail description of the project. Mr, Boggs, the landscape consultant, will go over the landscape Plan and the overall compatibility of the' site with surrounding 'uses. :Mr:-Malefatto-stated that the rezoning request for the property, is from AG-1 and AG-2 Zoning: Districts to PNRD Zoning fo'r the entire-. 116 acre tract. There is a site plan approval~ for the Board of County Commission to review. Lot'l is the ~southernmost parcel that will be rezoned to PNRD but no uses proposed at this time. That 'would be for remaining future development within the PNRD zoning allowable uses. The current property owner.will retain ownership, of that. if that-. property owner wishes to ~deve!op on any of that property they would have to submit for Site plan approval. The center parcel, lot 2, this is where the power plant facilitY would 'be located. Mr, Crouse will discuss the equipment and operation of that Thero will be an extensive landscaping program with -buffers surrounding property. Mr. BOggs will: discuss that-in detail. Lot 3 -will the water management tract and open space tract. That property will remain Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes. Midway Energy Center Page 4 in a natural state as a citrus grove, so that would be the preservation tract in the future.. His staff has worked very-closely with the County staff and appreciate their cooperation and recommendation, They agree with the staff report and the conditions as provided. He would like to note that condition 12 .refers rio the hours of operation and that is p'ending on the 1EPA permit being issued. Actually the permit will come from th.e'~State of Florida DEP, which has delegation from the EPA. 'The .permit :was received frOm the DEP 'and it is bei~ng revi~ewed currently · but they belieVe it 'to. be acceptable. There will be .a copy Provided to staff before the BCC meetin conclUded and recommended approval for the rezoning ~d that all criteria has been met for rezoning. Mr. Crouse, of Enron North America, stated that this company has.offices over in 34 different countries around the world. In Florida alone there are $3 .billion worth of assets. Enron has .been in Florida about 40 years. They have developed nine of these peaker plants throughout the country in seven different states. A peaker plant is a power-generated facility With the .sole .purpose to provide power during peak demands. This :facility is a 51.0 megawatt facility using gas,. with the option of oil burning when gas is not available, Mr. Crouse stated that Tuesday night they h.osted an. open house to take an. opportunity to meet with some of the neighbors. There were invitations sent to all pro.perty owners within a mile of the proposed location and an ad was run in the paper. He had t-he opportunity to show the public the plans and"answer questions. Mr. Crouse explained that the permit that was received from the DEP is more stringent than the one they put in the application. The. total number, of run hours would be 3500. They made an arrangement with ~DEP that there would 250 hours on oil. If it would need to go above that 250 hours, then every additional hour ~above that 250 would: reduce a total number of run hours by two. DEP - agrees this is a workable arrangement and great for the environment. Mr. Crouse .referenced that the conditions that the County Commission put on Duke Energy rozoning. The poWOr plant is. potentially three gas fire furnaces. These do not ~generate smoke., there are exhaust stacks associated with the plant. The facility is de-signed to meet County Codes for sound. The water to be. used-will come from 800 foot floridan, aquifer wells. There will be no imPact on the neighboring wells. The design for water treatment is to recycle the water to extinctiOn, He explained ~eVery drop. of water from the ground will be used.. Mr. Crouse stated that they would like to start construction this summer. He further stated that they believe that they are on a 10- 12 month construction schedrule'. The objective is to be online and operational next summer. They anticipate durin.g construction there will be 100 to 300 jobs croated. Once the Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - 'Draft Minutes: Midway Energy Center Page 5 facility is oompl.eted it will cost about $150,000,000.to 'build, which will .be the tax base. They committed to the County Commissioners they will not be seeking a tax a~bat.eme~nt, in addition to providing significant tax base in the community, ENRON is paying insignificant impact fees. This facility will be operated-by 8 to - 12 employees, There '~'il virtually no impact to the infrastructure. Mr. Crouse then introduced visual, photographs into the record. He explained that. they had taken digital Photographs from three different sites. There are before and after pictures demonstrating the visual impact. He indicated that the photograph for :1-95 indicates that as: a vehicle travels on !-95 the plant will be barely visi~ble, The-second photograph is taken from the west looking east and indicates that the visibility of the facility is minimal. The third photograph was taken from Midway Road, the fa¢i'lity is located ! ,500 feet. north of Midway .Road, the visibility of the facility from Midway Road will be minimal. Mr. Crouse introduced Mr. Grey Boggs, Thomas.Lucido & Associates, to explain the proposed LandsCape Plan. Mr. Boggs stated that most projects require ~ buffering. He stated that the south line has a 50-foot wide buffer with a five foot high berm. The east and west have a 3-foot berm, within a 20-foot to gO-foot · wide buffer. Them Will.~be.roughly 350 plant materials, consisting of Oaks,. . Sl ash Pines, Holly, and a consi'derable number of tall cabbage palms surrounding both- the south,, east and west limits of the'parcel. The facility is back off of Midway Road 1500 feet, so'the site line looking at the plant from Midway Road will see the'top of the stack. But after that they began looking at the close up view with · the' berming and the significant native landscaping surrounding.the site, They arc-.hoping that as the trees mature andthe palms go higher the facility and stacks'will become, masked by vegetation, He detailed sectional graphics for the western, eastern and southern-~buffers, as'to the effect 'of .planting tall cabbage palm trees and pl'anting the hierarchy of woody plant material under the .heads ~of the cabbage palm trees. This will result that at maturity, the plant facility will be masked and only the ve~ tops of the stacks will' be visible, He explained lhat, according to Ms. Snay~s graphic, the plant is loCated on the 'western. limit of the. · MXD zoning. There' is Iow intensity to the .west, medium as it goes: east and to the intemhange it is high. AcCording to the Comprehensive Plan, the MXD land use'designation' all.ows for various amounts~of-activity and intensities. The facility. being on the we:stern edge and what type potential for what could be on the parcel,-it is obviOusly that the proposed facility.is a lesser impact than what could be allowed when you review the six different land uses that 'could be in the Iow density/intensity MXD. BaSed upon., the location,, the skyline will not be' degraded with additional lines'due t° the location of FP&L ~s 200 foot wide line going to their su station As far as land use', compatibility of the site, mitigation,, and enhancements it is better that what could be on the property. - Mr. Lounds asked :what the plan is for the front fifteen hundred feet between. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft,Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 6 'Midway Road and the facility. Mr, Malefatto replied .that there .are no sPecific plans at this time for that area. The plan would be to make that a PNRD. The property will not be owned by Midway Development LLC or Enron; it will be retained by the current owners Cooney .Midway Groves for futuro development. ,at that iime in the future they would have to submit for~their specific plans. Mr. Lounds requested for more information on the water use. He asked what the daily water consumption would be. Mr. Crouse'replied that under circumstances of no operation there will not be any water consumption. The facility will be.limited to 3,500 hours a year.of operation. When the plant runs on gas the water consumption will 10 gallons per minute. When the plant runs on oil the water consumption 900 gallons per minute. The purpose for the'water when oil is burned is the water is injected in to the gas turbines and .it decreases' the emissions. This water is not potable water and is from the Florida Aquifer (brackish, nonconsumable, not potable water). As it is used it is conti~nually recyclred ~untii is extinct to conserve as much water as -possible. Mr. Lounds stated t'hat the agricultUre~community has been irrigating with that type of water from deep wells for years.' He would' like to know if it is possible.to reuse water from other industrial uses in that area rather than 100% of the water coming from a deep water well. Mr. CrouSe replied in the affirmative, but stated that the only.industry that has enough water to be .used is Fort Pierce Utilities Authority and they have already dedicated their used water to Duke ~Energy. ,Mr. Lounds asked how much water is used at the Tropicana plant draily. Mr. Cr°use replied that he did not know the answer'to that question. Mr. Lounds instructed himto find-the answer by asking Tropicana. Mr. Crouse stated, that as a part of the water use permit, they.were required to submit an .application to. the South Florida Water Management District, and they have. successf.ully.demonstrated ~that the water withdrawal being requested will not negatively impact the community. Mr. Jacobi introduced himself to the board and explained he works with Mr. Crouse on this proiect. He stated that the question just asked, is a very good question, but needs to be put in p.empective of the operation hours proposed for Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes MidwaY. Energy Center Page 7 this pla'nt. He .explained that they water .will only be used when natural gas is not avail:able. 'The total plant operations will be limited to 3,500 hours on natural gas, whiCh is less than half' of the annual hours in the 'year. The expected run hours .on fuel .oil is approximately 250 hours that .is :why they deVeloped the permit condition desCribed ipreviously. The reason for water while running oil is to abate emissions and it i.s required by,,law, 'If you look at the likelihood of running on fuel oil and with the:maxi.mum number of hours, itis on an overall basis a very'limited use of the water resource. Mr. Lounds :replied he understands that and he appreciates the comments from Mr. Jacobi. He stated that he does not know a lot of the details with Tropicana's was:to water and .does not know a lot about the future water consumption for this proposed plant.' He explained that he knows enough about the land that .the Tropicana .is surrounded with and the problems they are having getting rid of their wastewater it seems 'like clever people could do-some clever things. He commented to the applicants that theY are coming to a community wanting. Ilo be good stewardS then it wo.uld be beneficial to overyone involved to. get out. of the box ~and go help somebody out. Mr. Jacobi replied they would be happy to follow ,up on that situation. Mr. Crouse stated that the mas.on this site was picked out. as a good site-was because of the existing power lines and the gas lines. There are 50OKV lines bisecting the property. 'He stated 'that it was important to site a facility that was out of site' from'as much. community as'possible, but close to high voltage power linesr and the other, factor is that ~the gas transmission pipeline is. currently adjacent to the Florida Turnpike. Mr, CrOuse further referenced, the large FP& L Substation at the intersection of !- 95 and Midway Road. This substation has 500 KV lines pass through the Property as they go northland south. There are ariSe 230KV' power lines that go east,-he reviewed-that the site is very strategically located in relationship, to the · existing infrastructure. Mr. Hearn asked staff to point' out similarities and.differences with this proposed project and the power plant project approved last month. Mr. Kelly replied that they are in similar locations in that the entire area has access to the power grid and 'fuel. He explained that for peaker plants, though an , i issue water is not an overriding ssue. The intersectio, n of 'easy.power grid access and fuel makes thesre good sites. This proposed site has 3 turbines and. DUke ~Energy has 8.tu:rbin'es. He does not know a lot ab°ut'turbines, but thinks E ' these proposed turbines must be larger than Duke ....nergy s because they produce more power. The .concept for both of the Plants .are relatively similar. Planning and Zoning COmmission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 8 The intent in both cases :is to effectively have the plant sit idle until the cu.rrent plants can not pro-duce enough electricity, at that point the peeker plant .will be instructed by Whichever electric company is buying their power to go in to operation. The consumers will then pay'for electricity as always do. He explained .that if there are specific details .that anyone needed answers ~on 'it would be. best to ask the applicant. Mr. Hearn asked how far apart the two plants will be from each other. Mr. Kelly answered that the plants are roughly a mile apart from each other. Noto: A check a~tor.the hearing showod a distance of about a milo and a haff. Mr. Akins asked if these peeker plants, they are ~peaker plants because as he understands it that the current state of the law in Florida that is all can be built, he asked if that is. correct. Mr. Crouse replied in the affirmative, He further stated that there are some conditions where a company other than a electricity utility can build a power plant. .. Mr. Akins. aSked.if that was why the board was dealing with peeker plants at.this time. . Mr. Crouse replied in the negative, He stated that the proposed facility did not have anything to do With deregulation. Mr. Akins asked if this board could regulate anything pertaining to increasing the hours if the peaker plant provisions were changed from the state. .Mr. Kelly explained'that the-other.type.of power plant is a combined, cycle plant and it runs essentially 24-hours a day, and you add steam turbines to it 'plus.a 'number of other things.. This board's .approvals and the proposal are specifically for peeker plants, if there were ever to be a proposal to come back and modify these plants or to build another plant, that was a .combined cycle plant, the process would start from the beginning and it would come befor, e this board. There 'is nothing in this approval that leads there, it must come back to both Boards for approval, Mr. Crouse stated that this plant will only be a peeker plant currently and in the future. In combined cycle plants, the legal requirement, is that if you have a steam turbi~ne ~greater than 75 mw, application must ~be made through the State, through the siting act. There will be no steam turbines on this proiect. There request is only for a peaking plant, as a peaking plant, getting back to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 9 questi.on of water use, they are utilizing significantly less water, than a combined cycle facility would and typically when you put in a combined cycle plant that .is generally when you' deal with upgrades and infrastructure to add water use at delivery to the facility, because the plant will run '24'hours a day, 365-days a year and the consumptio.n .'is significant. Again this i.s not that type of facility. They are only requesting approval for a peaker plant. Mr. McCurdy opened the public' hearing. Mr. Allen Ciklin, attorney from West Palm Beach, representing thre owner of LTC Ranch, and is the 600 acres east of the proposed p~nt. Mr. Ciklin introduced into the record a concept:ual site plan mater pi'an for a proposed residential golf course community along with a Town Center, and.a proposed hotel/convention · center, WhiCh .his client envisions on the property. His client' objects to this application.because of the compatibility problem with the power plant and his conceptual project. What'this graphic indicates is that them are 'about 4 other power plants proposed or approvod within the general area, andimmediately across.the st.met, which lines up. with the access ~for. the ENRON plant.is the LTC residontial dovol.opmont and to the east is thoir industrial park, which is approved within the. City of.Port St. Luci:e, The residential portion, is approved in the county through tho DRip:process for 6,:500 .residential dwolling units. There is a chance that ~t.hey will .:develop lesS resi.de:ntial' units, than approved. He explained that the proPosed Iocati.on of this would leave a.. power planI adjacent to a .residential' community.and immediately 'across 'the street to an approved residential community within the County. Mr, Ciklin stated trhat he. has .several other objections, comments and questions, many of them are tailored in the standards that are set forth in the zoning codes. He stated that staff has stated they are all met, but his client has some doubts.. He stated that the PNRD district according to the definition suggests creative approaches to devel.opment, design options, encouraging compatibility with surrounding land uses., .and permitting the' enhancement of neighborhoods. He would suggest that in: this particular case the proposed power plant does not do these things. He stated that the use of the 41.59 acres 'immediately adjacent to Midway Road that will not be .owned by Enron that would.need a separate approval for future. development is~ a large issue. He stated that once this plant is approved for this location and an application for those 41.59 acres comes in for development the first thing they say. is that they are b..eside an approved.and/or developed_power plant, thus setting a precedent for that proporty. He ,stated-that when proposing a plant next to residential communities when there are severe questions of compatibility, it would seem that it should .be Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 10 known what is .going to go on the 41,59 .acres before complete approval of the power plant, He explained that his client definitely would like to know now, in case it is another power plant or an enhanced plant then it. may be less objeCtionable. The other issue that it perhaps raises that:depending on what is proposed for those ,acres it may trigger the'development of regional impact statute, and they may have to go through a regional review. He and his client think there are probably are some significant regional impacts and one already discussed ~is the water :usage for this particular project. 'He said it is easy for them to say that they do not .use much, but this is agricultural area and this community is.faCin! currently. He does not know if there has even been a study d o that information. He does not ~kn°w whether~a South Florida ~Man ent permit :has been issued. He suspects that it has not been issued. He. thinks thirS board shoUld find out What the affects on the Aquifer are before maki-ng a decision. He stated he still has someissues on whether or not it is consistent, with. the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the 39.4 acres, which is the most northerly phase, has a land use designation of AG -2.5. He stated t.hat is not consistent with a"Utility plant. He explained that the argument would be that the particular area is Open .space for drainage.: He explained that it is open space and · drainage, for.the uti!ity.plant.-He said it would be no different than saying the parking lot for a :sh.opping plaza does not need a land use designation-of commercial. It should be all the same land use and should be compatible. He respectfully suggests that this proposal needs a land use change to make it compati.ble for. the rest of the project. He does not think the proposed .power plant is compatible with his cl ent s~.conceptual mastersite plan graphic., and they feel that. it is inconsistent With the already approved LTC Ranch and his clients He does feel the ground water will' be a potential problem.. He stated, that as far .as the emissions mentironed.in the staff report, he is nora scientist and does not know what these things are or what they do. He stated that is the type of thing that will make the residential properties less desirable. He feels there should be a more complete study other than a statement that says · they meet EPA standards. He stated that there should be a. definition of these emissions, what does it do to crops, what does it do to people and children and what they do to the 'environment. How far away does 'it travel? The noise issue was also-raised. He suspects that as far as meeting the county's noise standards on non-operational hours is one thing, but if the plant is oPerating 24-hoUrs a day, when the plant is running, there will be a constant hum below the noise standard. He suspects that this would be as aggravating and Planning and Zoning Commission. February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 11 bothersome as the peaks .and valleys over the noise standard. Mr. Ciklin furthe.r questioned whether or not the propOsed plant result in an orderlY and IOgicral development pattern and is it in harmony with the intent of the Code. In his :opinion the facility will have 80-foot towers. He stated that this is the equivalent to an 8-story building. If they were requesting an .8-story buildings, he-suspects that 8-story.building, single ~family residential homes/golf- ourse:communities don t really mix. it is really the same thing. He stated that Mr. Boggs did a le job on the landscape plan, the fact of the matter you can't disguise exhaust stacks and that brings up the 41.59 acres perhaps those stacks will be even greater. Is the petition.'in conflict rWith the public interest? That is a subjective issUe. They wOuld suggest that-the potition is certainly in conflict with the LTC Ranch owners and the .adjacent property owners, One of the standards that was left out of the staff report., Which he feels is crucial, whether and to the extent that the proposed ame'n, dment advemely effects property.values in the l.area. This is not addressed inthe Staff :Report therefore no conclusions for the Board or any recommendations. He thinks, although, he is not an-appraiser, this is a common sense answer. One question is does the eXiStence of a power-plant nearby effeCt whether someone will live there.~ In his Opinion, it does:, people are afraid of FP&L T:ransmi ssi on ~Lines ~and all. sorts of things and we were talking about plant emissions, he thinks they will be and what would you pay for a home near a powers.plant. Would you pay :less? In his opinion, you will. Mr..Ciklin ~stated that in 'conclusion he does not feel .this project meets'the standards and some of the stan~dards in the staff roport are not met. He stated there are a lot Of.questions that need to b'e answered for his client and others- also. He woui.d .like to see what is going to happen with the 41.59 acres, figure it out now tell us now, and ~don't ask us to trust you because later on down the road, the 'developer.Will pointing toward, the existing plan. He would like to see the off?ct on groundwater.within the existing agricultural community, what. about. the emissions, what is s.uifuri¢ acid mist what does it mean to people and really what is the effect on prope~y values. Mr. Hearn asked if any ~of.the concerns had been discussed with staff by Mr. Cik!in. Had he an opportunity to sit down with staff and voice his concerns. Mr. Ciklin replied :rin the negative. He said his client did meet with the applicant. He stated that his clig.nt will meet'with staff before the Cou~nty Commission meeting, Mr. Lounds asked.why Mr. Ciklin was not here f_or the Duke Energy presentation. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001'- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 12 Mr. Ciklin stated that his client did not have any concerns with the proposed Duke Energy plant and is a co.nsiderable distance from his client's property. H.e W ' ash t .su.re whet, her or not his client knew or whether owned the property at the ti~me, but we were .not there to oppose Durke. Mr. Lo'unds aSked if his cl'~ent's property is in the urban service, area west of Interstate 95 for the County. Mr. Ciklin replied in the affirmative. Mr. L. ounds asked .if hiS Client is going to put a high-end residential areas amongst a concentrate plant, the pro. posed power plant and an approved power plant ~th a municipal dump. He would like to know what that is going to do to the value of the-property that y u re proposing to put in right now. Let's be real about this thi.ng. Mr. Ciklin stated that 'this power plant is not approved to the best.of his knowlerdge. These two plants..are in industrial areas. He would respectfully suggest that it-is different to buy a piece of property knowing What has to be dealt with as far as surrounding uses such as the solid waste facility and the FP&L Transmission Line, across the street-and being able to deal with' it then .than- have 'something be a-pproved that you did not know aboUt after you purchased the property. Mr. Lounds'asked staff .how long.the conceptual master site plan perrmits had been in place for the proPosed conceptual development.. Mr. Kelly stated that nothing has been submitted to the County. Mr. Ciklin stated that the proposed master site plan. had not been approved and no applications had been filed. His client does own the property and the LTC Ranch is approved as a development order from the County. Mr. Lounds asked if there was'a goif~ course planned for the property and how manY gallons of.water will be used for that daily. Mr. Ciklin replied that grey water will be used for irrigation and will come from the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. Akins asked the name of his client. M'r. Ciklin replied Jim Hall ,President of TJH Inc. Mr. Akins asked if there are high-powered transmission lines across a portion of Planning'and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 13 his .client's property. M.r. Ciklin replied i.n the negative. Mr. Akins .aSked irf that is Where the proposed high-end development will be constructed. Mr. Ciklin-stated that most of the project would be to the east of that area. Mr. Akins .asked if the lower portion of the golf course is part of the LTC Ranch property that was previously spoken about. Mr. Ciklin responded in the affi'rmative. Mr. Akins asked for cl.arification on whether the owner of this portion of the site was his client. Mr. Ciklin replied in the negative but stated that he has .done some work for them.. Mr. McCurdy stated the next person could address the board. Mr. Harold Melvi?lle, representing LTC Ranch, presented the same exhibit .as Mr. Ciklin, Mr, Melville explained that LTC JOint .Venture is his client and they own the 2,067 acres, south of Midway Road..The LTC joint venture, gained a Development .of Regional Impact (DRI) apProval in .May 1997. The DR! approval was .:hrough~ St..Lu¢ie CountY. He stated that certainly the Enron ComPany had to kno'w about the approval since it is a recorded..document in. the Real Property Records of June 19'97. The Development Order that St. Lucie County approved for this ~or LTC Ranch, south of Midway and-to the West of Interstate- 95 is for 6, g ~units. Mr. Melville introduced a conceptual drawing which is compatible with the standards in the :DRI approval. The conceptual drawing .shows basically.a multi- family area closer to Midway .Road; a town center which wOuld be shopping, restaurants, and a .movie theater, on what is'considered to be.the "drag'". There are two :diffe~rent kinds,of communities, one is a golf course community, and-the other is a .lake front.co, mmunity. There will be an institutional area, 'Which is proposed to be a.'high school site, and a fire station site. At this time that is the general conceptual lay out.. Mr. Melville stated that hiS client, LTC Ranch, is.rvery concerned about the number, issue of power 'plants_ and. how they will affect their property. Because, the power plants are not compatible with the existing approved development at Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 14 this-lrOcation. He refers to the graph, he stated he felt th~at the Board should keep in mind what has been approved for power plants and what has not..He further stated that Duke .Energy, as .he understands it, is located to the northeast, has recently-been approved, He.further. stated that Competitive Power Ventures (CPV)'tocated to the southwest ~of the-proposed project, which is located within the City of Port St, Lucie, has recently been approved, Panda Elect ~c which is a r, ~ proposed site immediately to the east has not been approVed. Aisc, the proposed plant before yoU this evening, ENRON. He would like to put on the record that LTC Joint Venture is not opposed to power plants 'or peaker plants, they are perfectly good things. The question is whether or not this is the ~rig.ht.place for the location of a power plant. Peaker plants ~or-power plants are perfectly.appropriate in Industrial parks and Industrial zoned areas, in places where they ought to go. The County and~ State needs them and there are lots ~of places for them to be constructed. The area where Duke Energy is.proposed Contains a lot of industrially zoned area that are suitable fOr.power plants, On. 'the conceptual site plan graphic of_my clirent, the area where You see CPv, that is an industrially park and we feel that it :is an appropriately these sites are all east of Interstate 95 and exist in industrially zoned are All we:. have to the west especially.with propOsed location for En:ron is .all Agriculturally zoned right now. He asked the board to try to envision people coming to a large scale residential development coming off of Interstate 95 and having a power plant basically at the entrance to. the property, in my opinion, clearly common sense'tells us that will devalue and degrade the property. For whatever reason rightly or wrongly, people do not want to lire'next to power plants. It is just a fact, it's common sense. Sometimes people fear that the electricity in the lines may affect them, there is scientific argument back and forth, I'm not sure there is anything settled on the issue. But people fear and are concerned about the issue.. He further, stated that people do not like .to look at power plants. He stated that .he pul, led the architectural elevations for this plant. He asked the Board to consider the drawing then ask themselves if'this is something that a porson wants to look at coming to a rosi0ontial community. I would sug[lost your. common, sense tells you no. According to their drawings their smoke stacks will be 80 feet high and rather large fuel tanks in a 40 to 45 feet height. He further stated.that to imagine rOn a nice cool evening, these projected 3-story high building in this area, and you open your windows at the 3rd story when your up above all nice little plants that are proposed.. When you look out you're your window you hear the. 3,500 hours of whine/hum of thi~ plant. That. is not going to be compatible with the kind of residential units, that his client wants to sell. This County has a proliferation of fairly inexpensive residential units and that does ~not do anything to the tax base, especially withr the $25,000 homestead exemption: Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center . Page 15 if you want'to be abrle to sell higher-end units, you have to have a site suitable to them. .His client is.very concerned with the plant and obviously, has a lot tied up in the 2,067 acres and in the approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI). In his oPinion his Client has been working.diligently after moving down the road to start the construction on the :project. We are very concerned about the compatibility of the power ~PlantS on the west side of Interstate 95. East of Interstate-95, they arein industrially zoned and in industrial parks. But west of 1-95 we are very concerned. My client is 'also very concerned about the front fOrty-one acres. If.'you look at the very nice drawings, that were presented tonight, you can see the top of the plant. Well thatis the plant, .constructed 1,500 feet or so to the rear.. We don't know what is proposed tothe front 41 acres and you don't know either, because you h .~ avent been told. I .would suggest to you,' that. if you allow this PNRD to be approved, what you are dOing is opening the door for someone else to come in and say, ! should..really be able to expand'or have another power plant in-the front 41 acres because .I am right next to a-power plant. It gets tough to turn it down, once yo.u allow itthe first time. In-simple terms they do not believe this use is.compatible with the area or.with.the pre-existing.approved development in the area. There is'~nothing wrong with this use, inherently, if it is put in the right place, but we believe thiS: is not the right place, or an appropriate location, and this is the issue before.the Board'this evening. The issue on the table'is this is not the appropriate location .forth-is project. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. MreMIle what has his client done with the property in the last 4 to 5 Years. Mr. MeMIle stated that there has been a great deal of things done on the property. On the DRi there has been work on the east side and has been annexed into the ~City of Port St. Lucie and has been platted. The City has taken over .a 60-acre parcel and negotiated a variety of agreements with, the City of Port St. Lucie to-bring utilities to this area. To do a development of this type .it does not happen over night- He feels LTC Ranch is moving along at a good time table. Mr. Lounds stated that .there are~two plants proposed to be developed in rthe middle of what 'his client is going to:develop withi~n the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. Melville stated that.th~ area to the east of Interstate 95 is an Industrial Park, That is the purpose of the In~dustrial Park. Mr. Lounds requested that Mr. Melville .point out Thomas Produce on his map. Planning and Zoning'Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 16 Mr. ~Melville responded that he could not point it out. Mr. Lounds rasked Mr. M'elvi:lrle :if he was familiar with the piece of ground as it sets. Mr. Melville responded in the negative. Mr. Lounds then requested that Mr..Cain lend assistance with the property location. Mr. Ralph Cain, the project manager for LTC Ranch, pointed out the 387 acres .partially farmed by Thomas Produce and part of .the 2,067 acres on the west of Interstate 9.5 'is being, farmed by Thomas Produce. He further stated that the 387 acres has PUD approval: by the City of Port St. Lu¢ie and the preliminary plat has been approved' by the City of Port St. Lucie. They have an annexation agreement with the City to bring water and sewer across the railroad .into the 387 acre land parcel, whiCh is Phase 1 of the LTC Ranch development. The 2,067 acres is runder contract, to Golf land America. The proposed Conceptual Master Plan beingr presented by Mr. Melville's Client is Golf land America for development. He will. be processing plans for approval commencing within this year. Mr. Cain pointed, out this is. not p e- n-the-sky development, it is reality. This development is well under way. Mr. Lounds stated he Understands Mr. Cain's Industrial Park and he thinks it is an ideal .place for one, He stated that the power lines and other industrial aroas that am there from. Including the overall industrialization that is-in the Midway Corridor from the County.Landfill to Tropicana plant and other areas around those sides, to me 'does not lend itself to what is hieing proposed as what can be conceived as high-end residential aroa in a Midway corridor. Mr. Cain stated that the County approved this DRI as. 6,.500 residential units for this entire tract. At that time the County thought that was appropriate. CPV and Panda are both to locate in this .zoned :Industrial/Commercial Park and Duke is in a Industrial/Commercial park. Both of these, plants have agreements with the City of Port St. Lucie .to usetheir grey water to run their facility. Duke Energy has an agreement-With. Fort Pierce Utilities Authority for the City of Fort Pierce grey water. He fu~her stated that the ENRON facility does not proposed to utilize grey water. Mr. Cain :further .statre.d that in some point.in time, where do you stop, you have to stop somewhere. The reality is this is ~tn entrance into .the city and the co-unry. He aSked if the area was just going to be dotted with power plants. He asked if the only thing peOple would see when they came into the community was power plants. This property was pUrchased 'ten years ago with the purp6se of Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 17 developing it. A great deal of money has been spent to have residential development approved and to say that these do not have an adverse impact on' the value of these properties. That's absurd to me. They. absolutely ~have an effect on the val. ue of .this particular individual to. develop these properties. They are right at the 'front door. Mr. Tom Kin-dred, 1905 Wyoming Ave, he requested a letter be placed into the official--record. This letter is attached to the end of the minutes as Attachment "A"..He represents the HHHP Properties and the HHHP Associates, which is a trust.fund of Mr. Hyman. Henler, trustee and Mr. Allan Schwatz, trustee. These individuals own a portion of the property which is on the north side of Midway Road, west of Interstate 95, which was been previously as a portion of the 600 .acre land tract north of Midway Road. That property is being proposed for high- end residential development. The owners of the property, Mr. Kindred, represents certainly agree with everything that was presented/~aid.by the two previous speakers. They:feel.that this power plant is not compatible ,with-the type of development that they 'want to dO on the property in which, they own. I feel that the previous..two speakers have addressed .all points that the owners ! represent would cover. Mr. Hearn asked Mr, Kindred where or not they have' spoken with Staff regarding their points and issues. Mr, Kindred responded i-n the :negative, but he. and his client would meet with. staff regarding these issues, prior to the next public hearing. · Mr. Maurice Snyder, 4832 $. U,S. 1, Ft, Pieme,. FlOrida, stated that he has been' a.resident of St. Lucie County for 29 years. He further stated his profession was a licensed .Florida Real Estate Broker. He is speaking to the Commission on behalf of him self and hopefUlly on behalf of the citizens of St. Lucie County. He stated that. he has sat on the c tizen s budget review committee where they dealt With the issues of attempting.to make certain that the tax dollars extracted from the peoPle's pockets were properly expended. Mr. Snyder stated that we are: abundantly aware that our nation has. an electrical energy crisis. It is abundant in California and some other'western states, and it. is soon to arrive, in Florida unless and until something lis done. :You are .being asked to do something.. This piece. · of.' prope.~y is .in an industrial-corridor, it is according to County Staff in compli the': policies of the County. it will have an estimated construction cost' of $1 The:majority of the workers who build 'the facility will be e ~ he County s local .labor pool. Which as we all know, the County has gh unemployment rates over the years. Mr. 'Snyder stated that .the County has'another problem and that is production of sufficient ad valorem taxes, with which to defray governmental costs. ! have Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 18 requested th,at the .St. Lucie County Property Appraiser to 'prepare an estimated of taxes derived if'this plant is built and placed on the tax rolls. Mr. Snyder introduced the~numbers into the record (Attachment "B"). He stated that the amount of dollars that the proposed power plant would produce in ad valorem 'taxes in the first year would approximate $1,300,000,00 going to the school system and 'an'additional $700,000 per year to:the Sheriff's office, for.a total of $3,300,000.00, He fu~.her ~out the following: a) there is. a need in fact; b) the property .is 'located because it can feed its electricity into:the hopefull' dditional issue.that i have :heard..all .evening.long, and that is, the .location of a Ower plantand what it does to upsCale houSing. '1 submit as a matter of Public record ~ Ft. :'Pieme News Tri talks .about the multi'sto~ high- rise b the'Ft. Pierc This hig renovated and downtown due consideration Groves, LLC, to y Use their- interest. power plant, downtown. nd within walking distan¢ to the newly erce. I request ,card give g'the applicant, dway furtherance of the~ best Mr. Garrison stated that in is.opinion having 6,500 homes .with a-large portion -being built directly across from the landfill, and the homeowner's are going to open ~their windows and hear sound, I submit to you they are going to close their . .windows from the ~smell. This power plant has to tell everyone what they are going to do with'those front few.acres, in my opinion the point-was well brought out that the owners of the LTC Ranch property has had projects within the County to 4- 1.0 years that they have. said what they are planning on doing, but they t~aven't done anything with it. ! reside in Ft. Pierce and represent clients in California, COloradO, New Jersey, Florida, and Brazil. I am a Power Pi.ant engineer. ! do wo'k '~n these .locat~ons, these types of plants are state .of the art, and it is what i.s going on. I can also tell you that if the Nuclear Plant goes down this summer, if we lose one Unit, in July and August the County will be in serious trouble. In the past, we have lost units in Crystal River and Turkey Point. You know yourself, it is going to real difficult for you .to. setback and have to explain to the people ~n his County that you. stood in the way :of a power plant, that would homes, where drive up and down there, you know energy Sho~age. continue to do the brown and then 'power plant proj pt their lights ~on. Then you are .going to have to Who were up before you this evening, wit'h their 6,500 get their electricity from. This is serious, if you in the Jupiter area and you see What is going on all these homes being .built right now, we are in an w we are able to stay ahead' of it.. U~ess, you are doing, in this kind of situation, it is going I am in support of this project and any ~other thought of in this pa~icular area. Planning and Zoning commission February 15, 2001- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 19 M.r. Lounds asked M.r. Garrison to explain the gas turbines that were installed into the downtown Ft. Pierce Power Plant. Mr. Garrison answered in the affirmative, explaining that the 'project was started in 198-'3 and went online in 19.85. Mr. Lounds asked what the decibel noise factor upon completion of the installation of the gas~turbines. Mr. Garrision responded that the plant had a reading of 65 decibels at the fence line and 90 decibels atthe unit. Mr, Lounds asked Mr. Garrison if he knew what the decibel noise factor of the average semi-trailer. Mr. Garrison stated' that .it is much greater, that normal conversation is at 60 _ decibels~ The road in front of the power plant was much louder than the plant at the fence line and the freight-train was also louder than the plant. Mr. Scott ~Williams, attorney representing the land owners - Cooney - Midway Groves, stated that the property owners.are fully supportive of the project of the Midway Energy Center. He 'spoke on Lot 1, stating that his .clients will. maintain ownership of Lot 1, and. they have no plans at this time for Lot 1. Mr, Ciklin raised the implication that .posSibly the Power Plant would be expanding southward toward Midway Road, .He further stated that expansion prospect has never come up in any meetings between his clients and 'the Midway Energy Center representatives. At this time, we are presently negotiating property oWner's association .documents for the sharing of the maintenance of the roadway ~and the maintenance of the drainage facilities. Those documents are .being heavily .negotiated, which leads me to believe they do not plan on taking over the ownership position of Lot 1. Dr. Kenneth-Owen stated he was a 20-year.resident of St. Lu¢ie County. and his occupation is ~a consultant in the energy and environmental field. Mr. Owen stated he would like to. clarify for the record that FP&L is as we are meeting this evening-is engaged in.increasing the capacity of the units in Ft Myers and Sanford power plants. FP&L is not building new units, but they are expanding the capacity of ~the existing facilities. The electrical situation in the State of Florida is healthy but on. the edge. It is very difficult to get power into the State or out. The ~State has a long narrow cOrridor, along the eastern shore, in addition, there is very little interconnection 'between the east coast and west coast. The State does have statewide economic dispatch. T ' ~' hat s to say this is a situation which will naturally occur under trhe deregulation environment which is proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 20 the ~peak, in the (rearly morning and of the ca this facility is ~ oil, biggest .Board to for the I'east expensive plants will operate at .maximum capacity first, these are the nuclear plants. From there you go up the chain... If you look at the ~number of hours where there is peak demand in the State of Florida, in the summer there is a peak that ~slowly increases in :the day ~and reaches a maximum around dinnertime. In the wi.nter, there may be ~a peak in the early morning if it is a chilly morning. These peaker plants will-not operate until the ~demand for power - reaches a peak, tyPically, this :approximately ~one'hour peak. Unless, there is an ability to supply enough power to fill the demand at some place on the way up to gradual in'the winter it can be very sharp peak .time). The operating hours which is calculated at 40% ar, fora ambitious. The is of 3 The oil proposed for i~n the event that natural gas is unavailable. It look at the pdce of gas and you look atthe price of ~g to burn gas. I would urge this etiti'on. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Owens whether or not FP&L plants were converting to more ~ natural gas in their'operations and are becoming more environmentally friendly to the surrounding area because they are utilizing less water and having less emissions. Mr, Owens .responded by .saying that if you are comparing .them to a oil-fired plant which has Virtually no systems for environmental control,~. These facilities- are grand fathered in from when they were permitted. They do not have -electrical reciprocators or scrubbers. Some of the plants in Florida were licensed. to burn 2 ~% sulfur oil. The newer plants are restricted to 1% 'sulfur oil.. The Martin CountY.facility~is restricted to 0.7% sulfur oil.. 'This facility can burn 1% sulfur-oil' and natUral gas simultaneously to dilute the oil 'to meet the restricted emission criteria. I can guarantee that the backup oil utiliZed in these facilities is. distillate Oil, which has ve~ little sulfur content. Mr. Lounds' aSked Mr. Owens if he was part of' the Midway Development Team. Mr. Owens responded in the negative. Mr. Lounds asked if Mr.. Owens was an independent and at the meeting on his own accord. Mr. Owens responded i-n' the affirmative. ;. Mr. Lounds asked, whether or not the plant, being converted in Ft. Meyers was similar to the proposed plant before the Board. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 21 Mr. Owens stated that the facility irl Ft. Meyers Will be a combined cycle plant. They have two units at t. he Ft. Meyers plant, one unit has 160 megawatt and 400 megawatt, and :both permitted to operate on.oil. There was not ~natural gas previously to the site, CUrrently the pipeline is being laid to provide natural gas to the site. G~as turbines are-being installed. The waste heat from the turbines will bemused in the heat recovery steam generators to produce steam, that will operate~the ol.d steam Iurbines, so they are increasing the.~whole capacity of the plant and Will be firing gas with the backup fuel. Mr. Lounds asked if the question raised.about the emissions from the stack .containing sulfuric acid mist and such have you, does that come from. burning natural gas. Mr. Owens stated that the emissions will come from oil. Sulfuric Acid Mist will form as a droplet i-f the temperature drops very Iow and the concentration has to be very high, The type. of-oil being burned on a backup .situation, the exhaust ~temperature from those stacks is too high fOr acid mist to fo. rm. Mr. Collins, 4/10ths of .a mile down Midway Road from' the plant site, stated he has some questions that he would like answered on the record. Mr. Crouse agreed to answer~his questions. a). · I am.concerned ~about the.impact of 900 gallons per minute on the sulfur woll$ in the community, Are you tolling us that-this facility will .not have an impact-on these wells? The residents..in the neighborhood are concerned,. .they use the water to water crops,~ feed the'animals. · Mr, Cr. ouse stated that.the residents of the neighborhood would see no impacts from the withdrawals made by the facility. b) Will the discharge .from the water use have any affect? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative further explaining that the there will be no water discharged from. the facility, the water utilized will be recycled into extinction. c) When you burn sulfuric fuel, will the exhaust in any way effect the plants in the neighborhood? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative, further stating there will be no smoke from these stacks. d) Will the fuel emissions affect any animals that eat the plants? Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001' - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 22 Mr, Crouse responded in..the negative. e) Will the emissions affect the ponds in the area? Mr. Crouse responded i.n the negative. f) The land that you do not own you do not understand will be residential? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative, as Mr. Williams .representative of the property stated there are no plans to develop the property at this time. g) Do you 'know if there has been any envi.ronmental impact studies as to the~sulfur exhaust.or 'water usage? Mr. Crouse~responded in the affirmative, they had submitted an application for an air Permit from the Florida 'DEP, addressed completely the air emissions. They had recently received approval- ~for their ai.r permit from FDEP. h) You can assure us that there will be no adverse effect on animals. Mr. Cro.use responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Collins the 'length of. time he resided at his property. Mr. Collins stated he has resided on this specific piece 'of property for about 30 years.. Mr. Doug ~McClell-an, resides.in the vicinity of the power plant for 38 years, stated that he was born and raised in St. Lu¢ie County and has resided here for 65 years. He - asn t got anything against power plants. He stated he doesn't want the Plant in his backdoor. There are' other places where it can be put. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. McClellan how many acres he owned .and where the location of his property was to the proposed facility. Mr. McClellan stated he owns ~ acres of land and is located about 700 feet'to the west. Mr. Crouse pointed out that the location of Mr. McClellan's home is approximately 1,600 feet from the facility. ~-- Mr. Gary McCourt, 3.00 W. Midway Road, stated he was the operator of the Plant Haven Nursery, he has considerable concerns about the water consumption of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 23 facility. He stated that during the summer he had to alter irrigation practices to incorporate the ~very iow water table. In his opinion, additional water is going to be needed to coOl the turbines. Another maior concern is the additional trucks on Midway Road, bringing fuel to the facility. AnOther concern is the sound produced by 'the facility. Would like to see if th:e facility is approved that a sound.' barrier is installed. He would like for the. Board to limit .the sound to 45 decibels at the facility. Mr. Carson asked Mr. McCourt to clarify where the water for his operation was coming from, the :Fioridan Aquifer or shallow aquifer. Mr. McCourt stated~that his water doeS not come from the Floridan Aquifer,. His wells are about 80 - 100 feet~deep. Mr. Carson stated that as he understands it if water is pull.ed from the Floridan. Aquifer they won't be in.the same aquifer that you pull your water from. Mr. McCourt stated he assumed that if .water is taken from one area it reduces the level in the other areas. Mr. Paul ~Freeman, Southeast Citrus Corporation, which owns the property directly adjoining the ~power plant site to the north. He has concerns over pertinence and consistency. 'From the standpoint of for and against, he is not here to speak for power. plants or against . power plants. Is this area an appropriate place for a power plant?- He stated that in his opinion that the Duke siter was.a good .use and appropriate place for a power plant because.it is all industrial, in hi~s case, we have citrus groves that adjoin this property for 18 years. We owned through the good times and now when we-barely 'make enough money to make our 'mortgage payments. The Cooney grove is over' run. Our water usage is important to us. All we have heard .about water usage is What are- you using, how much are you using, when are you going t© use it, how many hours a year. The important thing is when are using the water and when do the surrounding properties need water, We.need.water in.a freeze. The plant will also-need water in a freeze, 'because that is when the power use is the highest when people are turning their heaters on,. When we have brown: outs a couple of months ago. They will betaking our water from the aquife:r we are uSing and we are not going to.be able to irrigate our groves, we are not. going to 'be able to keep them 'warm. If they are going to take the water in ~the middle of a rainy.season i.n the middle of a thunderstorm in an 8,, rain it will make no difference to us. But we all know, that's not wh to be uSing the water. They are going tO~rbe Using it when we need it. have a very adverse affect on us andw~e've been~' here for along time. The' second issue I have is in'that aquifer.there is salt. Our water that we take out of the aquifer ~has to be pumped into a ditch because of the salt content. ,as they start to pump the water needed fOr .the facility, it will increase the salt content, decrease the quality of water and create more of ~a probl'em on the grove. Basically, they're telling us Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 24 our groves don't .matter and they're not there..In fact, that may be the case. If this is a compatible use, then this is an industrial area. The State instituted Master Plan ch.anges year's ago because theY didn't want what you addressed in a pri.or hearing, spot zoning. This is. mY definition ~of spot zoning: you are taking one piece that is surrounded by nothing, 2 V~- acre, 5-acre, 1-acre I'and tracts rural and taking a piece not connected to in.dustrial and saying: that it is an industrial use that is a good use here. the night.- The ~real issue is this where you want a power plant, is it the right place and if it is then the whole area needs to change, you need to make a master plan change in this area and make it industrial, The reason Duke works is because 1-95 is a natural buffer and if you.go up and down the state and you take a look at the Turnpike .and. the Major Expressways you will see inrdustrial.on one side and residential on the other. What you W ! , on t.see is ~industrial going .right down with no transitional zoning. When you are in the Community Development business they don't take high rises and.put them right next to acre estrates. 'They don't take warehouses .and put them next to expensive homes'. They transition, you' have a different product going'next to different things so you.r uses ' are compatible, The other issue we have in particular is that there is no buffering along the northern property line. We would like to see a berm installed along the northern property'line. Compatibility.is a .major concern. The.last concern is the effect of.the plant on property values. will have a negative effect on their proiect. in his opinion, the facility Mr. Lounds aSked Mr. Freeman if the wells for his groves are aquifer deep wells and what the salt content of the grove was. Mr. Freeman stated he wasn't really sure, but he believes they are. He couldn't give the salt :content. Mr. Lounds asked staff is there-are, any provisions for a berm on the north end on the project. Mr. Kelly stated that at this time there are none because there is additional 39 acres owned by the ap.plicant to the north that was to left as open space. .Mr: Lounds-~.sked .Mr. Freeman how much acreage of groves he owns on the north end of this prope~y, and what the status of the groves were. Mr. Freeman stated he had 2'0 acres that is currently inactive grove and an' additional Planning and Zoning CommissiOn February 15, 2001- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 25 1~0 acres that is .not being cultivated at this time and an additional 20 acres across Muller Road.. TotallY 50 ~acres, with 20 acres producing. They have 10 acres rod and 10 acres Valencia oranges. The Valencia trees are probably 20 years old and the Reds are mixed with a lot of young trees. Al 'Malefatto representing the'applicant, stated that the facility will be bound by the PNRD conditions and site p/an approval, as well as the environmental reports from DEP and SFWMD. If the facility is not in compliance with those permits and approval the facility will be in violation. They have every intention of being in compliance with their approvals, Mr. Malefatto stated that there will approximately 40 acres between the power facility and the no.rthern property line. There is an existing FP&L Transmission Line and right- of-way. The towers of the FP&L power line go up to 150 to 175 feet. There is already a problem With the view as the lines can be seen over the existing oranges trees on the north side. if. their proposed facility was not to build there those power lines would still be there. The are proposing a buffer with preserved, openr space and.a lake. In his opinion' there is Cerrtainly.adequate buffering. The most telling' qUestion is the appropriateness of'the .location. in looking at the power plant projectrS that have been proPosed and the existing electrical infrastructure, this is an ideal iocati:on.. We do have the FP&L T'ransmisrsiOn Lines existing just. north-of the proposed facility. The facility will be connecting to the lines withe.ut constructing additional transmission lines to get-to the substation. None of the comments from Mr. Cain, Mr. Ciklin or Mr, MelVille did they mention the existing FP&L SubStation, This is the attractor With the-existing transmission lines.- ThiS is where all of the plants have to hook into. The proposed facility is the shortest, distance from all of the pro osed plants..These-plants which they say are appropriate, have to. get across 1'95 to MidWay Road anrd build a line there, resulting an impact from the er plants. ! would also point out that these two facilities as pointed out by Mr..Melville ~are proposed on LTC Ranch property. So whether or not th~ey have an additional interest there, ! can't speak to, but it looks suspicious. Regarding ~Mr. Ciklin's ,l~ent s property to the east he is concerned again about the .impacts of our project. But ag~ain we have this FP&L Transmissi-on Line, a 500 KW, lots that aren't going to be moved. They are going to be there between hisclient's proposed residential development and the proposed power plant. Again, .we have an issue there about the appropriateness of.location, whether or not his residential development which.is right now a cartoon, .will ever be approved and .if that is an appropriate location ~for the plant. Mr. Ciklin was concerned about the air emissions from the facility. ! dare say that the 6,500 residential units and alrl those cars it produce and the traffic it produces is going to produce a heck of a lot more air pollution that the. gas' turbine generators. There was a comment about the water use. The facility has their application pending Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 26 with the ~SFWMD an-d ~as ! belier very seriously, They are cOnsid .permit ~with appropriate conditior W ~ ' e.don t ~do ~s impact existing us have to satisfy the District on an Chairman McCurdy asked if ther Board seei.ng non he returned tc Chairman McCurdy closed the Chairman McCurdy asrked if ther Mr. Hearn addressed the Board, el~ected offi:cials and people who 'e all of-you know the DiStrict looks at the water issue ~=ring the application and we believe they will issue the s. One of the conditions they are going to'make sure ers, that .is a very critical issue~that they are gOinrg to d we believe we will satisfy their concerns. e was any one else who would like to address the the board. public hearing. were any other questions for staff.. stating that one of the most important things that our serve on Boards who make recommendations to elected officials, need tO do and ou~ property values and the peel hard earned money, their life Ion community as a place to buy lan~ have in.'the community i live in. community ~and live in 'the comm~ protected. I~am not sure that put for is'in the best interest of peopl reputation as the County is at st~ money into. ! submit to you ~that best, in the State~of FlOrida, her( pmpe~y valUes and a ~low tax ba~ the past. I think we need to start we approve it. I forr~ one am goin,( Mr. Jones stated he was in supp( as being a significant impact to t~ .perspective of the. other eXisting the residents concerns with resp~ confident that the regulatory age~ to havo such an impact. Mr.-Lounds stated that this had b. the Board has had. ! asked each residence in which :he has been i~ good stewards of the-land and gc nursery in that area is what is goi think that question was answered no problem with.emissions. ! thin Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001, Draft Minutes have not done a good job in the past doing is to protect )le's investment in our community,, that have spent their g work in .St. Lu¢ie County. Many people look at our J cheap. I don't think that the reputation ! would like to think it is extremely important when people invest in a ~nity that they need. to have their property values ting a power plant in an area that this one is proposed e's investments in St. Lu¢ie.County. Ithink our Lke here, as far as, is this a good place to put our we have some of the best 'natural 'resources, if nrOt the in our community. Why should we have such IOw ;e? ! think it is because of the we made in looking real carefully at what we app and where ]to vote against this project. )rt of the project, He stated he oesn t see the project ~e neighboring properties when you view it in the mprovements like the power lines, interstate. ! share ~ct to potential environmental impacts, but, ! am ~cies will permit this Project only if it demonstrated not Bern one of the best informative public hearings that of the landowners how long they have lived in 'the ~. My concern is for the residents. I think you are od neighbors. One of my concerns, irS if I own a ng to happen from the emissions from the stacks. I as long as you are burning natural gas, there will be k there are probably more emissions into the: air from Midway Energy Center Page 27 the semis delivering fruit to Tropicana.than there is from the proposed facility. Property values, Mr. Freeman~has some pretty good ideas, i share his concerns and lalso share his .concerns over t~ing to .make a profit on oranges and grapefruit, intoday's citrus market.~ I think that maybe ~by having this Plant, his piece of property will increase in value. I am fOr this petition for several reasons: dont I~ke the location of it, but ! think the draw for this.~ location is the fact that the-FP&L Substation and transmission lines existing there, i think that if the lines and' substation was fUrther, out Selvitz Road the petitioner Would be fu~her out SelVitz Road. ! think the question of location keys to the transmission of FP&L. I am ~not concerned with the water because ! know where the petiti r is letting it and I have viewed the FP&L plants in Ft~ Meyers, Sanford and .Palatka. r. ~Hearn~s' concerns on properrty values has merit. ! also think that the cone6 Midway Corridor, :shoul taxable income, my hor good this plant. roadS, schoO s, or good. Ithink ,ne that is paying taxes as landowners that are living in ~this ' The County needs t° raise tax base for We need Iht industrial and on St. Lucie Co needs from impact our se~ such as coming tO St. Lucie County is it to our tax base. Mr. Lounds stated that 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, I hereby move that the Planning~and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Midway Energy Center, .fora Preliminary ~Planned Non-Residential Development approval for the Project known as Cooney-Midway Groves PNRD, Pa~ial Final Plann change in zoning from the AG-1 and AG-2.$ Zoning District to the zoning district. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon a mil call vote the motion was approved by a vote of 3 to 2~ with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes recused. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 28 " FoRM 8B MEMOFIANDU"M"'OF vOTIN'G CONFLICT FOR'--- ,COUNTY,, MUNICIPAL,, AND OTHER LO CAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME---MIOOLE NAME MAILING ADORESS 2980 S- 25th Street CITY PierCe. , OCCURRED COUNTY St- Lucie , , BOARO WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: a c~ :~ COUNTY jNAME OF POLITICAL suBDIviSION: St. Lucie County My pOSITiON IS: ' · ...... El, ELECTIVE AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON OTHER LOCAL AGE[NCY APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This fc~rm is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or'committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented With a voting conflict of interest under SectiOn 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in Which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending _ on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing th% reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.31'43, FLORIDA STATUTES . . A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or 'loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly .voting. on a mea- sure whiCh'inures to the special gain. or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss .of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec.. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative". includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from-voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measur& on which you are abstaining from Voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes. of the meeting, whO'should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of. the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction'. IF YOU' INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) , A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the :next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING- .. · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. .. - You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who' must incorPorate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the Other members of the agency, and the form must be-read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST !,__~ Stefan Matthes ..... hereby disclose that on . ~ebru~ 15 20 01 , · (a) A measure Came or'will como before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain or loss; __ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, . -. i inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ' . X _ . inured'to the special gain or less of .' my. ~lo~er' , by 'wh. om I am retain0d; 'or ........ " '"" ' · _ _ inured to. the special gain or loss of which ... is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. . . (b) The measure before my agency and the'nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as-follows: . AGENDA ~ITEM 6 .... FIT,F, 'NO; 'RZ "00-.',0'18 'MIDDY 'RMR, rRG~y ' ' ' ' ,.= ......... ~._:.. .... ' ' - . ".:' '..',:~__ i~ ~.~..:,. .. ,,...,~.'CRNTER.- Pet/itlon .of Midway Energy Center for ~rel~na~7 Planned 'NonreSidential': De'v'e~Opment' 'app~0Va~.for the Project Known as Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, and for '~a Change~..in ZOning from. the AG-1 (AgriCulturat~- i du/acre) .and AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2-5 acres) Zoning DiStricts to t. ahe PBIRD- (Planned NonreSidential. .Development - Cooney-Midway GrOve) ZOning District and partial final PNRD approval", for'a 35.97 acre land. ~ract ~to 1~ known~ as Midway Energy Center to allow the construction of a 132,550 square foot (building- 13,980. square feet, equipmsnt- 65,059 square-feet tanks 53,511 feet), 510 Megawatt, elec~ic generating plant. ' My firm has' done work for the current property owner. NOTICE: U~6'ER PR(~VISIONS OF FLORIDA sTATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES 'GROUNDS FOR AN'D"J~',~'Y' BE. iS'UN'IS'HEI~'By ON[~ oR MOR~ OF TFI:E FOLLOWINGi"It~EA'dHME'N'¢, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. ...... CE FORM 8B- EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIOOLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS M.EMO'RANDUM'''OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR MUNICIPAL AND 'OTHER LOCAL' PUBLIC OFFICERS ...... NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR CoMMiTTEE` COUNTY ._q. -i:._ __ T.'uc±e WHICH ! SERVE IS A UNIT OF: QCITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. L~cie County MY POSITION IS: ' ELECTIVE , AUTHORITY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This f(~rm is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or' committee. It. applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112,3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities Under the law when faced with voting on a measure in Which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatlY depending . on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing thee reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11.2.31'43, FLORIDA STATUTES .. A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss, Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly .voting on a mea- sure ~which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (inclUding the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special-tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote baSis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a'"retative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister,.father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business-associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measur~ on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS' Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording-the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS, (continued) · ^ copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. o The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE D~CISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEriTING: · You must disclose' orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. .. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days a~ter the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes o[ the meeting, who must incorPorate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be Provided immediately to-the Other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting a~er the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ,~:l Merritt .... ~.-., hereby disclose that on _ l~P_]~.~3R~z. '15,. __ 20 .Qi_._: (a) A measure Came or'will come before my agency which (ciieck One) ~; · inured to my special pdvate gain or losS; .__ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ., inured to the. special gain or ioss of my relative, · inured to the special gain or losS of .. "whOm ! am retained; or ....... " " ....... inured to the special gain or loss of , .. , is the parent org'anization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. · . . (b) The measure before my agency and the'nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which AGENDA .' ITEM '6: ':'FI~.-'NO,'..'RZ~00'0i8:'MID~Y."~~y,.'~R 'Petition of Midway. Energy Center for preliminary' Pl'anned N°nres±dent£al"'Deve'10pmen% aP~r0va~' for the Project Known as. Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, and for a :Change. in' 'Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - I dU/acre) and 'AG-2.5 (Agricultural-- i du/2.5 acres')'Zoning Districts to the PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development-- C°°ney-Midway:Grove)..Zoninq District and partial final PNRD approval for a 35.'97 acre~ land tract to ~' knox'm as Midway Energy Center to-allo~ ~2~4e constru, ction of a 132,550 square foot (building - 13,980 square .feet' equipment .... 65,0519' square feet, tanks 53,511 feet), 510 Megawatt, electric generating Plant. I have been involved in the sale of the property.. Date Filed · ,. . S~gnature NOTICE: U~bER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY' REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ~CONSTI~UTES'GFIOUNDS FOR AN:D"~',~;Y'' BE' F;UN'ls'HEb'By ©N'~ oR MOR~ OF TFt'E~ FOLLOWING'i"I~E~HME'NT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM: OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, 'DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/;:)000 PAGE 2 St. Lucie County Planning'and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd floor Roger Poitras Annex February 15, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TOiORDER:~ A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll .Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA AGENDA ITEM. 1: MEETING. MINUTES JANUARY !.8, .200!~ Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of the January 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ 01~001~ROSE KYLE PROPERTIES Petition of Rose Kyle Properties, fOr a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial,-Neighborhood) .Zoning District to the CO (Cornmerical Office Zoning District. Staff comments by Hank Flores. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission ...... Exhibit #2: Staff Report, site Plan and Site Location Maps AGENDA .ITEM 3: FILE NO. RZ-01-002 .VEDIC.CULTURAL SOCIETY, INC.' · Petition of VediC CUltural SoCiety, Inc. for a'%ange in Z°ning from theCG (c°mmercial, General) Zoning District to 'the (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Shay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to'County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site' Location Maps Pet . for a boundary change tO a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development approval for the Project'known as Westchester, PMUD. Staff comments by David P. Kelly. ActiOn Recommended: Fo~ard Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit g4: .Staff Report and' Site. Location Maps to a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the Project knOwn as Westchester, PUD, Staff comments by David P. Kelly. Action Recommended: ForWard Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 6: FILE NO, RZ-00-018 MIDWAY ENERGY CENTER Petition of of Midway. Energy Center, fOr Preliminary Planned Nonresidential Development approval for the PrOject Known as Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, and. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre)and AG-2.5 (Agricultural.-.l du/2.5 acres) Zoning Districts to the PNRD (Planned' Nonresidential Development - Cooney-'MidwayGrove) Zoning District and partial final PNRD approval for a 35.97 acre land tract to be known as Midway Energy Center to allow the construction of a 132,55.0 square foot (building- 13,980'square feet; equipment- 65,059 square-feet, tanks 53,511 square feet), 510 .Megawatt, electric generating plant. Staff comments by Cyndi Shay, ACtion Recommended: Fo~ard Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report and Site Location Maps OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regUlar Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on March 15, 2001 in Commission Chambers at the ROger Poitras Annex Buildin ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. Ifa person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning CommiSsion/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at Such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the'proceedings, .and that, fOr.such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings iS.made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any pa~ to the proceedings, indiViduals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be .~anted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disabili~ requiring a¢comodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at le~t forty, eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561)462.!777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may'be referred ~to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586. Agency Review: January 18,2001 Department Of Community Development Administration MEM'ORA NDIIM TO' Local Planning Agency Members FROM' Dennis Murphy, Asst. Director of Community Development DATE: January 10, 2001 SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 01-001 Attached is .a. copy of Draft Ordinance 01-001 which-would proposes to am. end the County's temporary use .provisions-and sign permit exemptions for certain activates associated With the on and off-premises sales and display of motor vehicles. These requested, amendments have been proposed through the County by the local automobile dealers asso¢i.ation membership in order to try and address a problem that they foreSee in advertising and marketing in the community. The proposed amendments to Section 8.02,02 would provide for the conducting of tent sales on..a particular parCel at least once a month, as opposed to the twice annual restriction now on the books. These amendments would also provide that two of these once a month tent sales could be aS long as seven (.7) continuous days, as opposed tothe four. (4) day restriction for the other months. The amendments to Section 9,04.00, Sign Permit Exemptions, allows for the use of. flags, banners, b'alloons, and pennants that may be attached to stationary automobiles and other motor vehicles, marine vehicles/vessels .and recreational vehicles .which. may be used as part of the advertising displays .for any permitted or authorized temporary sales activity for those automobiles and other .motor vehicles, marine vehicles/vessel and recreational vehicles. Staff recommends that .the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 01-001 the Board of County Commissioners for further review and comments, if you have any questions, please let me know. "' DJM/ 001 mem I (H) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ORDINANCE NO. 01-001 WriER the OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES, MARl RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES SECTION 9'04.00, ~SlGNS, PERMIT EXEI THE USE OF FLAGS, BANNERS, TO STATIONARY AUTOMO AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELO.PMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 8.0~;02(C), TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTUR-ES, PARTICULAR:TEMPORARY USES PERMITTED, TO PROVIDE FOR EZPANDEDii:"~ENT SALE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATEDi~ITH AND PART OF ADVERTISING DISP AUTH O RIZE D 'TE M PO RARY A AND OTH.E. VEHi HI AND DEP P! . .I PR FOR AD .:.:~.:~:~.:::.~::., .:~:~:~:~:.- . VEHICLES, AL VEHICLES, AS A ITTED- OR ACTI VI~Y ~i!..ii!i~,O'R THOSE VEHIC'EiES, MARINE BY PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; FILING WITH THE R AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ON. : . !" ...... . :~ ..~ "":?i~!~?:.:. 91.~031~" - · '-":'?;~?i~i~.' .... '- 93-01 .. of St: Lucie County, Florida, has made rd of County Commissioners of St. Lucie the St. Lucie COunty Land Development County Commissioners has adopted certain amend to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, throughli~he following Ordinances .... March 14, 1991 91-09 November 7, 1991 92,17 February 16, 1993 93-03 May .-t4, 1991 June '2, 1992 February 16, 1993 Underline is for addition ........· .,,, ,,,,~, ,h-o', ,.,'g"',, is for'deletion Ordinance #01-001 a Drraft #1 Page 1 PRINT DATE: 01/10/0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ., ,, , 93-,05 - 'May 25, 1993 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-18 - August 16, 1994 95-01 - January 10, 1995 97~01 - March 4, 1997 97,23 - September 2, 1997 99-02 - April 6, 1999 99,04 - August 17, 1999 99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-17 - September 7, 1999 00-10 - June 13, 2000 00,12 - June 1'3, 2000 On ... ~, the Loca Zoning Commission held.a public after ~publishing noticein the Port 93-06 94-07 94-21 96-10 97-09 99-01 99-03 99-05 99:16 :~;!;!i??" 00-13 ...... . ...... ...... ..... ....... ...... .... ....... .... .....,...... ....... .............,., .:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.~... 3:::i:i:i.si:!':i: least 10 days prior to the hearid~'~'' and ~proposed ordinance be app - May 25, 1993 - June 22, 1994 - August 16, 1994 - August 6, t996 - October'7, 1997 - February;2, 1999 - .:?!~.. August:f7, 1999 - ~::?!i!?~.ul. yi.i20, 1999 - .:.-~ii.;iii;! ; :.ii ;; ~iail.~' 20, 1999 -"q¢;?.?:!/i...:i!'.i?~.~ember 2, 1999 .:::%:;:.:. - ...i!'!'. .... . .....:. ....... :...'!:' )0... v:.:'::- ...... ...... ....:.-:........ ....:... _. . .... ............. :-:.: :.:... - .... ;.iii?" ' ............... .:-::-:-::..:.':' ............................, ...... .,.-........ .: :. .,...- ..... . :.: :::.:.. :~i;.i.:.::. ' ':¥+'"'" ' ' "' ' Agency/Planni:~gand posod ordinanco d tho Tdbune at that the On the proposed o the rPOrt St --::::::,:::. ::>~ ..... · :::-:::::-' NO~;i;THEREFORE LuCie' County, Florida / ':::i:i:i:i:i .... :;-F:.:~: ? .. '" :':-:: i:.:.: ::':.;:::::::~:.' PART A ..... - : :.:.:::.:.:. :.. . ..:.-: posed OrdinanCe, Publisl pro: aft, er~.. ............... POrt St. Lucie News an:~".the T thi;~::!Board h.¢!¢?its second public hearing.on a notico of such hoarin§ in ne on . .....to the St. Lucie, County Land consistent with the general purpose, goals, ...... Lucie County Comprehensive Plan of the health-safety and public welfare of L~ie County, Florida. hearing on the hearing in the by the Board of County Commissioners of St. THEiSp!Ei~IFIC','AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUClE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO Underline is for addition ............ ~,,, is for deletion Ordinance #01-001 a Drraft #1 Page 2 PRINT DATE: 01/10/01 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE: 8.02.00- 8.02.02 C, CHAPTER VIII . . ....: -:i-ii':i:::::.. - · . ..... ACCESSORY AND TEM!PORARY~ ~.. STRUCTURES ANiD USES .... '":!z?!? :~ ~:~:.:,¥. TEMPORARY USES AND-STJ . PARTICULAR TEMPORARY USESiii~E Tents for temporary uses and are used as temporary cover to those .events or .sales ~.~,~,.:~: 1. No more than two..~(2)i~Vents. sam e '-p rope rty d ~iii~ii~g.?~any S .? -:::::::::. ... :.. .: -:- '" '"""' .:: :::::::::::::::::::::: ' ' .:!:Z::'::;::::" .... :.i:i':.?::' .:i.i:.:'?:i.i:i:!:i;i:i:f:::' .-......-:::::::.:....:.i:i:i:!::" ...:,:.:.:,:q.:+:.:.:.-.... ;i~eaccesso'~i.'.:-tO"the principal use and or sales for uses directly related · . i:~i;.i,'%.: ::.:.'.' -.:.::::.i:i:i:i!;;i.li:.?!:~!~?,!~.:i:;i::. ... each are conducted on the except that; arine vehicles/vessels and :tents may al.s0 'er during special sales and er motor vehicles, marine ;s a maximum of four.(4) tildes per calendar year, on the-same property, for periods'not'tO- ...... !~f:~?~!~~xce~ed a total of seven (7) continuous daYS. Ordinance #01-001 a Drraft #1 Underline is for addition ............ ~,, is for deletion Page 3 PRINT DATE: 01/10/01 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~5 16 17 18 1~9 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 CHAPTER IX SIGNS 9.04.00 PERMIT EXEMPTIONS The following types.of signs shall not be required to have a sign p~rmit- .'.::i ======================= be le vehi b~ ... ~.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~'. ...... County, ordinanc applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance to. the extent of such. conflict. If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoPOrative, or voi.~.;sUch holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If' thi:S;ordinance~,r. Or?'any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicabl, e to any person, propeirt~; or ci.~CUmstance, sUch holding shall not affect its applicability to any.other person · .. Underline is for addition ....... ..... ~,~ is for deletion Ordinance #01-001a Drraft #1 Page 4 PRINT DATE: 01/10/01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 property, or circumstance. PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable throughout 'St. Lucie County's jurisdictib:~'. ..... i' -,i.::'!:!::. :':::::"<' . . . ..... ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PART E. FILING WI'TH THE DEPARTMENT OEi!iSTATE. .:.~.!:.i:i:i:!:F .--~-.-: :-: ........ :...:.:.:... · :.:-:...x.,': . ::!:: !.:.. ..<.::.: .:...: The.Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to se~!~ a certi~i~dcopy .the Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws?ii!~!~p.a~i~'~nt of S Tallahassee, Florida 32304. ":?!'i~i :PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. "' · :.: <.. :.:~:. >: :.~::::..:::.< .:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::~.. ========================================================= ======================================================== ·..:...: :.:..:~.?.~ · .;':'::~,?i.;i,:':i.::i:!;i,'..!':~! ..<<¢..::.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:,:.::. This ordinance shall take effect upon .,....i!...,... '<~::'+:.:..:-:.:.;<-.:,x,~x.:,:::.:,:!!" :.. .... :;'..:::-":::" · :f::.:::. :.' :.: :::. 7:.b:: ...... PART G. ADOPTION, .... _::.~!4:.:'::' . After motion and second, the .~~:?°'n thiSi~i~:rdinanceiiii~as as follOws' :':.:.:-;.::.:~.:.;: ,:: ..... ~?~:,. Chairma xx,??? .... XXX ...... ............... '-'.: ":"';:' ............. Coward XXX · XXX .... :~.~?: iiii/.~.: Cliff Barnes ................ XXX HZ, D. Bruhn XXX ordinance shall be incorporated-in the St. Lucie County Code and Underline is for addition ............ ~,, is for deletion Ordinance #01-001 a Drraft #1 Page 5 PRINT DATE: 01/10/0t 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Compiled Laws, and the word' ".ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be ronumbered.or relettered to accomplish Such intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified PASSED AND-DULY ENACTED this XXth day of XXXXXXXXXX, :2001. ATTEST: -. ;::.. . ,...:,:::...:,..... :.-:...:.:.:.. .... ._.. . . .. .-.-.:.:.. .:i:i:!:i:i:'" . i::. ';'::: .'.. :.:.::: '.:::':-::' .-. -"~:.'-' .... BOARD ~.i COUNTY' :CoM:~'Ji~SIONERS:~iii?? .... ST. FLORID~iiii'i.. ~. ;! '.i!i:i:i?i: ...... ' .. ...... DEPUTy CLERK ":.:';,::i.:" ' i-'i .- -:~.:..:.;.:.:....:. :...:.. :,................... ........ :....:::,:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...._..: . _ ..::::!?i:.:!':i;'!.!:i;i-i;i!:?!:i!i':: .. '.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..::.:::.::.:.. .:!::.'::-!.:!'? .-x,.:,:..' ..::i!!:: ,:,~!:ii.~;~;:i;!';::~. .- .::i'i':" :{::-i¢i:..'.i!:'- .. :.i;~ii!iii!!i?' ..:~i;i:i~i!iLiiiiiii!i!!': AP VED AS TO FORM AND .... ..... ? ...........COUNTY ATTORNEy Underline is for addition ............ ~,-, is for deletion Ordinance #01-001 a Drraft #1 Page 6 PRINT DATE: 01/10/01 ~ JAN-O~-~001 ~.0~0~ 386318 2x12 1/8t0! . Page I - Composite NOTICE OF' ESTABLISHMENT ~**CHA OF REG, ' AF ~ ' ..N~.~;.; , U-ATION FECTING THE USE-OF LAND 'The St. Lucie ~County Boar~l ot~ County Commissioners propose to adOpt the following ~rdlnance: AN St. If any ~erson ~ecide~, to appeal any' cleC~'s~ made with ~ ..... .... g W, ~ Cll ~ r ~ so~ gro~p~ ma~ pe~. ~,~.~ r~,d ofr / P~e~ ngs and ~a~ tot su~ put. se may-ne~ to ensure [ me a-~ ~-~~e~e~L~ ~ ,, =..= ~u ~ =as sa. u~n ~e .m~e= of anY ~a~ to /~e pr~ =ding. indN~[ a~ ~ing durihg a hearing will ~ /~0r" i,, Any ~W t) ~e Pr~in~ ~i~ be g~ted an F ~~ ~'~m' ~0~ mine any indMdual ~sti~ing ~ng a Thi~no~ e t [ *,~ ~~ ~ ed ~ ~ ~ay of Ja,uary. 2o01. LOCAl. P~NNtNG AGENCY/P~NNiNG AN~ Z0N~ ~MM~SS~ON J~/Stefan Ma~es., Ch~ir~n TOTAL P.02 From: Ann Amandro To: Eileen Norton Date' Tue, Mar 6, 2001 2:43 PM Subject: CU_00-009 Did you hear anything about this sign? This is the one that the address was wrong. 02/09/01 Board of'County Commissioners 2300 Virginia. Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 Re: Property location-North'side of Ulrich Road, approximately 250 feet west of South US Hwy #1 To Whom It May Concern: As 'property owners' of lots 4'0-50 and section 243 we do object'to the request for rezoning to ~ ~om CG. ,It would~be spot zoning as CGis on the East side and then we have CG on the West side~Oft~ property '~and CG is on the. NOrthside also.. We went through the proper channels to~ obt~ CG zoning and the zoning is continuous from USgl as CG. When we obtained o~ zoning we had to buy lots 49-50 as you would not spot zone around it. We 'object t°. any rezoning other than these properties remaining CG. Millard P. Hill JaYmee D. ~ prelimina~ P~D 'Prior to ,the issuance of any building permits for any development on Lot 1, a revised PNRD application with supporting documentation must be received and approved by. the Board of County Commissioners. This application must detail the proposed development for .the subject 'property, including a detailed analysis .of proposed uses for ~.the project. The current approval for Midway Energy Center (ENRON).in no way obligates the County to future approvals for this portion of the project. o Prior to any approvals for ~development for Lot 1, a minimum of 1,77 acres of the remaining 41.59 acres Shall be dedicated as open space for the overall development. ConSistent with other development approvals granted along West Midway Road, prior to, or as part of, the final platting of the subject property,., the developers shall be required to .convey to St. Lucie County, in manner and form acceptable to-the St. Lucie County Attorney, 40 feet of additional' right-of-way along the site plan's southem property line for.the future widening of West Midway Road. To the extent pe~tted under the County':s Code and Compiled Laws, any such dedication maybe considered eligible for Road Impact Fee Credits. , Prior to:the'issuance of any certificate of occupancy or other use authorization for this' facility, the 'final plats for the :Cooney-Midway C~ove PNRD, shall have been approved by St..'Lucie County and all required improvements necessary to service the Midway Energy Center site .consistent with that, plat shall' have been completed, or security provided for, in a manner acceptable to St. Lucie County. o Prior to. issuance of any developmem approval for. any site construction, for Lot 1, 'the developer shall construct on West Midway Road, a dedicated eastbound 'left turn.lane at the intersection of the Private roadway and West MidWay Road. The proposed private entrance into the subdivision shall be dedicated to the Master Association. , .The apP!icant shall co/nnect to central-water and sewer services upon the installation ofcen~al water and sewer lines along West Midway Road for potable water..and, domestic~.:sewer.~service. The use of the private well shall be discontinued except fOr 'irrigation use until such time as 'an alternative water resource for ~gation is available. o Lot 3 shall be kept as Open space in perpetuity as indicated on the PNRD Master Site Plan , Ali power 'lines for the proposed subdivision shall be reqUired to ~be placed underground, except the:transmission !ines fr0m Lot .2 to,the ~&L facilities.~ ,Partial Final P~D 10. As part of the construction of this project, the .developer shall be. required to construct .the private roadway from West Midway Road to the project entrance. All works in this are to be done prior to a Certificam of Occupancy for the Midway Energy Center. 1I. Prior to' the.issuance of'any certificate of occupancy or other use authorization for this facility, the developer shall be required to construct a westbound right-turn lane into the facility at the project entrance along West Midway Road. 12. Prior to the applicant being pe~tted to increase the number of hours of operation for oil or gas, the .applicant shall be required to submit a modified PNRD application to be approved by the Board of County Commissioner. The applicant wil!.be~, d:~mo f0r ~a-t0tal of 3,500 hours, upon approva!.by the. EnVironmental Protecti0nAgency fEPA). Prior to the issuance-of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this .Site, al! exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. PLANNING .AND ZONING COMMISSION-REVIEW: 02/15/01 File Number RZ-01-001 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Zoning. Commission Planning Manager 4© Febmary 7, 2001 :SUBJECT: Application of Rose Kyle Properties, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District. LOCATION: South 'side .of West Midway Road, approximately 200 feet east of South 25th Street E~STING ZONING: -CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) PROPOSED ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: CO (Commercial, Office) /]RI.I (Residemial Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 2.09 acres PROPOSED USE: Medical Office PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A,'- Section 3.01.03(R) CO (Commercial, Office), contains the designated uses whch are permitted by fight, permitted as an accessory use,-or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo.further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family~- 2 d~acre) to the south. CN to west. ~CG (Commemial, General) to the north and northwest. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential- 1 du/acre)to fhe east~ SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is residential to the south. There are several commercial uses to the west and north. White City park is located to the east. February 7, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Rose Kyle Properties File No.- RZ-01-001 2 FI~/EMS PROTECTION: The Future Land Use .Classification of the immediate surrounding area is. RS to the soUth. COM '(Commercial) to the west and north. RU (Residential Urban) to the east and nOrth. Station #6 (350 East Midway Road), is located approximately 3 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE.: The subject property would be served by a well and septic system. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for West Midway Road is 80 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: Midway Road Pl.a/nning, Development, and Engineering (PD&E) robe done by Fiscal Year 1999/2000. Construction is not scheduled. TYPE OF CONCU ~RRENCY DOCUMENT ~QUiRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STAND~S OF ~VIEW AS SET FORTH IN ~SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning 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; e The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 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 elements of the .St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The RU Future Land Use allows the CO Zoning 'District when the criteria of Policy 1.1.8.4 are met. These criteria are met in this case. February 7, 2001 Page 3 Petition: Rose ~Kyle Properties File No.' RZ-01-001 e e Whether and the extent to which the proposed z°ning 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. Commercial Uses are to the north and west. Across Midway Road to 'the north is a retail area. Whether there have been changed, conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have changed so as to require an amendment. The CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). Zoning District was amended on July 20, 1999, through Ordinance 99-015. Ordinance 99-015 revised Section 3.01.03(Q) - CN (Commercial, NeighbOrhood) to delete those uses which were .determined to be incompatible with the zoning district's intentions. The purpose of the CN Zoning District is, "to provide and protect .an environment suitable for limited-retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve, the population living in SU~ounding neighborhoods.. Health Services, Which includes dental .offices, was deleted because it was felt that such a use would 0~en draw people from outside the neighborhood. In this case,, the proposed use is at the intersection of major roadways. (Midway and 25t~' Street). Thi~. !°Cation woUld provide good access· and would allow fOr a s~rvice area considerably larger than a neighborhood, Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would~ result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation 'facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, 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 hatural 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 local environmental regulations. The subject property is currently utilized as Irene .Reese Real Estate, February 7, 2001 Page 4 Petition: Rose Kyle Properties File No..: RZ-01-001 7' W'hether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly ~and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such Patterns; An~orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning. The surrounding .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 in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. ,COMMENTS The. petitioner, Rose Kyle Properties, has requested this change in zoning from the CN (commercial, Neighborhood) to the CO (Commercial, Office)Zoning District in order to .develop · the property fora medical office. The site. currently has a single-family residence on it, which is utilized as an office for Irene Reese Real Estate. Attached is a copy of Section 3.0.1,03(R), CO (Commercial, Office), of the St. Lucie County -Land Development which delineates the permitted, accessory-, and conditional uses allowed in the Commercial. Zoning District. 'If the change in zoning request is approved, the applicant, by right, Wo~uld~be. al!owed to establish any of the uses under the Permitt'ed Uses. section. Any ~use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exists on the subject . Any. use~ under the ConditiOnal Uses section could .only be alloWed if it first the Board of County Commissioners: Staff.has reviewed thiS petition and dete~ined that it conforms with the standards of review -as set in the St. Lucie.County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, Please contact this office if yOu have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: Rose Kyle File Suggested motion.to reco ~.mmend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. MOTION TO APPROVE AFTER CONSIDEPdNG THE TESTIMONY P~SENTED DURING THE .PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE 'COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~COMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD .OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF ROSE KYLE PROPERTIES FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE .CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBO~OOD) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE 'CO (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ..... [CITE ~ASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED D~NG THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE 'COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,. I HE.BY .. MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOA~ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF ROSE KYLE PROPERTIES FOR A Ct4ANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEI'GHBO~OOD)ZONING DIST~CT TO THE CO (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ..... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section. 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations Q. CN COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOP 1. Purpose The purpose of this district ' is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population IMng in'surrounding neighborhoods. The number in "0" following each identified use corresponds -to the SiC code reference described in Section- 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses h, Beauty and barber services. (723/724) Civic, social'and fraternal associations (~4~) Depository institutions (~0) Laundering and drycleaning (self-service). Real estate (es.) -Repair services: (I) ElectriCal repair, (ze2) (2) Shoe repairs (?2s) (3) Watch, clock, jewelry, and musical instrument repair. (7631) Retail trade (each building shall .be less than 6,000 square feet gross floor area, all uses inclusive): (1) Antiques ($932.) (2) Apparel and accessories. (3) Books and stationery. (s~42/s,43) (4) Cameras and photographic supplies. (5) Drugs and proprietary. (6) Eating places (~8~.~ (7) Florists. (8) Food stores (5~) (9) Gifts, novelties, and souvenirs. (10) Hobby, toy and game shops (11 ) Household' appliances (sz2) (12) Jewelry. (13) NewSpapem and: magazines. (~94) , (14) Optical goOdSr. (15) Nurseries, lawn and garden supplies. (16) Radios, TV'S, consumer electronics and music supplies (573) (17) Sporting goods and bicycles. (5~4~) (18) Tobacco prOducts. Video tape rental (78,) . 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. , Adopted August 1. 1990 114 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Off-street Parking .and Loading Requirements Section 3.01 .'03 Zoning Distdct Use Regulations Off-.street ~parking.and ioading.-requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00, o, Landscaping Requirements LandScaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. . Conditional ,Uses a,, c,. so Car Washes (Self Service Only)- subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.22. (999) Day care - adult (8322) - child (83sl) Postal services. (4311) Retail. trade: (1) Gasoline services - accessory to retail food stores under S1'C-5411. (sss) (2) Undistilled al. cOholic beverages accessory .to retail sale o[ food. (ss2~ - Except for liquor) Telecommunication towers - subject to the'standards of Section 7,10.23 (ess) . Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of S'ection 8.00.00-and-include the following: a,. Drinking places (undistilled .alcoholic.beverages)accessory to an eating.place. One dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, for on-site security purposes. Adopted August 1, 1990 115 Revised Through 08/01/00 .R. . . '. . ,. Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations COM'MERC!AL,,O.FFIC,E Purpose 'Fhe purpose of this:district is to provide and protect -an environment suitable for selected, office and commercial .uses, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with commercial office surroundings.. The numberin. "0'" following each identified uSe corresponds to the SIC: code, reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number.999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of'this code. Permitted Uses a. g. h. i. j. k. ~.. mo o. Adjustment/Collection & ~cmdit reporting services (7,32) Advertising Communications - excePt towem Computer programming, data processing and other computer related services Contract construction services - office only Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photography and stenographic .services (733) Engineering, accounting, research, management & related .services Executive, legislative, and jUdicial functions (9~.,z~3.~.,s,~,~?) Finance, insurance, and real estate services Health services ,- except nursing homes and hospitalS Memb~ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) services: Detective, guard and armored car services Secu~ Photofinishing: labo, mtories (z~s4) Busin (73a9) Personnel:' su services (73s) Social: Services: (1) I-ndiVidual: & family social serviCes (832/839) (2) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services Travel agencies (4724) Lot Size ReqUirements Lot size requirementS .shalli be. in aCcordance with Section 7.04.00. Dirnensional 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. Adopted August. 1, 1990 116 Revised: Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations C ond~tional Uses a, Child .care services (e35) Television and radio transmitting towers (999) TeleCommunication towers - subject to ,the standards of Section 7.1,0.23 (99.) Accessory Uses Accessory use are .sUbject ,to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: a. :Eating anddrinking placeS (undistilled alcoholic beverages as an accessory to a restaurant). b. Postal services. (43) ~ Adopted August 1, 1990 117 Revised Through 08/01/00 A Petition of Rose Kyl. e Properties for a-. Change in Zoning from CN (Com~mercial, Neig. hborhood) to CO (~6mmerciai, Office). ' Wes]: Midway' Road , Ora '-.,,,,1% rd Irl fo o w L.)r'lve i' R_ 01--001 ~~//~This pattern i'ndiCates subject parcel! 2 $ 6 ? River Brench IO il 15 Drive z2 21 Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 29, 2001 While eve~ effo~lhas been made to provide the mos! current and rote .. Zonin Rose Properties R'S-2.~ C¸G CG R-I West Midway Road CN R -3 AR-1 'RZ .01-001 f~/'.//~~..~1 Th i s p att e-rn indi c at es subject parcel River AR-.1 /O // Branch ~~ Community Development i Geographic Information Systems · ,~.,/ Map prepared January 29, 2001 information posslt~e. I is ~ Im~. for use as a legally t~ndlng document. S ¥£ L N .~ ~,S L£ NNIHS 'IVNV:) U3(3V3H aVO~l a33N$ s s£ I XiNnO0 0 s 9~; i avou 3Nrl 30NVU NOJ,'I~¥3 . , Rose Kyl Properties RZ 01~001, This pattern indicat'es subject parcel: i ,~ Community Development Geographic Information Systems '~ Map prepared January 29, 2001 This map hem beerl cO~plled for 9~mral Inf~'mation ;x:xs$1ble, tt is not tntefx:led for use as a- ~ I:dnding c~. 1'4 ' ' · .. ; · .. · ...mE NORTH'ST:' LUd~E'~V~, ~XTER'~G~'TROL' ~SfR~Cr CANAL No, ~,:~.Z,',~C,p;~DE,.,~H~=OF~X~';~~~I.~. ~". :.-: ' ' - .. s],~u~' COU~...F~p.,.~;~sO~:,"~SCR~.~. ~S:'~ ~A.C~L OF,~NO':t~iN~:~i'~'"S~C~,ON' ~.. TOWNS..'~~~.t~-::~' ': " · : . · ,~,:~ L~=FbSr'.AN~ S~Cr~ON'~4,.~TOWNSH~, . 'U~t 'AR--CULARLY.~SCR~,~D. AS FALLOWS: ;COMM~NC~'Ar rH~'SoUm~A~r~C~RN~R 0F r~ NORT,~Y~~ ~.' : ' '- · '.~R o~ ~,,~.s~c~,o, ~; ..~NC~..OR.. 0¢, ~,~.' w~S~ '~ONO ~.~ ~.S'T "N~ o~. T.~ "~~t. : ~~~"-~ O~.1t~' :':: · S~,~ S~C~,'ON' ~ ~ ~,ST~NC~ b~'~.6~ ~ET TO ~H~ NORTH ~,OH~=O~-W~Y UN~ O~ M,~W~.RO~ ;(CO~~S;~"~' :.-' 712} A 70 FOOT .WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY~ THENCE SOUTH 89°48'08" WEST ALOng THE NORTH RIGHT-OF, .' MIDWAY ROA~ (COUN~ ROA~ LUCIE RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT 'CANAL NUMBER 93 AND THE'POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ~ON~:~ ALONa.'THE NORTH R~GH~-OF-WAY LIN~ 0F' SA~ M~DWAY ROA~ SOUTH FEET; . THENCE ~EPART~Ng SAiD. ~oHT-oF-WAY UNE NORTH 00ol 8'53"' WEST X'D~STANCE OF ~NTERs~cT~ON W~TH THE NORTH :UNE OF' THE' NORTHWEST aUARTER OF SA~O SECTION ~; THENCE EAST A DI:STANCE 'O~ .1318,4~ FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'41" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1~88.94 ~T .RtGHT,OF,WAY.,LIN~ OF .SAID ~N~L N~MBER 93;'-THENCE YOUTH 00°00'.43T WAY LINE .OF SAID CANAL NUMBER 9g ~A DISTANCE OF 1318.97 FE~.TO'THE IN?ERSECflON THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAIl NUMBER 93, SOUTH' 00°1 THE ,.....,.(~ . : . . , · .... ~.. ..~ ,-.,,...,;,.,..... - ~;.~?; ...... .. , -95- "- .,f:l.o.I;id~ .a..s~.ec. o~,.'.~., .j~[~.. Book I page 231S.f, Lucie TaX.Id N,o~.3.46~'~):2~696-000/6 . .' ' .. Locatio.~.."-~uth':'~'~ ~ W~,t' MidWay Road,' [ change ,in zoning iCily Sut:~:livi~ion Section. of the :lot right 0f' way ~t · ".." ":'":" .".. ' ,-.~ .... ~.,,, .....~!:~ ~,,.2 ~~:?:'; ~.: :,. :!; ::..:. ? ~::.:.?: :..::.~,:,~:.-~:~!:~!. ";'i::';.::-i. ,:i:i i?.""!:~' "!.:' i i.'f :.']:::: '::: :.,.' ..' .: i .... ,67~'~,'~::~, a ~;.:..: ;:!:::,:.:,..: ....: .... : :.: ... ,., .:.!..~? . . . . , . · : o · #. .. · : '" ::"' ;."~ ,':'. t."'~'~:.~" ."::;~':"-,* ',' .... ' ~.' · , ' · · ' ~', · ' ' ,' · .. ...,'... ;' '. ".' ' ' '. '- - -' .'.' - - '.-...' ,' · ...' ... ....'. ' ." .' . ,:~ .,,e.,?-~ 'distunc~',:of 100.0~~06" ~, ~.:dlstance:.of. 45~2,35 'feet.to~:th;~· t~Inaing af.:~"~'.~f.~ .... :.. :.'.-: -'.: i... - .... :... -. ' . . .': '.. . ~oncave tdi'thb':.North, having a radiu'S."'.~.~.i.950;OO]:'f.~el?':j, fience along, tim arc:'bf,sbld'~rve,throbgh a central on61· ~f[',~2°~!8~21"~i "'.' ""i ~'.' ' ':":.!':i !' :-'.":.:::' : ' . distance of '704.22 feet; thence 'N 3~46.1.'5" E, aah-.f~6ent to last described CUrve, o distance of.33.95 feet; ~t~en~ :N 12o.26,5~:;, -... :.:. :. .. . ~ w, a'distan¢6':0f 315.54 feet;thence 'N.:~l°49'36".'E~.i'~i"distance 0f;214.11 feet; thence N 84052'28". E,.o distanc~_'".of 300,55.f~f? ' : :' :! ': :' : .:.. :' . "'i' · ' .' .. thence N 14°09'53" W, a distanc~ of,~_42.58 feet; tl{~nce N ~2°27;35" E, a distance of 39.61 feet; thence N ~9°13'49" W,"~i' .. ": :' "" :-:' : · ':: · distance of'280.04 feet; thence N 07°i3'39" W, a distance of 222.22 feet; thence N 03°00'12" E,'a distance of 59.95 feet; thence' ' :' ' ' ":"' :'" ' ".'.:"!.'!. "'" N 04°54'56," W,.a distance 'of 2'2'1.93 feet; thence hi 17.°51"33" W, a distance 0f 60.24 feet; thence N 35°24'06" E, a distance of ... . ~. -" ' . ' 74.68 Feet; thenc~ S 70°38'31" E, a distance 'of 91:16 feet; thence S 78°08'31" E, a distance of 187.63 feet to the beginning 0f'a . ::.- - · ' non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a. t'adius of 161.90 f~et; the Chord of which bears N '63°40'43'' E; thence along [.i . . [:... -:. i'" :': - · - the arc of-said curve .through a central angle of 65°49'09", a distance.of 185.99 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, curve ' " concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 65(~.00 feet; the chord of which bears N 31 °39'20.". E; thence along flm arc .of said curve through a central angle of 26°41 '20", a dista~ibe of 302.78 feet; thence N 45°00'00" E, tangent.. 1o Idst described' curve, a ' '.. distance of ! 134,06 'feet; thence' S 45000'00". E,'a distance .of 636.49 feet'to the.:beginning of a curve concave' to ttm Southwest, · · -. . - haging a radius'. Of 2900,00. feet; the chord <~f v~hlcl~ibears S 3'5°41'31" E; thence'along.the arc. of said curve lhrough a centrc~l .. 4.0 ." ' . .. angle of 5 14 09 ·~a dtstance of 2368~13 feel; ttmi~'$.00°l 4'09" W, a distance.of 2059.65'feet to the Poir~f of Beginning. Containing 352.98 acres,, more or less. ' ........ ::'- 'Tax Id No. 4308~000-0000:000/7'. '. - '.:...-..: '. ". :. ::'. · ' ' . . . _. . . 4309-000-0000L000/0.. · . i ....' ' , . .. Location: I~orth of Gatlih Bird West ofr,lhter{fate,95 . · : ' · :".; ' - '- .. ' ' ' . . 6, A change in .the b~.undaries for a P~e~iO~Sl);'~.e~ommended rezoning to PMUD for the WestcheSfer Development Corporation! for' '. '. ' the following described property: . . . ~.eing a parcel of land located in Sections .~, and ]0~;Township,3-7 S;uth, ~ange 3~ east;:$L ~ucie .County, Florida. Said Parce~ being m~e'e particularly described as follows: : ~. ' " , · . . . ... . ..,. :. . . . . , , · ~n ~j.?,~e?~?n' of ne center!ine o,f .Ga. ~i.'~.~ulevard, (also being the No,h ~ine of S~k;~, ']5) '.a.,d the V~s~e~ly.llm,s of ~atdn uou!evord Right-of,V~oy and the Weste~rly limits of those lands .described in an Order of. Takir{g?.d~ted Ju1¥'24, '! 9798nd recorded in 'Officia'l Rec~)rd I~0ok 311 ~af' Pages 2~4~ .~through, '2952,'iticluslve, Public RecOrds:Of St. Lucie County, Florida, and as ;h,o.~n' th~. ~°qda Department.of rra,spo,otion'~ight~:Way .map~ ~& State ,oad #~ (I-~, S~iOn ~400~-~;~!~, dated '_ - '/z//z,'.with: last revision of 9/11/79; thenc~ Si~9°57'05" "W..alo'ng'said cenferline a distance of 2815.40 'feet-thence: N 0o e .w . , . , . 0 14 09 E, a distance of 2059~65 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve con&ave to the SouthweSt, hav~ng a radius of 3000.00 ~?t;?.then~-o!on_g '~e'.a. rc ~ Sa~a icu~a'.aroUgh'o ;~t~.~i angle of 36°~3'47"; a dj,rOnco of ~ 3~.86 f;t; thence N' 63~0'~2"' ~, o' d~s!.a,ce,~i~?0, f~.t; ?enCo' ~.~a,°~3'] 3". ~,a, a!S~,? .at ~ ~6.38 fe~i ~o ~e ~inn~'ng. Ofo ¢~e c°n~ve.to ~e So~, ,h~,i,g a' ra~!us,or?z3.uu feet; the':¢hOrd of which ~s :N.78-27~42" E; thence along .the· arc of'.sclld Curve through a central anglel of .......... ??'~ 57., o distance of ~.8~ ~eet; ,t~nce di~tance.~of'~2:~( feet.to ~o ~,ai,0ing ~'o C~,'',Cr0~:'..~e i~ .~he . . · ~onnwest beat~ N 47°34'02,'' E; thence along the arc of said Curv~'thr0ugh a central':.ang!e. radius of 527,97. feet;the chord 40°.10'52",'a '~listance of 3:70,2& 1. 956.76'f~e~ the Ch~rd of wt chord 193 ben, rs S ' ' · chord bf feet to a point of reverse· curvature 09°04'45~"E~ ithence along the 18°'11512 L".vE, a: distance. · ~0O.00.':r,~f; ~e chOrd distance at 25.00 thence S curve concave to' the West· having curve thr°ugh" a, ce'ntmi' Northwest, central .angle a curve concave '.to th9 East, having Curvatbr. e i ~ g thO"arc of Said c.u'hm through'~ cam:ave Beginning. * '. :..: · Tax Id'No. 4310,212,0001,000/2 :,. ...... " . ..~.~. . . _.'i?i' '. ,. -' .- · .., i 4309-000,0000':000/0....' .. '"~'..'. ' :' :].'.~:"j ": ,,,:~' '. ':' L6cation:. N .orth of'O~tltn 'BIv~l Wdst. of interstate. 95 ]' ' '"' : ' ' ' "" PUBLIC HEARINGS will.be held.in Commission Chamb&rs.'i Roger P0itras Annex~ 2300 Virginia Avenue,.Fort Pierce: ;Florida Fe.brUary;i5, 2001; ~innlng atT:00' P,M~ or as's~n ther~her as.possible.!- ' '.* . ': ~...': ...' .: PURSU,~N'T TO $edi'O~ 286~0i05; "FI0~qda statgt&s~ if a' person' d~cides t~ appeal any de~ision-made bY a'b0a~'d, C~gency, Or commission with respect't° c~y maiter c~nslder'~.~ a meeting or hearing, he ~vill need'a record, of the proceedings, and that,:f6~' su.c~ purposes, he may.n.eecl t°` ensure that a verbajtm record of the proceedings is 'mad6, Which-record lncledes t'he.~&stimony'an~l. ewaence upon which the ap.peal is to bebased. ~; ......... · . " ' ' " . PLANNING AND.' ZONING CC)MM1SSION ' : .'.; .ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ....... : '.' ' : ' : /S/Stefan Matth'es, CHAIRMAN ,... ':"? .. PUBLISH. DATE: February 5, 2001 : ' PLANN~G AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 02/15/01 File Number RZ-01-002 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager {~~ February 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Application of Vedic Cultural Society, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. LOCATION: North side of Ulrich Road, approximately 200 feet west of South U.S. Highway No. 1 EXISTING ZONING' CG (Commercial, General) PROPOSED ZONING: RF (Religious Facilities) FUTURE LAND USE: COM (Commercial) PARCEL SIZE' 1.55 acres PROPOSED USE: Religious Facility PERMrrTED USES. Attachment "A" - Section 3.01.03(Y) RF (Religious Facilities) - contains the designated uses which are permitted by fight, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as Prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: CG to the east, nol~h, south, and west. RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family to the southwest. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is commercial to the north, east, and west. There are residential uses to the south and further to the west. February 7, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. File No.: RZ-01-002 The Future Land Use Classification of the immediate surrounding area is COM (Commercial) to the east, north, south, and west. RU (Residential Urban) to the southwest. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #6 (350 East Midway Road), is located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property will be served by an on-site well and septic system. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for Ulrich Road is 40 feet. The right-of-way width for South U.S. Highway No. 1 is 120 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 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. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2~ 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 elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial Land Use Classification allows the RF Zoning District. February 7, 2001 Page 3 Petition' Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. File No.: RZ-01-002 e e ® e Whether and the extent 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 commercial to the west, east, and north. There are residential uses to the south and further west. Adjacent to the subject property to the east is a Texaco gas station and convenience store. To the north is a car dealership and to the west is a aviary store. Whether there have been Changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have changed so as to require an amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, 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. Ulrich Road is currently unpaved. As a part of the proposed development, this county roadway will be required to be paved to county specifications along the property's frontage. 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 local environmental regulations. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; An orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning. The surrounding parcels of property are designated for commercial uses. February 7, 2001 Page 4 Petition: Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. File No.: RZ-01-002 e 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 in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. COMMENTS The Petitioner, Vedic Cultural Society, Inc., has requested this change in zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District in order to develop the property for a religious facility. The site is currently vacant. 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, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zoning District. 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 under 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 Commissioners. Staffhas reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the 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. Attachment hf cc' Emesto Velasco, P.E. File Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF VEDIC CULTURAL SOCIETY, INC. FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RF (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ..... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF VEDIC CULTURAL SOCIETY, INC. FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RF (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ..... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01.03 Zoning Distdct Use Regulations S, . CG COMMERCIAL, ,GENE~L Purpose The purpose of this district is to Provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area, which do not impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area, together with such other ~uses as may be necessary to and. compatible with general commercial surroundings. The number .in "0" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.0.! ,02(B). The'number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.-00 of this code. Permitted Uses eo m, ~l. O. p. q. F. $. t. U. V. W. X. y. Zo bb. CC. dd. ~e. ff. gQ- AdjustmentJcollection. & credit reporting services AdvertiSing (73'1) AmPhitheaters (,9s) Amusements & recreation services- except stadiums, arenas, race tracks, amusement parks and bingo parlors (7~) Apparel & accessory stores (~) Automobile dealers (ss) Automotive rental, repairs & serv. (excePt body repairs) (751,753,754) Beauty and 'barber services (723/724) Building materials, hardware and garden supply ¢2) Cleaning services Commercial printing (,9~) Communications. except towers Computer programming:; data processing & other computer serv. (737) -Contract ction serv. (office & interior storage only)Cu and nature exhibitions (,,~) Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog, serv. (733) Eatin Edu( services - except public schools ¢2) Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services (87) EquiPment rental and leasing services (735) ExeCutive, legislative, and judicial' functions (91/92/93/94/95/96/97) Farm labor and management services (0TS) Financial, insurance, and real estate (60/61/62/63/64/65/67)~ Food stores (s4) Funeral and crematory services (726) Gasoline service stations (55~) General merchandise stores (53) Health 'services (80) Home furniture and furnishings (57) Landscape & horticultural services (07$) Laundry, cleaning and garment services (721) Membership organizations - except for religious organizations as provided in Section 8.02.01 (H) of this 'code (ss) MisCellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59): (I) DrUg stores Adopted August 1, 1990 118 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations hh. jj. mm. nn. OO. pp. qq. Fr. rt. UU. VV. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (11) (12) (13) (14) (16) (17) Used merchandise stores (593) Sporting goods (5941) Book & stationary (5942/5943) Jewelry (5~4) Hobby, toy and games (58,5) Camera & photographic supplies (5~48) Gifts, novelty and souvenir (5~47) Luggage & leather goods (59,-~) Fabric and mill products (s~4s) Catalog, mail order and direct selling (s~/58~3) Liquified petroleum gas (propane) (59s4) Florists (5~2) Tobacco (5993) News dealers/newsstands (59~) Optical goods Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (ssss) Miscellaneous personal services (see SiC Code Major Group 72)' (1) Tax return services (72~) (2') Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (72~9) Miscellaneous,business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (738~) (2) Security system services (7382) (3) News syndicate (7383) (4) Photofinishing laboratories (7384) (5) Business services - misc. (7389) Mobile home dealers ($2~) Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits & vegetables-retail)(ss,) Motion pictures Motor vehicle parking - commercial parking & vehicle storage. (752) Museums, galleries and gardens Personnel supply services (736) Photo finishing services (7384) PhotograPhic services (722) Postal services (43) Recreation facilities (9~) Repair services (7~) Retail trade-indoor display and: sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. (999) Social services: (1) Individual & family social services (832/839) (2) Child care services (~35) (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (833) Travel agencies (4724) Veterinary services (074) Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 119 Revised Through 08/01/00 . , -, , . Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 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 h. i. j. k. Adult establishments subject to.requirements of Sec. 7.10.10. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) - free-standing. Disinfecting & pest control services. Amusement parks. Go-cad tracks. (7999) Hotels & motels, Household goods 'warehousing and storage-mini-warehouses Marina - recreational boats only. Motor vehicle repair services- body repair. SPorting and: recreational camps. Retail trade: (1) Liquor stores. Stadiums, arenas, and race tracks. 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, and include the fOllowing- bo Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessory.use to a restaurant and/or civic, social, and fraternal organizations). One single-family dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, or a detached single-family dWelling or mobile home, (for on-site security purposes). Retail trade:-- (1) Undistiiled alcoholic beverages (accessory to retail sale of food). Adopted August 1, 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01/00 Yo ° o . . o ,, o . Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations RF RELIGIOUS. ~FACILITIES Purpose The purpose ofthi.s District is to provide and protect an environment suitable -for the establishment and operation of churches, synagogues, temples, and similar uses. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to .a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. Permitted Uses Churches, synagogues, temples, and similar uses. (999) 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. I,.andscaping requirements are subject to SeCtiOn 7.09.00. , (. · . ,ond~t~onal .Uses b¸o Co Day care facilities, associated and operated by the principal religious use located on that property. This would include the operation of a day care facility during the normal business week, as. licensed by the State of Florida, as well as during any religious function or associated activity. (~) Educational services, associated with and operated by the principal religious use located on that properly: This would include the operation of an educational facility providing general academic and/or special training from' grades K to 12, and as licensed by the State of Florida. (999) Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) Accessory Uses Accesso~. uses are subject to the requirement~of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Parking tots & 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. ~- Adopted August 1, 1990 134 Revised Through 08/01/00 e, Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations · 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 not involve industrial wastewater as defined. Single family.dwelling (detached or as part of the principal structure). (1) Private swimming pool accessory to the single family dwelling provided that the swimming pOOls shall be walled or fenced to prevent uncontrolled access to such 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 08/01/00 A CG Petition of Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. for a 'Commercial, General) to RF (Religious , / I I i , 58159[ 401 4/ 14z14~1441451 461~ 14al I' I I I I I I I ,I I Ulrich i I ' I Rood Chanc Faoility ''.~1'"1 ' ~ I ~ I I I ~ I I i I I I I I I I I ~,~ 1~5 la zz za I~ 130 13~ 13z 33 13,~ 135 I I I I I I I I I I · ........ , , , , .... I i , _ e in Zo'ning from ). Tropical Isles Entronce Ac (3.13 Ac) ~ . CANAL RZ 01-002 ~///~'~./~~ This pattern indicates subject parcel ./~~, · Community Development ~i,~g'. '. Geographic Information Systems  Map prepared 2001 January 26, . This map has been compiled for general planning and reference purposes only. While every effort has been made to provide the most current and accurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. Zoning I I Vedi'c RS Cultural Society, ~2 ! ! Ulrich Rood RZ 01--002 subjo¢t nc. Tropico! Isles Entro~--- - .49 Ac ........ · · (3.13 Ac] ~ .. CANAL Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 This map has been compiled for general planning and reference purposes only. While every effort has been made to provide the most current and accurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. N s Ps~ J. QVOU HLIflS~30~g avou NNIHS aVO~l 3001~IgMO~i~ qVNV3 U3OV3H avou Q33NS OU ONIQqOH lV3al s 5£ I s 9£ I A.LNCIO0 33~0H033~10 NO/qUV3 o m 0 OVO~ 3Nlq 39NV~ Land Use Vec ic Cu Itu ral Saci. ety, I i i I I 4ol 4~ 14Z 143, 144 145 I I I Ulrich Rood ~8 I~ Im I I I RZ 01-002 ~'/~~~1This pattern indicates subject parcel nc. Tropical Isles Entr Ac (3.13 Ac) ~ , , CANAL Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 This map has been compiled for general planning and reference purposes only. While every effort has been made to provide the most current and accurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. Vedic Cultural Society, Inc. RZ 01-002 ~//~~/~~ This pattern indicates subject parcel ~--,~ Community Development ~.~ Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 This map has been compiled for general planning and reference purposes only. While every effort has been made to provide the most current and accurate Information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. N LESS .AND THE NORTH-STL ST. LUCIE~ COUNTY,.FLORiDA):~ DESCRIBED.'AS:' PARCEL OF !LANI RANGE 39 EAST"AND :SECTION-34 ;i~'OWNSHIP 35 ' SOUTH, , RANGE.' · MORE PARTICULARLY.DESCRiBED. A~ FoLLows: iCOMMENCE 'AT THE 'TER OF SAID.SECTION 3; THENCE~NORTH 00Q'16'38" WEST ALONG THE sA~D SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF '39.67 .~:EET TO THE NORTH Rm, Z]2) A Z0 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE. SOUT~ M~D~AFAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD Zt2} A DISTANCE OF 39.00 FEET LUCIE RIVER WATER CONTROL DtSTRICT'CA, NAL NUMBER 93 AND ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF'SAID MIDWAY RO,oAD .SOU FEET; , THENCE DEPARTING SAID' ~iGHT-OF-WAY.'LINE NORTH ~O !8'53":iWEST INTERSECTION WITH' THE NORTH LINE OF' THE NORTH' EA.ST A DI.STANCE 'OF ~! 3~.8.4~7 FEET; THENCE N~RTH '89°59'4!" EAST A D V~ES.T RIGHT-OF-WAY,LiNE .OF SAID CANAL N~MBER.93' WAY'LINE',OF 'SAID CANAL NUMBER ~g A DIST~,NCE OF .13~ 8 THE';NORTHW, EST QUARTER OF SAID'SECTION~3i' NuMI~E'R .93,'SOUTH 000]"6'38" EAST ' AND THE POINT .ZOn!ng -Th~ Ta~ld .rig 1 page 23 SL Lb~:ie ~y 'if west MidWby . st Midway R°ad,.bpproXimately:~O .Society, lnc, fora change .in zoning from'cG fOllowihg:desL'ribe~ property": :~. '. .City Sub'divi~ion Section. 10'TW.P of fhe .lot ·242. lessi-the !ivision'.a: Tow~nshiP i~6' South Rangei~tO sdid lot 2Jl2','bf'W~Jte inge 40 East.:at:.the'west. right of. way of it o! way (said'right-'of East) .the , . . .. .' . :~.." ::".: ....... :..- .' '. ',.:.~..:" ..'.... -'-;~'. ~,,i,,,~ ~a,Ri~,"i'~,~i'~''~:ti~; ,, ......~..,...- ,....,.., _,....,,~.~,~, ........ · ...... :: · .. .,........,,... -; .... . ... · . ~ ................. ,;:,. ......... , ........... ,t.:~.~ .,~,..~. ~;of. y.,. p.,~:, ~ ~#~,~-,~s}., .', '.!::.:'~:~' ':i .:ii:' ;':."'!:!::':.;.: :., '.:.'.' ;:. ?'. i "..:.'... ~6/.2/,,Z~,7.,.:~. !.h...i;~.,?.vtsio~.!;~?.9~lr.!~.,Z.,~h. i)'. ,, ... : .: . . . ..:.. , ~,?..cavo ~o_i'~,_,."?,-.o..,.a.v~ng ~ rod~.~s.i'?~?S0':00~'f.e~t~:.~'ence along, the.a~c:'6f,sa~d'~urve,~hr0.gh ace. tral · ' ' ':' .- c~istanc~.'of'.'70.4.22 feet; fhence'N 32.".4~ ,1,15" 'E,.~n;ic~enf to last 'described CurVe, a distance of.33.95 feet; then;~,e',N i 2°,20'~ii :'.' !: . :.: ':'"' ' ' .... ;:' distance of'280.04 feet; thence I~1 07°13'39" W,.a distance of 222,22 feet, thence N 03°00'! 2" E 'a distance of 59 95 feet. thence" ' · ' · o ~' # . ' o i # ' . : · . # ' · '' ' N 04 54 56, W,,a d~slance of 221,93 feet; thence I~1 1-7, 51 33 W, a distance of 60.24 feet; thence N 35°24 06 E, a distance Of ' ' ' ' ' "' 74.68 feet;'thence S 70°38'31" E, ci .distance'of (21;16 feet; thence S 78°08'31" E, a distance of 187,63 feet to the beginning c;f:a . '"i' '. -.. ,- .: . ' .... .' non-tangent cu~'ve concave to the Southeast, having a,~'adius of 161.90 f~ef, the Chord of which bears N'63°40'43" E; thence along .. ' "':" ':. ~"~'!.'.:; .:" the arc of-said curve.through a central.angle.~of.65049'09", a distance.of 185,99 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, curve concave fo the Sou. t. hea'sf, having a radius of 650.00 feet; the chord of which :bears N 31 °39'20". E; thence along the arc of said .. ' curve through a central angle of 26041'20.", a disfafi~:e.of 302,78 feet; thence N 45000'00" E, tangent to Idsf descrlbed'-c'urv~, a . - · "-". " 'dj'stance of 1134,06 feet; thence"S 45°00'00", E,'a distance.of 636.49 feel'to fhe.'beginning of a curve 'concave fo fhe',~outhwest, --' ' '. '. " haging a radius '~f. 2900,00 feet;, the chord 'Of V~hl~i~,bears S 35°41 ~31." E; thence c;iong.the arc. of said curve through ct cenfr;51 '-. angle of 45°.14'09",'a distance of.2368;$3 fee~$ tlmi~i~'S:.00°14'09" w, a':~istance.of 2059.65 feet fo the Point of Beginning. '.' ' . ' ' Containing'352.98 ~cres, moiLe 0r'less,": "' ' ' ' ; '.'. .... "" '.... '. ' ...... . , .r ". :':'-.' 'Tax-Id No,'4308-000-0000:000/7' ' - '..', ' --';;..,.. ..... ' ;- . - · ' ' .4.30(?,000,0000:.000/0.. · ...,, :;: .::" ,.: .... . - , -. ..... . ..... . .. Location: North of aat~ .BIvd West of i~ferit~t~ ~.5 ' - .... " '"' '" ' 6, A Change in the b°'undaries for a pre~/t~'~sl~;'~°mn?ended rezoning to PMUD for the WesfChesfer Development Corporafiofi.for i ":.-. · · -' '" ' ' the fol!bwing described property: ..... ~ , . - . " Being a.parcel of land located, in' Sections -9, and,.;10i~'.~'ownshiP 37 Sc;uth, Range 39 Easf,':S{. Lucie County, Florida. Said parcel being m&re particularly described' as.follows: . · ' ,.. ...... : .... . , . : , :, . B~gi~ 'af:.ihe'. jnter.sedion' Of the centerline.Of Gaitini'il~ulevc~rd, (al'so being the 'North line at~ $ecfic;h '15) and the V~este~:ly limits' of ;. " Oatlin B0~l;v~rd Ri'ghi-of-Woy and tfi~ 'WealtHy limits of.those lands .desc;ibea in on Order of. Taking," d;ted J,t.Y'24, '19790nd reCorded.in Officio'! Rec6rd t~00k 31.1 ,~t' Pc~ges 2~4~.:;.ltlrougfl, .2952, iriclusive, Public. Records:'of St, LUCie County,' Florida, and as sho~n'.ofi' the FlOrida DePaflmenf'0f Transp0rfation',,R~'g~f.<)f.~/~ay mamf& State Road #9 (I-95), :Section 9400 ~ -2412, dated ' -" . 6/2/77;::with last revision o.f 9/i. 1/7.9;" thenc~ S:!~9°57'05" W~ ,~Io'ng' said cenferline a dis~aflce of 2815.40-feet; 'thence: N ' 00° 14'09" E, a disfance of 2059.65 feel to'the bc4ginnirig of a tangen~ curve c°n~ave to the SouthWeSt, having a radius of 3000:00 feet;ifhence'a!ong tfle~a, rc 9flsaicl c.urv~"through"ai~e'.ntr..a. I angle 0f 36°~3'47"' a 'disfa'nce of 1399.56 f~et- thence N' 63~'30'22" E a' distance of'100,00' feet; thence N963.°43'13".. E;'a. aji~.n~.~e of 1'96,38 fee~ fO i~e beginning-of a E~Jrve co;~;3ve to the South havifi; radius of 52500. feet, the.chord ~ wiiich"~"N'7.~°27'42".E thence ai6n "'~he ar~ of s id' curve throu h a c nai''~ ' : ;3 - ...... . ...... · ;' · ' g ' '.a . g etr.. angle of ........... 29-26...'59", a .disfcince of 269.89. I diifance..of :62~97 'feet.fo the E)egir~ning of Curve ' ' ' Norfhwes~f, having.a ~dius o[27.5, bear~ N 47°34'0~," E; thence along the ' " central iang!e, of. j9 I°I 1 '51"',. a.clisian~ of = ~:urv~ture with a curve concave 'fo the · radius of 527..97 feet; the 40°-.].0'52'','a '~isfance of . . 1956.76:'f~et;, ,fhe:ch~)rd of ~ fh~'."arc 'of through'0 centre, distance o~r 920.42 _. chord o~'which' bear.s. 1, 93;92 feet bears S :49°07'i 5800'6'45" E, al distance chord ~)~Whi;:h"bear~"S 2 feet to a point of reversel 09°04'45"' E~ :.thenCe the. 18'°1 cu,rve concave f0: the SOutheast, h 100,00. 'f~+; distance of.57,:12 · - ... :, , S 90°00'009 :.i:.....:..,:; - 25;00 feef;,'t.h, .... ' W; a distance of 290.00 feet;' thenc 00°00'00"' E, thence S 90o(~0,0'0. E,,a. ~lista~ce, curve. concave to' the '~gesf,.' havlr{g curve thr°ug.h''a. centr;ai ' - Northwest, 'haying a, central 'angle'of curve concave, fo 'the S.oufheast, said Curve fhrc~ugfl' 9o . f ~f.. 8 57,.05.E..a. di~ ning, .';". ::..' Containing.223:'40 ac~res~'more or . .- .. :::' '. ' ~ .' · . . ..;,:?:' - ..... . :.-; Tax Id'N~. 43~'0;21~-0001,000/2.;:,:..,~,:,.'".' . .... ~.~..' ;...-:.. ' '? .~ ;.'?i.~,., - . .' ' ... . .'- 4309-0,00-0000;000/0 '...:' .,. "..;."..;L:,.. ',' :'"~,!~?'~; :. -!!'~.". .'--'. ,:~.,'~i';'. ' :"" · L0cafion:.No~;th. of ~D~fiin 'BI;~! West, of l~fersfafe 9~:!i" .. .'. ' - ' :':"'"!.':?' '" ". ':' :.. : '; ::.' .-. PUBLIC HEXR'I'NGs .Will :be:held in Cohnmissio'n.;.(j~amb~rs;.'Roger .Poitras. Annex, '2300 Virginia Avenue,-Fort Pierce;':Florida 'on -. Febr.ary'iS,'200'1;'t~gin4ing.at...7=00:,.p.,/~, Or as.,~, ther~h.r.a~ Pos~ible;;i" :; ' . . ': . . ' ..'.-:' ,: ::.' ' PLiRSU~,N'T TO S;c~i'o'. 2~6.0105;'Fl~:i;da Stat~fi~;· if'a p~. son~ ~id.es't~ appeal any decision, ma cie bye boa~cl, C~genc7, Or: commission with respecf'f0, c~y maffe~; C~nside;-~.'.i!~ a m~efi~g orl hearing, he ~viil 'need'a record of the proceedings, such put ~p~.' ses,.' he m~3y:neecl fo ensure float ~' ~lx~'iim re~:0~d afl ti~e proceedings' iS'made, which record includes the t~stlmony' aha. evidehce.'~pon Which. the appe_'al is fo be based~..' !..: .... ~ :. . -. : .' ' '-' ,' ., . !.', PLA'NNI'NG AND:ZONiNG CGMA~ISSION, .'-..i i.':;. - . ; ' ' '-';; · ST, LUC:IE COUNTY· FLORIDA -. ,. ' ti,=':. : · ..... ... ;.:-i": /S/Stefan Matth'es, CHAIRMAN ' '". , ' "J ':-; :. PUBLISHDATE: February 5, 2001 ', '' :':. '.'~,~,:' . : -. .... St. LuCie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Ja~/uary 18, 2001 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Matthes, Mr.'.McCurdy, Mr. Trias, Mr, Lounds, Mr. Heam, Mr. Grande, Mr. Aikens, Mr. Jones, Mr. Merritt ~ THERS.P~SENT. Mr. Kelly, Ms. Young, Ms. Shewchuck, Ms. LeWis, Ms. Snay, Mr. Flores, Mr. Murphy January 18, 2001 page 1 .CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes welcomed the new board member ~Mr. Russell Aikens. He will be replacing Mr. ~Moore. He hopes'Mr.' Aikens will find his appointment to the board interesting and enjoyable. :Chairman Matthes would like to explain the standard Procedure of operation for.this meeting.. As a.petition is heard Staff will give a brief presentation on. the petition. Then the applicant will come forward to make a presentation, if he or she wishes to do so. At anytime during the meeting the members of the board can ask questions to the applicant, staff, or the addressee as -the public hearing becomes open, After the applicant's presentation the public hearing will be opened-. Anyone.that would like.to come' forward and speak for or against the application has the right to' do so, He explained the board urges.the public to give their opinion, At ~that time after thepublic he~ing Staff will give the· board their recommendation...The board will have deliberations and - render a position. He woUld like ~to.make it very clear.that this is only an advisory board to the Board of Co~ty Commissioners. This board will act in that capacity only. If anyone is not. happy with the decisions render by this board. There is the ability to seek council in-.front of the Co ..unty COmmission, which do make the final decisions in ~anyone of these cases. . . Chairman MaShes asked if.there were any other announcements. Mr. Merritt stated that he has a.c°nflict of imerest on Items No. 3 & 4: Mr. Heam stated that he had spoken with Ms. Betty Lou Wells earlier in the day she asked him to pass along to staff-and the board that the legal language placed in the paper. He explained that · Ms. Wells thought it was very understandable, and would like to congratulate whoever did it. Chairman Matthes stated that the credit for that goes to staff. Chairman Matthes stated that he would also have to recuse himself on Items No. 3 & 4 due to a possible conflict. He explains that he has no association with the applicant, Duke Energy; his firm that he works for has done work for the owner })f this particular property as a co-applicant,in a rezoning case. He stated he would have to turn the gavel over to Mr. McCurdy for those particul~ items. January 18, 2001 page 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13,'2000 Mr. Merritt explained that ~the minutes need to be corrected to show Mr. Merritt as being present. His name was !eft out. Mr. Heam stated that he was not in attendance of the meeting but was marked down-showing he was present. Mr. Lounds move.d for approval of the December 13, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motiO'n' UP°n a roll call vote 'the motion was paSSed with Mr. Hearn, Mr. ~Trias, Mr. Aikens, .and Mr. Grande abstaining. AGENDA I · TEM NO, 2., WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RZ-00-015 .... I ii ' i . r/ i FI · i ~, ~'1 I [ ' )'1 'Il ' I ' I' .ii ' ' II '1 I I 'l ' ~ i Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to explain the process of a Planned Unit Development, so that everyone would understand what it is before the item is presemed. He explained that there are three types of pI~ed developments in St: Lucie County~ A PUD (Planned Unit .Development), which isa purely residemial develOpment. A PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) and,a PMUD.(PI~ed Mixed Use Development), which are the first three' sections.of Chapter 7 of the L~d Developmem Code. He .stated that the Westchester Development Company would be presenting.two of the t~ee .types, which are.a PUD on roughly half of the property and a PMUD . on. the other half. The purpOses Of the three types are.all the same, except for the substitution of' the wordS residemial, mixed, use, and non residential, which ~e to :achieve' !~d dev. elopment of a superior quality through eneouragemem of flexibility and'creativity in' design.. A planned developmem of any type.consists .ora rezoffing .and a site plan. It allows the deVeloper to present and. seek. approval for new or creative concepts and allows for design options that ~e outside the four comers of St. Lucie County Land Development Code. He .explained that an .example .that he often uses, but is not like the one presemed at this meeting, but a zero lot line development. The Land Development Code requires a Side setback in every case for a straight rezoning. If a develOper..should Wish to bring up something completely differem it may be presented through- this means If it is approved it becomes that propert ' zoning with it's own set of standards for that zoning. The process is actually three-fold. There is.a preliminary PUD approval and a final approval, The preliminary is considered the Planning and ZOning Commission, which is the purpose of these two petitions this evening: The preliminary will.then go. before the Board of : COunty Commission and then will go back again to the Board of County. Commissioners for final approval. If the final approval is subStantially like the preliminary, then-the County Commission has some obligation to approve the petition. January 18, 2001 page 3 The responsibility of~the Planning and Zoning Commission .is to look at the zoning side of this. He explained thru this'board does not really spend much~time looking at site Plans. The site plans are left up-to .the County Commission. He explained'that this .board would need to-know' enough about the site plan in.order'to decide of the appropriateness of the zoning. He stated that this board will see a few site Plans and some issues, but the ultimate job is to make sure this is an app'ropriate.place for.the nmber of residential units and amount of non-residential type zonings that will be seen. It is not the jOb ofthis board, to-decide on the over. all details, even though they will be brought,upm decide the impacts of the zonings. He asked if there needed to be more detail ~explained on 'these definitions and duties. Mr. Kelly stated that this evening them would be two separate petitions for Westchester. There is a Planned Unit Development, which is the residential component, and a Planned Mixed-Use Development, which is the eastern portion of the .project that includes residential, civic site, commerCial, office.sites, and some concepts that are not o~en seen in St. Lucie County. As a general-description the entire project is' located at the Northwest quadrant of Interstate. 95 and the Gatlin Boulevard extension. He explained it is primarily proposed to be on converted farmland. He stated that ~there is not a great deal of enviromental impact part of' a much larger parcel and staff believes that 'the developer will ultimately come back for additional approval. If that should occur it would .at'that time trip thresholds and become a Development'of Regional Impact and there will be more review of the development. The proposal is to extend .Gatlin Boulevard from its current terminus to a traffic circlet then turn to the north on a North south roadway, which would be primary access in to the'project. That roadway' in'the fiature could possibly connect to the Glades-cutoff Road in the fu.ture; The PUD portion is to the west of thru road .and the PMUD is to the east. Staff is still working with the' evelope,r on a nmber of issues, Even as late as ~yesterday there was a meeting. He ~explained .that the school site that is seen in the documents. He.stated .that-particular area MIl be a called a civic site. The developer is working with several entities to.try to figure out how to providea school site. They have not been able to provide any details to staff. He stated that changing the title to a CiVic Site is probably a .more accurate term, due to the fact that it was intended to be a building With multiple uses. He explained there are still on going negotiations with the City on the capacity of the roadway and other developers invOlved in that area. Mr. Kelly explained that in the proposed conditions that were provided separately there were ' setbacks and staff is still working out the setbacks with the developer. He stated-three major' concerns and there are many concerns in the fifty proposed conditions that are. being .negotiated: Mr. 'Kelly stated that there are a few he will go over in this evening's meeting. He does not feel the entire list should be part of .any motion this evening. He will only go .over the conditions he feels are important. He' Would like to mention that it is staff's belief that this wilt ultimately be a DRI and the fact that staff wishes to begin working with the developer to make sure all of the DRI ~ssues are ultimately answered and that is why there are fifty proposed conditions. He doe~ not feel that at a preliminary PUD and'PMUD hearing they are ~necessary to be imposed in this board's recommendation to. the County Commission. January 18, 2.001 page 4 Mr. Kelly stated ~that the parcel is.fairly irregularly shaped and as the plans are reviewed.later the shapes will'be more ~understoo'd. He. stated that. there would ~be two petitions reviewed this evening and will requke separate :motions and public hearings. It is his experience and to most of the seasoned board .members that it is not possible to separate the comments. He recommends a .general ~discussion andbefom it is done open.two different public hearings and make two different motions. Mr..Kelly stated the.PUD (Planned Unit Development) is on the North side of Gatlin and West of Interstate 9'5' with a current zoning .of AG (Agriculture). The proposed new zoning is PUD. The parcel is approximately a little' over 373 acres. The proposed use is 600 single-family lots with the asSociated infrastructure, recreational uses and open space requirements. :Staff has reviewed the project and finds that it meets the applicable standards and before the meeting is over if nothing changes .staff will m~e a recommendation for approval. In Item #6 of the report states that the applicant is proposing to preserVe all wetlands on this site. This is a little bit inconsistent with the co~.~ ent, which indicates the development is: preserving 33.05 of 34.89 acres. He would like the'developer to come forward 'and give his presentation so that the board can become familiar to the feel 'of the deVelopment. Mr. Grande asked if the correctiOn of:the wording 'about the inconsistency in the preservation of the wetlands would 'be corrected. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative. Mr. Grande asked the reasoning for the density comparisons to the Future Land Use as opposed to current zoning. Mr. Kelly stated .that it could be .done either way, but the applicant could easily be requesting an RS zoning or something like that. The p~ose'of reviewing rezoning is to make sure that. there is · consistency with the.Comprehensive Plan. This is an increase in the existing zoning but completely consistent with 'the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.-'Grande asked if the conditions were worked out through negotiation .with staff and the developer. Mr: Kelly replied that ultimately they.will be, but the conditions distributed to. this-board were written by staff and given to.the developer at the same time 'the board received them. There has. been some discussion on some of them at a meeting yesterday. They have some.problems with some of them and are others that are not problems... At some .point in the evening he will point 'out the ones that should be imposed in the. motion at this preliminary meeting, such as infrastructure and impact fees, Mr. Hearn asked where the urban service boundary currently located. Mr. Kelly replied on the western edge of the property. January 18,2001 page 5 Mr. Hegener immduced himself as the President of St. Lucie West Development Company and the President of WestChester Development Company. He stated his purpose.of his presentation is to give a quick introduction to the Concepts for Westchester. He would like to take'a.brief 'moment to give a .little .bit of background to the planning of this major master plan community. In early 1999 his Company convened a planning charrette where members of the Coumy ~and City Planning Staff, Engineering Firms, Architects, Environmental Consultants, and the St. Lucie West planning .staff. The pu~ose of this was to define issues that coUld be dealt with in the overall design of a new community. The first problem that came up in St. Lucie County was a need for a corporate park. In St. Lucie West there:is a small industrial .park, small office park, and a distribution business, As the discussions come up of generating Economic Development and higher paying jObs there needs to be discussion of a corporate park in this county. In order to have a location with high tech telecommunications in a.campus setting on enough land. This type of location will attract the type ofemployer that produce high wages. Two things generme this need: 1.)' There is no such facility in this county. 2.)'There is a social issue, large unemployment rate and a relative rate of low household.income. This is to provide a place that is.one portion of an economic development fOr that employer to be located. He explained that out ofthismeeting came the need for a corporate park. As a compliment to the corporate park came the need for'a civic site that would provide pedestrian access to everything and be attractive to a corporate employer. This is ,what became the idea of a civic site that could contain a school, some- recreational uses for~the co--unity, and ~medieal uses. He explained that such civic site to' house multiple uses such as explained has become extremely complex~ There.have been discussions with the School Board and others on.how to make this operational.. The housing components presented at this meeting are dehsed in to two types. One is for the families that are- type will be linked by pedestrian pathways, this making it easy to go. to a small retail area to walk to the comrnunity facility and employment area. That is the overall concept, of Westchester. Mr. Hegener stated he would like to say that his company is extremely proud to be involved with St. Lucie County. He believes St. Lucie West sets a very good example of the types of things that can be done. He believes Westchester is an opportunity t° design something brand new. He ' introduced the Vice-President of Westchester to walk the board through the initial phase of Westchester. J~inuary 18, 2001 page 6 Mr. Zboril stated that the reason for the two different zonings being requested was something · that came up while working with staff. The western .area of the property was more appropriate for strictly residential uses and~the eastern portion would have mixed uses. He woUld also like to state .that this will be a D.Rland they will come back for subsequem approvals. The reason is this development is being allowed pursuant to State Statute 380,032 which allows for development agreements .with COmmunity Affairs. This :development agreement allows them to commence a certain amount of.development underneath a threshold, They are seeking the amotmt that is permitted ~demeath'the multiple use threshold of'the D~ process. As,a result of the agreement with in .45 days. Additionally, there will be an agreement to submit an application for a Deveh .6 months of the execution of'that agreement. 'He stated they are consistent with the Plan. He .stated that there are no adverse tr~sportation amount of development being reviewed at.this level. Staff has reviewed the analysis that has been prepared. As indicated by staff there Mll be some infrastructure the site at the. intersection of Gatlin Bo'Ulevgd and the creation of a NOrth/South is a letter of agreement execmed to the City of Port St. Lueie regarding East of Interstate 95: and' has been approved by the City staff and his scheduled to go Council for approval. That agreement, allows for the developer to reserve a certain amount of capacity of Gattin Blvd, which means about 9,500 trips. It allows 'the city to receive some tr~sportation impact fees from the developer' and ~allow the City to complete a six-lane improvement on'Gatlin Blvd from .1-95 to Port St. Lueie Blvd. He stated that with regard to the 'enviroment.and that specifically there are about 5 to 6 acres of wetland impacts of the 40 acres of wetlands,in the. first, phase of the development, He explained that the - majority of that impact is 50%"with the expansion of Gatlin Boulevard. The site was used as a- sod- and cattle farm for o~er 50 yearS. There ~are.no on Site uplands, with native vegetation in the first phase, .nor are there,any endangered or threatened plants. The wetlands there have been impacted by the years of a~}icult~al and open canal draining system. Mr. Zbofil explained the phase one pattern of development is the more conventional 'cul-de-sac type of development. They feel this. is an appropriate development to minimize the impact of the system. The wetlands in this area will be made a part of a 90-acre recreation and reserve area.. That recreation and reserve are will have trails that will go through it to~ link over to, the'next side. and in to more pedestrian paths. The other side will have more grid like housing. This type of ' housing was felt. to be ' more conducive to the area forthe mixed use. They are' also seeking the . . approval for about 75,000 square feet of offices and another 75,000 square feet of COmmercial · and retail. 'The office is the initial part of the corporate park that was previously mentioned. The retail 'and commercial is thought of to be as a village center to support the resi~entiaI units thru are there. That would include such uses as Westchester's sales and marketing offices, a coffee shop', and restaurants. There is a request for densiW that is significantly less than what coUld be there with the underlying land use. He explained that this is for phase one Only and it is currently standing alone. Mr. Trias asked to 'define the corporate park and how the future development works. January 18, 2001 page 7 Mr. Zboril replied that the future plan is that all,along-l-95 will be a corporate park. DUe to threshold issues they can ~only seek approval for 75,000 square feet located on 7 to 8 acres at this time. He stated that through the Dept of Community'Affairs there is a density and intensity type threshold and an ~acreag.e threshold. Mr. Trias asked why that would be done befOre DRI approval and what is the advantage. Mr.' Zboril replied the main reason is because they are low in the land inventory at development in St. Lucie West for residential projects. He explained that they need some more residential projects to keep the"buyers .happy. Mr. Jones asked if the streets in the PUD portion going to be private or public. Mr. Zb°ril replied they would both 'be private. Mr. Jones asked how that would work with the pedestrian access through that area. Mr. Zboril stated that they envision, submitting to the County applications for a Community DeVelopment District. Mr.. Grande asked if there was annexation anticipated in to the 'City at the earliest point possible. Mr, Hegener :replied that the property is located in St. Lucie County. The St. Lucie CountYLand Development Code ,and Comprehensive Plan provides for the .uses that will be there,. They'Wish to cominue the working relationShip-Mth the County, eVen though St. Lucie 'West'is in the City of Port St, Lucie. Mr. Grande stated the utilities WOUld be provided by the City of Port St. Lucie and quite frequently those agreements.need annexations. Mr. Hem-n stated ,he has a concem aborn the assurances of the building of the multiple use building-and the completion of that before a certain phases are comPleted. He asked if that would be part o:f conditiOns from staf£. Mr. Kelly replied it is a. concern of staff. He stated it is also a concem of the develOpers,. because without those things the community described does not fully exist. He explained that this evening is more for a general review and consider the appropriateness, of having it there without putting a hard time line on.it. The negotiations are still going on-and it would be verY difficult to tie a time line to it, Mr. Heam stated his concern is that issues like this have come up in the past. January 18, 2001 page 8 Mr. Kelly stated what 'this board can do. is recommend to the County Commission to try and put a time-line on it. He explained, that by that time the developer would have had the .opportunity to work Out a lot of the: issues, Mr. Heam stated.he is. not sure how to maintain the building zero lot line, If there is painting or repair work that needs to 'be .done. Chairman Matthes asked.the applicant to come-forward and express different communities.that exist with the .same approach. Mr. Zboril stated that the minimum lot size for anything proposed residential is 30 x 85 in a range of 85 to 135 on the depth and 90 on width. There are not provisions for zero set backs on two units. If there is zero on one side then there is a setback on the other side. Mr. Heam asked if the resident would have to trespass on the neighboring property, to do repairs. He would like to know what the 'plans are to take of that type of situation. Mr. Hegener replied .that 'zero lot line projects would apply for an easement or get access by neighbors,. They will provide in the-final documentation a Home Owner AssoCiation docUments, design criteria, and an outline ~to show how that will work. Mr. Grande stated.that for Mr, Hem's benefit there are a number of communities that have that type of partial zero lot line on one-side. Currently on island it works extremely well. There have never been any problems maintaining the face on the zero lot line side. It is well cared' for'in the association .documents. ..Mr,. Grande asked why on condition #45 is staff rescuing the fight to move 100 .units from one · side to the other. Mr. Hegener replied' that there were some market flexibility, They needed the ability to determine exactly where the market is going to go during the phasing of the project. Mr. Grade stated going-from .East to West 'from the less dense reSidential to the more dense residemial area indicates that the residential would have ~to be expanded at the cost of retail.or commercial on the east side: Mr. Zboril stated that they are seeking approval for a variable lot size configuration based upon builder and buyer preference. He stated that there are land areas that are allocated a certain number of~its. Those units may .be reached before the land area is exhausted before a certain set of assumptions. Those land areas, may be exhaus~ted based on all the units are used up based 'upon' the maximum lot sizes, thus meaning they.will mn out ofland before they mn out of lots., January 18, 2001 page 9 Mr. Kelly imerjected and stated :that staff wished to speak with board about condition #45. Staff is going to recommend.the transfer can go either way. The total project is still capped.at 800 total'. If on either side the market ' demand Was for th~ very small'est Of the lots then there would be additional land.available on .whiChever side. The impacts of' this Phase are the 8-00 units and the intent .of condition #45 ~and :the modification to .go either way is to cap the number of units at the total of. 800. It started With the transfer to the east, but as discussions Went on it became apparent it could work the. Other way as long as the total number of units stayed constant. Mr. Lounds asked if the commercial .area was not as absorbed as quickly as hoped, he would like to know if iti's possible to ~e the commercial area that has been set ~aside and change it in to residential. Mr. Kelly ~replied that the intent was not to change any of'the boundaries between the residential and non-residential uses. The street pattern is proposed with .variable lot widths. If something in the market dictates the average lot width, it probably uses the land up with the 200. units. Therefore the uses will not change from residential to non-residential or vice versa. Mr. Trias asked whY they would build with this idea other than what they have previously track record. ~ . Mr. ~Hegener replied that nationally and regionally are observing :yo ~unger families with the offices in ~the home. There is a need being seen for this type of neighborhood, because it is. attractiw~, to those types 'of'families. These types of co ~ .mmunities on the east side will be seen with mini-vans and sport utility vehicles as opposed to .what may be seen in other areas. They' feel this is an attractive package.. Mr. Grande asked if one side coUld lay dOrmant if the transfer of density took place. · . Mr. Kelly stated 'that it could happen.even withOut the transfer Of the density either way. He explained 'that When he comes back in front of the board in the future is when that will be dealt with as far .as. the transfer. Mr, Me,itt would like to'hear the. rest of the Presentation. Mr. Kelly. stated that.he only spOke of the PUD only.and Mr. Zboril spOke in general of the- whole project. The PMUD is generally located immediately East of the PUD and the North South road and the zoning is AG-1 and the proposed PMUD Zoning District and the Land Use designation is RU. There are 185 ½ acres in that parcel.with the proposal of 200 units with associated infrastructure. The infrastructure includes 153,500 feet of commercial retail and offices. There is a recremionaI facility in thru there still needs-some work. In the PMUD side there will be. the civic site and a.smaller civic site, tll'ere are areas for. retail and commercial and a rather large l~e thru is part ~of the retention area. There is a grid pattern for the residential area,' There. will be a need for 2 different public hearings for each side. January 18., 2001 page 10 Mr, Heam asked why they are separate and' not combined. Mr. 'Kelly replied because of open space requirements for maximum amount of residential and non-residential within the PMUD. in order to make it all fit it worked out this way. The PUD western potion is much more of a traditional PUD project in itself. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing for the zoning change to the PUD. There being no one the public hearing was closed. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing :for the zoning change to the PMUD. There being no on the public hearing was closed. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other questions for staff. Mr, Lounds asked Mr. Zboril if they were trying to get this like the Heathrow Development in Northern Florida. Mr. Zboril stated~that that market would probably dictate that. 'Mr, Kelly stated that he is going to point out the conditions that-staff really feels that needs m be addressed. He stated that #4, 5, ~d 6 talk about wetlands and there is a lot of verbage in those. Staff wants to assure that the appropriate agencies look. at the wetlands and that-they.are treated. ina la~l manner. He. stated that ~#I 8- is the condition that authorizes the developer, enter into agreements for their potable water sources and authorizes. City 'of Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie West District,-or through a Community Development District create an. onsite system. He would propose # iS-a that ~would-Say nothing M!l.happen if they do not. have potable water. Tbs is a kin~l of c°ncurrency conditi°n that Will be similar t° #24, which is the wastewater. He explained .that' #25 :has' .changed in t° a civic site instead, but it indicates:the developer, will be subject m educatiOnal facility impact fees, Then ~#27 gives the developer anout stating that if he would construct .a school or dedicate a .school. site then. he 'would be'eligible, for credit, to impact fees. He exPlained .that there was the same situation ~with recreation and open ~space the developer MI1 be subject to 'impact fees. ~Then.~#29 Should stay there with at least the 40% On the west:side which is. pa~ of the' code. He stated.that #31 impact fees' as conditions # 43 and #44 obti worked out with the guidelines. These are the conditi, developers-to pay the environmental impact'.fees have the clause for amendmem. There ar~. to pay transportation impact fees or a credit canbe final development plans and architectural- ' · staff recommends as conditions. The ones that were not' mentioned are not recommended at ~this ~time. Chairman Matthes asked the developers if'this was ~n the realm of their plans or will their be something to be discussed. January 18, 2001 page 1 1 Mr. Zboril stated'they are fine with Conditions pointed out by Mr. Kelly. He would like to ensure that the.conditi°ns regarding the habitat, wildlife, and vegetation track with the cOnditions imposed by South Florida Water Management and'the Army Corps of Engineers. That there are no additional b~dens created in seeking those approvals.. Mr. Kelly stated that was the imem.in conditions #4,5, and 6. Ms. Dreyer, attorney representing the applicant, stated the intent of the conditions and the concerns that staff has for these conditions. She stated that-the conditions may be subject to some fi~her refinement and language clarification prior to the Board 'of County Commission meeting with that understanding the conditions ~are acceptable. Mr. Grande asked if there are any of'the fifty conditions that could be a pro'blem at this'point. Ms. Dreyer rePlied.that there has not been enough time to thoroughly review these conditions and a number of'them, will need to be considered during'the DRI process, whether they are appropriate for the first phase of this project is something staff, recognizes. Ms. Lounds asked if it is Ms. Dmyer and staffs understanding that local concerns do not supercede the Army Corps ~of Engineers or Drainage district rulings on wetlands. Ms. Dreyer stated that they understand that wetlands are determined by the water management district and the federal government. Mr. Aikens asked staff if changing the language to say "civic" site, instead of school site change any of the conditions. Mr. Kelly replied that it will change #26 since there are still education facilities imposed on all new.structures in St. Lucie County. Mr. Heam asked if on condition #8 what does' the word sufficient mean in that language. ~. M~hy replied that the conditions that are being seen are structured from existing development .orderS in the county of' D~ nature. The terminology used refers to other permittihg agencies. The terms sufficient routing would imply that it has to satisfy South Florida Water Management criteria. The language is more to the point of putting people on notice that there are things that need to 'by complied with and need to be identified at the preliminary phase. These will be fiarthered refined at some point in a year from now. Mx. Heam asked about condition #9 and how wide does the buffer zone required to be. January 18, 2001 page 12 Mr..M~hy replied that the pl~s.show currently 25 feet but the ultimate determination of that will be that buffer zone requirements 'of the county and through the Environmental Resource Permitting criteria. Then the criteria will be 15 feet in the minimum. There Will probably be some different variations before it said and done. After discussion of the. various, conditions and a motion to 'include all the conditions, which was discussed ~and withdrawn, Mr. Grande indicmed that he believed the conditions to be inappropriate at this time, Mr. Grande moved for approval of the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Lounds seconded the motions; Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously. Mr. McCurdy moved for approval of the Planned M&ed Use Development to known as Westchester. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. 'Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously. January 18, 2001 page 13 AGENDA. ITEM 3:, DUKE ENERGY Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes recused themselves from these agenda items. Ms. Snay stated that agenda item #3 is the application of Duke Energy for a change in zoning from the IH'(Industrial, Heavy)zoning district to the U (Utilities) zoning district. 'This proposed :property is locmed on t. he southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road, approximately one mile southwest of the intersection.of Glades Cm Off road and Selvitz Road. The.purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow for the construction and .operation of a 56,900 square foot, 640 mega-watt electric generating plant. The subject property is surrounded by the IH (Industrial,-Heavy) to the North, East, and West and.to the SOuth by AR-1 (Agriculture, Residemial) and IH (Industrial, Heavy). Ms. Dreyer introduced herself for .the record. She is the attorney representing the applicant. She stated that the project is proposed to be developed a 99-½ acre site in the Midway Industrial Park area. She explained that the' first request is a rezoning from IH (Industrial, Heavy) to U (Utilities) zoning district. This isa pe~i~ed zoning under the-industrial land use classification. The second requestis a conditional use permit ~and ~a major Site-plan approval to allow the construction and operation of the electrical generating plant. Electric generating facilities are pe~itted asa conditional use within the Utilities 'ZOning district, that being the reason for the rez0ning. : Ms. Dreyer stated that Mr.. Runyan, 'the project manager for Duke Energy, and several other consultants working on this. project are in attendance for this meeting. They have all reviewed the staff reports and .all agree 'with the 'staff comments .and recommendations for both. items. She would like Mr. Runyan to give the board an .overview of the project .and he will.be able to answer any ~questions of the board or public. Mr. Runyan, project manager for Duke Energy Fort Pierce representing Duke Energy of North America. The proposed project i's for a 640 mega-watt electric generating plant, which will be a "peaker" facility that is proposed for construction by June 1., 20.02. He stated that :Duke Energy is a verY large corporation it has approximately $30 billion dollars in assets currently. There are several different projects proposed currently around the nation. This' corporation is enviromentally friendly :and is ve~ involved in the community it. enters. He would'like to highlight several of the economic benefits that this Wpe of project brings to the community. At this point the cost of construction for'the project is estimated at $210,000,000.00. The plant will bring high paying and high skilled.jobs, not to mention an extremely large tax base. Mr. Runyan exPlained that the project would be on a 99-½ acre parcel that is surrounded by heavy industrial usages. To the north of the parcel is the proposed sewage treatment plant area for Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority. There are some cc[mmercial uses to the west and to the south are some agricultural uses. The location for this site was chosen for-its close proximity to the ', FP&L transmission and the Midway Road substation nearby; the natural gas pipeline being close and the area has a sufficient' buffer is a large enough area, and the adequate surroundings of uses. January 18, 2001 page 14 Mr..Runyan explained that the lots 7 & 8 compose the power plant facility itself, which will roughly be about ~20..acres of the 99-½ acres. The remaining acreage will be wetlands and uplandS. The existing wetlands on sight only 0.05 acres will actually be impacted and 2 of the wetlands will be improVed due to storm drainage improvements. The current site 'is being used as pasture land and the.current wetlands have been degraded due to that use. This faCility will be able-to improve the wetlands oVertime. On the'current site conditions, it is basically~open land containing wetlands of which a couple that this project Will not be impacting.: Mr. Runyan presented ~a rendering of the facility stating that it was presented at two of the open houses. One of the open houses :invited the public that owned property With in a 1 to 2 mile radius to discuss what is being looked .at. Mr. Runyan explained that the facility would, be 8 combustion turbine generators that will burn natural gas, which will convert the gas in to .electricity. This facility will peak at 640 mega-watts of electricity thru :wOuld power an estimate of 300,000 to 500,000 homes at peak hours. This facility will be referred to.as a '"'peaker" facility" thus meaning it will only mn at peak times of the day When the highest electric consumption is used. The operation will be limited due to the design of the bUilding to 2500 hours per year. This facility will target the hot sUmmer days and cold winter nights where mom electricity is used., At this.time the proposal is to bum natural gas primarily with a back up for oil burning. To bum oil. the facility is limited to 500~hours in.the event that natural gas is curtsied to the. area. He stated that currently they are permitting for 1,000 ho~s and do not see a need .for the hll 1,000 hours. They are in the final stages of the permi~ing process from the different agencies such as Dept. Of Enviromental, South Florida Water Management. ~d so on. They ~e ~anticipating these permits m come through in Mid February. Mr. Runy~ stated that .the site. was designed.to~ minimize the impacts on existing wetlands and in 'the community. Mr. Trias asked: if there' was a landscape plan submitted. Mr. Runyan replied in the affimative and stated it was provided in the site application. He explained that. it was .not included inthe package distribmed at this meeting, There is a rendering in the packet that explains the physical features of the plan with some of the new landscaping needs. He.- explained that they would maintain a lot of the trees and shrubs that are on site.. There are a lot of trees and s~bs .on site that will.have to be removed as a condition to-the application, such as the" exotic vegetation that are cu~ently on site and deal with a lot of the.timber on site,' .. Mr. McCurdy stated that he understands the noise level chart in the packet has the Ft. Pierce generating .station residential nighttime and the dishwasher in'the next room. He would like to know how far aw~v ,atoul-d that noise level is considered. Mr. Runyan replied, that.the Ft. Pierce generating s[ation would fall below the cra'rent residential nighttime noise ordinance in the St. Lucie County (2ode at the.property boundaries. He stated . that clOser to the facility there will be more impacts..The review of sound came from the St. Lucie Co.tmty Code required meas~ements at the property boundaries.. January 18., 2001 page 15 Mr. 'McCurdy reiterated that the noise level in the reports would be at the property boundaries. .Mr. Runyan explained that there had been two 24 hot~ detailed analysis of background sound levels in the area.~ The study was compiled with.the plant running to make sure the St. Lucie County Code would be met. Mr. Lounds asked what the annual running time would be. Mr. Runyan replied that the plant would be permitted to 2500 hours per year. That would be. the .maximum, but most facilities like this run between 5 to 15% of'the year, which would be 1000- 2000 hours, These hours are mostly during the day, especially in Florida. Mr. Lounds asked if the facility would run 24 hours a day at the peak times. Mr. Runyan replied in the negative. He explained that.the typical maximum length of time would be twelve'hours a day, approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7'00 p.m. Mr. Lounds asked if that would 'be self-regulation, Mr. Runyan .replied that it is more market, because these facilities are not as cost effective as a base load facility, He stated that this is a peak facility and it can come on in thirty.minutes and shut dom in thirty minutes to help the base load. Mr.. Lom.~ds asked if the primary business is to sell electricity to whoever wants to buy it. Mr. Runyan replied in the ~affi~mive. He stated that this facility is being placed in Florida for the Florida need of'electricity more so than other.states, Duke is lo.oking at other areas in the . nation also. Mr, Lounds asked if theoretically electricity could be sold to California. .Mr. RunYan replied that theoretically it could be 'done but it would be difficult to do so.. Mr. Lounds stated that his point is that Duke Energy is self regulated, meaning-self regulated a~ far as the hours that are ran..He asked, for clarification and staff confirmed. Mr. Runyan stated that this facility has the potential to run 24 hours a day, Market determining. Mr. Hearn stated that Mr. Runyan referred to the property on the South as zoned Agricultural Residential. He believes this to be incorrect and ask staff for clarification. Ms. Snay replied thru it is both Agricultural Residential and Industrial Heavy. Mr. Heam asked if the plans were reading the.stacks at 116 feet tall. January 18, 2001 page 16 Mr. Runyan replied that is co~ect but'they are about site elevation of 23 feet. This meaning the stacks are actually 93 feet tall. Mr. Heam asked:that if the land beside.this .facility went residential in the future, and the wind was blowing would the reSidents be able to detect.an odor, Mr, Runyan replied in the. negative. He explained that if you mn on either nat.ural gas or #2 low sUlfur diesel oil no odors ~or visible clues would be detected. Mr. Heam asked What the >mcedure of cleaning the stacks would entail Mr. Runyan replied that.the tUrbines are fitted with dry iow-rise combustors. In that process when the air and'fuel are combusted together there is no build up like on a chimney or fuel stack. There are 'no requirements to clean.the stacks due to this. The stacks will be monkored constantly. Mr. Heam asked staff it due to the height of the stacks would an additional conditional use be required. Ms.-Snay replied'that a ruling by.t/he~ COunty Attorney states that stacks are considered an accessory use; so. they do. not, need to-maintain the height limitation. Mr. Lounds asked if these proposed.units were the same as FP&L are converting to in the Fort Meyers area. Mr. Runyan replied in the affi~ative.. He explained ~ that these.machines are General Electric . 7EA machines and that FP&L ge' General Electric 7FA, which is ~'.ice.the size. Mr. Lo~ ~unds asked if the concept is the same. Mr. Runyan replied in the affirmative, Mr. Grande asked if the natural, gas.utility is ~ee to convert to an oil burning facility. He asks if' on an economic basis could.this be done. Mr. Runyan replied in the affirmative. He stated that it is highly unlikely due to the cost of oil burning. There are still deliberations about the oil-burning infrastructure being'built at this facility. The air permit will still only allow 500 hours per year. The reason for the I000 hours on the' facility was due to. concern of the Florida natural gas market. At this time there ~e no other Duke facilities with oil inf~rastmctures. ~ Mr. McCurdY opened the public hearing. January ! 81, 2001 page 17 Mr. William .Gath, residem of Fort Pierce for 40 years. He would like to know during the operation where will the waste go. Mr. Runyan stated that these facilities are combustion turbines and will be cooled with ground water.. . The . cooling turbines require very little water. DUring the summer months there will be more water used to make them work more efficient. There is no discharge Of'water 'at any time. He exPlained .even if oil were used there would be no discharge. Mr..Lounds asked-what the waer consumption atpeak hours from a ground water well would be. Mr. Runyan stated that at peak .on a 12-hour day it would be 300,000 gallons a day. They are -currently trying to get .a permit for South Florida Water Management and there are not any problems being seen. Ms. Snay stated that 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 Co ~mmissioners with a recommendatiOn of approval subject to the following conditions: Prior to the i.ssuance of any building permits, for the' proposed structure or buildings on tbs .site, ~all exotic vegetation fo: ~und on the site shall be removed. The applicant shall connect to central water and sewer services .upon the installation of central water and sewer lines from the project site to Midway Road at its. intersection with. Milner Road. The use of the private well shall .be discontinued except for irrigation use until such time as an alternative water ~ · o. , . .~. ~. ~ .. r,source for irrigation is available. · Prior to. issuance of. any building permits for construction, the developer shall construct Jenkins Road Extension, .to the southern boundary of the project .site. Paving of the road may be completed after construction of the plant. Prior to issuance, of.any building permits fOr.constmction, the developer shall .construct right and left turn lanes into the proposed project. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Mr. Heam stated that for the record he would like to clarify his vote'by saying the land crossing the southern boundary should have special consideration to be rezoned so thru there is not a chance of residents in that area. ~ Mr. Jones motiOned after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie January 18, 2001 page' 18 CountY Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recomrnend that .the Board ~of County'Commissioners grant approval to the application of Duke Energy Fort Pierce-for a change in zoning .from-the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District to the U (Utilities).Zoning :District because it is a good and appropriate use for .the property. Mr. Lounds seconded .the'~mOfion. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes .reusing them. Mr. McCurdy opened the Public hearing for the conditional use of Duke Energy. There being no one the public hearing was closed. Ms Snay stated that 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 apprOval.'subject to the following conditions: . Prior to the issuance of.any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on ~this site, all exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed. , The applicant shall co~ect to central water and .sewer services upon the installation of central water and sewer lines from the project site to Midway Road at its intersection, with Milner Road. The use of the private well .shall be .discontinued except fOr. irrigation use until such time as an alternative .water resource for irrigation 'is available. o Prior .to, issuance of any building permRs for construction, the developer shall construct Jenkins .Road Extension, to the southern boundary of the project site. -Paving of the road may be completed after construction of the plant. Prior to ~ssuance. of any'building pe~its for construction, the developer shall construct right and left turn lanes into the. proposed project. Mr. Jones stated that: after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff cOmmen~, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development.Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Duke Energy Ft Pierce, LLC for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 56,900 square foot electrical generating plant in the U (Utilities) Zoning district. Mr, Lounds seconded the motion.. Upon a rOll call vote the motion:passed unanimously with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes r~cused. January 18, 2001 page 19 Mr. Murphy stated that Ordinance/tO 1-001, this is proposing a couple of amendments to the County sign ~regulations and temporary use regulations, as they'apply to motor vehicles sales operations and facilities. The. items before the board are Section 8,'2.-02, paragraph C, and Section 9.04,00, new' paragraph O. These. were brought about by result of some Code Enforcement issues that were discussed about'6 to 7: months ag°, in reference to several automobile dealers. In short what this dOes is allow automobile dealers and other related type activities to have tent sales on their prope~ies-once.a month not to exceed 4 days per month, except that they will also will have tent sales four times a year:not to exceed 7 continuous days. In addition there is a request to consider :allowing for the use of flag, banners, balloons, and pennants for attraction purposes. In the paperwork for this imm it will shoW the recommend changes to Section 9.04.00 it has been highlighted where they.can:have these and highlighted some restrictions of where they can not put these attraction devices .due to safety hazards or interfere with drainage utilities and fight of way deviceS. County staff recommends Ordinance/tO 1-001 be forwarded-with any comments to the Board of County Co~iSsioners. Mr. JOnes asked what specifically was the problem referenced in the cover letter with regards .to advertising marketing in the .community. Mr.' Murphy replied the problem is what has been expressed to the Code Enforcement Office and County is-the restrictions on their abilities, to have tent .sales on and off premises has been a hindrances to .their marketing and sales efforts. They believe they have better sales response when they pack ~1~ half the car lot and move it to shopping center for the weekend. · . 'Mr.' Trias asked Mr. Murphy why this would be a good idea. Mr. Murphy stated this is :a regulatory poim. of view. This is a subjective call and staff recommends that it shoUld be forward this matter for further comments. Mr. Heam stated that he has a hard time with the concept that there must be all of the attraction devices to promote sales of the product. He stated that if this is going to be done for the car dealers whY can it be dOne for everybody, He stated that as far as enforcement is concerned that shoUld be based on ComplaintS from the public. He thinks this is a better community than a lot Of people give Credit for. He does not feel he can cheapen it by fancy glitter, and attraction devices. He will not support this item, Mr. Grande concurs with Mr. Heam. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. MUChy for clarificat[on that ~this item was requested by the aUtomobile industry t° allow them to'be with in code compliance when they want to do their sales. January 18, 2001 page. 20 · Mr.-Murphy replied in the affirmative. 'He stated that is.his understanding, He explained that he -was not in the meetings that were held sometime ago. These meetings began with the. old.Code Compliance Manager, :Mr. :caginelli tenure. He stated there may be representation by the autodealer association. This is a pubic hearing so they may be able to explain a little ~her. The request came from interested individuals in the County and the Code Enforcement Board. He suggeste.d to the Chairman to open the public hearing ~fOr any :additional information and co~ents ~and fo~~d whatever recommendation is decided-.to the County Commission. Mr. Aikens asked .if this .proposed Ordinance allow these tent .sales only on off-site facilities or could the tent be on their site.. He stated that he is imagining 'U.S. Highway No. 1 with the every dealership having a.tentsale atthe same time. Mr. Mmphy replied in the affirmative that this would be highly posSible this could take place.. Mr. Grande stated that the overall philosophy change is ,incredible in comparison to .the old ordinance. The old ordinance.stated that.no-dealer could put up a tent anywhere more than twice a year. This proposal changes this-to tent sales every month, .The amount of dealerships on U.S. Highway No. 1 'would make that area tent city full time. Mr. M~hy Stated that the potential does exist. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. Mr. Gath, citizen of forty-yearsin this comm~ty, stated he does not like this ordinance, because a~er Section 9.04,00 the section of the use offlags. He explained the flags are used currently to bring people in to their businesses. This was brought up at the Veteran Council meeting the last week. He explained that the new. Hess station on U,S Highway No. ! with seven 'American Flags flying at t:~s location, He stated that this is a little,over pa :notic, He.does not ~ow if this ordinance touches.on the-Over use of.flags or what this board should do about this. He would like something done about the degradation of the Americ~ flag and that is why he is here. Mr. Coffenberger, the EXecutive Manager of Roger Dean and the currem Presidem of the St. Lucie County Auto Dealership Association, to the best of his. ~knowledge the association did not recommend these changes. He. has not been contacted by any members of the association about this issue. The association is comprised of the 10 - 11 .dealerships that represent franchises, and ,have'not have had a serious problem' with this issue about this. He agrees 'with Mr. Heam and the dealership would also agree. He feels St. Lucie County has a gmat set of dealers. The danger that h~.opened up with the tent issues, offsite. There were some situations abOut dealers coming in from out of town where there may have been some tax revenue that would be lost from the He does not see a need for these.changes. Chairman Matthes asked who Mr. Coffenberger is representing. January 18, 2001 page 21 Mr. CO£fenberger replied that he is representing Roger Dean Buick GMC Truck. He can stated that the :association has. made no recommendations for these changes. Mr. Murphy stated he woul.d like ~to clarify'that.there were car dealers requesting. He explained this is the opportune time to recommend.denial of these changes. Chairman M.atthes asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Public. He closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated afar considering the testimony presented in the Public Hearing, including the staff comments in the standards of review in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, he hereby moves to recommend denial of this ordinance, because it is not in ~the best interest of the.overall picture of St. Lucie County. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote.all members voted in favor of the motion, with the absence of Mr. Merrit~. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Mattthes .stated there is an item of business that has not been placed on the agenda, but muse be handled this month that would be :the election of officers. Mr. £ounds motioned.to retain the current offiCers for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Local Planning Agency. Mr. Trias seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, with the absence of Mr. Merritt. Mr. Lounds stated that there was a note given from staff about Manufactured buildings and commercial industry in industrial areas. He does not want to take up a lot of time on it, but he is vague on the 'subject. Mr. Murphy stated that this. memorandum was in reg~d to the request of Mr. Heam. This is regarding the ability of.the County to regulate manufactured buildings in commercial industrial couple of weeks. For the possibility of imposing 'aesthetic controls similar to what is done for the Class A Mobile Home Units and there is still research being done for the full ability to do that. · He explained that the county cannot prohibit the manufactured building and .can regulate the interior construction. The only things that can be done is address fOundation issues and apply any other rule that would: apply like type commercial building. There are issues being pursued for architectural standard issues., if adopted by the Coun~ty Commission that would apply-to these type o f units. January 18, 2001 page 22 Mr. Heam stated that :a co~ercial bUilding has to be built with all kinds of construction specification, He ~explained that in his way of thinking this does not even begin to ~.stand up to those type of standards,. If there is .not the ability to regulate it, then it needs to be looked in to every ounce' ofenergy that the bOard has to eliminate these types of buildings. He feels they are degrading to the.community. Mr. Murphy stated that the most effective measure in this is an architectural, them is no way to regulate structural issues. That is going to be state and federal laws. Chai~an Matthes asked if the. County was looking in to changing some architectural standards and how are they coming. Mr. Mmphy stated that there is .a commitment to have the RFP done in the next couple of Weeks. So that in the next period of months a consultant will put together some generalized architectural standards for commercial industrial .standards. It will probably have to be a general application across the'~board m all development. There should be something seen on these issues at the end of the summer. Mr. Heam asked to be supplied With the regulation as they stand curremly he would appreciate it. Mr. Lounds stated that if he understands 'this.correctly it is an office facility other than a built facility. Mr. Murphy replied that it is a modular building that has to meet code. He used an example of the 'Nations Bank.in Sabal Palm Plaza. Mr. Lounds asked if the Checkers building is a modular building. Mr. MUrbhy replied that the Checkers was also a modular building. But these do not 'look like a modul~ building. There are other scenarios that do look like a modular building. ~. Lo.~ds stated he thins there is a basic .~ ~understanding and agrees with Mr. Heam and Mr. C~ande, He' wOuld ente~ain some l~guage from staffas to what can be done County wide to improve the look of these buildings, but it should not be made too rigid it will need some exceptions. ~. Mr. MurPhy concurred. ADJOU~MENT January 18-, 2001 page 23 PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 2/15/01 File Number RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 MEMORANDUM . , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO- FROM: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager February 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Application of Midway Energy Center, for Preliminary Planned Nonresidential Development approval for the Project Known as Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, and for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) and AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 1 du/2.5 acres) Zoning Districts to the PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development- Cooney-Midway Grove) Zoning District and partial final PNRD approval for a 35.97 acre land tract to be known as Midway Energy Center to allow the constrUction of a 132,550 square foot (building- 13,980 square feet, equipment- 65,059 square feet, tanks 53,511 square feet), 510 Megawatt, electric generating plant. LO.CATION: North side of Midway Road, approximately .76 miles east of 11- Mile Road and approximately one-half mile west ofi-95. ZONING DESIGNATION: AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) and AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 1 du/2.5 acres) PROPOSED ZONING: PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development- Cooney-Midway Groves) LAND USE DESIGNATION: MXD (Mixed Use-Midway Road) and AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 2.5) PARCEL SIZE: Parent Parcel 116.60 acres Final PNRD 35.97 acres Open Space 39.04 acres Undeveloped 41.59 acres PROPOSED USE: A 132,550 square foot electric generating plant (buildings- 13,980 square feet, equipment- 65,059 square feet and tanks 53,511 square feet) on 35.97 acres of land, 39.04 acres preserved as open space and 41.59 acres of vacant undeveloped land. SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) to the north, east and west and AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) to the south and east. February 8, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.' RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 SURROUNDING LAND USES: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: AG-2.5 (Agriculture- 2.5) to the north, east and west; and MXD Midway Road to the east and south. Station # 11 (350 Shinn Road), is located approximately 4.5 miles to the west. Onsite well and septic systems. See Comments See Comments Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following determinations: le Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The applicant is requesting a preliminary PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development) approval for the entire 116.60-acre tract of land. The proposed rezoning has been determined to not be in conflict with any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The application for Preliminary Planned Nonresidential Development (PNRD) approval has been reviewed for consistency with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has been determined to meet all applicable standards of review. The developer is proposing to subdivide the 116.60-acre land tract into three lots. The first lot (Lot 1) will contain 41.59 acres of land and has been designated for furore development. At the time of development of this parcel, the developer will be required to provide a revised PNRD application that provides the specific development details for the remaining portion of the site. The current request for approval for the Midway Energy Center electric generating plant will in no way obligate the County to fi~ture approvals for that portion of the project remaining as undeveloped on the Preliminary PNRD Master Site Plan. The second lot (Lot 2) will contain 35.97 acres of land, in which the developer is proposing a Final PNRD development for the Midway Energy Center electrical poWer plant. The third lot (Lot 3) will contain 39.04 acres and is designated asthe open space and stormwater tract for the entire 116.60-acre site. Section 7.02.03(H)(1) of the PNRD Zoning District requires a minimum of 3 5% of the gross acreage to be set aside as "open space" when a parcel of land is over ten acres in February 8, 2001 Page 3 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.: RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 e size. The total acreage for the proposed project is 116.60 acres. Based upon the 35% open space requirement, the applicant is required to designate a minimum of-40.81 acres as open space. The proposed design of the project proVides for 39.04 acres of open space during the development of Lot 2. Upon development of Lot 1 an additional 1.77 acres of land will be required to be designated as open space, in order to fulfill the 35% open space requirement for the PNRD Zoning District. In addition Section 7.02.03 of the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) Zoning District regulations requires that when a parcel has a Future Land Use Map Designation of MXD that it satisfy the requirements of the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. The CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District requires the following minimum: requirements: Minimum Lot Size i 20,000 square feet Minimum Lot width 100 feet Minimum Road Frontage I 60 feet The proposed three-lot development satisfies these minimum code requirements. Lot 1 maintains a minimum road frontage of 1288.78 feet and a minimum lot width of 1288.78 feet. Lots 2 and '3 will be combined through a unity of title have a minimum road frontage of 100 feet and a minimum lot width of 1289.80 feet. The portion of the parent parcel proposed for final PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) approval as the Midway Energy Center facility has a Furore Land Use Map designation of MXD (Mixed Use - Midway Road). According to Section 7.02.02 of the Land Development Code properties designated with a Future Land Use Map MXD designation may be developed as a use identified within the U (Utilities) Zoning District. In addition, the applicant is requesting final PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development) approval for the 35.97-acre site in order to allow the construction of a 132,500 square foot electric generating plant containing 13,980 square feet in building, 65,059 square feet in equipment and 53,511 square feet in tanks. The proposed electric generating plant is a dual-fuel simple-cycle power plant. The plant will be a peaking, non-utility facility designed to produce power to meet the increased demand for electricity in the State of Florida. The maximum generating capacity for the facility is 510 megawatts. This facility will utilize a simple-cycle gas turbine power generation technology to deliver electrical peaking power during periods when short-term demand exceeds base load requirements. The facility is anticipated to operate approximately 3,500 hours per year utilizing gas for 2,500 hours per year and the potential for oil use for 1,000 hours per year. The power generated by the plant will be placed on the Florida Power and Light (FPL) power grid, utilizing the existing 200' FPL transmission line abutting the property to the north. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed preliminary PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The subject property has a duel furore land use map designation: the northern 39.04 acres is February 8, 2001 Page 4 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.' RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 0 e o designated with an AG-2.5 (Agricultural- 2.5 du/acre) and the southern 77.56 acres is designated with a MXD - Midway Road. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed partial final PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development) approval for the electrical power plant project is also consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has applied for final PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) approval for the 35.97 acres of land that is located within the area designated with a MXD - Midway Road Furore Land Use map classification. In addition, the applicant has indicated that no additional infrastructure needs such as roads, extension of water and sewer services, etc., will be required with the development of the parcel under the final PNRD approval. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant native and drought tolerant vegetation as opposed to exotic and water consumptive vegetation species. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; This proposed change in zoning and the accompanying Preliminary Planned Unit DeVelopment site plan modifies the existing development pattern in this area of the county. Currently, the subject property contains a large citrus grove with very little natural vegetation. The properties surrounding the proposed site are utilized primarily as agricultural uses such as small individual ranches with pasture land and citrus groves. The Furore Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan identifies the southern 77.56 acres of the parcel as being appropriate for a Mixed Use development. The developer is proposing a utility use to be developed on 3 5.97 acres of the 77.56- acre land parcel. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; There are no changes that would require an amendment. The developer chose this site as it abuts the existing 200' FPL Electrical Transmission Line and is in close proximity to the Florida Gas Transmission and a new proposed gas pipeline. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The applicant is proposing a three-lot PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) subdivision. The applicant is only proposing to develop 35.97 acres of the total 116.6 acres of land. The parcel proposed for development as the Midway Electric facility will be serviced water and sewer through onsite wells and septic systems. A condition of approval will be that at the time that water and sewer are located within the vicinity of this project, the applicant will be required to hook into the public system. The developer has provided documentation that the proposed three lot subdivision and partial f'mal PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) of Lot 2 will not create any additional demands on the roadway facilities within this area. The subject property is located north of Midway Road, approximately one-half mile west of Interstate 95. During the planning stages of this project, staff requested that the developer provide for the widening of Midway Road in this area. The applicant has February 8, 2001 Page 5 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.' RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 e agreed to dedicate 40-feet of road frontage along Midway Road in order to ensure that there is sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the widening of Midway Road. The Preliminary PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) will be conditioned to provide for the right-of-way dedication. The developer may be eligible for road impact fees credits for the dedication ofthe right- of-way width. The power plant facility will be accessed via a 60' private roadway that terminates at the proposed power plant site. Upon development of the remaining 41.59-acre tract of land, the developer will be required to construct a left-mm lane into the site. The applicant has demonstrated that a need for the left mm lane will not exist until the 41.59-acre land tract is developed. The construction of the proposed power plant will require the enhancement of the roadway facility thrOugh the constmction of a right-mm lane into the project. This turn lane was required to be of sufficient width to allow for the safe negotiation of the turn by 18-wheel semi-tractor trailers. The applicant has agreed to this request and depicts the mm lane on the Master PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) site plan. The applicant's Traffic Impact Report (TIR) indicates the following pre and post-development conditions for Midway Road at the proposed project entrance: Roadway Link Pre-Development Volume West of Selvitz Road 27,468 East ofi-95 ' 12,829 West ofi-95 4,200 Post-Development Volume 27,472 12,838 4,207 Midway Road west of Selvitz Road operates at a LOS "C" currently, but has committed trips that result in a LOS "F". The proposed project will generate traffic less than 1% of the LOS capacity and therefore will not require project related improvements. In addition, the proposed project's .major impact on the intersecting roadways will occur at Midway Road and Glades Cut-Off Road. The faCility will operate at a Level-of-Service A/B upon completion of signalization of the intersection. Therefore, the applicant's proposed project will satisfactorily satisfy all roadway conditions. The proposed development will not have a negative impact on the existing schools. The applicant is proposing a utility use that does not generate additional students for the school district. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse ilnpacts on the natural environment; The subject property proPosed for development contains an abandoned citrus grove that is currently utilized for pastureland. The site has become overran with Brazilian Pepper. The understory is a mixture of upland grasses and small shrubs such as wax myrtle. There are small swales located between each row of trees, which will intermittently hold water during periods of heavy rain. Two man-made ditches and two man-made ponds are located on the subject property. The larger pond is located on the northern portion of the property and is approximately two acres and approximately four feet deep. No vegetative wetland plant community exists around the perimeter of this pond. Where the water of the pond meets the toe of the slope,, vegetative species such as torpedo grass, duck weed and salvinia is located at the water's edge. These species exist solely within the pOnd and not along the slope of the bank of the pond. No jurisdictional wetlands were observed outside ofthe waters edge of this pond. This pond will be preserved and enhanced for stormwater purposes for the entire site. February 8, 2001 Page 6 Petition' Midway Energy Center File No.' RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 The smaller pond is located on the southem portion of the property and is approximately 0.5 acres in size and approximately three feet deep. The vegetation surrounding the pond is mainly nuisance species such as Brazilian Pepper and Primrose Willow. This vegetation is currently beginning to fill in the north side of the pond. No jurisdictional wetlands were observed outside of the waters edge of this pond. The applicant proposes to fill this pond with mitigation occurring within the enlargement and enhancement of the pond within the northem portion of the site. Based upon this analysis, no environmental impacts will occur with the development of the subject size. The proposed amendment will create a certain amount of adverse impacts on the natural environment. The applicant through the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) approval process has proposed a development plan that by its nature will not adversely impact the environment through noise and emissions. The proposed site is located within an area zoned for agricultural uses. There is an existing gas pipeline located within the vicinity of the subject property as well as access to a new gas line proposed for construction within the vicinity of the subject property. The subject property will have access to the power grid through the 200' Florida Power & Light transmission lines along the northern property line. The principal source of air emissions from the electric generating plant will be the eight simple cycle combustion turbine generators. The pollutants emitted in the largest quantity will be NOx and CO; with lesser amounts of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) mist also emitted from the combustion turbine generators. The following table summarizes the maximum expected annual emissions from the plant (assuming average annual ambient conditions, CTGs fired with natural gas and low sulfur No. 2 distillate fuel oil)and the corresponding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) significant emission rates. Pollutant NOx CO , VOC PM-10© ' "S, O2 ' Pb MaximUm Expected Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 963.2 240.9 18.9 130.7 257.5 0.1 Since the projected emissions of NOx, CO, PM-10 and SO~ are all less than allowed within Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations as well as health based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) the proposed power plant is expected to have an insignificant impact on a~r quality. In addition, the peak impacts of the power plant are less than one percent of the corresponding NAAQS. At full load operation of the electrical generating plant, the project is expected to generate continuous noise levels on a 24-hour basis. The existing sources of environmental noise within the project area include vehicular traffic movements on local and distant roadways, occasional distant aircrafts and intermittent noise from construction activities and sounds from cows, dogs, birds and insects. According to the applicant's Sound Report the estimated noise decibel level of the facility at the proposed site bOundary is 55 dBA or less. At distances farther away from the site, the facility sound levels will be considerably below the allowed St. Lucie County allowed decibel levels. The predicted facility sound level at the border of the proposed Ten Mile Creek Regional Attenuation Facility is less February 8, 2001 Page 7 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.' RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 than 45 dBA. The predicted facility sound level at Ten Mile Creek is less than 40 dBA. These decibel levels are consistent with the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinance requirement for a minimum daytime decibel level of 60 dBA and a minim nighttime decibel level of 55 dBA. Therefore there will be no significant impact on the surrounding prOperties by the noise emissions from the electric generating plant. The applicant will need to obtain all permits relating to environmental impacts and environmental emissions on the site prior to any construction. These agencies include but are not limited to the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 7~ Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; The subject site is designated with a MXD-Midway Road Furore Land Use Map designation which permits the increase in development intensity through a variety of uses. The proposed preliminary PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) will provide for a change in the overall development pattern in the surrounding area. The current development pattern is primarily agricultural in nature. With the development of this (PNRD) Planned Non-Residential Development the general character of the surrounding properties will change from agricultural to more industrial type uses. The entrance to the preliminary PNRD (Planned Non-Residential DeVelopment) will align with the entrance to the proposed LTC Ranch entrance on Midway Road. ge Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code; The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development) Zoning District provides opportunities that allow for the development of more intense uses. COMMENTS The petitioner, Midway Energy Center (ENRON), is seeking approval for a preliminary PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development) for the Midway Development Co., LLC/Cooney-Midway Grove, L.C. Master Site Plan to permit a three lot subdivision and partial final PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) to permit the construction of a 132,550 square foot electrical generating plant (building- 13,980 square feet, equipment - 65,059 square feet and tanks- 53,511 square feet), 510 megawatt, electric generating plant for property located on the north side of Midway Road, approximately ½ mile west of Interstate 95. The project will be knOwn as Midway Energy Center (ENRON). Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Non-Residential Development Master Site Plan and partial Final Planned Non-Residential Development site plan is compatible with the existing and proPosed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the gOals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: February 8, 2001 Page 8 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.: RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 Preliminary PNRD Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any development on Lot 1, a revised PNRD application with supporting dOcumentation must be received and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This application must detail the proposed development for the subject property, including a detailed analysis of proposed uses for the project. The current approval for Midway Energy Center (Enron) in no way obligates the County to furore approvals for this portion of the project. , Prior to any approvals for development for Lot 1, a minimum of 1.77 acres of the remaining 4.1.59 acres shall be dedicated as open space for the overall development. o Consistent with other development approvals granted along West Midway Road, prior to, or as part of, the final platting ofthe subject property, the developers shall be required to convey to St. Lucie County, in manner and form acceptable to the St. Lucie County Attorney, 40 feet of additional right-of-way along the site plan's southern property line for the fumrewidening of West Midway Road. To the extent permitted under the County's Code and Compiled Laws, any such dedication may be considered eligible for Road Impact Fee Credits. , Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy or other use authorization for this facility, the final plats for the Cooney-Midway Grove PNRD, shall have been approved by St. Lucie County and all required improvements necessary to service the Midway Energy Center site consistent with that plat shall have been completed, or security provided for, in a manner acceptable to St. Lucie County. , Prior to issuance of any development approval for any site construction, for Lot 1, the developer shall construct on West Midway Road, a dedicated eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of the private roadway and West Midway Road. , The proposed private entrance into the subdivision shall be dedicated to the Master Association. o The applicant shall connect to central water and sewer services upon the installation of central water and sewer lines along West Midway Road. The use of the private well shall be discontinued except for irrigation use until such time as an alternative water resource for irrigation is available. , Lot 3 shall be kept as open space in perpetuity as indicated on the PNRD Master Site Plan o All power lines for the proposed subdivision shall be required to be placed underground. Partial Final PNRD 10. As part of the construction of this project, the developer shall be required to construct the private roadway from West Midway Road to the project entrance. All works in this are to be done prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the Midway Energy Center.\ February 8, 2001 Page 9 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.: RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 1t. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy or other use authorization for this facility, the developer Shall be required to construct a westbound right-mm lane into the facility at the project entrance along West Midway Road. 12. Prior to the applicant being permitted to increase the number of hours of operation for oil or gas, the applicant shall be required to submit a modified PNRD application to be approved by the Board of County Commissioner. 13. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment CS Midway Energy Center Alfred J. Malefatto, Greenberg & Traurig Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates -Rich Ladyko, Culpepper & Terpening File February 8, 2001 Page 10 Petition: Midway Energy Center File No.: RZ-00-018, PUD-00-013 and MJSP-00-012 Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF MIDWAY ENERGY CENTER, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS COONEY-MIDWAY GROVES PNRD, PARTIAL FINAL PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/ACRE) AND AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/2.5 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PNRD (PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT-COONEY-MIDWAY GROVES - PNRD) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF MIDWAY ENERGY CENTER, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS COONEY-MIDWAY GROVES PNRD, PARTIAL FINAL PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/ACRE) AND AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/2.5 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PNRD (PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- COONEY-MIDWAY GROVES - PNRD) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 3.01.03 A, . . . . . , ZONING DISTRICTS AG-1 . _AGRICULTURAL- I Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable, for productive commercial agricUlture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with' productive 'agricultural. surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. The number in "0" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code. Permitted Uses a. f. Agricultural production -crops (0~) Agricultural production -livestock & animal specialties (0~) AgricultUral services (07) Family day care homes. Family reSidential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (~1-,000) feet ofanother 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. (~) Fishing, hunting & trapping (o~) Forestry Kennels. (0752) Research Facilities, Noncommercial (8733) Riding stables. (7999) Single-family detached dwellings. (,,9) Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. Dimensional .Regulations DimensiOnal requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in.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 ao Agricultural labor housing. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoning.District Use Regulations b, e~ k~ Air.cra:~t.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 such family residential home. (999) Farm products .warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) Gasoline service stations. Industrial wastewater disposal. (ss9) Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals (287) (2) Food & kindred products (20) (3) 'Lumber & Wood products, except furniture (2,) Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, except fuels. ¢4) Retail trade: (1) Farm equipment and related accessories. (~9) (2) Apparel & accessory stores. Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.1 3. (se9) Telecommunication Towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.1 0.23 (sss) Camps -sPoring' and recreational. (7032) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are ~subject to the .requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following' a, Mobile homes .subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. Retail trade and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. Guest houSe.subject to the requirements of Section 7,10.04. (ss,) Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01/00 B. . . o o ° ,, Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations AG-2.5 Purpose ~GRI'CULTURAL - 2.5 The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together'with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maXimum of one dwelling unit per two and one half (2.5) gross acres. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. Permitted Uses a° f~ g. h. i. j. k. Agricultural production- crops AgricUltural production -livestock & animal specialties AgricultUral services Family day care homes. Family residential homes provided that such homes shali not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another 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. Fishing, hUnting & trapping Forestry (08) Kennels. (0752) Research Facilities', Noncommercial (8733) Riding stables. (7999) Single-family detached dwellings. (,,,) L. ot 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 reqruirements are subject to Sectiq,n 7.09.00 Conditional Uses a, Agricultural labor housing. (999) Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. (4581) Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. (4581) Adopted August 1, 1990 96 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoning Distdct Use RegUlations d. eo i, Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) Farm products warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) Gasoline service stations. ~(ss,~ Industdal~wastewater disposal. Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals (2) Food & kindred products (3) Lumber &.wood products, except furniture Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, except fuels. Radio,: television, and microwave communication stations and towers. (999) Retail trade: (i) Farm equipment and related accessories. (2) Apparel & ~accessory stores. (5~) Sewage disposal subject .to the .requirements of Section 7.10.13. (~) Camps - sporting and recreational. (7032) Outdoor shooting ranges, providing site plan approval is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 11.02..07 through 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' a. Mobile homes Subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. .Retail trade and wholesale trade - subordinate .to the primary authorized use or activity. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. Adopted August 1, 19.90 97 Revised Through 08/01/00 C. . , , , . . Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations AG-5 AGRICULTURAL- 5 Purpose ']'he .purpose of this. district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres. 'The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference' described in. Section 3.01.02(B). The number.999 applies to a use not defined under the 'SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00,00 of this code. Permitted USes Agricultural production - crops (o~) Agricultural production -livestock & animal specialties (02) Agricultural services (0~) Family day care'homes. (ses) ;Family residential homes-proVided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or Department of Heal-th and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of CountyCommissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by'HRS. (999) :Fishing, hunting'.& trapping (09) Forestry (08) Kennels. (0752) Research Facilities, Noncommercial (8733) Riding stables. (zg,~) Single-family detached dwellings. (sss) Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (,,9) 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. Agricultural labor housing. (999) ,. Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. (4581) Adopted August 1, 1990 98 Revised Through 08/01/00 o Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations e,, n. Airports and flying, landing, and take-off fields. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) Farm products warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) Gasoline service stations. (554~) Industrial wasteWater disposal. (99~) Manufacturing: (1) ' Agricultural chemicals (2) Food & kindred products (20) (3) Lumber &'wood products, except furniture (~4) Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels ¢4) Retail trade.: (1) Farm equipment and related accessories (s,s) (2) Apparel & accessory stores (59) Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13 (999) Camps - sporting and recreational (7032) Off-Road VehiCle Parks, except go,cart raceway operation or rentals (7,~), subject-to the requirements of Section 7.10.21 Outdoor shooting ranges, providing site plan approval is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 11.02.07 through 11.02.09 and Section 7.10.19 of this Code. Accessory Uses: Accesso'ry uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following' Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. Retail trade and'wholesale trade- subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (ess) Adopted August 1, 1990 99 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non-Residential Development 7.02.00 PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 7.02.01 PURPOSE The .Planned Non-Residential Development (PNRD) District is intended to achieve non-residential land development of superior quality through the. encouragement of flexibility and creativity in design options that: A. Permit creative approaches to the development of non-residential land reflecting changes in the technology of land development; Allow for the efficient use of land, which can result in smaller networks of utilities and streets and thereby lower development costs; C. Allow design options that encourage an environment of stable character, comPatible with Surrounding land uses; and D. Permit the enhancement of neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features, the provision of underground utilities, and the provision of recreation areas and open space. 7.02.02 PERMITTED USES The following.gen.eml guidelines shall be used in determining the-permitted use possibilities in any Planned Nonresidential Zo.ning Development: A. For properties located in any Residential or Agriculiural classified land use area: Any permitted, conditiOnal or accessory use, inCluding any standards, conditions and. requirements for those use~, as identified: in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); InstitutiOnal (I)Zoning .Districts, and in the Agricultural land use classified areas only, any non'resid:ential, permitted or accessory-use identified in the Agriculture-1 (AG-I), Agricultural-2.5 (AG- 2.5), Or Agricultural-5 (AG-5) zoning districts of this Code. Telecommunication 'towers must comply with the requirements of Section 7.10.23. The general: standards, conditions and requirements, as found in this Code, that pertain to conditional. and accessory uses shall 'be used in the determination of the compatibility of the proposed use(s) with the surrounding land CiSes .in the review of the Planned Nonresidential Development. All applications for Planned Nonresidential Development shall include a complete identification of all planned uses and activities. B. For properties located in any Commercial or Industrial classified land use area: Any permitted, conditional or accessory use, inckJding any standards, conditions and requirements for those uses, as identified in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); Industrial Light (IL); Industrial' Heavy (IH), .Utility (U)and (!)Institutional zoning diStricts, and any non-residential permitted or accessory use identified in the Agriculture-1 Adopted August 1, 1.990 382 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02:00 Planned Non-Residential Development (AG'l), Agricultu.ral-2.5 (AG-2.5), or Agricultural-5 (AG-5)-zoning districts of this Code. Telecommunication 'towers must comply with the requirements .of Section 7.10~23. 7.02.03 The general standards, conditions and .requirements, as 'found in this Code, that pertain to conditional and accessory.uses Shall be used in the determination of the compatibility~of the proposed use(s) with the surrounding land uses in the reviewof the Planned Nonresidential Development. All applications for Planned .Nonresidential~ Development shall include a complete identification of all planned uses and activities. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Standards and requirements for 'a Planned Non-Residential Development shall be as follows: A. MINIMUM SIZE The minimum .lot ,size requirements for a Planned Non-Residential Development shall be as follows: . Any Planned Non-Residential DevelOpment in a Residential Land Use classification shall comply .with the minimUm lot requirements in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN)Zoning District, . Any-Planned Non-Residential Development in a Commercial, Industrial or Mixed Use Land Use classification shall comply with the minimum lot requirements in the CommerCial General (CC) Zoning District. , All 'Planned Non-Residential DevelOpment shall be under common ownership or control. B. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum dimensiOnal, requirements shall be in accordance with Table 7.10 in Section 7.04.01, provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a Planned Non-Residential Development upon compliance with more.-stringent or restrictive dimensional requirements in order to. ensure-compatibility with surrounding land uses, to mitigate impact on the environment and natural resources, to ensure public safety and to ensure compliance with the.. St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; and, any structure on North or South-Hutchinson Island that has not been occupied, constructed, or has not received a building: permit, site plan or other County development approval as a permitted use prior to January 10, t995., the requirements of Section 4.01.00, Hutchinson Island - Building Height Overlay Zone shall apply. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES . The Planned Non-Residential Development shall be designed and located so there, will be no :net public cost for the provision of water lines, sewage lines, storm and su~ace drainage Adopted August 1, 1990 , 383 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non-Residential Development Do systems, and other utility systems in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to mitigate impact on the environment and natural resources,, to ensure .public safety and to ensure compliance with the St. 'Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. . The minimum size of all water mains used, or intended fOr use, in fire protection activities is six (6")inches. Actual water main requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County- Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. ;3. The minimum.size of :all water mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection-activities, that are located :on a dead-end water main is eight (8") inches. Actual water main requirements will be.'determined by the St. Lucie County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. The .maximum-number of.fire hydrants that may be located on any dead end water main is one (1). ., Fire hydrants shall be provided at a minimum spacing of one every six hundred (600) feet Unless otherwise approved by the St. Lucie County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN. CIRCULATION . Every use permitted in a'Planned Non-Residential Development shall have access to a public street either di:rectty or through an approved private road, vehicular accessway, a pedestrian way, or.other area dedicated to public or private use. . . Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Non-Residential Development shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. The propoSed' Plannedr Non-Residential Development shall be designed so that it will not create'traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the project, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. , o ., Streets in a Planned Non-Residential Development may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with ali pertinent County regulations and ordinances, however, variations to the standard minimum right-of-way widths .may be considered as part of the Planned Non-Residential DevelOpment if it is shown to the satisfaction of the County Commission, that the requested variation ,is consistent with the intent of 'the County's roadway construction standards and necessary for the design of the Planned Unit Development. Any pedestrian circulation system and its related walkways shall be insulated from the vehicular street system. Adopted August 1, 1990 384 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non-Residential Development E. '. Al.! roads and streets shall intersect at an approximate _+5° angle of.ninety degrees (90°) unless Circumstances acceptable to St. Lucie County indicate a need for a lesser angle of intersection. . Street jogs or centerline offsets between any'local street or road with another local Street or road, shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150). '8. The intersection .of any two local roads or streets with a .Major Collector .or Arterial Roadway shall be separated'by .a minimum distance of six hundred sixty feet (660), as measured from centerline to centerlin.e. . Permanent dead-end Streets shall not exceed .one thousand feet (1000) in length. Cul-de-sacs shall be provided at the end of all dead end roads or streets greater than five hundred .and one (501) feet in length. The length of a dead-end street shall be measured along the centerline..of'the street from the its point of perpendicular intersection with the centerline ofintersecting street to the end of the dead-end street or roadway. All cul-de-sacs shall .have a minimum right-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet. .If the dead end roadway is five hundred (500) feet or less in length,, a "Y" or "T" type of turn around may be approved. · If a dead'.end street is temporary in nature then a temporary cul-de-sac shall be required until the roadway is connected to another street or road. In the center of the cul-de-Sac an unpaved island, surrounded by a curb, improved with grass and landscaping that will not interfere with sight .distance, may be provided. Center islands shall have a .diameter of not less than seventeen (17) feet, unless otherwise approved through the review of the' Planned Unit Development. 10. Al/roadways, exclusive of interior parking and access aisles areas, regardless of ownership, shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any exterior building walls, except for security gate houses: or similar security' structures located in a private street or road right-of- way. 11¸. Access Points on all collector or arterial streets serving a Planned Non-Residential DeveloPment` shall be located and spaced so that traffic moving into and out of the arterial streets does not cause traffic congestion. PARKING AND LOADING 1. General prOvisions ao The number, type, and location of parking spaces shall be determined at the time of final Planned Nonresidential Development plan approval. The determination of the number of spaces required shall be based on Section 7.06,02 of this Code. The Adopted August 1,199Q 385 Revised Through 08~01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non.Residential Development F. number of parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial competent evidence that the reduced number of spaces is adequate for the Proposed use or that parking may be shared: by proximate uses that operate at different times or on different days. bo Reserved parking spaces may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject to Section 7.06.02(B)(4) of this Code. . Off Street.Parking and Loading Off-street parking-and loading requirements are governed by Sections 7.06.02 and 7.06.03 of this Code, .and the following standards: a. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be designed to provide travelways between ~adjacent uses while, discouraging through traffic. b, Off, str.e, et parking and loading areas shall be screened from adjacent roads and pedestrian waikways with hedges, dense planting, or changes in grades or walls. On:Street Parking In Planned Non-Residential ~Developments, on. street .parking may be used so long as the road On which the on-street parking is proposed ii'es entirely within the limits of the defined Planned Nonresidential Development and: such parking would not contravene any other provision of this Code or the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances, Where such on street parking and loading is used, it shall be consistent with the following design standards: a?. The minimum size of a parking stall shall be as follows: parallel angled handi'capped (Parallel) handicapped (angled) 8 feet X 23 feet 10 feet X 18 feet 12' feet X 23feet 12 feet X 18 feet b. Co Handicapped Parking spaces shall be appropriately marked. .. Access for emergency fire vehicles shall be in accordance with NFP^ standards. do No more than fifteen, (15) parking spaces shall be permitted in a continuous row without being interrupted by a minimum landScape area of 360 square feet. LIGHTING ~, All lighting facilities shall be arranged in. such a manner so as to prevent direct, glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or propertieS. Adopted August 1, 1990 386 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non-Residential Development O. LAN DSCAPING AND NATURAL FEATURES . Native trees and vegetation and other natural features shall be preserved to the extent practicabire. , All sensitive environmental vegetation, trees and areas shall be preserved to the extent practicable. . Landscaping for off-street parking and loading areas shall meet the minimum requirements of Section 7.09.00. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS For development projects of less than ten (10) acres, a minimum of~twenty (20)'percent of the gross area of land to be committed to a Planned Non-Residential Development must be for use as common open space, which may include parks, recreation areas, bicycle and pedestrian paths and facilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common open space, common landscaping or planting areas, Or other areas of public purposes other than street or road rights'of-Way, utility easements, excluding exclusive stormwater .treatment facilities, and parking areas. For development projects of ten (10) acres or more, a minimUm of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of land to be committed to a Planned Non-ReSidential Development must be for use as common open space, which may include parks, recreation areas, bicycle and pedestrian paths.and .facilities, marinas, .swimming beaches, common open space, common landscaping~or planting areas, or other areas of public purposee other than street or road rights'of-way, utility easements, excluding exclusive stormwater treatment facilities, and parking areas. At the request of the developer, and subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, use of recreational facilities may be offered to the general public. A minimum of 15 percent of any existing native upland habitat on the property, must be preserved in its natural condition as part of the required 35 percent common open space, For each acre ~of preserved native habitat above the required minimum 15 percent that is preserved in its original state, credit shall .be given at a rate of 150 percent per acre towards the remaining common open space requirement. All areas to be dedicated for common open. space shall be identified as part of the Preliminary DevelOpment Plan for the Planned Nonresidential Development. Areas that are floodways, lakes, wetlands, and stormwater retention areas may be applied: to satisfy the total common open. space requirement subje,,ct to the requirement that 15% of any existing native habitat on the prope~ must be included as part of the required 35% common open space. As part of the Final Planned Nonresidential Development submission process, the developer or petitioner for the .Planned Nonresidential Development shall provide for one of the Adopted August 1, 1990 387 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7:02,00 Planned Non-Residential Development J. following- The advance dedication of.all commonopen space to a public, or acceptable private, agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and · any buildings, 'structures or improvements that have been placed on 'it. All such dedications or .conveyances shall be completed, prior to the issuance of any building .permits, including land clearing, for any .portion of the Planned Nonresidential Development; or, A phased conveyance of the land to be used for common open space to a public or acceptable private agencythat will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain thecommon open. space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. The schedule for the phased conveyance of any such lands to be used for common open space shall be a specific condition of approval for the Planned 'Nonresidential Development. ¸, Areas provided or reserved to meet any other environmental preservation or protection requirement of this code or other lawful regulatory authority may be counted towards the overall common open space requirement, provided that the corem-on,open space meets the requirements of,this Code. . All land dedicated for common open space shall be physically part of the Planned Non- Residential Development. PHASING ,, A Planned Non-Residential Development may be developed in more than one (1) stage or phase. SIGNS' If a .Final Development Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phase shall be constructed and developed in a reasonably continuous fashion. The final stage or phase shall be completed within ten (10) years of .the date of final development plan approval. Any extension of the above .requirement is subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners unless otherwise amended by the Board of County Commissioners. .. . Signs within any Planned Non-Residential Development located in a Residential or ^griculturallY classified land use area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 applicable to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District; provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners may condition aitproval of a Planned Non-Residential Development upon compliance with. more stringent sign regulations in order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed ~development, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and prevent public harm,, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie Adopted August 1, 1990 388 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.02.00 Planned Non-Residential Development . County Comprehensive Plan. Signs within any Planned Non-Residential Development located in a commercially or industrially classified Land Use Area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 applicable in the-Commemial General (CG), Zoning District; provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a Planned Non-Resiclential Development upon-comPliance with.more stringent sign regulations in order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed development, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to.ensure Public safe~ and-prevent public harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1, 1990 389 Revised Through 08/01/00 A .Petition :of~Midway~'Deveiopment Company for'a change in zoning from AG-2,.5 (Agricultural, 1 ~d.u/2.,5 acres) and AG-I (Agricultural, 1 d.u?acre) Zoning-Districts to the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential District)Zoning District. RZ 00-018. ~/~~~ This pattern indicates subject parcel Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 Midway ,Deve,lop.me,nt Compa. ny. Zoning AG-1 RZ 00-018 f~~'/'~~ This pattern indicates subject parcel Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 0 c (D O5 ~ 0 $ I,£ ~ $ ~£ ! A.LNFIO0 33flOH033~O OVOU NOLlUV3 OVOU 3Nll 30NVU 'Midway Develop.ment Company Land Use MXD Midway Road , . RZ 00-018 ~/~/~ This pattern indicates subject parcel , · COmmunity Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared January 26, 2001 "LESS AND THE NORTH 'STL"! ST. LUCIE: COUNTY,: FLORIDA~'~ ~DESCRIBED 'AS: OF 'LAND RANGE 39 .EAST''AND :SECTION'34~iTOWNSHIP MORE PARTICULARLY. DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS: iCOMMENCE':AT 'TER OF SAtD.~SECTION 3; THE~.CE.:,NORTH 00016'38" SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 39~67 I~EET TO THE NORTH 712) A 70 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF,WAY; THENCE. SOUT,H 89048'08'' WEST. At MIDWAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 712) A DISTANCE OF 39.00 FEET' TO' THE wE! LUCIE RIVER' WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NUMBER 93 AND TH1 ALONG· THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF' SAID MIDWAY R.OAD -SOUTI-t FEET; . THENCE DEPARTING SAID ~IGHT-OF-WAY 'LINE NORTH INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINEOF' THE NORTHWEST QUARTER EAST A DISTANCE 'OI~ ,131.8;4~ FEET; THENCE N~RTH '89°59'41" EAST AI WEST RIC~HT*OF.WAY.,LiNfiOF SAID CANAL NOMBER 93;;!THENCE WAY LINE ,OF SAID.CANAL NUMBER '93 .A DISTANCE OF .13J 8.92' THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF'SAID' S.ECTION~3, NUMBER.93,. ~OUTHi 00°1'6'38" ~ )IS ' ' ROAD AND THE POINT ! TU · · The,~.e~t-1 / F! page 2.3 St. Lb~:ie Iot-62 west Midway ROa Tax.id - .. .,:!~ . Locoti, R0ad,.bppro~imat'ely-'500" -f'~; inc,' fora Cfla~ge.i~ zoning from CG ;des~ibe~ ~ro~e~ :' ~"' ." ' While.]Ci~ Subdivision se~ion. 11 If of the :lot 24 i:South R~ngei~0 [2~'of'WhJte .C~ty e .40 East.at ..the'west, right of way 'of. 'Way (said'right~'of Tax :, r · ~::~:'~' 'i..'.~ ::~.~..-~ ,';.'~.~ .~ .-..: ~.: ~: ~i ,' ::. "..;. '~¢~,iI~i~:~i~~ '?J ~.~: ~:":: ~';]:';' :~ ':~" "~';.'". ~ .':;.; L';' '..": ~' B,gin~ing;'~4~nfinu~S'~9~ ~t6~-~~~ '. .... : · · '~ ..-. : :' feet to'the ~glnning of.~a n0n4ang~n'tj,~e~n~ '" "' ' ' ' : "' distance.of'704.22 feet; th~ce N 32 46 i'5 E,.~f~' ' ' ~ ~ W, a' distan~'~f 315.54 f~t; thence 'N.-~o49'36~'C.~ i-.'distance 0f.'214.11 fee~; thence N 84°52'28? E, .a distanc~'~ 300.55.1 ' ""' '" ": : : . . '. .' . thence N 14°09'53" W, a dislanc~ of~242.58, feet; ~ence N 52°27135" C a distance of 39.61 feet; thence N 29°13'49" · '...::... -' ~..-..-.~ · .- distance ~f 28~.~4 f~; thence N ~7~13'39" W~ a dis~ance ~f 222.22 fee~; th~nce N ~3~'~2" E~ a distance ~f 59.95 f~t; ~henc~? :....: ... :.:;..' :..- .N 04°54'56~ W,,a distance of 221.93 f~f; thence ~ 17~51'33" 'W, a distance 0f 60.24 f~t; thence N 35024'06" E, a distance 0f "' · 74.68 f~t; thence S 70°38'31" E, d distance of 9]~16 f~et; thence S 78°08'31" E, a distance of 187.63 feet to ~e ~inning 8f.;a - non-tangent curve concaveto the SOutheast~ having 9',~adius of i 61.90 f~et; the Chord of which bears N '63040'43" E; thence along ':'...: .'.: '~ ~ '~'~.'..: ~" the arc ~f's~id ~u~e .through a central angle.of,65°49'09", a distance.of 185,99 feet to the beginning of a non-tang~nt curve concave ~o the SoufheasL having a radius of 650.00 feet. the chord of which bears N 31 °39'20". E; thence along t~ arc ~f said .. . " cur.ve through a central angle of '26°41 '20~, a dista~be of'302.78 feet; thence N 45°00'00" E, tangents, to Idst ~s~i~'.~u~, a ' · ... - distance of 11~34.06 feet; ~hence S 45°00'00", E,'a distance.of 636.49 feerto the beginning of a cu~e concave to the'~outhWesf, ' '- ' '.~ . haging a radius OF 2900.00 feet; the ch0~d '0~ Ghi~.~ars S 35°41'31~' E; thence along the arc. of said cu~e thrash a cenff61 -. angle of 45°! 4'09~ a distance of 2368:53 f~; th~'S.00°l 4'09" W, adistance of 2059.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. -: . Containing'352.98 ~cres, mo~e 0r'less.;' "' ' .... '~. .... ~' ' '. ' ~:::' . . . :,, . . Tax Id No. 4308-000:0000:000/~ .... ~ -'L~...~ . ' ' . '. ~". : .- - . -. · 4309-000-0000L000/O. '. "...: ~: .,.~'" ,~ .... ~. .. " . . 6. A Change in the boundaries for a pre~t0~sl~'~eLOm~ended rezoning to PMUD for the Westchester Development Cor~ralio~.for' ' '" ' the " """ ]." -.... ' : fol!bwing described pr0pe~: . ' ... . . , Being a parcel of land Iocat~ in Sections 9, and; 10j~'Township.37 S~uth, Range 39 East,:Sf. Lucie Count, Florida. Said parcel being more particularly described' as:.follows: ~ ~ .... " ,,,.., .. . ~ ..~ :. , , ~ . ' ,. -. B~in at .the intersedio~ of the cenierline .0f Gailln:;.~'ulevard, (a(so ~ing the 'Nodh line of S~ti~h '15) and ~he ~st~lyr lim"s of Oaflin Bould~&rd -Right-of-Way 'and t6~ weit~ly limiis of th0s~ lands-de~C;ibed in on Order of Taking~.d~ted July'24, '1979"and recorded in Officidl keCbrd ~00k D1 'i-b( Pdges ~4&..~rough, 2952, 'ificlusive, Public Records:of St. ~i~ Count,' Florida, and as showhon' the Florida DePa~ment o~ Vransp~datio"'R'iaht~JWay map~ ~&r State Uoad N9 (~-9~), SectiOn 94001,2412, dat~" · 6/~/77~'with.last FevisiOn of 9/i 1/Zg;;'thenc~ S~9057'05" W~ '~!Obg' said centerline a d,sta~ce of ....... 00° 14'09" E, a distance of , .. ' 2815.40 'f~t; thence~ .N feet; :thenCe.along the-arc cu~e condave .to the SouthweSt, hag~ng a radius of 3000.00 distance of'100.00 feet; thence N a distance of 1399.56 f~t; thence N 63 30 22 E, a f0 ~e b~inning-of a ~d~e concave to ~e So~,.havifig ~ . radius of 525.00 feet; the-chOrd E;.thence along the arc.of'.saJd ~u~e through a cen~al angle' of ............ 29°26'59% a dista'nce: of" ' feet; dtsfance..of'62a97 f~t .to the begifining 9f'a cu~e ~0n~gve ~6 '~he ' No~h~e~f, h~vi~ga cadius ' ' ~ N 4Z°~'0~7 E; thence along the arc of said cu~ nrough a . cen~al'~ang!eo~jg]ol 1 a ~int at revise ~u~ature .with a cu~e co~ave to the East, Jhaging a' radius of 527.~7'feet; the 6~30"-. E; thence aiong-t~, arc of ~said ' ' 40~ 1~0'52", 'a 'distance of :.WJ~ '~ "cu~. ~8~cave 1956.76"f~e~;_the:~h~rd of which I .fh~:~arc 0f ~aid cu~e through'a cen~al ' ' distance . fo':t~ South~st a;r~iUs chord of which bears 193.92 feel t6-.the b~ bears S :49°07'13"' 58006'45" E, a, distance of 389~9 chord bf 'which 'bearS"S 2~°00'27~ i feet to a ~int of reverse: cu~ature with' 09°04'45~' E; [thence along the arc 18°! 5,21.~..E, a: distance: 0f 855:1 i 100.00're'et; ~he chOrd ~f'"whieh .b~rS~'S ~cu~e cave t0' distance of 57, -~- - :.. S 90°00'00, 2~ S'00b00'00" E,. a di ~'~:'~' W; a .distance of .290.00 ~t;' ~henc~ ) ': thence S 90°00'00" E,,a curve concave to the cu~e through'~a, ce'ht~al angle of ~i~ of a Northwest, having, a radius of 1 central-angle'Of ] 3 ! °05~52~; a curve concave~.to.the Southeast, said curve througha central angle of 89°57~05"E. a ~istance of 588,~6 'feet; to ~he  ontalning.223~40 a~res,' more or less; . '.- .. ~. ' ~ '.-. ': - ~ '~.'::: :' 4~0~-0.00-0000~000/0 .'. :." .,. - .'...?.,~.' ~':;:~.~.'~; .~ . ~: ..... ,. ~.. ~..~ ~.. . ~... ~ : .:~ L0cation:.No~th' oF Gatlin :BIv~ West. of Interstate 95.~?' . . . ..'. ' . ~ © .'~ . .... . -.... : :. ' PUBLIC HEXRi'NGS Will. be. held .tn Co~misslo~.:~amb~r~; 'R~er. Poitras 'Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue,.F0d Pierce;'.JFIorlda '~n ~ FebruarY' i'5,'2001;' ~ginnin~ at.7~0~ P,MJ 0raS.'.i~n ther~ aS pos~ible~[~ . : . -; .... ' ' .. L.. '.:. ;;.' PURSUANT TO S,~i~ 2B&0105;"FI~Hd6 sta~e~' ifa ~son' d~id~s't~ app~t any d~lsion, made ~by a ~a~d, ~gency, commission with rest't0 ~y .mafle~ C~nstde~d':~ a meeting or hearing, he ~ill ne~'a recor~ of the proc~ings, an~ that, such pur~ses,:he m~y~n,~ t0 ensure fhaf b'~'Jtm re~0rd ~f. t~e proc~di'ngs is mad6,'Which record includes n~.t~stlmony: I evidence Upon Which thee ap~al is to be bas~, ~; .... .. - . ~ . . . .. PLANNING AND'ZONING CG~issioN. ~,;~;':~. - . - -ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ." ' ' -::L-' ;- . ... /S/Stefan MaHh~s, CHAIRMAN ' ..,. PUBLISH. DATE: February 5, 2001 .". .'??-' . " : ' ~h a ce~rai.'ang!e:bf 1303~'3'1~; a dista~q of~464.29,~:f~t;'.n~n~?Ljr~N;Jll..: .. ~8'06" E, 8 :distance~.:of. 492,35 'feet .td:the ~inning ~ence along, the .arc :0f,sold'~u~e ,through a cenkal anale Duke .. ergy_~ ~ortfi ;4merica A Duke Energy Company . Duke Ener~ is a kadmg developer, bm'/der and operator of ~vholesale ekctn'c generat~'on projects throughout the Un,'ted States. lng Offices {~ OperaUng Facilities ~ Under Consl:ruc~ion ,~ American Ref-Fuel Environmental Awards Duke Energy's commitment topmtecting the environment, conserving natural resources and safeguarding the health and safe~ of employees and communitiespermeates ems~ area flour operations. Our kag tradition of re¢onsible environmental stewardship is recognized b~ ma~ organizations. Some of the recent environmental awards earned bjy Duke Energy include: 1999 Vision and Leadership Award, Mi/liken and Company 1999 Partnership Award, Coastal~medca 1999 Sanctuary Reflections Award, A~sodatioa ofMoat~r~ Bqy Area Governments 1999 Global Climate Challenge Program Certificate of Appreciation, U.~. Eish and I~ildl~ Service & Thwdom Roosevelt Ill 1998 Land Stewardship Award, National IVild Turkey Foundation 1998 Conservationist of the Year, South Carolina tVildlife Federation 1998 Certificate of Exceptional Merit, National Wildlife Federation 997 Voluntary Protection Program "Star" Facility Certificate, OSH~ 1997 Fishery Conservation Award, ~4medca Fisheries Society- South Caro /ia a Chapter 1997 National Land Management Award, Edison Ekctdc Institute Duke ~~lEner~zy_, . Nortfi~4mer;ca A Duke Energy Company ! 1 Duke/Fluor Daniel A world leader in power plant design and construction, and a major builder of clean-burning combustion turbine power plants. Ranked by Engineering News Record magazine as the leading U.S. contractor for 10 of the last 12 years. Duke/Fluor Daniel's experienced team of engineers, scientists, planners, and other professionals ensure that a power project meets, or exceeds, all enviro~ental requirements. Together, Duke Energy and Fluor Daniel represent over 100 years of experience in the power industry. The Ft. Pierce Generating Station bu/lders have earned the best safety record in the construction industry, with an accident rate 62 times lower than the national average. Construction of the Ft. Pierce Generating Station is estimated to take 13 months. Duke/Fluor Daniel has built a number of similar plants, which now supply clean and efficient power to many communities across the nation. Duke/Fluor Daniel will operate the Ft. Pierce Generating Station. As a power plant operator, Duke/Fluor Daniel enjoys the same excellent reputation it earned as a builder of state-of-the-art energy ~l~ D~k~ generation facilities. ~~Ener!zy_® . Nortfi~4mer~ca A Duke Energy Company Economic Benefits The Et. Pierce Generating Station mill increase tax revenue and the number of high-payinegjobs in the area. Some of its manyprojected economic benefits include: Direct jobs created: · 150-300 jobs during 13 month construction · 10 jobs during operation Represents an investment and economic impact equal to that of a regional shopping mall or large manufacturing plant withoUt the traffic and other costs created by these types of facilities The average direct plant operation employee will earn approximately $50,000, 2.5 times the 1999 average wage in St. Lute County Total wages in St. Lucie County will increase by alpproximately $17 million Per year during the construction pnase and $800,000 per year during operation Potential tax and/or impact fee benefits for 2002-2012 period: St. Lucie County Schools St. Lucie County Fire St. Lucie County Law Enforcement $17 million $5 million $1 million Approximate positive local economic impact from new job creation: $50 million during construction $4 million per year during operation %rtlDuke er~ly_~ . ~,merlGa A Duke Energy Company Community, County and State Benefits Significant expansion of local and state tax base, providing additional dollars available for local projects and services like education, road improvements, police and fire. Creates opportunities for local jobs and businesses during construction/operation Improves regional electric reliability by supplying electricity to u61ities like the ones that serve you. Increases capability to meet Florida's growing electric power demands. · $180+ million capital investment. Quality asset. Duke Energy brings 1 O0 years of power generation experience to the project. ENrtfiDuke er~w_® . ~lmer~¢a A Duke Energy Company Project M rea Map Ft. Pierce Generating Station · I i i Duke E-~Ener_nv® . Nort/~mer~¢a Duke Energy Company peo~ ~!AleS ILl I-- LLI 0 I i Current Site Conditions ~i~ Duke E-~Ener~zy.~ . Nortlf ~mer~ca A Duke Energy Company Ft. Pierce Generating Station er~y_® . ~4mer~ca Duke Energy Company L[! !! '! .'! !~!il %.. / III is&* / ,'I t \ \ ? \ /I \ I I I z,.,j,~ , CODE ~K. PKG. CADO fiLE NoOO$202-5-20,..OB _ CONTRACT pKG. · ail~ ~Hl~l~ ~aiI al$I iiea~ m l~$i(, aI~iI Tlll. Z...D.OWG e-l-gg Hi,.I I .i ! !~ / ooo / / ASPHALT ROAD · o [] mm · oo 1GT-S'rK-7100 IGT-STK-elO0 "F1 mm 1GT-STK-51i PARKING 1GT-STK-8100 AND PLANT BENCHMARK ' 1GT-TRB-8100 1GT-TRB-7100 ; 1GT-11:~B-6! O0 ,1GT-TRB-5100 C::]C~MS 1NG-FLT. 01 OD a ING-FLT-O2OOa ~ 1GT-STK-4100 1GT-S'rK-3100 C:]CEMS 1GT-TRB-4100 lOT-TRB-3100 C3CEMS 1GT-STK-2100 IOT-STK-1100 r"l CEMS 1GT-TRB-2100 !1GT-TRB-1100 DIST. CODE WRK. PKG. i l~ FUEL OIL FORWARDING PUMP SKIDS ASPHALT ROAD ~~ ~c - '"~~~ iD z :~ ...... 2o:::o-,, 60'-0" DIST, COOE WRK. PKG. CADD FILE Nd}~5262-5-23-0A ' coNTRAcT pKG. - ' I I ~ST. CO0~ '1111z.j).o~o 6...i PKG. CADD FILE: Nd}052e2-5-22..OA C ~ONTRA?I' PK(~. I . Air Quality The project will u~ze natural gas, which is the same fuel used for cooking at home. NatUral gas is among the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels. Unlike coal, natural gas produces almost no sulfur oxides, no heavy metals and far less nitric oxide ......... -three major pollutants that reduce air quality. · No visible smoke from stacks. · No odors will be emitted by the plant. The project must demonstrate that air quality will be protected in order to obtain a permit to build and operate. The Ft. Pierce Generating Station will meet or exceed federal and state air quality standards and requirements. The project plans to have low sulfur diesel oil as a backup fuel supply. ENrtfDuke er_qy_, . ~AmeriGa A Duke £nergy Company Highest Annual NO2 Impact from the St. Lucie County Facility and Comparison to NAAQS and Other Sources 100 [ug/m3] 5o 4O 2O 1.0 0.057 NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards EPA Background Significant NAAQS Level (national avg) Impact Level The Project Quality [ug/m3] Highest 8-Hour CO Impact from the St. Lucie County Facility and Comparison to NAAQS and Other Sources 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 EPA Background Significant NAAQS Level (national avg) Impact Level The Project Highest Annual PM-10 Impact from the St. Lucie County Facility and Comparison to NAAQS and Other Sources 50 80 lug/m3] 41 20 0.093 EPA Background Significant The NAAQS Level (national avg) Impact Level Project Duke llEner zy_, . Nortfi 4mer ca .,4 Duke Energy Company Common Indoor Sounds Common Outdoor Sounds Rock B and Jet Takeoff {300 ft.} Chain Saw Inside NY Subway Train Food B lender Garbage Disposal Truck at l CD ft. Vacuum Cleaner TV/Radio Listening Normal Conversation Dishwasher in Next Room Refrigerator Gas Lawn Mower at 1 CD ft. Auto at.50 ft. (40 m ph} Residential [daytime) Residential (nighttime} Ft. Pierce Generating ~la~pa~ rainfall on ~~~~lls at l 03 ft. S mall brook at 25 ft. Library Bedroom at Night Rural community (no nearby sounds) Soundproof Room ~_Eneroy_®Duke Nort/~amer~¢a A Duke Energy Company Threshold of Heating PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 1/18/01 File Number CU-00-011 and MJSP-00,011 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: . S~JECT: LOCATION- SITE DESCRiPTON: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager ~[/- January 9, 2001 Application of Duke Energy Ft. Pierce, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation .of a 56,900 square foot (5,400. square feet - building and 51,500 square feet- equipment), 640 megawatt; energy generating plant, to be known as Duke Energy, in the U (Utilkies)Zoning District. Southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road, approximately one mile southwest of the intersection of Glades Cut Off Road and Selvitz Road. The proposed electric generating plant is ~a gas-fired, 640-megawatt facility. The plant will utilize eight.simple cycle generating units to produce up to 640 .megawatts of" peak power at its design operating conditions. The primary fuel used by the turbines will be natural gas, with the capability of using low sulfur (0.05 %) No. 2 distillate fuel oil as a backup fuel in the unlikely event of a natural gas curtailment. The power plant will be designed with 'the following components' · Eight' 93-foot exhaust stacks (measured above plant grade), one for each simple-cycle combustion turbine generatOr set; · Closed loop auxiliary cooling system; '.- · Various single-story buildings of approximately 5,400 square feet housing the control room, maintenance shop and other support facilities; · .Outdoor electrical switchyard, including station step-up transformers, switches and power metering equipment; · Underground natural gas transmission line extending to the plant; · Water and wastewater treatment systems and stormwater management facilities, These services will be provided to and from the plant via underground pipelines. January 9, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.' CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 OPERATION DESCRIPTION · Tanks for water and fuel oil storage, etC.; · Paved roads and parking areas;' and, Diesel firewater pump for emergency use only. The simple cycle generating units will be operated as a fully dispatchable peak power generating facility, and may operate up to 24 hours per day and up to a maximum of 20,000 hours per year for all eight units combined (i.e., an average of 2,500 hours per year per unit). In the event that natural gas is not available, each turbine could operate (.on average) up to 1,000 hours per year on 'backup fuel oil. The combustion turbine generators can be operated on a continuous basis with the capability to operate down to load levels as low as 60 percent for maximum flexibility. The plant will employ approximately 10 personnel once fully oPerational. Exclusive of short-term transient periods, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the proposed combustion turbine generator will be .' comrolled to a level of 12.0 parts per million based on dry volume at full load using dry low-NO~ combustion technology when firing natural gas. During periods 'of fuel oil firing., NO~ emissions will be controlled to a level, of 42.0 parts per million based on dry volume by using water injection to control flame temperatures in the combustor. These levels of control are consistent with what is currently considered to be BeSt Available Control Technology (BACT) for the industry. The combustion turbine is the main component 0f a simple-cycle power system. First, air is filtered and compressed in a multiple- stage axial flow compressor. Compressed air and fuel are mixed and cornbusted in the turbine combustion chamber. Dry low NOx combustors are used to minimize NO~ formation during combustion. Exhaust gas from the combustion chamber is expanded through a multi-stage power turbine that drives both the air compressor and electric power generator. Exhaust gas exits the power turbine at approximately 1,100°F and 14.69 pounds per square inch absolute. An inlet air fogging system will be provided to enhanCe the power output of the combustion turbine generators during the summer months of-natural gas oPeration. The fogging system will consist of two - demineralized water storage tanks; pump forwarding/injection skids for each combustion turbine generator January 9, 2001 Page 3 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLc File No.: CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 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: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT ~QUI~D: unit, and a water treatment system to provide makeup water to the demineralized water storage tanks. For auxiliary plant equipment, a closed'loop auxiliary cooling water system'will be utilized. This system witl'use a water/glycol mixture as the cooling medium and will include an expansion tank, pumps and water-to-air fin fan heat exchangers. U (Utilities) IND (Industrial) 99.5 acres 56,900 square foot (5,400 square feet - building and 51,500 square feet - equipment), 640 megawatt energy generating plant IH (Industrial, Heavy) to the north, east and' west;'and IH (Industrial, Heavy) 'and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residemial - t du/acre) to the south. IND (Industrial):to the north, east and west; and IND (Industrial) and RS (Residential Suburban) to the south. Station//6 (350 E. Midway Road), is. loCated approximately 5 miles to the northeast. Private. well water and septic service.. See Comments None Certificate of Capacity. January 9, 2001 Page 4 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.' CU-00-011 and-MJSP-00-011 This petition is for a combination of.Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Approval. As such, it is required to satisfy both the standards of review found in Section 11.07~03 and Section 11.02.09 of the County's Land Development Code. STANDA~S OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use and major site plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: ~ le Whether the propoSed conditiOnal use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use has been determined to not be in conflict with any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section' 3.01.03(W)(7), U (Utilities)Zoning District, allows electrical generating plants as conditional uses. As noted in the comments beloW, the proposed site development plan 'that accompanies this request for a ConditiOnal use permit has been determined to meet the minimum standards of the Land Development Code. 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. The proposed site is lOcated'within an area zoned for heavy industrial uses. The proposed utility use is more compatible with the' general characteristics of the surrounding properties (industrial uses) located to the north, east and west than 'the agriculturally zoned properties to the south. There is an existing gas pipeline located within the vicinity of the subject property and in addition a new gas pipeline is being proposed to be installed within the vicinity of the ,subject property, The subject .. property will have access 'm the power grid through the southern property line. The Fort Pierce Utility Authority owns a vacant piece of property that abuts the subject property to the nor~. This site has the potentialto be developed as a wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, the proposed use would be compatible and would not interfere with the develoPment of any of the surrounding area. The principal source of air emissions from the electric generating plant will be the eight simple cycle combustion turbine generators. The pollutants emitted in the largest quantity will be NOx and CO; with lesser amounts 'of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter-(PM 10), sulfur dioxide (SOO, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfuric acid (H2504) mist also emitted from the combustion turbine generators. The following table summarizes the maximflm expected annual emissions from the plant (assuming average annual ambient conditions, CTGs fired with natural gas and low sulfur No. 2 distillate fuel oil) and the corresponding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Significant emissiOn rates. January 9, 2001 Page 5 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.' C U-00-011 and MJS P-00-011 !' PollUtant , Maximum EXpected Annual EmiSsions (tons/Yr)ab Pso Thresh°IdS f°r'Maj°r SoUrCes (tons/yr) · NO~ 1,010 , ' 40 ,. CO ' 580 100 VOC 32 ' 40 PM-10c 170 15 SO2 274 40 · a Emissions are based on maximum hourly emission rates. b Based on 2,500 hours operation per turbine, up to 1,000 hours (per turbine) of which could be fuel oil c All PM assumed'to be PM-10 · Since the projected emisSions of NO×, CO, PM-10 and SO~.are all greater than their respective PSD thresholds, the project is. considered a major source as defined by the regulations governing PSD for each of the pollutants... As such, a PSD permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be required with a demonstration that there will be no violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and that no PSD increments will be exceeded..The applicant's EPA application, air .quality analysis and modeling indicate that the proposed electric generating plant, will not cause a significant degradation of .local ambient air quality and that the plant will be in compliance with all state, and federal ambient air quality regulations. ' At full load operation of the ~electrical' generating plant, the. project is expected to generate c6ntinuous noise'levels on a 24-hour basis. The existing sources ofenvironmenta! noise within the project area 'include. vehicular, traffic movements on local and distant roadways, occasional distant aircrafts overflights and train movements, intermittent noise from construction activities and sounds from cows, dogs, birds and insects. In order to establish an existing noise base, the developer conducted a background noise survey during the period of May 1, 2000 through May. 3, 2000. This survey'consisted of both continuous 24-hour :and short-term noise level measurements. A total of.eight noise monitoring locations, including four 24-hour and 4 short, term sites, were selected to represent the project boundaries and nearest noise-sensitive locations. Exhibit. "A,' identifies the locations (Sites 1 - 4 - 24-hr mOnitoring sites and Sites A- D short-term monitoring sites), To directly compare measured noise levels-to the County's noise standards, all noise level measurements were recorded in terms of A-Weighted noise levels for 15-minute durations. The average (L~g), minimUm (L~0), maximum (Ls0) and statistical (L~) sound levels were collected for each measurement period. The following table summarizes the results for the 24-hour continuous monitoring sites' ~easUrement LoCation DaYtime (7AM 2"10pM) ' · ' 'Nighttime (10PM '7AM) ;ite 45-62 48-62 43-54 ' 42-53 44-54 41-52 ii~2 ............... 41255' ' 43'59" '~41253 36~50' '38-54 ' '36'48 ;ire 3 40-52 · 42-53 . 38-46 36-48 . 37.52 36-45 ;ite 4 51 r66 54-67 - 45-59 43-63 43-67 41-59 January 9, 2001 Page 6 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.' CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 0 The project will consist of four distinct modules, each including two combustion turbine generator assemblies and .their ~associated exhaust stacks and cooler units. From a noise standpoint, the exhaust stacks will present the most prominent sources of noise from the plant. The following table summarizes, the. octave sound pressure level data for each individual component to the facility to a distance of 400 feet from the unit: -~quipment ' ' Octave Band center Frequency (Hz) . ' ............... , ' 31.'5 63'' i25 250 '500' 1000' "2000 '" 4000 8000 ,4-'Wtd '-Exhaust(l'6 Silencing)' 72'."3' ~5.3 63'3' 6413 63.3 56.3 ~ 43.4 ~ '32.2 2612'62'.8 .... Cooling WaterModule~' ~ 7.1 .46.:1 60.3 52~4 51.7 51.1 40i9 ~ 36.2' 38.3 54.4 GT Inlet (8' Silencing) ' 49.1 ] 48'1 "41.3 ' 43.4 41.7 . 36.1~ 34.9' 35.2 · 38.3 44.5 ' '-GT summary ' . · .......... ' ' ': .... .Xcc~Ss0.r3' 62.~8 ..... ~57'~1 51.'4 45.8.' 43.6' 40.2" "i 38.1 ' 28.6 15.4 46. i' Inlet eienum ' ~ 48.3 47.2`" 46.0' 35.1 ' 34.0' 30'4' 29.6 i'20.4''" 7.8" 37.2' Turbinec0mPonent .":.., ~56'..4 '57,2. ~'56,1 46;0 .46.1~ 41~.2'' 139.9. ii' 32,6 .!9i8'.' 48-1 Exhaust Diffuser 53,6 52.8 48.7 39J8 .36,7 30.7 25.2 18.6 ': 5.5 38.8 -~0adCOmpartment ' 49.7 52,8"': 4717' '.40.4 .3.2.5 29.5' 23.0 '15.2 ' 1.9 37.4 '~enerat°r · ~ '~ . ..571.2..' ...~7,41.''54..9.: 45'.6 38,7 ~ 35i3' ·'. 27,2'"'.17'.7 . 4.'1 43..4'. The above table indicates the decibel reading of the equipment at different frequencies. As indicated above, at a frequency of'31.5 Hz, the 16' silencing exhaust wOUld have a decibel level of 72.3. As the frequency goes up, the decibel' reading reduces. Based upon these noise levels, the full-load operation of the power plant is expected to increase the existing background noise levels sUrrounding the property. This increased noise.level will remain well under the noise level criteria set forth in the Chapter 1-13.8 of the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. Therefore there will be no significant impact on.the SUrrounding.properties by the noise emissions from the electric generating plant2 Whether and the 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; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public' facilities in this area. The proposed property Will receive water through an on-site well and sewer service through a septic system for all buildings proposed for this site. As a-condition of.approval, staff would recommend that upon water and sewer services being installed within the vicinity of this project the developers shall connect to the municipal system. The access into the site is proposed as a single access onto Jenkins Road Extension that accesses Midway Road sOuth of the subject site. Although the site is adjacent to Glades Cut-Off Road, the railroad tracks prohibit access onto Glades Cut-Off Road. The Jenkins Road Extension is planned to ultimately connect to Milner Road at the existing intersection of Midway Road and Milner Road. A small portion of the road north of Midway Road is already in place and serves as access to an industrial area southwest of the proposed site. As a part of the construction of the proposed project, the developer shall be required to construct the southern portion of the Jenkins Road Extension, to the project site's southern boundary. January 9, 2001 Page 7 Petition: .Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.'. CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 e The average daily traffic proposed by the development once it is operation is 211 trips per day. The afternoon peak hour trips generated during the construction of the project are proposed to be 225 trips per hour and during operation of the facility Will be 8 trips per-hour. It is assumed that 55 % of the traffic would access the site to/from the West (Midway Road and Glades Cut-Off Road) and. 45 % to/from the east (Midway Road, Selvitz Road and 25m Street). According to the traffic impact report submitted by the applicant, the proposed project will not have a negative impact on any of the above referenced roadway facilities. Two of these roadway facility segments (Midway Road west of Selvitz Road and Midway Road west of 25th Street) operate at a LOS F. Even though ~these roadway segments operate at a negative LOS, the proposed project will not Significantly impact the facility based upon the criteria set forth in Section 5.03,03. The amount of traffic generated by this development will impact these roadway segments by less than 1% and therefore are acceptable. A condition of approval' for the site development plan will be that the proposed development be required to construct turn lanes in such a manner as to accommodate the trucks delivering fuel to the s~te. _ The proposed electric generating plant Will be gated and fenced from the general public; therefore, very little police protection .will be required. ~ether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in' significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The subject property is predominantly a pasture with degraded remnants of bOth pine flatwoods and stnall freshwater marshes. In addition, 10 acres of the subject property is severely impacted byan overabundance of Brazilian Pepper. A condition of ~e site plan will.be that all exotics are removed from the site. at the time of construction of the electrical generating plant. The subject property' comains apprOximately !8.2 acres of wetlands (11.4 acres - wet prairies and 6.8 'acres - freshwater marsh (Pickerelweed))' The developers have attempted, to design the project in such a manner as to not impact ~ese existing wetlands. These wetlands will be preserved,. enhanced and. utilized as part of the ~stormwater management program for the project.. There are several negative aspects to electrical-generating plants such as noise and pollution that.may have an impact on ~e natural environment. The proposed site does.not contain any species that will be affected by the proposed project. See the discussion in site plan review for further information. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT/SITE .PLAN REVIEW In addition to the minimum standards of review and project development set out in Section 7,00.00,' Section 11.02.07, of the St. Lucie County Land DeVelopment Code identifies the minimum Standards of Review for all proposed site Plans. These standards, must be met in order for any site plan approvals to be considered. Staff has reviewed the request for Major Site Plan aPproval, utilizing these requirements and notes the following: January 9, 2001 Page 8 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.: C U-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 , CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed building and use is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie .County, and the proposed use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular prOvisions of this Code authorizing such use and any other requirement of the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. The proposed Duke Energy electrical generating plant is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of this Code, the St, Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled. Laws of St.' Lucie County. These policies include, but are not limited to: PoliCy 1. I. 1.1 of the St.. Lucie County Comprehensive.Plan establishes a maximum lot coverage, for the Industrial furore land use designation, by structure as 40 % - 50%. The proposed project is m be developed at 1.7'% of the site being developed with :a proposed lot coverage by building of 0.15 %. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Objective 1. l. 11 of the St, Lucie County Comprehensive- Plan states that the County shall wOrk with interested groups anti.agencies to increase and broaden the economic base while expanding existing business and industrial opportunities. The proposed electrical generating plant will provide a ContinuoUs economic benefit to the County. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent With this policy. . · EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES The proposed building or use will not have an undue adverse 'affect upon 'nearby property, the character of the neighborhOod, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety,, and general welfare. The proposed development is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. · . The proposed site is located within an area zoned for heavy industrial uses. The proposed utility use is more compatible with the general characteristics of the surrounding properties (industrial uses) located to the north, east and west than the agriculturally zoned properties to the south... There is an existing gas pipeline located within the vicinity of the subject prOperty and in addition a new gas pipeline is being proposed to be installed within the vicinity of the subject property. The subject property will have access to the power grid that transverses the southern bOundary through the southern .property line. The Fort Pierce Utility Authority owns a vacant piece of property that abuts the subject Property to the north. This site has the potential to be developed as a wastewater treatment January 9, 2001 Page 9 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No,- CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 4 facility. Therefore, the proposed use would be compatible and would not interfere with the development of any of the surrounding area. The development of the electrical generating plant is not expected to create significant additional demands onany public facilities in this area. The propoSed property will receive water through an on-site well and sewer service through a septic system for all buildings proposed for this site. As a condition of approval, staff would recommend that upon water and sewer services being .installed within the vicinity of this project the developers shall connect to the municipal system. The access into the site is proposed as a single access onto Jenkins Road Extension that accesses Midway Road south of the .Subject site. Although the site is adjacent to Glades Cut-.Off Road, the railrOad tracks' Prohibit access onto Glades Cut, Off Road. The Jenkins Road Extension is planned to ultimately connect to Milner Road at the existing intersection of Midway Road and Milner Road. A small portion of the road north of Midway Road is already .in place and serves as access .to an industrial area sou~west of the proposed.site. As a part of the construction of the proposed project, the developer shall be required to construct the southern portion of-the Je~ins Road Extension, to the projeCt.site's southern boundary. T. he average .daily traffic proposed by the development once it is in operation is. 211 trips · per day. The afternoon peak hour trips generated during the construction of the project are proposed 'to be 225 trips: per hour and during operation of the facility will 'be 8 trips, per hour. It is assumed that 55:% of the traffic would access the. site to/from the west .(Midway Road and Glades Cut-Off Road)'and 45 % to/from the east (Midway ROad, Selvitz Road. and 25th Street)..According to the traffic impact report submitted by the applicant, the proposed· project will' 'not have a negative impact on any of the above referenced roadway facilities. Two of these roadway facility segments (Midway Road west 'of Selvitz Road. and Midway Road west of 25t~ Street) operate~at a LOS F. Even though these roadway segments operate at a negative LOS, the proposed project.will not.significantly impact the facili~ based upon the criteria set forth in Section 5..03.03. .The amount-of-traffic generated by this. development will impact these roadway segments by less than 1%' and ~erefore are acceptable. A condition of approval for the site development plan will be that the proposed development be required to construct turn lanes in such a manner, as to accommodate the trucks delivering fuel to the site. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed building or use on the immediate vicinity through building design, site design, landscaping and screening. : The developer has designed this project in a manner that Will buffer the residential properties to .the south..These properties are located approximately 0.5, miles away from the proposed plant. The primary construction area for the proposed electrical plant will be adjacent to .Glades-Cut-Off Road to the northwest and adjacent to the vacant FPUA site January 9, 2001 Page 10 Petition: Duke EnergY, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No.: CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 Ce Do along the northern property line. The developer will be installing landscape buffers along the.northern property line adjacent to Glades Cut-Off Road along the northern, western and southern property lines except where there is an existing wetland. The applicant proposes to preserve and enhance the wetland materials in these areas and provide the existing vegetation as a buffer. o The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated So as not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. The design of the proposed project has been determined not to interfere with the development or use of the neighboring properties. The property to the north is owned by the FPUA and has the potential of being developed as a new or additional wastewater treatment facility.' The properties across Glades Cut-Off Road are.primarily developed as heavy industrial uses with some'vacant land that is zoned for heavy industrial. The property to the east is vacant land, which is designated for future development by the developer. To the south is an existing 200-foot transmission line right-of-Way. Further south is vacant heavy industrial land and AR-1 zoned lands. · The .closest residential'unit to the subject prOPerty is 0.5 miles m the southeast, alOng Selvitz Road and South of Canal 102. This residence is in an area zoned for induStrial use. To the north the closest property is 2 miles away. Therefore, the ProPosed project Will 'not interfere with the development and use of neighboring property.- ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES The proposed building or use complies with the standards of Chapter V, Adequate Public Facilities. The subject property will receive, water services 'through an'on-Site well and sewer services through an onsite septic system. A condition Of approval for this site will be that upon water and sewer lines .being available the developer will be required to cOnnect to the municipal services. ADEQUACY OF FIRE PROTECTION 7he applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie CountY Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation, or has otherwise demonstrated by substantial credible evidence, that water supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire protection. The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation that the.pr°p°sed site plan conceptually meets the minimum access and water supplY requirements for fire protection services at this facility. January 9, 2001 Page 11 Petition' Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No - CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 mo Fe ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES The proposed building or use will be served by adequate school facilities The applicant is proposing a utility use that will not impact school facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT For developments required to provide an environmental impact report under Section 11.02.09(A)(5), the proposed development will not contravene any applicable provisiOn of the St. Lucie County omprehenstve Plan, or of Chapter VIII, "Natural Environment Analysis ", of the St. Lucie County Barrier island Study Analysis of Growth Management Policy Plan, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (August 1982). According the environmental rePort, the subject property contains the following species: "Vegetation TyPe. . ........ ........ ,, , 'Acreag ~'Impr0~ed p'asture,~'' '.'"~.~'~'....i.'~'' '::"i. "' . ~.' .~.. ~ ..... .~ Pine. Flatwoods 7,0 Wet Prairie ' · ! 1,4 ~ Brazilian-Pepper '~' :'' ..... '~'' . i0.~0. Freshwamr Marsh - (Pickerelweed) . ~ 6.8 .-. : ' ~..v -~' ,., ..: 4 ,! ',.,,,J ,, ',- ,, ..:~i r. , ,1' ~ , ' ,, ~. ,- ~' , ~ . [ . i , ,~ · Power Transmission Lines/Shrub and' Bmshland · .7.5 ~P0Wer ~rans~isSion Lines/w~t e~airi~ ...... .. .... ..... . .'015 DitCh ~' .... ' ~:"~"~' ~' ....... ~ "' .... " .................. . 0.4' TOtaI .......... . ..... . .............. 99,5 The developer, has proposed a. design that minimizes the impact to the existing wetlands and pine flatwoods found on the. site..The subject property contains approximately 19.20 acres of-wetlands. - Of this, the developer has stated that only 0.05 acres of wetlands (approximately 2,200 square feeO will be impacted by .the proposed project. The impacts consist of approximately 0.04 acres. associated with construction'of a berm along, the' west side of Wetland A and 0.01 acres associated with construction of an aCcess road Over the ditch in the southern Portion of the Site. A minimum 15. to 20 foot buffer zone will be maintained around the perimeter of the-onSite wetlands,' and 'where applicable, exotic plant species will be removed 'from the buffer zone and native, vegetation maintained. The 'developer Will be mitigating any wetland impacts through enhancement efforts within the remaining preserved wetlands. This wetland enhancement Will be accomplished primarily by the rehydration of Wetland' A. Wetland A was drained by the excavation of ditches along the western and southern property boundaries. 'The applican-~'.s ecologists conducted .field surveys in June 1999 and February 2000. These field surveys indicated the following fauna species identified on the site: January 9, 2001 Page 12 Petition: Duke-Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File No · CU-00-011 and MJSP-00-011 Birds (Eastern Meadowlark, Northern Harrier, Killdeer, Turkey Vultures, Black Vultures, Tobins and Yellow-romped Warblers); Mammals- (Eastern CottOntail Rabbits); and, Reptiles and Amphibians (None were.observed on the site during the field visits). Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species No protected plant-species were observed within the subject property. There was one state-listed species, Florida Sandhitl Crane, observed within the subject property during the June 1999 site visit. This bird was.feeding within the interior of' Wetland A. The project site does not appear to provide significant nesting or foraging habitat for other listed species. As this is a disturbed site, a condition of approval will be that the developer removes all exotic vegetation from the site. COMMENTS The petitioner, Duke Energy Ft. Pierce, LLC, is seeking approval for a conditional use permit' in order to construct and operate a 56'9'00 square foot (5,400-- building, 51,500- equipment), 640 megawatt, electric generating plant for property located on 'the southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road, approximately one mile south of the intersection of Glades Cut-Off Road and Selvitz Road in the U (Utilities) Zoning District. The project will be known as Duke Energy Ft. PierCe Generating Station. Electrical generating plants are allOwed as conditional uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning District upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. 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 Co~issioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed.- . The applicant shall connect to central water and sewer services .upon the installation of central water and sewer lines from the project site to Midway Road at its intersection with Milner Road. The.use of the private well shall be discontinued except for irrigation use -until such time as an alternative water resource for irrigation is available. . Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction, the developer shall construct Jenkins Road-Extension, to the southern boundary of the project site. Paving of the road may be completed after construction of the plant. January '9, 2001 Page 13 Petition: Duke Energy, Ft. Pierce, LLC File'No.' 'CU-00-011 and~MJSP-00-011 . Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction, the developer shall construct right and left turn lanes into the proposed project. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this ,matter. Attachment CS CC; Noreen Dreyer Duke Energy Ft..Pierce, LLC File SuggeSted motion to recommend approval/denial of this-requested conditional use. 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF DU~ ENERGY FT. PIERCE, LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A 56,900 SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DIST~CT, BECAUSE. [CITE ~ASON($) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO 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, I HE.BY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOA~ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY.THE APPLICATION OF DUKE ENERGY FT. PIERCE, LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT TO THE OPERATION OF A 56,900 SQUA~ FOOT ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... · [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Approxima{e '-. 0 t84 368 'urc~t· LUde Co. property Tax Map Midway ROad CH2MHILL E092~SATL~g ures,indd LEGEND project Boundary' 15 MinUte Measurements 24 HoUr Ueasummen.ts Figure 4-14 Noise Monitoring Locations Duke Energy Ft. Pierce Generating Station 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 RESOLUTION 01-007 FILE NO.: CU-00-011 and MNSP-00-011 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MINOR SITE"PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 56,900 SQUARE FOOT, 640 MEGAWATT ENE'RGY GENERATING PLANT TO BE KNOWN AS DUKE ENERGY FT. PIERCE GENERATING STATION IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, l~ased on the testimony and evidence, including but not limited to the staff report,-has made the following determinations: · . CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT o . . Duke. Energy Ft.: Pierce, :LLC, presented a petition for a Conditional Use. Permit to cOnstruct a 56,900 square foot, 640-megawatt energy generating plant, to 'be known' as Duke Energy Ft. Pierce Generating Station; in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the property deScribed in ~Part B. On Janua~ 18, 20© 1, the St. Lucie Co.unty Planning and ZOning Commission held a public hearing On the petition, after publishing notice'at least 10 daYs prior'to the hearing and notifYing by mail all owners of property within 500~feet Of the subject property, and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the hereinafter descri.bed .requeSt for'a Conditional Use-Permit in U-(Utilities) Zoning for the propeAy described in Part B. On February 6, 2001, this Board iheld a public hearing on the petition, after publiShing a .notice of such hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. , The proposed Conditional Use is consistent with.the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and has satisfied the requirements of Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. o The proposed project will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and. general welfare. File No · CU-00-011\MJSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 Resolution 01-007 Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1'6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '2.4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 . , . The project will be served onsite water and sewer services. A Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this resolution, was granted by the Community Development Director on February 6, 2001. Section 11.07.05(B) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code requires that ali applications for Conditional Use Permit include a full site plan if the proposed use or development meets the submiSsion requirements of Section 11.02,02 of the Land Development Code. - SITE PLAN . 10. Duke Ener.qV Ft, PierrOe, LLC, presented a petition for a Site Plan approval to construct a.56,900 squarefoot, 640-megawatt, energygenerating plant, to be known as Duke 'Energy Ft.. PierCe Generating Station'; in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the property described in Part B. The' DevelOpment Review Committee has reviewed the petition for a Major Site Plan approval and found it-to meet all technical requirements of the-Land Development Code and to be Consistent with the future land use maps of the St. Lu¢ie County ComprehenSive Plan., subject to the. conditions set forth in-Part D.ofthis Resolution. 11. The proposed project .is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the St..Lucie County C°mprehensive Plan, the St. Lu¢ie County Land .. Development Code and the'Code of Or. dinances .of St. Lu¢ie .County. 1.2. 13. The'proposed project will not have an undue adverse effect on'adjacent property, the character of 'the neighborhood, traffic, conditions, parking, utility facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, .safety and general welfare.. All reasonable steps hrave been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed project on the immediate vicinity through .building 'design, site design, landscaping 'and screening. 14. The proposed project .will be constructed, arranged and 'operated so as not to interfere with the deveiop~ment and use bf neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. 15. The project will utilize onsite water and sewer service. 16. A Certificate of. Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this resolution, was granted by the Community Development Director on February 6, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: File No.: CU-00-01 I\MJrSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 ResOlution 01-007 Page 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 A. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Section 1.1.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, a Conditional Use Permit for Duke Energy Ft. Pierce, LLC. to allow a 56,900 square foot, 640.megawatt, energy generating plant, to.be known as Duke Energy Ft. Pierce Generating-Station, in U (Utilities) Zoning and as depicted on the site plan drawings described in Part D, is hereby granted for the property.drescribed in Part B, subject to the conditions described in Part D. The property .on which this Conditional Use Permit is being granted is described 'as follows: Parcel A A portion-of land lying within Section 31, Township 35 South, Range 40 East, St. Lucie County, Florida'. Commence at the southwest corner of Section 31, TownShip 35 South, Range 40 East; thence run north 89°57'18" east, along the south line' of the southwest % of said Section 31 for a distance of 1005.74 feet; thence departing said line run north 00°02'42'' west, for a distance of 49.50.feet to the Point of Beginning, said point being a point on the north line of the NOrth St. Lucie River Water Control District Canal NO, 1'02, said point also being a point on a curve concave southwesterly, having a radius of 3336-33 feet, a'Centrai Angle of :14°41 '59''r, a chord bearing of north 29°01'09'' west and a chord length of 853'62 feet; thence along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 855,97 feet to a Point on the southeasterly right-Of-way line of.the Florida East Coast 0 ' ~ ~ ' ~ Railro ;thence run north 4 44 24 east, along said: southeasterly right.of-Way line for a di= a th, said line for of 1701 north line for a .of1495.22 feet; thenCe departing said line run 'south 45°15'05" east, for ..48 :feet ~tO a .Point on a line lying' 1035.50 feet south of and .parallel to · SO' o , ,, said ~SeCtion 31; thence run uth.89 59 47 east, along 20 ~1 ~ feet; thence run south 2..32 03 west, for a distance line of the North St. Lucie River ~al No. ~ thence run south 89057'1'8'' weSt, along said 1404.02 feet to the Point of Beginning. ~ Together .with: Parcel B'. A portion of land lying within Section 31, Township 36 South, Range 40 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Commence .at the southwest corner of.said Section 31; thence north 89°57'18'' east, along the south-line of Said Section for.a distance of 2409.76 feet; thence departing said south line run. north 00°02'42'' west, for a distance of 49.50 feet to the north right- of-way line of the .North St. Lucie River Water Control District Canal No. 102 and the File No ' CU-00-011\MJSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 Resolution 01-007 Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 '23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36- 37 38 39 4O 41 42 '43 44 45 46 47 48 o 2~ ,, Point of Beginning; thence north 2 3. 03 east, for a distance of 1701.80 feet to a point 1035.50 feet South Of the north line of the south ~ of said Section 31; thence south 89°59,47'' east, along said south line for a distance of 87.43 feet to a point on a curve ~concave sOutheasterly having: a radius of 744,49 feet, and a central angle of 23°25'14'' and a chord 'bearing of north 36~49'24'' east; thence along the arc of said curve an arc length of 304.32 feet; thence south 41~27'59'' east, for a distance of C, D. E, right-of-way lien for a-distance of r1195.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 99.5125 acres, more or less. (Location' SoutheaSt side of 'Glades Cut-Off Road, approximately one mile south of the interSection ~of Glades Cut-Off Road and Selvitz Road.) A copy of' this Resolution shall be atta'Ched to the site .plan drawings~ described in Part D, which plan shall be placed on file with the St. Lucie County Community Development Director. .. SITE PLAN Pursuant to Section 1.1.02.09 and Section 11,.07.05(B) of the St. Lucie County. Land Deveiopment.Code,'the Major Site Plan forthe project to be known as Duke Energy . same'is hereby,.'approved as. shown on the site for the project.prepared, by DUKE/FLUOR DANIEL, dated November 21 ,. 2000 and date stamped received by the St.-Lucie County Community Development. Director on November 22, .2000, subject to-the, following .co. nditions: . Prior.to the issuance of any building permits' for. the proposed structure or .buildings on this site, all .exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed. The 'applicant shall connect to central water and sewer services upon the- installation of central water and.sewer lines from the project site .to Midway Road at its intersection with Milner Road. The use of the private well shall-be diScontinued excePt for irrigation use until such time as an alternative water resource for irrigation is available. . Prior to issuance of any building permits fOr construction, the developer shall construct Jenkins Road Extension, to the southern boundary of the project site. Paving of the road may be completed after construction of 'the plant. .. Prior to issuance of any bUilding permits for construction, the developer shall, construct .right and left turn lanes into the proposed project. The property on which this site ~plan approval is'being granted is described in Part B of this Fl, esolution. ' File1No.: CU-00-011\MJSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 Resolution 01-007 Page 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 . G, H. J, The approvalS.and authorizations granted by this Resolution are for the purpose of obtaining building permits on' this property and shall expire on.February 6,' 2002, unless the developer has obtained a building permit approval for the first phase of the site plan described in Part D or an extension has been granted in accordance with Section 11.07.05(F) of the St. Lucie County Land-Development COde. The ConditiOnal Use Permit and .Minor Site Plan approval granted under this Resolution is specifically conditioned to the requirement that the petitioner, Duke Energy Ft. Pierce, LLC, including any successors in interest, shall obtain all necessary development permits and construction authorizations from the appropriate State and Federal regulatory authorities, including but not limited to: the United StateS Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of'Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District, prior to the 'issuance of any .local building permits of authorizations to commence development activities on the property described in Part B of this Resolution. The Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which .is .attached to this resolution, shall remain valid .for the period of Conditional Use/Site Plan. approval. Should the Conditional _Use/Site-Plan approval granted by this Resolution expire or an extension be sought pursuant to Section 11.07.05(F) of the St. Lucie County Land'Development Code, a new certificate of capacity shall be required. The conditions set forth in Part D are an integral nonseverable part of the site. plan approval granted by this Resolution. If any Condition set forth in Section D is determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason and the developer declines to-comply voluntarily with that condition, the site plan approval granted by this resolution shall become null .and void. A copy of .this resolution shall be attached to the site plan drawings described in Part D, which plan shall be 'placed on file with the St. Lucie' County Community Development Director. Fu~her, the Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the notation of this resolution to be made on .the Official ZOning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and to make notation.of reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Frannie Hutchinson XXX Vice-Chairman Doug Coward XXX Commissioner John Bruhn XXX Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX Commissioner Cliff 'Barnes xxX File No.: CU-00-011\'MJSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 Resolution 01-007 Page 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PASSED .AND DULY ADOPTED This 6~h Day of February 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: BY Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CO.RRECTNESS: Deput~/Clerl~ ............. ,, ,COUnty Atto'm'eY cs H:iWPIConditional Uses/Duke EnergyAgendas/Resolution.doc File No.: CU-00-011\MJSP-00-011 February 6, 2001 Resolution 01-007 Page 6 Section.3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations .. W. . . ¸. . . o . UTILITIES Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable -for utilities, transportation, and communication facilities, together with. such other uses as may be. compatible with utility, transportation, and communication facility surroundings. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section. 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC'code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. Permitted Uses a. g. h. i. j- . k. !, m. 13. Air transportation services Agriculture, including farms, groves, and ranches. (0~.02) Communication. Electric services (49~) - Electric transmission rights-of-way. Gas pipeline fights-of-way. Gas :production and, distribution Industrial. wastewater disposal. (~) Railroad, rapid mil 'transit, & street railway transportation. (~o,4~) Sanitary services (4.95) Transportation services (47) Telecommunication towem - subject to the standards of Section 7.1'0.23 (~s) Water Supply and irrigation systems. Water transportation 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 Airports. (4sa) Etectric generation plants. Gas production plants. Land clearing and yard trash recycling operations - subject to the provisions of Section Adopted August 1, 1990 130 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations . e 7.10.12. (999) Natural or manufactured gas storage and distribution points. Protective functions and their related actMties - Correctional institutions (9223) Solid waste disposal. Outdoor shooting .rang.es~ providing siteplan approVal is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 11.02.07 through 11.02,09 and Section 7.10.19 of this Code. Accessory uses " Accessory uses are sublect to the requirements of Section '8.00.00 and include the following: Automobile and truck., rental services. Restaurants. (Including the sale of alcoholic beverages foron premises consumption only.) Adopted August 1, 1990 131 Revised Through 08/01/00 'A Petition of Duke Energy LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a power, plant in the U (Utilities) Zoning District. the ! I 1 i I I 1 ! ! I ! I i · I · i · I I ! ! ! I I I '1 i I I I ---f ! I ! ! I I I i I i I I I I I I . · r.) :t I I ' I i t f . I , I - I ,,, '~ I CU 00-011 This pattern indicates subject parcel Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared November 30, 2000 ' ~ map ha, been compiled for general planning and reference t:~urpose$ only. While every effort has been made to provide the most current and aCcurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. Zoning Duke Energy LLC IH AR 1 CU. ! I I I I 1 t I I ! I ! '. i , I I i I I I I I I I I -1' t I O0-011 "This. pattern indicates. ~~//'~ subject parcel ~~ Community Development 7o~ Geographic Information '.Systems .... Map .prepared. November 30, 2000. lh~ nmp h~$ ~ compi~ ~or ~on~'~ plannin~ ~ m~mc_~ puq)o,o, only. Whll~ ~orv ,llo~t ha~ boo~ mad~ to provido tho mo~t cu,r~t and ~umto . in~ommtion po~l:~ R l~ not inKmdod [or u~o a~ ~t I~all~ bindin~ documont. Land Use D~uke Energy LLC MXD Glades RS i I ! I I I ! I · ! · I I i ! I I I I 1 R ! i I I i i CU 00-011 pattern indicates ~~ This subject parcel ,~,, Community Development '~,,.~~ Geographic Information Systems Map. prepared November 30, 2000 This map has been compiled for general planning and reference ~]3oses only. While eve~/ effort has been made to p~ovide the most cun~ent and accurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. Duke Energy LLC I I I I I I i ! I CU 00-011 ........ 50:0' Boundary ~.,,~/'~./,///~ This pattern indicates subject parcel ' tNSi. R Wi;D .. .. .. .. Community Development Geographic Information ,Systems Map prepared November 30, 2000 This map has been complied for generalplenning and reference p~oses only. While every effort has been made to provide the most c, urmnt and accurate information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document. N. Duke CU 00-011 ~~/_/./'XXX~/~ This :pattern indicates Subject parcel Energy LLC (~ ' Community DevelOpment i ~ ~..:~ Geographic infOrmatiOn syStems  ~) . Map prepared NOvember 30, 2000 ; i~ 'This map has been compiled for generai Planning and reference p~:)Oses only. ~ While every effort has been made t0 provide the most cUrrent and a~curale N' information possible, it is not intended for use as a legally binding document, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 2/15/01 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM' DATE' Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager Qqh~ February 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Application of Westchester Development Company, for a boundary change to a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development approval for the Project Known as Westchester- PMUD. LOCATION' North side of Gatlin Boulevard immediately west of the 1-95 Interchange, approximately one mile west of the intersection of Gatlin Boulevard and Brescia Street. ZONING DESIGNATION' AG-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 - du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING' PMUD (Planned Mixed Unit Development- Westchester) LAND USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 223.4 acres PROPOSED USE: 200 Single-Family lots with associated infrastructure, open space, commercial, and civic uses. SURROUNDING ZONING' SURROUNDING LAND USES' AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west. RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south and west; and MXD Gatlin 'Boulevard to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #10 (777 SW Dalton Road), is located approximately 5 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE' Port St. Lucie Utilities or St, Lucie West will provide water and sewer services. February 7, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Westchester PMUD TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED' Consistent with prior recommendation for approval Consistent with prior recommendation for approval Certificate of Capacity. COMMENTS At last months meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planned Mixed Use Development and rezoning for the east side of the Westchester Development. Subsequent to that recommendation negOtiations with possible tenants for the retail area and concerns over the extension of Gatlin Blvd required that minor changes to the project boundaries which the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed be made. These changes swap two approximately equal sized parcels to allow for a redesigned retail/office area and delete the area south of the centerline of Gatlin Blvd. in order to allow for better management of the entrance road construction. In order to maintain consistency between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, staff recommends that you acknowledge this change in project boundaries and recommend the Change be incorporated into the previously approved plan. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cs cc.' Westchester Development Company Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates File Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF WESTCItESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER . PMUD, AS AMENDED, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL . 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PMUD (PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT . WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF WESTCItESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER . PMUD, AS AMENDED, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL . 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PMUD (PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT . WESTCHEsTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 3.01,03 ZONING DISTRICTS A. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL- t 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SiC code but may be further defined in Section 2:00.00 of this Code. 2. Permitted Uses ao g. h. i. j. k. Agricultural production - crops (04) Agricultural. production -livestock & animal specialties (02) · Agricultural services ~o7) - Family day care homes. (999) Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another 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. (999) Fishing, hunting & trapping Forestry (08) Kennels. (0z52) Research Facilities. Noncommercial (8733) Riding stables. Single-'family detached dwellings. (999) . Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table I in Section 7.04.00. . Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 .in Section 7.04.00. . Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading rrequirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. . Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to 'Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses Agricultural labor housing. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoning Distdct Use Regulations b. e. ko Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) Farm products warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) GasOline service stations. Industrial wastewater disposal. Manufacturing- (1) Agricultural chemicals (2) Food & kindred products (3) Lumber & wood products, except furniture (24) Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, except fuelS. Retail trade: (1) Farm equipment and related accessories. (999) (2) Apparel & accessory stores. Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13. Telecommunication Towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10..23 Camps - sPorting and recreational. (7o32) _ Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following- Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10,05. Retail trade and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. Guest house subject to the requirements.of Section 7.10.04. (~99) Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development 7.03,00 PLAN'NED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 7.03.01 PURPOSE The Pladned Mixed Use DevelOpment District (PMUD) is intended to allow for a combination of residential and non-residential land development of superior quality through the encouragement of flexibility and Creativity in design options that: A, permit creative appro.aChes to the development of land reflecting changes in the technology of land development; B. allow for the efficient use of land, which can result in smaller networks of Utilities and streets and thereby~lower development costs; C. encourage a broad range of services (.shopping, employment, schools, recreation, etc.) in close proximity to their need; - Do E. allow for a juxtaposition of land uses both horizontally and vertically, not otherwise allowed; allow design options that encourage an environment of stable character, compatible with surrounding land uses; and F. permit the enhancement of neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features, the provision of underground utilities, and the provision of recreation areas and open space; 7.03.02 PERMITTED USES AND LOCATIONS Policy 1.1.6.4 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan sets forth an intensity plan for each area with a Mixed Use Development (MXD) future land use designation. Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) zoning is permitted only.within the M×D future land use. Permitted uses within the PMUD zoning.designation vary by intensity as specified below. Compatibility and relative placement of different uses shall be limited as specified in Table 7.1, Compatibility of Uses vs. Road Classification & Average Daily Trips. A. High Intensity Any permitted use as identified in the Residential, Multiplb-Family-5 (RM-5); Residential, Mobile Home-5 (RMH-5); Residential, Multiple-Family-7 (RM-7); Residential, Multiple-Family-9 (RM-9); Residential, Multiple-Family-11 (RM-11); Residential, MultiPle-Family-15; (RM-15) Commercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); Industrial, Light (IL); Industrial, Heavy (IH); Utility (U); Institutional (I); or HiRD zoning districts of this Code, any accessory use specified in the final PMUD, and any conditional use specified in the final PMUD, subject to the · requirements of Section 11.07.00 and any other special requirement as set forth in this Code, may be Permitted in an area designated High Intensity Mixed Use Development to the extent consistent with the future Land Use designations of the. St..Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1, 1990 390 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development B. C. D. Medium Intensity Any permitted, use as identified - in the Residential, Multiple-Family-5 (RM-5); Residential, Mobile Home-5 (RMH-5); Residential, MUltiple-Family'7 (RM-7); Residential, Multiple-Family-9 (RM-9); Commercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); Industrial, Light(IL); Industrial, Heavy(IH); Utility (U); Institutional (I); or HIRD Zoning districts of this Code, any acceSsory use specified in the final PMUD, and any conditional use specified in the final PMUD, subject to the requirements of Section 11.07.00 and any other special requirement as set forth in this Code may be permitted in an area: designated Medium Intensity Mixed Use Development to the extent consistent with the future Land Use designations of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Low Intensity Any permitted use as identified in the Residential, Estate-1 (RE-l); Residential, Estate-2 (RE-2); Residential, Single-Family-2 (RS-2); Residential, Single-Family-3 (RS-3); Residential, Single-Family-4 (RS,-4); Residential, Multiple-FamilY-5 (RM-5); Residential, Mobile Home-5 (RMH-,5); Residential, Multiple-Family-5 (RM,5); Commercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); Industrial, Light (iL); or HIRD zoning distriCts of this Code, any accessory use specified in the final PMUD, and any conditional use specified in the final PMUD, subject to the requirements of Section 11.07.00 and any other special requirement as set forth in this Code may be permitted in an area designated-Low Intensity Mixed Use Development to the extent consistent with the future Land Use designations of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Location Criteria Planned Mixed Use Development shall be based on and controlled by the roadway classification as defined in Section 7.03.03(E) The various permitted uses shall be located within the development based on the' functional classification of and the projected average daily trips on the adjacent roadway, as per Table 7-1 below. In the case of large scale developments, the developer shall, subject to the review and approval of the county, specify the functional classification of each road within the development, in the case of smaller projects which are located on existing roads, the county's classifications shall be used. in either case, projected traffic volumes shall be submitted as a part of the required Traffic Impact Report. TABLE 7-1 ?::..:~ ;'.'-:.:.,';. ~':,?:i::.~.,.: ?:;???:¢;;:'?:;~',::..:;~:: .",,;~!i??"~ ?!?::~:';:?.?;';~;.;':~:,;iii~:,;',:i;;?:i;i?~.:i?.:;;~i;;i, :':??i!'~;¢??;i;:?i?!!il;?iiii¢i;;ii?:i~i!il;;¢,;i;~i;~?!!-;:~'. ~:?;;~:?;!!.::~;::i??;!;?i~!~?i?!i;i;?i??;?:?;!:~?i!~i!!;!~;:~:;?~i~ii!!;~;::; :'?':?i! ..... ;"¥'":' ?? ?'i~i,;~;!,!i!?:i;:? ..:' ..-: ........ "'"'~'ii~?~i';¢i!iiii!;!;;;~;;:! Residential (individual Single family). . ..... < 4,500 Residential (individual two. or .three 'family} . < 4,500 < 4,500 Adopted August 1, 1990 391 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development TABLE 7-1 Residential (other) > 10,000 4501 101000 < 4 500 ~ < 4,500 InstitUtional > 10,000 4501 - 15,000 < 7,500 < 4,500 Professional Service / Office > 10,000 4501 - 15,000 < 4,500 Neigh'borhood Commercial < 7,500 < 4,500 General Commercial , , > 10'000 ~ 4501 - 10,,000 < 4,500 = . Public Services/'Utilities > 10,000 4501 - 10,000 <, 4,500 id_Industrial . - > 10,000 4501 - 15,000 < 7,500 7.03.03 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Standards and requirements.for a 'Planned Mixed Use Development shall be as follows' A. MINIMUM AREA Minimum areas for land uses within Planned Mixed Use :Developments shall be as specified in Table 7.2 below. Where more that one land use is developed within a Planned Mixed Use Development, the minimum size of the development shall be the sum of the minimum areas for each land use as specified.in Table 7-2 below. All land included as a part of the minimum requirement shall be contiguous and under .common ownership or contrOl. Residential land uses may not exceed 40 percent of the Planned ~Mixed Use Development. . TABLE 7-2 Adopted August 1, 1990 Institutional Professi°nal Service/Office 1 Commercial Ii Public Service/Utilities Industrial 1 1 392 Revised Through 08t01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development B. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA RATIOS . The maXimum-permitted residential density of a Planned Mixed Use Development-shall not exceed the residential density reflected in the Mixed Use Intensity Plans of the St. Lucie .County Comprehensive Plan and referenced in Table 7-3 below. On North and South Hutchinson ISland, the provisions of Section 3.01.03(AA), HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District)shall govern. . For non-residential uses, intensity shall be limited by Floor Area Ratios as specified in Table 7-3 below. Floor Area .Ratio is defined as the total floor area of the building divided by the total area of the lot. The total floor area of the building shall' include .all floors of the building. TABLE 7'3 Residential . 5 15 Institutional 1.50 Professional Service/Office , ' 1.50 Commercial . . . ..... 1.00 Public Services/Utilities . 0 50 -I:ndustriaI ' ' ' ' '" ' ' ~ ' ' 0:50 Residentiai 5 9 institutional ' 1.00 Professional Service/Office 1.00 , Commercial 0.75 Public Services/Utilities 0.25 Industrial 0.25 Residential 0 5 , ,, i , lnstituti°nal 0.50 Adopted August 1, 1990 393 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development TABLE 7-3 Professional Service/Office ~ 0.50 , Commercial . Public Service/Utilities 0.25 , , , , , . , , ,' , , ~ . . , C. Where mixed land uses are horizontally or vertically integrated on the same parcel, the developer shall demonstrate that the parcel contains sufficient land area for the proposed uses to have been approved individually. . .,,,~ DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS For Planned .Mixed Use Developments, area, yard, height and other dimensional requirements of Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 13 shall be determined at the time of final' PMUD Plan approval except that for any structure on North or South Hutchinson Island that has not been occupied, constructed, or haS not received a building permit, site plan or other County development approval as a permitted use prior to January 10, 1995 the requirements of Section 4.01.00, Hutchinson Island - Building Height Overlay Zone shall apply. D. Where area, yard, height and other dimensional requirements, as defined by the Planned Mixed Use Development are.less restrictive than similar requirements of this Code, approval may be granted by the Board .of COunty Commissioners upon demonstration that such less restrictive dimensional requiroments are determined to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the other standards and requirements of this Code. PUBLIC FACILITIES . in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to mitigate impact on the environment and natural resources, to ensure public safoty and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie Coun~ty Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Mixed Use Development shall be designed and located so there will be no net public cost for the provision of water lines, sewage lines, storm and surface drainage systems, and other utility systems. The minimum 'size of all water mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection activities is six (6") inches. Actual water main requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County- Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. The.minimum size of all water mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection activities, that are located on a dead-end water main is eight (8") inches. Actual water main Adopted August 1, 1990 394 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development Eo requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. The maximum number of fire hydrants that may be located on any dead end water main is one (1). . Fire hydrants :shall be provided at a minimum spacing of one every six hundred (600) feet unleSs otherwise approved by the St. Lucie County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. TRAFFIC AND :PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION I . Roadway Classification - Roadways in Planned Mixed Use Developments shall be classified as arterial, collector, or local roads or streets. These classifications are presented in order of the intensity of their associated uses. Local streets are further subdivided into residential' and general streets. While the uses permitted along these streets differ, neither of these classifications ils intended to be used more intensively than 'the .other.-Further definitions of and standards for these classifications as used for Planned Mixed Use Developments are found below and in Table 7-4. a. Arterial road- A mute providing service which is relatively continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average triP length, high operating speed, and high mobility importance. FIGURE 7-3 GEI'~R,NJTF'~ $~ ~.t=~~ HIERARCY Adopted August 1, 1990 395 Revised Through 08/0 i/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development . Collector road - A route providing service which is of relatively moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length, and moderately average operating speed. Such a route also collects and distributes traffic between local roads or arterial.roads and serves as a linkage between land access and mobility needs. Co Local streets - Routes which primarily permit direct access to abutting property and connections to a higher order roadway. A local street provides service that is relatively Iow in volume and short average trip length or minimal through traffic movements. · (1) Residential local street- a local street on which only residential, inStitutional, and neighbOrhood commercial uses are permitted (see Table 7-~). (2) General local street- a local street on which some residential uses are prohibited (see Table 7-1 ). - Roadway Design Criteria - The following criteria shall be used in planning for traffic circulation. a, Minimum dimensional requirements for roadways in Planned Mixed Use Developments shall be 'as specified in Table 7-4 below, unless otherwise approved. DJ Principal vehicular access pointS shall be designed for smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Local streets within the Planned Mixed Use Development shall not be connected to streets outSide the development where their use would encourage through traffic. Co The proposed Planned Mixed Use Development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic Congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the project, or such-surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d, The proposed Planned Mixed Use Development shall be designed so that arterial and collector roads which enter or leave the project, shall connect to roads of the same .or higher classification. e. As specified in Table 7-1 above, all non-residential land uses, other than neighborhood commercial, within the Planned Mixed Use Development shall have direct access to a general local or collector street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. As specified in Table 7-1 above, all residential land uses within the Planned Mixed Use Development shall have direct access to a residential local, a general local or a collector street without creating traffic hazards on any street. Adopted August I 1990 ¢ r ~ 396 Revised Through 08/01100 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development g. k, h. m. Access points on all collector or arterial streets serving a Planned Mixed Use Development sh'all be located and spaced so that traffic moving into and out of the arterial streets does not cause traffic congestion. Access to arterial streets shall be permitted only for uses with projected average .daily trips (ADTs) of 4,500 or greater (see Table 7-1 ). Streets in a Planned MiXed Use Development may be dediCated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with Chapter 13, Building Regulations and Public Works Construction, of the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations. Variations to the standard minimUm right,of-way widths may be considered as 'part of the Planned Mixed Use Development if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners, that the requested variation is consistent with the intent of the County's roadway construction standards and necessary for the design of the Planted Mixed Use Development. All roads and streets shall intersect at an approximate +5© angle of ninety degrees (90") unless circumstances acceptable to St. Lucie County indicate a need for a lesser angle: of intersection. ' Street jogs or centerline offsets between any local street or road with another local street or road, shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150). The intersection of any two local roads or streets with a Major Collector or Arterial Roadway shall be separated by a minimum distance of six hundred sixty feet (660), as measured from centerline to centerline. Perm:anent dead-end streets shall not exceed one thousand feet (1000)in length. Cul-de-sacs shall be provided at the end of all dead end roads or streets greater than five hundred and one (501)feet in length. The length of a dead-end street shall be measured along the centerline of the street from the its point of perpendicular intersection with the centerline of intersecting street to the end of the dead-end street or roadway, All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum right-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet. If the dead end roadway is five hundred (500) feet or less in length, a "Y" or "T" type of turn around may be approved. If a dead end street is temporary in nature then a temporary cul-de-sac shall be required until the roadway is connected to another street or road. in the center of the cul-de-sac an unpaved island, surrounded by a curb, improved with grass and landscaping that will not interfere with sight distance, may be Adopted August 1, 1990 397 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development n. o. provided. Center islands shall have a diameter of not less than'seventeen (17) feet, unless otherwise approved through the review of the Planned Unit Development. All roadways, exclusive of interiOr parking and access aisles areas, regardless of ownership, shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any exterior building walls, except for security, gate houses or similar security struCtures located in a private street or road right-of-way. Any pedestrian~ circulation system and its related walkways shall be separated from the vehicular street system. This may include, when deemed to be necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses in the vicinity of playgrounds and other recreation areas, local shopping areas, and other neighborhood uses which generate a considerable amount of pedestrian ~traffic. TABLE 7-4 ROADWAY Ji MIN. ROW J MAXNUMBER i MiNLANEWiDTH CLASSiFiCATION/, ~. il .: WiDTH, . 'J OFLANE$ i ENERAL STREETS Sources: 100' 2 12' 6' both sides 6' both sides 160' 4 12' 6' both sides 6' both sides 200' 6 12' 6' both Sides 6' both sides 2 12' 6' both sides 5' both sides 100' 4 12' 6' both sides 5' both sides 60, 2 12' 6' both sides Optional STREETS 40" 2 10'/12' 6' both sides Optional 50" 2 10'/12' 6' both sides Optional Requires curb & gutter for stormwater design unless otherwise approved by County Engineer. United States Department of Transpoffation, ABCD's of Bikeways Florida Departmentof Transportation. Florida's Level of Se~ice Standards and Guidelines, Manual fOr Planning, April 1992 St. Lucie County, Community Development Department Adopted August 1, 1990 398 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development F. PARKING AND LOADING 1. General Provisions a, The number, type, and location of parking spaces ~shali be determined at the time of final Planned Mixed ~Use Development plan approval. The determination of the number of spaces required shall be based on Section 7.06.01 (F) of this Code. The number of parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial competent evider~ce that 'the reduced number of spaces is adequate for the proposed use or that parking may be shared by proximate uses that operate at different times or on different days. bo Reserved parking spaces may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject to Section' 7.06.02(C) of this Code. . 'Off Street Parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading requirements are governed by Sections 7.06.02 and 7.06.03 of this Code, and the.-following standards: . a, Off-street parking and loading areas shall be designed to provide travelways between adjacent uses while discouraging through traffic. b, Off-street parking and loading areas shall be screened from adjacent roads and pedeStrian walkways with hedges, dense planting, or changes in grades or walls. On Street Parking In Planned Mixed Use Developments, on street parking may be used so long as the road on which the on-street parking is proposed lies entirely within the limits of the defined Planned Mixed Use Development and such parking would not contravene any other provision of this Code orthe St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances. Where such on street parking and loading is used, it shall be conSistent with the following, design standards: ao The minimum size of a parking stall shall be as follows' parallel angled handicapped (parallel) handicapped (angled) 8 feet X 23 feet 10 feet X 18 feet 12 feet X 23 feet 12 feet X 18 feet Co Handicapped parking spaces shall be appropriately marked. Access for emergency fire vehicles shall be in accordance with NFPA standards. Adopted August 1, 1990 399 Revised Through 08/01/00 G. H, Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development d. No more than fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be permitted in a continuous row without being-interrupted by a minimum landscape area of 360 square feet. LIGHTING All lighting facilities shall be arranged in such a manner so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or 'properties. A detailed lighting plan shall be required for arterial and collector streets, and any Planned Mixed Use Development located on North or South Hutchinson Island. BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING BETWEEN USES WITHIN THE PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Mixed Use Developments shall provide buffers and landscaping as required by Section 7.09.00, unless otherwise approved. PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER BUFFERS Buffers at the Perimeter of the PMUD shall be as specified in Table 7-5 below. TABLE 7-5 J. Ko SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND Planned Mixed Use Developments adjacent totand used for agricultural purposes, or designated for agricultural use on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan shall provide setbacks from the agricultural land sufficient to protect the function and operation of those uses from the encroachment of Urban activities or uses. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS . A minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of the land to be committed to a Planned Mixed Use Development must be for use as common open space, which may include_~ parks, recreation areas, bicycle and pedestrian paths and facilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common open space, common landscaping or planting areas, or other areas of public purposes other than street, road or drainage rights-of-Way, above ground Adopted August 1, 1990 400 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.-03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development . . , . utilities, excluding exclusive stormwater treatment facilities, and parking areas. A minimum of 1.5 percent of any existing native upland habitat on the property, is-to must be preserved in its natural condition, as part of the required 35 percent common open space, For each acre of preserved native habitat above the required minimum 15 percent that is preserved in its original state, credit shall be given at a rate of 150 percent per acre towards the remaining common open space requirement. All areas to be dedicated for common open space shall be identified as part of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Mixed Use Development. Areas that are floodways, lakes, wetlands, and stormwater retention areas may be applied to satisfy the total common open space, subject to the requirement that 15% of any existing~:native habitat on the proPerty' must~be included as part of the required 35% common open space. As part of the Final Planned Mixed Use Development submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Planned Mixed Use Development shall provide, for one of the following: a. The advance dedication of all common open space to a public, or acceptable private, agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and any 'buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. All such dedications or conveyances shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits, including land clearing, for any portion of the Planned Mixed Use Development ;or, A phased conveyance of the land to be used for common open space to a public or acceptable private agency that will, Upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. The schedule for the phased conveyance of any such 'lands to be used for common open space shall be a specific condition of approval for the Planned Unit Development. No such parcel of land dedicated or conveyed for common open space shall be less than one (1) contiguous acre, and all such areas shall be physically part of the Planned Mixed Use Development. Areas provided or reserved to meet any other environmental preservation or protection requirements of this code or other lawful regulatory authority may be counted toWards the overall common open space requirement, provided that the common open space meets the requirements of this Code. Landscaping for off-street parking and loading areas shall, as a minimum, meet the requirements of 7.09.00. For Planned Mixed Use Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, the net open space provided in an individual stage or phase may vary from the required thirty-five (35) percent if the aPproved plan for the Planned Mixed Use Development provides for the required open space, and the County is assured that the open space will be provided. Adopted August 1, 1990 401 Revised Through .08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development L. Mo PHASING . A Planned Mixed Use Development may be developed in more than one' stage or phase. . if a Final Development Site Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phaSe shall be constructed and developed in a reasonably continuous fashion. No more than two (2) years shall elapse between the completion of any.stage or Phase, and the final stage or phase shall be completed within ten (10) years of the date of Final Development site Plan approval. Extensions of the above requirements are subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Unless otherwise amended by the Board of County Commissioners through the Final Development Site Plan review process, the following sequence of development must be adhered to' a. One or more major recreation facilities and other major amenities, planned to serve the entire development, shall be completed or adequate security posted prior to the issuance of building or mobile home permits of more than forty (40) percent, or other percentage as determined by the Board to be appropriately based on circumstances thatiinclude the size of the project and the proposed phasing schedule of the total number of authorized dwelling units. Recreation facilities or facilities and other amenities planned to serve one (1) phase of a multi-phased development shall be completed or appropriate security posted prior to issuance of building or mobile home permits or the recording of any final plat within that phase. b. For Planned Mixed Use Developments to be constructed in stages or Phases, the net density of an individual stage or phase may vary from the approved Final Site Plan subject to the requirements in Section 11.02.05. . Notwithstanding the above, if the land is within a Development of Regional Impact and governed by a development order, the development order shall govern the timing of the phases or stages of development activity. . SIGNS . Permitted permanent signs within the Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) zoning designation shall vary by intensity and use as indicated below. Such signs shall be consistent with the following Sections of this Code, Chapter 9, Signs; provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) upon compliance with more stringent or restrictive sign regulations in order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed development, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and prevent public harm, and .to ensure com'pliance with, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1, 1990 402 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development . Landr Use Classification High Intensity: Residential ,Institutional Professional Service/Office General Commercial Public Service/Utilities Industrial Section 9.01.01 (C) Section 9.01.01 (E) Section 9.01.0 t (D) Section 9.01.01 (F) Section 9.01.01(F) Section 9.01.01 (F) Medium Intensity: Residential Institutional Professional Service/Office General Commercial Public Service/Utilities Industrial Section 9.01.01(C) Section 9.01.01 (E) Section 9.01.01 (D) Section 9.01.01 (F) Section 9.01..01(F) Section 9.01.01 (F) Low Intensity: Residential Institutional Professional Service/Office General Commercial Public Service/Utilities Section 9.01.01 (B) Section 9.01.01 (E) Section 9,01.01(D) Section 9.01.01 (E) Section 9.01.01 (E) All other requirements and standards relating to signs within the Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) zoning designation shall be consistent with Chapter 9 of this Code, Adopted August 1,1990 403 Revised Through 08/01/00 OKEECHOBEE COUNTY T 36 $ T 35 S T .t4 S HEAOER ¢-2,1 SNE£D ROAD SHINNROAD A Petition of St. Lucie Farms Inc. for a ReZoning from AG-1 (Agricultural, 1 uniVacre) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)and PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development)fOr the project known as Westchester, an 800 unit mixed use residential development. , , , RZ 00-015 ~//~~,/,~ This pattern indicate, s subject parcel Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared December 1, 2000 . 8~ : i '.' · ::- :" .. : .!.':' ;."':.::.::'. "d.u/a~,~e) . i i..i '" ; "' " ; . " '" ' " ;: - . T;HiEEAST"ON .' .... " "- ' ;". ' ."".'.J. :. ". ' ' i..' :THE','~IOUTHJ~) · ' ' ' ' . :.-' '"' i. ' · · ' : '. '. '"LESSAND.EX¢ ...... THE NORTH 'ST;' ',TRIC.T' CANAL No. · .- ' ST. LUCIE: COUNTY,. DESCRIBED. AS:'~ PARCEL OF 'LAND · RANGE 39 .EAST"AND :SECTIC)N'34,,!TOWNSH1P 35'SOU.TH,.RANGE39 EAST -MORE PARTICULARLY.DESCRIBED· AS FOLLOWS: iCOMMENCE':AT THE 'SC)bT'HE 'TER OF SAID,SECTION 3- THENCE=NORTH 00~16'38*' WEST ALONG :I'HE EAST · ~ sAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE ~)F '§9;67 ~EET TO THE NORTH RIGHT~OF-WAY 712) A 70 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE. SOUTH 89°48'08'' WEST ALONG THE MIDWAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 712) A DISTANCE OI~ 39.00'FEET TO'THE'WEST ' LUCIE RIVER' WATER C.ONTROL DISTRICT "CANAL NUMBER 93 AND THE"POINT · ALONG. THE NORTH RIGHT-OF,WAY LINE ~F' SAID MIDWAY ROAD .SOUTH 89°44 ' FEET; . THENCE DEPARTING SAID' ~IGHT-OF.~VAY LINE NORTH 00018'53~. WEST .,~'t INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH 'LINE OF' THE NORTHWi~ST QUARTER OF SAID EAST A DI.STANCE 'OI~ 1318.4~' FEET; THENCE NbRTH '89o59,41- EAST A DISTANCE WES. T RIGHT-OF-WAY,LINE OF SAID CANAL 'NUMBER " WAY LINE,OF SAID CANAL NUMBER 'gCI.A DISTANCE OF.i3JS.97 FEETi' THE NORTH .W, EST QUARTER OF' '3i · 'NUMBER ..93,.' ~OUTH' 00°1'6'38" EAST ,a ~Y ROAD AND THE POINT · ': :. ...~.:;~. · .. -zonin Th, Page 23 if west Midway Roa, Taxld .Locatic i~bad, !nc, for-a change.i I~ro'pe~/; . ' ...... · ' ·, ~ Sul:~:liviS'ion Section, ?ina :~oulh Range:.~O 2','bf'W.hJte .City Y - ' : ...... ,: .... ,' -,."- ' ...... she .... n~f ............ . ............ ' ............ ~ , ..~,~ ...... o~St.L~e o~ .' ', ..... - ....: . ,- ........ gn~ g;~ence'conllnue~ 89.57,05";W "a"~lst6fi ......... ' .... ' ........ ~'~'=' o- .... , .... ., fl ...-, . . -..~.~, .,,- .... ~ ~'~ :.': ~:~ 87 16 t7 E a d~stance of 196 14 feet then~ ~'7 ~'' ' =" " ............ "'. ~ *~' ' o' ~, a ~,sta.ce of ~e.el 'f~t.:tfience N, 14 12'12"~E,a dis~qge ~f:'~0L ~ t~"? ~::.'~.:':~"~. ~::. .... · ........ ;' ;"x Iong.'~ar~:~r,;~td 'C~~fi a ceHkal 'an le bf 13 3 ' ' ' ' · ' . ' · ' :: ' '"' 27°11~"" ;=', .......... ,..._~ ~. .... . .: ........... g __ .. · g ." . 8'317~ a distancq of.. 464.29(,f~' then~~ "" '" " '.' . '. ' =o,c~'t~.;~':.a-~'s~"~' ,o, ~u~.~..;~!?~..,~,~.e~,0~- ~, a.d~,t~,c~: of.~.~s .f~,t.~'t~-~,~,a ....... ~ a'stance or ~ ~= t~t; mence N 12 20 5 ~ .- . · : · W .... .' . ..... o ~ .. '.,.~ . , · - '. , ' . ' .. - . .; ..- , a distance of 315.54 f~t, thence N 78 49 36 ' E;'.a .distance of'214.11 feet; thence N 84°52'287 E, o distance'et 300.55, f~ ti;If .. ': -'-: i: ... · ... . . .. thence N 14009'53" W, a distance of-242,58 feet; thence N ~2°27~35'' E, a distance of 39.61 feet; thence N 29013'49" W,:.'.i · '.'" ' i.i!'- . .-.i ' · . distance °f 280'04 feet; thence N 07°13'39" W' a distance °f 222'22 feet; thence N 03°00'12" E"o distance of 59'95 feet; thence" N 04054'56" W,.o distance of 221.93 f~t; thence N 17951 '33" W, a distance 0f 60.24 feet; thence N 35024'06" E, a distance 0f 74.68 feet; ~hence S 70°38'31" E, a distance of 91,16 f~et; thence S 78°08'31'' E, a distance of 187.63 feet to the ~inning ~f.[a -.. ' non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a;mdius of 161.90 f~t; the Chord o~ which bears N'63°40'43" E; thence along the arc of.said cu~e-through a central angle.of 6~°49'09", a distance.of 185.99 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cu~e concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 656.00 feet; the chord of which bears N 31°39'20". E; thence along the arc 0f said curve through a central angle of 26°41 '20~ a dista~e of 302.78 feet; t~ence N 45°00'00" E, tangents, to I~st ~s~.c~rv~, a 'distance of 11~34.06 feet; thence' S 45°00'00~E,'a distanceof 636.49 feet'to the;beginning of a cu~e concave' to'the'5outhwe~t, ha~ing a radius Of 2900.00 feet; the chord ~f White, bears S 35°41'31~ E; thence along.the arc. of said cu~e through ~ central angle of 45°I 4'09", a distance of 2368~3 f~f; th&h~&.S~.00°14'09" W, adistance of 2059.65 feet to the Pol~t of B~inning..: Containing'352.98 ~cres, mo~e or tess. ' ' ' ' ' ...... ' .... , Tax Id No. 4308-000~0000'-000/~ - ' ..... ' '_' :'.. ?.~r ' ' ..... 4309-000-0000L000/0. . - "· .. ~"" ~ . ' ' · · Location: ~odfl of Gatlih Bird West of i~ter~tate 95 . . . ..- 6, A.-ch~nge in the boundaries for a pregi0~0sl~'~e~om'mended rezoning to PMUD for the West~hester Development Corp0ratio~.fo~ .: ';': :'. the following described pr6pe~: .. Being a .parcel of land Iocat~ in Sections 9, and: 10~'~ownship37 S~uth, Range 39 East/;S~. Lucie-Count, F'lorida.'said parcel being more ~dicularly des~ibed as follows: '- '" .... "-' ' ' B~in at.the interse~io~.of the centedine of Gaflin"~'ulevard, (al~o being the Nodh line of S~ti~ '15) and ~fie Weste~ly limits of -' Ga~lin B0~l~brd .Right-of:Way and the We~t~ly fimi)s of thos~ lands 'described in an Order of. Taki~g~.d~ted July' 24, '1979 ' and ' recorded.in OffiCial ReCbrd ~ok 31.1 bt' pages ~4~ihrOugh, 2952,.i~Clusive, Public Records:of St. LUcl& Count,' Florida,-and as sh°w~'on~ the Florida Depa~ment of TransPodatfon'~i'ght.of.~y ma~ f~r State Road ~9 (1'95), S~ti6n 94001-2412, dat~ ' -' : 6/2/77".with last ~evision of 9/~ 1/79. thenc& S.';~9°57'05" W .~l~n' said ce~t nno~,,~. ~' ' .... ~,_Z.,. ' ~... : ~. . , . g i ertine a distance of 2815.40-f~t. thence', N uu , e uz c, a alsrance ot.~uSy.6~ teet to the beglnning of a tangen~ cu~e con~ave to the SouthWest haG[n a radius of'3000 00 f~et;;thence.along the-arc ~f.said Cu~&'~rough a ~e~trol an~le of 36o~.~,~.. _ .... Z. .......... ; ~ - .. g. ,,',- _L~L 'Z . distance of'100 00 feet~ thence N.'AR°aR'I R" ~' '.- :~=~L~- _~u~.~ .... ..~.,,, ~ ~,a,onCe o~, o.y~.oo r~t; mence m 6~3U 2~" ~, a _ :. · . -- ...... ~' ~, ~ ~u~ pr, zo.oo reel va me o~inning-ot a ~urve Concave to the So~, having a' radius of 525.00 feet; the.chOrd of which 5~a~S N.'Z8 27'42" E. t ence al6n. f e - ; ' 29°2'' ' "' · '-. ' ' - o h g. h . arc of said eurve through a cenkal an le' of . .~. 59, ?. d!stdnce of 269.89 feet; thence. 86 48t48"E, a distance of :62 97 f~t to the ~olffnmo of'a cU~e C0nc~ge ~ 'f NoHhWe~t,' having..a ~adius of 27534 f~t,'the' Ch~d' ~f which ~"~'"~o~,~. ~ ~, , g ;~i .... ,. ,.~ ~ ti ~;~.[; ..' 'he -' ' o ' -..' , ., .... ~,.~ ,~ ~. Ge u~, c; mence along t~e arc or sata ~e ~rough a ~ ' central ';angle of~91 11 '51~. a.distance :~f ~438~26'. ;f~. ~ a, ~i~t of. revise' ~u~ture ,with a cu~e co'ave to the radiu~ of 527.97'.feet· the ~hord ' ' ~0 '16 30" E: then~® alan' ' '. 4n .... ~,,._ :,.. ", .... ~' , . . .... g.~.,~c of4a~d cu~e t .. ~., u u~, a 'alstance or erse Cu~a~re :.witfl '~"cu~e. ~O~cave 'to .th'~' Noi i ' 1.956.76'f&e~ the'~h~rd thence'along .th&':'~rc 0f S~d ' distance of '920.a2 feel'to chord :of'which bears arc of. said 193.92 f~i".t0tt~e b~l~ning Of an ' bears s :~9o07,1-B,,- E; thence 58°06'45" E, a. distance of 389.95 f~t"' a ~n~ra.! chord bi:Which .bear~' S feet to .a point, of reverse"cu~ature with-a to 09°04'45"' E; -thence along the arc 18° 15'.21.~vE, a: distance., of 855;'1 100,00'"f~f; ~e chord ~:WhiCh b~rs,. S 90°00'00., E~ a. 2s.00' W; a distance of 23 thence S~900C~0'00" E,,a distance of. curve concave to' the West, having a curve throUgh"a, .centEal angle of 4'1 Northwest, haying a radius of 100.00.feet;.the o0 ;e. centrai-angle of 13! 5.52., a distcmce ~f curve concave, to :the Southeast, said cur~e th'rc~ugfl' a 89°57'05".E..a 'distance Containir~g.223;.:4.0 a,c~res, more or less: . - ' . Tax Id'Nb. 4310-212-0001~000/2' .' .;.?.: '" ' 4309-0.00-0000:000/0 ' ' ..... ' ' "'~ ? - '"' .i' ~' '~: L6cation:.North of ~atlin 'Biv~l west. of Interstat· 95 ~i' . . · .' ' "' - ' i. ' ' 'i' PUBLIC HEXRINGS .will.be.held-tn Cotnmissior~ ;C~amb~r~i 'Roger.P0itras'Annex~ ~300 Virginia Avenue .Fad. Pier Februa 15 2001 i i c Florldaon '' : : r~' ~ ' ' ;' "~ ' n"n'g at 7:Q0' P,MJ or'as.;s~, there~~ as P°ssibl.;i "' : ' . ., -E, ... PURSUANT TO sedi:°~ 286.0105, 'FlOrida sta~e~ if a ~rson' d~ides't~ appeal any d~islOn, made 'b' 'a commission with res" 't0 dt · ..... . '.-:' ~;: . '. '.. .... . . y. ", 'g ncy, or- .' '. ' ~ . ny ma~er considered'~ a meeting or heanng he will need a record of the chpu~ses hema n&~toen ' " ....... · ' ' ' ..... P: ~ . g~. ndthat~'fdr evidencg' Gpo~' Which ~e ~p~l i~~ta~.~~?m re~o~d o, the proceedings ,s made,, which .record includes the.t&sflmony .an~. PLANNING AND'ZONiNG CO~ISSION "_ ; .- ' :'" · ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA :~.' ; '.. , /S/Sfefan Maflh~s, CHAIRMAN :. , ' PUBLISH. DATE: February 5, 20'01" 7!, '-' . ?. - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 1/18/01 File No.: PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP-00-009 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager DATE: January 11,2001 SUBJECT: Application of Westchester Development Company, for Preliminary Planned Mixed Unit Development approval for the Project Known as Westchester- PMUD, and for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PMUD (Planned Mixed Unit Development- Westchester) Zoning DiStrict. LOCATIOrN: North side of Gatlin Boulevard immediately west of the 1-95 Interchange, approximately one mile west of the intersection of Gatlin Boulevard and Brescia Street. ZONING DESIGNATION' PROPOSED ZONING' LAND USE DESIGNATION- PARCEL ,SIZE: AG-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 - du/acre) PMUD (Planned Mixed Unit Development- Westchester) RU (Residential Urban) 185.5 acres PROPOSED 'USE: 200 Single-Family lots with associated infrastructure, open space and commercial and civic uses. SURROUNDING ZONING- AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south and west; and MXD Gatlin Boulevard to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: Station #10 (777 SW Dalton Road), is located approximately 5 miles to the east. Port St. Lucie Utilities or St. Lu¢ie West will provide water and sewer services. January 9, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Westchester PMUD File No;: PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP-00-009 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RiGHT-OF. WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF .CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: See Comments See Comments Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following determinations: . Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed rezoning has been determined to not be in conflict with any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The application for Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) approval has been reviewed for consistency with the provisions of the St. Lu¢ie County Land Development Code and has been determined to meet all applicable standards of review. . Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County COmprehensive Plan; The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would be consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. This change in zoning will, for example, allow the applicant to develop the subject property in a manner that encourages innovative use of land. This Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) will result in a lesser density than that which would be allowed under the current future land use designation. There are 200 single-family lots proposed for construction within the Westchester PMUD. If the subject property were developed at its maximum residenti,~l density, 927 dwelling units would be possible. The PMUD also includes 22.73 acres of proposed commercial development, a 53.69 acre school site, and a 2.19 acre institutional site. January ~9, 2'001 Page 3 Petition: Westchester PUD File No.: PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP-00-009 . Sm . Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; This proposed change in zoning and the accompanying Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development site plan have been determined to be consistent with the general land - uses in'the surrounding area. The .Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan indicate that the petitioned property is suitable for development at a density.of 5 dwelling ~units per gross acre. The proposed development indicates a gross density~ of 0.96 dwelling units per acre. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Them .are no changes'that would require an ~mendment. Whether and rthe 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 facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The proposed site plan, which is tied to this rezoning, is expected, to create additional demandS on all public facilities in this area. As the proposed development is located Within the service area of the Port St. Lucie Utility Department, the applicant was required to provide sufficient documentation stating capacity was available to meet the needs of the proposed project. The' Port St. Lucie Utility Department has provided a letter stating that sufficient water and sewer se~ice is available to support the proposed development. The developer is currently working with the city to secure this service. Water and sewer service are also available from St. Lucie West. The subject property is located west of the existing terminus of Gatlin Boulevard. According to the applicant's traffic impact report the following three roadway facilities, which are loCated within the project study area, are scheduled for improvements within the Port St. Lucie Capitaltmprovement Program (CIP)' Airoso Boulevard Gatlin Boulevard Bayshore Boulevard 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Boulevard to Prima Vista Boulevard 4-lane divided from !-95 to Port St. Lucie Boulevard 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Boulevard to Prima Vista Boulevard FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002 FY 2001-2003 The applicant's Traffic Impact Report (TLR) indicates that the proposed project will not negatively affect any of the surrounding roadway links. The applicant has stated within the Traffic Impact Report (TLR) that they will commit to constructing that portion of Gatlin January 9, 2001 Page 4 Petition: Westchester PUD File No.' PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP-00-009 Sm ., Boulevard as a four lane divided roadway from 1-95 to the projects entrance, a distance of approximately one-mile. In addition, the applicant will construct a section of a new north/south arterial roadway which will ultimately connect to Glades Cutoff Road. 'This additional arterial will be a 4- lane facility and intersect the southern property line at Gatlin BouleVard, approximately one mile west of 1-95. Further, the applicant is proposing to construct a new north/south collector road as part of the proposed development. This collector roadway is proposed to be located approximately 1/~ mile west of 1-95. This collector roadway facility will provide direct access to a proposed school, a pOrtion of the proposed residential development and all proposed commercial uses. The proposed development will provide approximately 72.99 acres (35% of the site) as open space. This open space includes the 0,26 acres of wetlands, 44.46 acres of lakes, 3.91 acres of parks, 11.98 acres of common area and a 12.38 acre sch°ol site. The proposed development will address its impact on the school district through the provision of a 12.38 acre school site and/or the construction and operation of a school on a 54 acre site within the Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) Development area which is the subject of this petition. 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 through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) approval process, has proposed a development plan that provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant will need to obtain all permits relating to environmental impacts on the site prior to any construction. These agencies include but are not limited to the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), South Florida Water Management District '(SFWMD) and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. The environmental impact report (EIR) indicates that there are a number of wetlands located throughout the subject land parcel. In this phase of development, the applicant is proposing to preserve all of the wetlands located on the land parcel. This will result in no net loss of wetlands for this development. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; The proposed zoning designation would result in an orderly and logical development pattern. The development is within the urban service boundary west of the 1-95 Interchange along Gatlin Boulevard west of Port St. Lucie. The logical growth pattern January 9, 2001 Page 5 Petition: Westchester PUD File No.' PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP-00-009 am within this area will allow for the development of this project as an integrated development with residential and required service components. In this manner, the applicant is proposing to incorporate a portion of the smart growth ideas into the design of the overall project. There Will be two. sections developed within Phase i of the overall development. The first section is the 600 unit PUD c°nsidered in this petition. The second section is a Planned Mixed Use development (PMUD) which incorporates 200 residential units along with commercial and civic 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 in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development COde. COMMENTS The petitioner, Westchester Development Company, is proposing the development of phase one of an integrated project which will include residential, commercial and civic u$o$. This petition covers the Westchester PMUD, a 200 unit residential project identified as "Eastside" in the attached plans. The "EastSide'' plan also contains commercial, and-civic uses associated with all of phase one development. The total phase one project is 581.63 acres divided into this 208.57 acre Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) and a 373.06 acre PUD which is the subject of a separate petition. The PUD will be considered as a separate but related project. As a PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development), the project proposes to develop the subject property with some flexibility, such as establishing area and yard standards which are different from those required in the standard zoning districts, and the ability to cluster dwelling units to protect environmentally sensitive areas and provide for alternate development patterns on site. The developer is thus able to reduce the environmental impacts on the property to a greater degree than with more conventional development. Section 7.01.03(I) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code requires that 35% of the site must consist of open space, a minimum or 15% of which must be native upland habitat preserved in its natural condition. These requirements are met by this PMUD. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development site plan is compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. This development will be at a density below what is permitted by the Future [.and Use Designation of this property. In considering any approval actions, staff recommends that you forward Resolution attached with this petition, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of apprOval subject to the conditions found in said resolution. January 9, 2001 Page 6 Petition' Westchester PUD File No' PUD-00-011, RZ-00-015 and MJSP'00-009 Please c°ntact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cs CC: Westchester Development Company Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates File PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 2t15/01 MEMOrRANDUM DEPARTMENT OF CO~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO,: FROM' DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager Qq~ February 7, 2001 SUBJECT: LOCATION: Application of WeStchester Development C-ompany, for a boundary change to a previously rocommended Preliminary Planned Mixed Use ...DeveloPment approval for the Project Known ~as Westchester - PMUD. North side of Gatlin Boulevard immediately west of the !-95 - Intemhange, approximately one mile west of the intemeCtion of Gatlin Boulevard and Brescia Street. ZONING DrESIG~NATION: PROPOSED ZONING: LAND USE DESIGNATION: AG-1 (Agricultural Residential I - du/acre) .PMUD (Planned Mixed Unit Development- Westchester) RU (Residential Urban) · PARCEL SIZE: 223.4 acres PROPOSED USE' 200 Single-Family lots with associated infrastructure, open space, commercial, and civic uses. SURROUNDING ZONING SURROUNDING LAND USES: AG-1 (Agricultural- 1-du/acm) to the north, south, east, and west. RU (Residen.tial Urban) to the north, south and west; and MXD Gatlin BOulevard to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: .UTILITY SERVICE: Station #1.0 (777 SW Dalton Road), i.s located approximatelY 5 miles to the east. Pod St. Lucie Utilities or St. Lucie West will' provide water andr sewer services. February 7, 2001 Page 2 Petition' Westchester PMUD TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQU~ACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONC'URRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Consistent-with prior recommendation for approval Consistent with prior recommendation for approval Certificate of Capacity. COMMENTS At last month.s . meeting ." the ~Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the BOard of County CommisSione:rs :approve the .Planned MiXed Use Development and. rezoning for the east side of the Westchester. Development, Su:bsequent to that recommendation negotiations with posSible,tenants for the retail .area and concerns over the extension of Gatlin Blvd. required 't:hat minor :changes to the project, boundaries-which the Planning and Zoning-Commission reviewed be made. These changes.swap two approximately equal, sized parcels to allow for a redesigned retail/office area and ~delete 'the area south of the centerline of Gatlin .Blvd. in order to allow for better management of the entrance road construction. In orderto maintain, consistency:between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the BOard of County Commissionem, staff recommendS that you acknowledge this change in project,boundaries. and recommend the change ~be incorPorated, into the previouslY approved plan. Please contact, this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cs cc: Westchester Development Company Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates File SuggeSted .motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE~ AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY P~SENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEAR~G, INCLUDING STAFF 'COMMENTS'~ I HE.BY MOVE THAT THE PLANN~G AND .ZONING COMMISSION ~COMME~ THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSiO~RS GRANT APPROV~ TO 'THE APPLICATION OF' WESTCltESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPS, FOR A PRELIM~ARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROV~ FOR ~E'PRO~CT ~O~ AS ~STCHESTER , PMI~, AS AMENDED, -AND FOR A C~ANGE .~ ZO ~~G FROM ~E AG-1 (AGRIC~~ . 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DIS ~TRI:.~ CT TO THE PM~ (PLANNED M~D USE DEVELOPMENT , ~STCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE. ~ASON(S) ~- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DE~; ~TER '.CONSIDE~G ~E TE'ST~O~ 'P~SENTED D~G THE' PUBLIC HE'~ARING, INCL~~G ST~F COMMENTS, ~ THE STAND~S OF ~VIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE' CO~Y L~ DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HE.BY MOVE THAT THE PLA.NN~G ~ ZONING COMMISSION ~COMMEND .THAT 'THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BO~ OF CO~TY CO~iSSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF WESTCI~STER DE~'LOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR ~E PRO.CT ~O~ AS WESTCHESTER , P~D, AS ~ENDED, ~ FOR A CHANGE IN ZO~G FROM'~E AG'-1 '(AG~CUL~FURAL , 1 DU/AC~) ZONING DIS~CT TO . THE-PMUD (PLAID MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT , WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ..... [CITE ~ASON(S)WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01.03 Zoning Distdct Use Regulations 3..01.03 ZONING DISTRICTS A. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL ,-___1~ Purpose The purpose of this distriCt is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as ,may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential' densities are restricted to a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per ~gross acre, The-number in "()" following ,each identified use corresponds-to the SIC code~ reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The nUmber 999 applies to .a use not defined under tl~e :SIC. code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code. 2. Permitted Uses 80 g. h. i. j. k:. AgriCultural production - crops .Agricultural production- livestock & animal specialties Agricultural services (o7~ _ Family day care homes. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential .home 'and provided that the-sponsorin~g~.a:gencyor Department of Health and. Rehabilitative Se~ices (HRS) notifies the'Board of COunty Commissioners-at the .time of home occupancy that the home is licensed · by HRS. Fishing, hunting & trapping Forestry Kennels. Research Facilities, Noncommercial Riding stables. Single,family detached dwellings. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot .size requirements shall be .in accOrdance with Table I in Section 7.04.00. . Dimensional. Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be: in accordance with Table 1 in 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'.. 7. Conditional-Uses a. AgricultUral labor housing. Adopted August 1, 1~990 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Section 3.01.03 Zoni:ng Distdct Use 'Regulations eo ko Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. Family residential homes located within a radius ofone thousand (1,000) feet of another such family 'residential home. Farm products 'warehousing and storage. Gasoline service station's. Industrial' wasteWater disposal. Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals (2) 'Food & kindred products (3) Lumber & .wood products, except furniture Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, except fuels.. Retail trade- (1) Farm equipment and related accessories. (2) Apparel & accessory stores. Sewage 'disposal sUbject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13. TelecommunicatiOn Towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 Camps - sporting and recreational. (zo32) _ Accessory 'Uses Accesso_,.rv .uses are subject tO:the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Mobile.homes subjec! to.the requirements of Section 7.10.05. b. Retail trade.and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primaw authorized use or activity. c. Guest .house:subject to the requirements of SeCtion '7.10.04. (9~) Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development 7.03.0'0 PLANNED MIXED U'SE DEVELOPMENT 7,03,01 PURPOSE The Plarined Mixed Use Development District (PMUD) is intended.to allow for a combination of residential and non-residential land development of supedor quality through the encouragement of flexibility and creativity .in design options that': - · A. permit-creative approaches to the development of land reflecting changes-in the technology of land deVelopment; ~ Bo allow for the efficient use of land, which can result in smaller networks of utilities and streets and thereby lower development costs; C. Bi encourage a broad, range of services (shopping, employment, schools, recreation, etc.).in cloSe proximity to :their need; _ allow.for a juxtaposition of land uses both horizontally and vertically, not otherwise allowed; allow'design:options that,encourage'an: environmentof stable character, compatible with surrounding land uses,; and ' permit the enhancement of neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features, the provision .of underground utilities, and the pro¥ision of recreation areas and open space; 7.03.02 PERMITTED USES AND LOCATIONS Policy 1,1'.6,4 of~the~St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan sets. forth an intensity plan for each ama with a Mixed USe' Development Planned Mixed Use Development: (P'MUD) zoning is permitted only within the . Permitted uses within the .PMU.D zoning.design~ation vary .by intensity as sPecified beioTM. Compatibility ,and relative 'Placement of difforent uses shall be limited as specified in. Table 7,1, Compatibility of Uses vs,. Road Classification & Average Daily Trips. A. High Intensity Any permitted use..as-identified in the-Residential, Multipl~.Family-5 (RM-5); Residential., Mobile Home,5 (RMH-5); Residential, Multiple-Family,7 (RM-7); Residential, Multiple-Family.9 (RM-9); .Residential, Multiple-Family-Il (RM,11); Residential, Multiple-Family-15; (RM-15) Commercial, Neighborhood'(CN);' Commercial, Office (00); COmmercial,: General (CG); Industrial, Light (IL); Industrial:, Heavy. (I:H);. . Utirlity,. .... (U);' InstitutiOnal (I); or HIRD zoning districts of this Code,..any accessory use specified .in. the final PMUD; .and any conditional' use specified in the final PMUD, subject to the requirements of Section 11,07,00 and any Other cpecial requirement as set forth in this Code., may be permitted in an. area designated High Intensity Mixed Use Development to the extent consistent with the future Land Use designations of the. St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1. 1990 39O Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development 'B. Co D¸o Medium Intensity .Any permitted, use as identified in the Residential, Multiple-Family-5 (RM.-5); Residential, Mobile Home-5 (RMH~5); Residential, Multiple-Family-7. (RM-7); Residential, Multiple-Family-9 (RM.9); Commercial, iNeighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); Industrial, Light (IL:.); :Industrial, Heavy (IH); Utility (U); Institutional (I); or HIRD zoning districts of this COde, any accessow use specified 'in' the .final PMUD, and any conditional use speCified in the final: PMU. D, subject tothe requirements .of Section 11.07.00 and: any other special-requirement as set forth: in this Code may be permittedin an area:designated Medium Intensity Mixed Use Development to the extent consiste:nt with the future La-nd .Use. designations of the St. Lucie CoUnty. Comprehensive Plan. Low Intensity Any permitted use aS identified in the Residential, Estate,1 (RE-l); .Residential, Estate'2~(RE-2); Residential, S'ingle,Family-2 (RS,2); Residential, Single-Family-3 (RS,3); Residential, Single. Family..4 (RS~).; Residential., Multiple, Family-5 (RM.-5); Residential, Mobile Home-5 (RMH-,~); Residential, Multiple-Family-§ (RM.5); COmmercial, Neighborhood (CN); Commercial, Office (CO); Commercial, General (CG); ~ Industrial,.. Light (IL); or HI.RD' zoning districts of 'this Code, any accessory use specified in the final PMUD,-and any conditional use specified in the. final PMUD, subject to the requim.ments of.Section 1.1.07.00 and any.other special requirement as set forth in this Code may be -: permitted in an aroa designated. Low Intensity. Mixed Use'Development to the extent consistent with the future Land USe designatio:ns of the St. Lucie Co.unty Comprehensive Plan. Location Criteria Planned Mixed 'Use Development shall be based on and controlled by the roadway classification as defined ..in Section 7,03,03(E) The various, permitted, uses shall be located within the development based: on-the' functional~ classification of and, the projected average daily trips on the adjacent roadWay., as per Table ~7-1 below. ' in the.case.of large scale developments:, the developer shall, subject to the review and approval of the county, speci~ the functional classification, of each road. within the development. In the case of smaller projects .whiCh are located on existing roads, the county's classifications shall be used. In either case, projected traffic volumes shall be. submitted as a part of the required Traffic Impact Report. TABLE 7-I Adopted August 1, 19,90 391 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development TABLE 7-1 7,03,03 STANDARDS AND"REQUiREMENTS Standards-and requirements for a Planned Mixed Use Development shall be as follows: A. MINIMUM AREA Minimum areas for..land uses within Planned MiXed Use .Developments shall be as specified in Table 7.2 below. Where moro that one land: use is developed within a Planned Mixed Use Development, the minimum siZe of the development shall be: the sum of the minimum areas for .each land use as specified-in Table 7-2 :below, All land included as a part of the minimum requirement shall be contiguous and' under common ownemhip or control. Resid'ential land uses may not exceed 40 percent .of the Planned Mi×ed USe DevelOpment. . TABLE 7-2 Adopted Augu:st 1, 1990 IltnSti:tutional t~.~J~pr°feisi°nal ServiC~tOffice. ' ~ lrJcommercial~ JlPublic service/Utilities 392 1 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development B. RESIDENTIAL :DENSI~ AND NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA 'RATIOS The maximum permitted residential density of a Planned Mixed Use 'DeveloPment shall not exceed 'the residential, densi~ reflected in the Mixed Use Intensity Plans of the St. Lucie 'County C.omprehensive Plan and.-referenced in Table 7-3, below. On North and South Hutchinson ISland, the provisions of Section 3.01.03(AA), HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) shall govern. . For non-reSidential,uses, intensity shall, be :limited by Floor Area Ratios as specified in Table 7"3.below. Floor ^roa Ratio is defined as the total 'floor area of the building divided by the total area of the lot. The total floor ama of the building Shall include all floors of the building. TABLE 7-3 Residenaal __.. , . ...... ...... : :, ,,,, 5 15 institutional: 1.50 - :::.'.' ' ~,u',~. ~ , .: ~r , , ,- ,,, , ,, . , ." ', .,._ Professional Service/office ' 1.50 Comme mial 1.00 . , 'Public Services/Utilities ' 0;50 "'' .~' ':' - : '...i'" .... .~,...~ ,u., ,~-,. , . . r r , L .-, , · .... ;-Industrial ' ' 0 50 ' iii , ! !111 i ,i i',' -. i - ..... i' ":--i "T'.','r'.'I -] '- ; ' '" ' ':'1-( ii .'"":'"'""'1 Residential 5 9 . . Institutional · . ~ 1,00 Professional'serVice/Office '' ' 1.00 Commercial ' " 0 75 Public Services/Utilities . , . 0.25 Residential. O: 5 Instituti°nal ~ , 0 50 Adopted August 1, 1990 393 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development Commercial AND,FLOoI TABLE 7-3 · ,. . . LANDUSE. ' '?:MINIMUM.. :': '. DEVELOPMENTS MAXIMUM - FLOOR AREA · - · 'RATIO 0.50 0.50 0.25 C. Where mixed la:nd uses are horizontally or vertically integrated on the .same parcel, the developer shall demOnstrate that..the parcel contains sufficient land area for the Proposed uses to. have been approved individually. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS not .received a building permit, Site plan or other COunty c prior to January 10, 19'95 the requirements of Section 4.0 Where'.area, yard, height and other dimensional requimme Development are less restrictive 'than similar requirements the Board of' Coun~ .Commissioners upon demonstratie requirements are determined to be consistent with the in! COmprehensive Plan, and the .other standards and require levelopment a.ppmval as a 'permitted use 1.00,' HutchinSon Island - Building Height 3tS., as defined by the Planned Mixed Use of this Code., approval may be granted by n that such less restrictive dimensional ent and purpose of'th'e St. Lucie County ~ments of this Code. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES . . In order to ensure compatibili~ with land uses, to mitigate impact on the environment and natural resources, to ensure safety and to ensure compliance with the St, Lucie County'Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Use Development shall be deSigned and located .so there will be.. no net 4lc cost for the provision of water lines, sewage .lines, storm and surface drainage system~, and Other utility systems. The ,m, inimum size. of all water mains used:, or intended! for use, in fire protection activities is six (6)' i'ncheS.. Actual water main requirements wilibe determined by the St. Lucie CoUnty- Ft. Pierce Fire prevention Bureau.. ~, . The..minimum size of all water mains used, or inter~ded for use, in· fire protection activities, that are located on a dead'end water main is eight (8") inChes. Actual water main Adopted August 1, 1990 394 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03,00 Planned Mixed Use Development Eo requirements Will be determined bythe St. Lucie-County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. The .maximum nUmber .of fire hydrants that may be located on any dead end water' main is one (1). .¸ Fire hydranls shall be provided at a minimum spacing of one every six hundred (600)feet unless otherwiSe approvedby the St. Lucie County-Ft.. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. TRAFFIC .AND-PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ¸,. Roadway Classification - ROadways in Planned Mixed Use DevelOpments shall be classified as`artedal, ,COllector:, or local roads or streets. These classifications are presented in order-of the intensity of their associated uses. Local streets ,are further subdivided into residential and general streets. While the uses permitted along these streets differ, neither of these classifications is intended to be used more intensively 'than the other. Further definitions of and standards for these classifications as used for Planned MiXed Use Developm~ents are-found below and in Table 7-4. a/ Arterial road - A route providing service which is relatively continuous and of · relatively high traffic volume,.10ng average trip length, :high operating speed, and high mobility importance. FIGURE 7-3 Adopted August 1, 1990 395 Revised 'Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development . b. Collector road - A route providing service which is of relatively moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length, and moderately average operating speed. Such a route also collects and .distributes traffic between local roads or arterial.roads and serves as a linkage between land access and mobility needs. C. Local streets-Routes which primarily permit direct access to abutting property and connections to a higher order rOadway. A local street provides service:that is relatively Iow in volume and shod average trip length or minimal 'through traffic movements. · (1) Residential lOCal street- a local street .on which only residential, institutional, and 'neighborhood commercial uses are permitted (see Table 7-1). (2) General' local street'- a local street'on which some residential' uses are prohibited' (see Table 7-1 ). _ Roadway Design Criteria- The following criteda shall be used in planning for traffic circulation. a.. .Minimum dimensional requirements for mad:ways in Planned Mixed Use' Developments ~hall be as specified in Table 7.4 below' unless otherwise approved. b:o Principal vehicular access points shall be designed for smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimu:m hazards to vehicular or ~pedestrian traffic. Local streets within the -Planned Mixed Use Development shall .not be connected to streets.outside the development where their use would encourage through 'traffic. C. The proPosed Planned ,Mixed Use Development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the-project, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adverselY affected. .d. The proposed Planned Mixed Use Development shall be designed so that arterial and collector roads which enter or leave the project, shall connect to roads of the same,or higher classification. e. As specified in-Table 7-1 above, all non-residential land uses, other than neighborhood commercial, 'within the Planned Mixed Use Development shall have direct access to a general local or collector street without creating traffic hazards .or congestion on any street. As specified in Table 7-1 above, ~all residential land uses within the Planned Mixe. d Use Development shallr have direct access to a residential local, a general local or a collector street without creating, traffic hazards on any street. Adopted Au,gust 1, 1990 396 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development h. k. m, Access points on ali collector or arterial streets serving a Planned Mixed Use Development shall .be located and spaced' so that traffic moving into and out of the arterial streets does not cause traffic congestion. Access to arterial streets shall be permitted only .for uses with projected' average daily trips'(ADT$) of 4,500 or greater (see Table 7-1). Streets in .a Planned Mixed Use Development may be dedicated to public use or retained, under private ownership. Said Streets and associated improvements shall comply with Ch:apter 13, Building Regulations and Public Works Construction, of the St. Lucie County Land Development' .Regulations. Variations to the standard .minimum dghFOf-way widths may be considered as padof the Planned Mixed 'Use Development if it is :shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County C'ommissioners, · that ~the requested variatiOn is .consistent with the intent of.the County's roadway construction standards and necessary for. the design of the Planned Mixed Use Development. -Ali roads and streets shall intersect at .an approximate _+5° angle of ninety degrees (90°) unless cimumstances acceptable to St, Lucie County indicate a need for a lesser angle of intersecti,on, - Street jogs o:r centerline offsets between any local street or mad with another local street Or road', shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150). The intersection of any ~two local roads or streets with a Major Collector or Arterial, Roadway Shall.be separated by a minimum distance of six hUndred sixty feet (660), as-measured from centerline to centerline,. Permanent dead-end streets shall not exceed one thousand feet (1:000) in length, Cul-de-sacs Shall be provided at the .end of all dead end roads or streets greater than five hundred and one (501) feet in length, The length of a dead-end street shall be measured along the centerline of the street from the its point of perpendicular intersection with the centerline of intersecting street to.the end of the dead-end street or roadway, All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum right-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet, If the dead end roadway is five hundred (500) feet or less in length, a "Y" or "T" type · of turn around may be approved. If a dead end street is temporary in nature then a temporary cul-de-sac shall be required until the roadway is, cor~nected to another street or road. in the center of the cul-de-sac an unpaved island, surrounded by a curb, improved. with grass and landscaping 'that will not interfere with sight distance, may be Adopted August 1, 1990 397 Revised Through 08/01/00 Oo Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development provided. Center islands shall have a diameter of not less than seventeen (17) feet, unless otherwise approved through the review of the Planned Unit Development. Ail roadways, exclusive of interior parking and access aisles areas, regardless of ownership, shall .be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any exterior building walls, except for security gate houses :or similar security structures located in a ~private street or road right-Of-way. Any pedestrian 'cimulation system and its related walkways shall~be separated from the vehicular street system. This may include, when deemed to be necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses in the vicinity of Playgrounds and other recreation areas, local shopping areas, and other neighborhood uses which generate a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION/ AVG. DALLY' TRIPS TABLE 7-4 MtN. ROW MW NUMBER MiN LANE WIDTH SIDEWALKS BICYCLE LANES 100' 2 12' 6' both sides both sides both sides sides 12' 6' both sides 6' both sides 1,2' both sides 100' 4 12' 6' both sides 5' both sides 60' 2 - 12' 6' both sides STREETS 2 10'/12' 6' both sides 2 10'/12' both sides Requires curb & gutter for stormwater~design unles~ otherwise approved by County Engineer. un? s~s De~a~me.~ of Transm.aUo.., ~eB~C~l ~'$ of Bikeways Florida Depa~ment of Transportation, Flodda'$ ye of Service Standards and Guidelines, ManuaI for planning~ April 1992 St..Lucie County, CommUnity Development Department Adopted August 1, 1990 398 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section- 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development F. . ,, PARKING AND LOADING 1. General Provisions a,, The number, type, and' location of parking .spaces'shall be determined 'at the time of final Planned Mixed Use Development plan approval. The determination of the number of spaces required shall be basedron Section 7.~06.01(F) of this Code. The number of parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial Competent evidence that the reduced number of Spaces is adequate for the' proposed use 'or that parking may be shared by proximate uses that operate at different times or'on drifferent days. bo Reserved parking spaces may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject to ~Section 7.06,02(C) of this Code. Off :Street parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading.requirements are governed by Sections 7,06.02 and 7.06,03 of this Code, and the following standards: ao Off-street parking and loading areas shall be 'designed to provide .travelways between adjacent uses while discouraging through traffic. b. Off-street parking and loading areas shall 'be screened from adjacent roads and pedestrian walkways With hedges, dense planting, or changes in grades or walls. On Street Parking In :Planned .Mix:ed Use Developments, on street parking may be' used so long as.the mad on which the on,street parking is proposed lies entirely within the limits of the defined Planned MiXed Use Development and such parking would not contravene any other provision of this .Code or the St.. Lucio County Code of Ordinances. Where such on street parking, and loading .~s used, it shall be consistent with the following, design standards: - The minimum size of a parking stall shall be. as follows: ,., parallel angled handicapped (parallel) handicapped (angled) 8 feet X 23 feet 10 feet X 18 feet 12 feet X 23 feet 12 feet X 18 feet b. Handicapped parki'ng spaces sh~ll be appropriately marked. C,. Access for emergency fire vehicles shall 'be in accordance with NFPA standardS! Adopted August 1, 1990 399 Revised Through 08/01/00 m. Ho Section 7.03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development d. LIGHTING N° more than fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be permitted .ina continuous row without being interrupted by a minimum landscape area of 360 square feet.. Ali lighting facilities shall be ~arranged in such a manner so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind:to adjoining streets or properties. A detailed: lighting, plan shall be required for a~erial and collector streets and any Planned· MiXed Use Development located on North .or South Hutchinson Islandl BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING BETWEEN USES WITHIN THE PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT · Mixed Use DeVelopments shall provide buffers and landscaping as required by Section 7.09.00, unless otherwise approved. PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER BUFFERS Buffers .at the perimeter of the PMUD shall be as specified in Table 7-5 below. TABLE 7.5 ... .. .... . . . . 30 Feet 40 Feet To be determined by the zoning of the adjacent property Jo K. SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND Planned Mixed Use Developments adjacent, to'land used for agricultural purposes, or designated for ' agricultUral use on th~'Future Land USe Map of the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan shall provide: setbacks from the agriCultural land sufficient to protect the function and operation-of those -uses from the encroachment of Urban activities or uses. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS . A minimum of thirty-five (.35)per,cent of~the gross area of the land to be committed to a Planned Mixed-Use Development must be. for use as common open. space, which m~y include; parks, recreation areas, biCycle and pedestrian paths and facilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common open space,, common landscaping or planting areas, or other areas of pub_lic Purpose~ other than street, road or drainage rights-of-way, above ground Adopted August 1, 1990 400- Revised Through 08~01/00 Section 7.03.00 Planned 'Mixed Use Development ¸2. . . o utilities, excluding exclusive sto.rmwater treatment-facilities, and .parking areas. A minimum of 15 percent of. any existing native.upland habitat on the property, i~ must be prese.~ed in its natural COndition. as part of the.required 35 percent common open space, For .each acre of preserved native 'habitat above the required minimum 15 percent that is preserved in its' original state, credit shall be given at a rate of 150 percent per acre towards :the remaining common open space requirement, All areas to be dedicated for common open space shall be identified as part of the Proliminary 'Development Plan for the Planned Mixed use Development. Areas that are fioodways, lakes, wetlan:ds, and stormwater retention areas may be applied to satisfy the total common .open. space, subject to the requirement that 15% of any existing native habitat on the pmpe',',~ mUst ,be included as part of the required 35% common open space. As part of the Final Planned Mixed Use Development submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Planned Mixed USe Development shall provide fOr one of.the following: a. The advance dedication of all common open: space to'a public, or acceptable private, agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have .been placed on it. Ali. such dedications or conveyances.shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits, including land clearing, for any portion of the F'lanned Mixed Use Development ;or, b. A phased, conveyance of the land: to be used for common open space to a public or acceptable private agency, that-will, Upon acceptance,, agree to maintain the common Open space and ~any buildings, structures or improvements that have .been placed on it. The schedule .for the phased conveyance Of any such lands to be used for common open space shall be a specific COndition of approval for the Planned Unit DevelOpment. No such p'amel of land:dedicated or conveyed, for common, open space shall be less than one (1) contiguous acre, and all such. areas shall be physically part of the Planned MiXed Use Development:. Areas provided or reserved to meet any other environmental .preservation or protection requitementsof this code or other lawful regulatory authority may be counted towards the overall: common open space requirement, provided that the common open space meets the requirements of this Code. Landscaping for off-street parking and loading areas shall, as a minimum, meet the requirements of 7.09.00. For Planned Mixed Use Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, the net open space provided in, an-individual stage or phase mag vary from the required thirty-five (35) percent if the approved plan for the Planned Mixed Use Development provides for the required open' space, and the County is assured that the open space will be provided. Adopted August 1, 1990 401 Revised Through 08/01/00 L, Mo Section 7,03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development PHASING A Planned :Mixed Use Development may be developed in more than one stage or phase. ¸, If a .Final Development Site Plan. approved by the Board ,of County Commissioners is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phase shall be constructed and developed in a ~reasonabty conti~nuous fashion. No more than two (2) years shall elapse between the completion of any stage or phase, and the final stage or phase shall .be completed within ten (10) years of the date of Final Development Site Plan approval. Extensions of the above requirements: :arc sub~oct to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Unless otherwise amended.by the Board of.Co.unty Commissioners through the Final ,Development Site Plan review process, the following sequence of d°velOpment must be adhered to: ac One or more major recreation facilities and other major amenities, planned to serve the entire development, shall be completed or' adequate security posted Prior to the issuance of building or mobile home permits .of more than forty (40)'percent, or other percentage as determined by the Board to be appropriately based.on circumstances that include the size of the projectand the proposed phasing schedule-of the 'total number of aUthoriZed dwelling units. Recreation facilities or facilities and other amenities planned to serve one (1)phase of.a multi-phased' development shall be completed or appropriate securi~ posted, prior to issuance of building or mobile home Permits or the recording of any final plat within that phase. b. For .Planned rMJXed USe Developments to be constructed in stages or Phases, the net densi~ of an indiVidual stage or iphase may vary from the approved Final Site Plan subject to the requirementS in Section 11,02.05. , No~ithstanding the above, if the land is within a Development of. Regional Impact and §overned by a .development order, the development order shall: govern the timing of the .phases or stages ,of development activity. , SIGNS . Permitted permanent signs within the Plan:ned Mixed: Use, DevelOpment (PMUD) zoning designation shall vary by intensity and use as indicated below. Such signs shall be consistent with.~he fell'owing Sections 0f:this Code, Chapter 9, signs; provided, however, that the Board .of County. Commissioners may condition approval of' a Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) upon compliance with more stringent or restrictive sign regulations in. order 'to ensure design 'consistency throughout the proposed development, to ensure compatibility with. surrounding land uses, to: ~ensure'public safety and prevent public harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1, 1990 402 Revised Through 08/01100 Section 7~03.00 Planned Mixed Use Development . iLa,nd Use Classification High Intensity: ReSidential Institutional ProfessiOnal Service/Office General Commercial Public ,Service/Utilities Industrial Section 9.01.01 (C) Section-9.,01.01 (E) Section 9.01.01 (D) Section 9.01.01 (F) Section 9.01.01 (F) Section 9.01.01 (F) .Medium Intensity: Residential Institutional .Professional Service/Office General Commercial PUblic SerVice/Utilities Industrial Section 9.01.01(C) Section 9.01.01(E) Section 9.01.0 I(D) 'Section 9.01.01(F) Section 9.01.01(F) Section 9.0.1.0:1(F) LOw Intensity: Residential Institutional Professional Servic~Office General Commercial Public Se~ice/Utilities Section 9.01.01(B) Section 9.01.01(E) Section 9.01.01(D) Section 9.01.01(E) Section, 9.01.01 (E) All other requirements and standards relating to signs within the Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) zoning designation shall be consistent with Chapter 9 of this Code. Adopted August 1, 1990 403 Revised Through 08/01/00 PLANNING AND~ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 2/15/01 ,,MEM,ORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO' FROM' DATE' Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager February 7, 2001 SUBJECT. Application of Westchester Development Company, for a boundary change to a previously recommended Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the Project Known as Westchester- PUD. LOCATION' North side of Gatlin Boulevard immediately west of the 1-95 Interchange, approximately one mile west of the intersection of Gatlin Boulevard and Brescia Street. ZONING DESIGNATION' PROPOSED ZONING: LAND USE DESIGNATION' AG-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 - du/acre) PUD (Planned Unit Development- Westchester) RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE' 352.98 acres PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING' 600 Single-Family lots with associated recreational uses and required open space. infrastructure, AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES- RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south and west; and MXD Gatlin Boulevard to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #10 (777 SW Dalton Road), is located approximately 5 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE' Port St. Lucie Utilities or St. Lucie West will provide water and sewer services. February.' 7, 2001 Page 2 Petition: Westchester PUD TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Consistent with prior recommendation for approval Consistent with prior recommendation for approval Certificate of Capacity. COMMENTS At last months meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planned Unit Development and rezoning for the west side of the Westchester Development. Subsequent to that recommendation concerns over the extension of Gatlin Bird required that minor changes to the project boundaries which the Planning and Zoning. Commission reviewed be made. These changes delete the area south of the centerline of. Gatiln Blvd. from this project in order to allow for better management of the entrance road construction. In order to maintain consistency between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, staff recommends that you acknowledge this change in project boundaries and recommend its incorporation into the previously approved plan. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cs cc: Westchester Development Company Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates File SuggeSted motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTIOiN TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF WESTCItESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A P~LIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER , PUD, AS AMENDED, AND FOR A CHANGE 1N ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL , 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT , WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIM~~Y PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER . PUD, AS AMENDED, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL . 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] 3.01.03 ZONING DISTRICTS A. AG-1 _AGRICULTURAL- 1 _ _ SectiOn 3.01.03 Zoning Distdct Use Regulations I. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial 'agriculture, together with such other useS as may be necessary to and compatible with productive ,agricultural surroundings. Residential densities,'are restricted to a maximum of one .(1) . ¸. . , . . the SiC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code. Permitted ':Uses a. Agricultural production', crops AgricUltural productiOn -livestock & animal specialties (o~ Agricultural rServices (07) Family day care homes. (999) Family residential homes provided that' such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing Such family residential 'home and provided that s (HRS) notifies the .Board .~ erS.at the.time of home occupancy that the'ho:me is licensed by H'RS. Fishing, :hunting & trapping .Forestry Kennels. Research Facilities, Noncommercial 'Riding stables. Single:family detached dwellings. Lot SiZe Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in 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. Agricultural. labor housing. (999) Adopted August 1. 1990 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 , Section 3,01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations e. k, Aircraft storage, and equipment maintenance. (4581) Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. ~Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) Farm products warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) . GaSoline SerVice stations. (554~) Industrial wastewater disposal. (999) .Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals (2) Food & kindred products (~o) (3) Lumber & wood products, except fumiture (24) Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, .except fuels. Retail trade- . (1) Farm equipment and related accessories.. (2) Apparel & accesso~ stores. Sewage disposal Subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13. (~9,) Telecommunication. Towers, - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 Camps - SPorting and reCreational. (7032) ..,,. Accesso~ uses ~are subject .to the reqUirements of SeCtion 8.00.00, and inclUde the following: . a. Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. Retail trade and wholesale trade .- subordinate to the primary.authorized use or activity. GUest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01t00 CHAPTER VII DEVELOPMENT' DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 7,00.00 GENERAL~ PROVISIONS 7.oo.ol PURPOSE The purpose of this Chapter is to provide development design and improvement standards appliCable to development actiVity in the unincorporated area of the County. 7.01 ..00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7.01.01 PURPOSE The Planned-Unit DevelOpment(PUD) District isintended to achieve residential land development of superior quality through the encouragement of flexibility and creativity in design options that:. Ao permit creative approaches to the development of residential land reflecting changes in. the technology ofland development; allow,for the efficient use of land, which can.result in smaller netWorks of utilities and streets and C. D. 7.01.02 A. allow .design options that encourage an.environment of stable character, compatible with surrounding land uses; and permit the enhancement of neighborhoods through .the preservation of natural features, the provision of underground utilities, and the provision of recreation areas and open space. AUTHORIZED USES PERMITTED USES Any permitted, ~conditio'nal or. accessory use in the Agricultural-1 (AG-1); Agricu!tural-2.5 (AG-2.5); Agricultural,5 (AG-5); Residential/Conservation in the Agricultural-1 (AG-1); Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5); Agricultural-5 (AG-5); Residential/Conse Estate-1 (RE-l); Residential, Estate,2 (RS-3); Re Home- 5 le, Family-9 (RM-9); Residential, Multipl I-t 5) zoning districts of this Code may be permitted in a Plant Development. District subject to complying with the residential densities described in Section 7.01.03(B). AdOpted. August 1, 1990 37'5 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development ('i'""." ,, NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USES 7.01.03 Uses of the types permitted in the COmmercial, Neighborhood (CN) District are also permitted up to an amount not to exceed three (3)percent ,of the gross area of the Planned Unit Development orten (10) acres, whichever is less. ~ In addition, playgrounds, pUblic and non-public parks, golf courses, country clubS, bicycle paths, racquet sports facilities, riding stables, marinas, Clubhouses, and lodges may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development District. ~ STANDARDS AND.REQUiREMENTS Standards and requirements for a.Planned Unit Development shall be as follows: A. MINI.MUM: SIZE A Planned Unit.Development shall be a 'minimum of five (5) contiguous acres of land under common ownerShip or control. B. DENSITY C: The maximum possible permitted den reflected in the Futur.e Land Island, the AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ovem. pmentshallnot.exceed the density - ~n. On North and South Hutchinson a. Area, yard, and height requirements shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval, except that for any structure on: North or SOuth. HUtchinson Island, that has not been occupied, Constructed, or has not received a' b~ plan: or other CoUnty development a permitted,~use prior to January 10, 1 the reqUirements of Section 4.01.00, Height Overlay Zone shall apply. PUBLIC FACILITIES -1. The Planned Unit Development shall be designed and located so there wilt be no net public cost for the provision of water lines, sewage lines, storm and surface drainage systems, and other utility systems. _ o . The minimum size of all water-mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection activities is six (6") inches. Actual water main requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County- 'Ft. Pierce' Fire Prevention Bureau. The minimum, size of all: Water mains used, Or intended for Use, in fire protection aCtivities, that are. located on a dead-end water main is eight .(8") inches. Actual water main requirements will be 'determined' by the St. Lucie CoUnty-Ft.. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. Adopted August 1, 1990 376 Revised Through 08~01/00 SectiOn 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development Bo The maximum number of fire hydrants that may be located on any dead 'end water main is one (1.): . Fire hydrants shall be .provided at a minimum spacing of one every six hundred (600) feet unlesS otherwiSe approved by' the St. Lucie County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention'Bureau. TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Every dwelling Unit, or other use permitted in :the Planned Unit Development shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road; a pedestrian way, or other area :dedicated .to public or private use. . . Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to. permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, Minor streets within the planned Unit Development shall not be connected to streets outside the develo'pment so as to-encourage their use by thro'ugh traffic. --. The pm.posed Planned . Unit DeVelopment shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the project, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be'improved so th;at they will not be adversely affected. :All non-residential land uses within.the Planned Unit Development shall have direct access to a collector or a~erial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. Streets in a Planned Unit Development may be dedicated to .public use 'or retained under ~private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent ,County regulations and ordinances, however,' variations to the standard minimum .right-of-. way widths'may .be-considered as part of the Planned Unit Development if'it is Shown to.the satiSfaction of the Board of County Commissioners, that the requested variation is consistent with the intent of the County's roadway construction standards and necessary for the design of the Planned Unit Development. , Ail roads and streets shall intersect at an, approximate _+5© angle of ninety degrees (90°) unless circu,mstances acceptable to St, Lucie County'indicate a need for a lesser angle of - intersection. . . Street jogs or centerline offsets between any local street or road with another local street or road, shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150). The intersection of any two/ocal roads or streets with a Major Collector or Arterial. Roadway shall be separated by a minimum distance of'six hundred sixty feet (660), as measured from centerline to centerline. 9~ Permanent dead-end streets shall not exceed one thousand feet (1000)in .len~l{h. Cul-de-sacs Shall be provided at the end of all dead end roads or streets greater than five Adopted August 1, 1990 377 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development i' Fo hundred and one (501) feet in length. The length of a dead-end street shall be measured along the centedine of the street from the its point of perpendiCular'intersectiOn with the .centerline of intersecting street to the end of the dead-end street or rOadway. All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum right-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet. · if the dead end rOadway is five.hundred (500) feet or less in length, a "Y" or "T" type of turn around may be approved. 10. Ifa dead end .street is temporaw in natt~re then a temporary Cul-de-sac shall be required until the roadway is connected to another street or road. In the center of the cul-de-sac an.unpaved iSland, surrounded by.a curb, improved with grass and landSCaping, that., will not inted:ere with-sight distance,, may be' provided. Center islands shall.' have a diameter of .not less than seventeen. (17) feet' unless otherwise approved through the review of the 'Planned Unit-Development. All roadways, exclusive of interior parking and aCcess aisles areas, regardless of ownership, shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any exterior building Walls, except for security gate houses or similar security structures located in a private street .or road right-of- way. 11. 12, Any pedestrian circulation system and its related walkways shall be insulated from the vehicular street .System,. This shall include, when deemed to .be necessary by the' Board of County commissioners, perdestdan underpasses or overpasses in the vicinity ofplaygrounds and other recreation areas, lOcal shopping areas, and other neighborhood 'uses which generatea considerable amount of pedestrian traffic. Access points on all collector or,arterial streets serving a Plan:ned Unit Development shall be located and-Spaced so that traffic moving into and out of the arterial, streets dO not cause traffic congestion. PARKING AND LOADING 1. General Provisions a, b. The number,' type, and location: of parking spaces shall be~determined at the· time of final Planned.' Unit DevelOpment plan approval. The determination of the number of spaces required shall be based on Section 7,06,01(F) of this Code. The number of parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial competent evidence that the reduced, number of spaces is adequate: for' the Proposed use or that Parking may be shared by proximate uses that .operate at .different times oron different days. Reserved. parking spaces may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject Section 7.06.02(C) of this Code. , Adopted AugUst 1, 1990 378 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development Go H.o . Off Street Parking and Loading Off-street.parking'and loading requirements are governed by Sections 7.06.02 and 7.06.03 of this Code, and the 'following standards: a. Off-street parking and loading' areas, shall be designed to provide travelways between adjacent ,uses while discouraging through traffic. bo Off-street parking and loading areas shall be screened from adjaCent rOads and pedestrian waikways with hedges, dense 'planting, or changes in grades or walls. 3. On Street Parking In Planned Unit Developments, on street parking may be used so long as the road on ,which the on-street parking is proposed lies entirely within :the limits of the defined Planned-Unit Development and such parking would nOt contravene any.other provision of t~s COde orthe St. Luci,e Coun~ Code of Ordinances. Where such on street parking and loading is used, it shall 'be conSistent with the fOllowing design standards: a, b. C. do LIGHTING The minimum 'size of a parking stall: shall be as follows: parallel angled handicapped (parallel) handicapPed (.angled) 8feet X 23feet 10 feet X 18 feet 12feet X 23 feet 12 feet X 18 feet Handicapped parking spaces shall be' appropriately marked. Access for emergency fire vehicles shall be in accordance with NFPA standards. No more than fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be permitted in a continuous, row without being interrupted by a minimum landscape area of 360 square feet. All. lighting facilities shall be arranged in such a manner so as to .prevent direct glare or haz~irdous interference of any kind to .adjoining streets or properties. .LANDSCAPING AND NATU~L.FEATURES Native trees and vegetation and other natural features shall be preserved to the extent practicable. . All sensitive .environmental vegetation, trees and areas shall be preserved to the ext~'nt practicable. Adopted August 1, 1990 379 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 · Planned Unit Development ( .... . Landscaping for off'street Parking and loading, areas shall meet the minimum requirements of Section 7.09:00. ' OPEN sPACE STANDARDS . A minimum ~of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of land to be Committed to a Planned Unit Development must be for use.as common open space, which may include, parks, recreation areas, 'bicycle and pedestrian paths and faCilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common open space, common landscaping and planting areas, or other areas of public purposea or use other than road~ or drainage rights,of-way, above ground utilities, excluding stormwater treat , and parking areas.' . A minimum:of'15 percent of.any existing native upland habitat on the property, must be prese~ed in 'its natural condition as part of the required 35 percent common open space, For each acre of preserved native habitat above :the required minimum 15 percent that is prese~ed in its original state, crodit shall be given at a rate of 1' 50 percent pc~ acre towards the remaining common open space~ requirement. AII~ areas to be .dedicated for common open space shall be'identified as part of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development. Areas that are. floodways, lakes, wetlandS, and stormwater retention areas may be applied to satis~ the-total common open space requirement, subject to the requirement that 15°/o~ of any existing native habitat on. the prope~ must be included as pa~ ofth-e required 35% common open space. As part of the :Final Planned Unit Development Submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Planned Unit Development shall provide for one of the following: a. The advance dedication ofatl common open space to a public, or acceptable private, agency that ,will' upon a~eptance, agree to maintain the common open .space ~and any buildings, Structures or. improvements that:have been placed on it. All such dedications or conveyances shall be completed, prior to the issuance, of any ~building permits, including'land clearing, .for any portion :of.the Planned Unit Development ;or, '. b, A phased co-nv, eyance of the land to a public or acceptable'private agency that will, upon .acceptance, agree.to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. The schedule for the · -Phased conveyance of any Such lands tobe used for common open space shall be a specific condition of approval for the Planned Unit Development. No parcel of land identified for use as a p-ark or common open space shall be less than one (1) contiguous acre, and all such areas shall be physically Part of the Planned Unit Devel- opmont, .. Areas .provided or reserved to meet any other environmental preservation or protection requirementa of this code or other lawful regulatory authority maybe counted towards the overall common open-space requirement, provided that the common open space meets the Adopted :August 1, 19-90 380 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7,01.00 Planned Unit Development d. requirements of this Code. SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND Planned Unit 'Developments adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes, or designated for agricultural use on the Future .Land USe Map of:the St.' Lucie COunty.Comprehensive Plan, shall provide setbacks from the agricultural land sufficient to protect the function and operation of those uses from the encroachment of Urban activities or uses. ;PHASING . o A Planned Unit Development may be developed in more than one stage:or phase. If .a Final .Development Site Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners' is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phase shall ,cted and developed ina .reasonably continuous fashion. No more .than two elapse between, the completion within ten (10)'years l!Site Plan approval. Exte of the above requirements are subject to approval by the Board of County .C:ommissioners. Unless ao One or more.major recreation facilities and other major amenities, planned to serve the entire development, shall: be completed or adequate security posted pdor to the issuance of building or mobile home permits of more than forty (40) percent, or other b~ number of authorized dwelling units. Recreation facilities or facilities and other amenities planned to serve one (1) phase. Of a multi-phased development shall be completed or appropriate security posted prior to issuance of building or mobile home permits or the recording of any final plat within that phase, No commercial facility shall be permitted prior to the,completion of at least, forty (40) percent of the total number of authorized dwelling units; and, For Planned Unit Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, the net density of an individual stage or phase may vary from the approved Final Site Plan subject to the requirements in Section 11.02.05. Adopted August 1, 1990' , 381 Revised Through, 08/01/00 .- . . :: . ...... .. . . -. .. · ., - . . . ., "LESS 'AND :EXCEPTs. RiGHT,O THE NORTH STi 'I~OCIi~ RiVeR DISTRICT'CANAL ST. LUClE~ COUNTY, FLORID DESCRIBED· AS:'A PARCEL OF RANGE 39 EAST'AND :SECTION' 34 ~(TOWNSHIP 35 ' SOUTH, , RANGE 39 .EAST 'ST, LUCIE · MORE PARTICULARLY. DESCRIBED. A'~ FOLLOWS: iCOMMENCE ;AT THE i,~OUmEA~T, iC~DRNER 'TER OF SAID;SECTION 3; THENCE:NORTH 00°16'38" WEST i SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE ~F ':~9;67 i~EET TO THE NORTH RIGHT;OF-WAY 712) A 70 FOOT WiDE RIGHT-OF-WAY;. THENCE SOUTH 89048'08". WEST ALOJ(IG MIDWAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 712) A DISTANCE 0~ 39.00 FEET TO' THE WE~T LUC1E RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT "CANAL NUMBER 93 AND THE-POINT ALONG; THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY .LINE C~F' SAID MIDWAY R.OAD ·SOUTH FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID' ~RIGHT-OF,WAY LINE NORTH 00°IS'53".WEST INTERSECTION WITH THE.NORTH 'LINE OF' THE NORTHWEST QUARTER.OF SAID SEC' EAST A DISTANCE oF .1318.4~ FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'41" EAST A WEST RIOHT-OF.WAY.,LINI~ oF SAID CANAL NUMBER .93j;THENCE SOUTH WAY LINE OF SAID CANAL NUMBER 93 A DIST~,NCE OF.:J3J8.97 FEET'TO THE. "NORTHWEST,. QUARTER OF"SAID'SEC'TION.'3; NUMBER .93, SOUTH' 00°1'6'38" :Mil ROAD AND THE POINT ·zoning .Florida as,,,r, ecor~.cj~d Jn _l~gl~ BOok 1 page 23Sf L~cie Cou~ Tax-Id N.O.";~,3403'~'~b2'""0696-O00/6 · ...' .. , ,Locatio~i~§~mh':'~-i~l'~ ~f W~st Midway .~,41: ~ cl~ange..in " foIiOwi~g:cles~ribed .~rojoe~,~ :' '.. .White..City Sub'division Section. 10.TVV. p If of fhe .lot .242 .... .~ Jot i!~ing , ~,36'.;South t :2~12;'of'WhJte ht way .40 .East) . " ': . : . . .:' 68° .... . '. ,,'.,:.',,.,,-.,~.',~ .... ,..,.,. ...... ~ ....... ~,~! ' . ...... · ,. . ; ', ' ~Jch-~s~ ':"..': ' :.:-.. : :~"~: ':'.;:." ::' fhence N 14°09'53" W, ~ disfance o[~242.58.feef; ~ence N 52°27~35" E, o disfonce of 39.61 feel; fhe~ce N 29°13'49" W?~;' ... :'.' ~... ': .'- ~.' ~'.-' . ' .' ~ J~ ":-"':" .., disfance of 280.04 f~f; fhence N 07°13'39" W, distance of 222.22 ~eet; fhence N 03°00'12" E,'a disfance of 59.95 f~t; fhence:' ' .' . -- ....... :... N 04°54'56: W, a disfanc~ of 221.93 feel; fhence ~ 1-7~5] '33" W, a disfance 6f 60.24 f~t; fflence N 35024'06" E, O disfa~ce 74,68 feel; fhence S 70°38'31" E, ~ disfance-of 9].16 f~ef; fhence S 78°08'31" E, o disfance-of 187.63 feel fo file ~ginning ~f:o J.- ::::. "..:'...' " ' ' - ' non-fangenf curve concave fo fhe SOufheosf, having o:Fodius, of 161.90 f~et; file Chord of which bears N'63°40'43" E; fhence ~long lhe arc ~f's.~id~U~e fhro~gh o c~nfral angle.of,65°49'09', o disfance'of 185,99 f~t t~ the beginning of a non-fongenf cuwe J .... concave to the Soutneasf, having a radius of 650.00 feel; fhe chard of which beors~ 31 39'20" E; ~ence along fhe orc 0f said curve through o central, angle of 26°41'20', a distah~e of 302.78 feet; ffience N 45 00'00" E, fan~enf., fo idst ~s~i~':~urv~, a 'distance of 1134.06 feet; thence` S 45°00'00"..E,'a d~stance of 636.49 feet' to the,:b~ginning' of a. c~e ~oncave' ~o-~e'~o~hwe~t, ha~ing a radius 'of 2900.00 feet- the chord '~f Whic~:..b~rs S 35°41'31" E. thence'along ~e arc of said cuwe throu h a cenE~l J' '. angle of 45°.14'0~'a distance o~ 2368:53 .f~i; th~E~"S:.00°14'09" W, a':8~stance.of 20~'65 fee~ to ~e Poi~t of Beginning. '.: 'J' - : " 6, ~ ~h~nge in'the boundaries for a pre~i6~sl~'(e~ommended rezoning fo PMUD for the Wesfchesler Development Corp°ratiofl.for J'.' · '". ' · " Bei.ng a parcel of land. Iocat~ in Sections 9, and' 10}Township.37 S~uth, R6nge 39 East;",SL Lucie .Count, F'lorida.'Said parCel B~in at.lhe, interse~i~ of the centerline of GaJlin';B~Ulevard, (also ~ing the 'North line of S~fi~h '15) ~nd the ~ste~iy limits of Gatlin B°~l~;~rd .Right-of. Way and the We~t~HY fimils of those lands-desc~ibe~ in an Order of. Taki~'~.d~ted JulT-24, '19790'nd recorded in Officio! ~ecOrd ~ok 31.1 at' P~g~ 2~4~.~thrOugh, .2952, i~dusive, Public R~ords~of St,' Lu~ Count,' Florida, and as shoWn-off the Florida Department of Transp0~ation'R~Ight.of:way map~ f~r State Road ~9 :~1'9~, S~tiOn 94001-~412, dat~ ' 6/~/77~'.with .last ~evision of 9/il/79; thence S:.~'~9°57'05" ~-~l~ng said centerline-~ distance of 2815.40.f~t; thenc~L' N 00 14'09" E, a distance of 2059.65 feet fo'the b~ginning of a tangent cuwe cOnEave to the' SouthweSt, h~vJng a radius of 3000.00 J feet; ~thence.a~ong t. he-arc of said:.c~r~:'.through a. ~e~kgl angle 0f 36°~3'47,; a distance of 1399.56 f~t; thence N'63e30'22, E, a'~ ' ' distance of'100.00.' feet; thence N. 63 43"13~E, a di~jbn'Ee of 1'96.38 f~ f0 ~e b~inning-of a '~e concave to the SOu~, havihg a' radius of ~25.00 feet; the'.chord 0f wfii~h'~d~S .N:'~27'42" E;.thence ai6n~':j~e, ar~ of-said ~uWe through a cen~aJ 'angie' of Jj .......... ~9. ~'59~,~a. d~tdnce of 269,89 feet; .thence, .'86~4~'.48"E, a diifance..of ~62~97 'f~t :fo the ~gin'ning of'a cuwe'con~ave t~ the J:i'. .. NorthweSt, havinga Fadius of 27.5.34 f~l;'the chord ~f which ~ N 4Z°34'0~.'E. the~e along ~he a~c' of said ~uw~ '~r0U~h a ~- '.-' ' central'~angle 0f~91°11'51~. a.disfan~'0f:48~.~26 f~t.io a ~i~t of rev~s~ EuW~ture .with a cu~e co'ave 'to the East'].hav, ng 'a J radius of 527.?7 ~eet; the chord o~. which'...:~Fs,:.N ~0°'l 6~30". E; th~Ce alo~g-.t~, arc of.said cu~e through a' ~en~ 31 angle I I .1956.7~' 'f~e~ '.the' Ch~'rd of which ~ri' N '2~'5 I?;'E; thenceal°ng .'th~':'arc 0f 'S~Jd Cuwe through ~ cenjra~;~ngle.:of: 2 ~57~03' . , ',a.. . distance ~f'920.42 feet'to .a' ~int of::~e~e~Ee~U:~e" with a .cuwe concave fo flhe' s~h~st h~ving a' r~igs of 525 )0 f~f: t~e - .~r~ ~iF~,b.~ars ~ 28 .~2 ]4. :E;..ffience;.~lo~g the.arc of. sa~d cuwe through ,a cen~alongle 0f.:21'°09,50~,: a ~ist~nce ~o.y.z reet.to..me D~inning of a non-tange~t.~bwe~qncave to the-~o~h~st' havi~g-~radius of: 1550 ~.feet: the Cbc .d oE~ri. Ch::J be~rs S .4~ 07.1 ~ E; thence along the.arc:.of, sa~d'~ume through a. ~en~a! angle:~.~f,~!:Z~59 05";o ~l~fance': of ~86.5~]f~ ~t;:then~?~S~ 58 '06'45 E, a, distance of 389~95 feet"to tfl~"begtnhing of a'cuwe:concave to' th'~:'~0~hwest ':fia~ng 'a"radJu~':~f:4~O. )0 '~"~.'. feet to a point of reverse'cuwature with.a 'cuwe'concave to ~e East hbvtn~ a =r~ius of 1050 00.~[eet, the chord bf'~ ~ '6" ~r _ 9o0445 E;.thence along fhe arc 'of sai~ :c~e,through: a,cehEal~.an~le.~[,,:':!8o21~,13"; o?di~l~Ce.of 336~35.~je~ ~.lfien~e~ s' 25 00 feel fh~ce S O0 O0 O0 W a ~sf~nce of 2Z0 O0 f~f ~efi~ S 90°0'0 ,, :; ........ o' , :': ..... ::- .... .-: cu~e fhrougfl a.cenfral angle of 41 3954~.~:~,d~s~nce of'58~,03 f~f fo the,begtnni~ of ~ non-f~ngenf ~U~e'~C~v~:.fd t ,~-J~ hOying curve'concave, to :the Southeast, hovin~ ~ rOdius Of;~O0.O0 fe. et~ ~he chor~ O~ ~hi~h, beo~s .S 16 32'4~" W',menCe ot~n fhe ~rc said c~rv~ thr~u~'o cen~oi on~le of 33°05~26',o ~lstance of'~88 77 ~eet. ~henCe' ~ O0~O0'O0~W/o ~ist~nce o~ 89 57..05. .E, .o dlsfance of 588.36 feet; fhence S 00~02 55: E, a. disfance of 100~.~eef'~o. fhe Polar:of:Beginning. "~ .....:.'..' L~cafion: N~rfh o~ ~aflin 'BIv~ Wesf. o~ lnfersfafe 95: .... PUBLIC HEARINGS will.be held in Commissio~.Chamb~r~;R~er Poifras An~ ~300 Virg~ni~ ~venue,.Fo~ Pierce; FlOrida '~n PURSUANT TO Se~ion 286.0105;-'FI0~ida sfaf~e~ if'a ~rson' ~ides f~ ap~al.any d~isi0n, made 'by a'b0a~, ~genc~, ~r commission wifh resp~'f°. ~y mailer c~nsider~d,~ a meeting or. h~ari~g, he ~il 'heed'a reco~d of fhe proce~ings~ an~ thaf, such pur~ses,.' he m~y.ne~ fo ensure fhat a ~bajim re~°rd of. file proc~dings' is"m~di, Which-record includes fh~'.~sfimonT' evidence Upon Which fhe aP~al is to be based. ~..: ...... . : ~ .. ' · .; ~, PLANNING AND' ZONING ~O~ISSlON . ' ' : .' " -ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA "' ' '.. /S/Stefan MaHh~s, CHAIRMAN , , ' ,/ . .. PUBLISH. DATE: February 5, 2001 ~:' . : Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT ( THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER- PMUD, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PMUD (PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT- WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER- PMUD, AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL- 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PMUD (PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT- WESTCHEsTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] '. · LESS AND EXCEPT..-.f " THE NORTH ST;' D~STRICT CANAL No. 43 ST, LUCIE: COUNTY,.. FLOR! DESCRIBED.'AS:'~ PARCEL ' RANGE 39 EAST"AND 'SECTION'34 ;CTOWNSHIP :35'SOUTH,,RANGE 39 EAST ST .LUClE COUNTY · MORE PARTICULARLY.DESCRIBED. A~ FOLLOWS: iCOMMENCE :AT THE '~C)'UmEA~'iC~R~,iER OF ' 'TER OF SAID.. SECTION 3; TiLiENCE;NORTH- 00~:16,38. WEST ALONG ;I'HE EAST [tNE SAID SECTION 3'A DISTANCE '~F"~.9:67 FEET TO.THE NORTH RIGHT:.OE-.WAY LINE ( 712] A 70 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE, SOUTH 89°48'08" WEST ALONG Tt MIDWAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 712) A DISTANCE 0F 39;00 FEET TO' THE wEST R LUCIE RIVER'WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NUMBER 93 AND THE-'POINT OF ALONG. THE NORTH RIGHT.OF-WAY LINE OF'SAID MIDWAY R FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID: ~IGI-JT-OF-9~/AY.'LINE NORTH 00°IS'53'~..WEST INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH ·LINE OF' THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID EAST A DISTANCE 'O1~ ~1:318,;4~ FEET- THENCE N~I~TH ·89o59,41' EAS WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY.,LI'NI~'..oF S~,I~ CANAL NgMBER 93j;THENCE S'OUTF WAY LINE OF SAID CANAL NUMBER '98 A DIStaNCE OF :i3J8.97: E TH~ :NORTILI~W. EST QUARo-rE.R,. OF.'SAiDSEC-j-iON!3,~ NUM'B'ER.93, ~OUTH'O0 .i'6 38" EAST ' ROAD AND THE. POIN ,zon!ng Th~ 23 St. UJ~ie Iot-62 . West MidWby Tax. Id . ., .... y R,' "imately Soc!ety~ ln~, for. a change ,in · White. :City iection, 10 SOuth'of the'r ... ;';?:/i.:i'"".. · . . ;:.~i,~ ~: ~'i :.: !~. ~:'-, .'::.~ '.: !' .': '.:-. :.~. ::-,. !'.. '~ :: ?~':." · ~. :.':;,.i: 'i.,,~'?.. ~;.'.'_~.~~~~~-i'i~i~'~~~'' ~~ " ........ · .... .' ..'-' ..... -'..' .... ~,amn .i~oule~g'r,'d I(i~ I~t~f':~ ................... ' ..... .'.' - ',,' ~,~-'P.,~'~',~ , .:-: '. :. :' :' .:':". ':..:'. ': .'".:::.: :: .' .', "' '. recol~,~, ~ ffi~ali~ 'dFd,-B ' , .... !~ " ~ ........ ~ T ,.~,.,.~ ';i'i..!:i! .':.:.:..':':."';; - ', .': :" :; i:. :' ~ ~'"' ..: ..: ', i:.''~ o" ''~ g' ' ~ ' "'... ',""~ i "g.,*.,'?u.'~;,~,.c~;i~, s~,~e,~,'~,~".~¥~ai~,~"~r.l.':~s0.00 ~.~; ~. ~L~.0~ ~i~h : ,:'. , : · '' ' · ':. :." C .... ," '&". o t, having a radi~es.'~-:;~50;00."f~t~;,~ence aloe, the arc:'0~,sbld'bu,e,throbgh a cenkal angle ~f:'~2. ~'21~ .... · : ; · · distance.'°f".704.22 feet; th~ce ~N 32 46 i:5"-E .n~-f~gent to last descri~ Cu~e'a distance of,33.95 f~t; ~en~eN 12.20', W, a' disk~nCe-0f' 315.54 feet; thence 'N.~1°49'36" E;','6 :distance of '214. I I feet; ' thence N 84°52'28". E, .a distance.'~)f 300.55 f&~ 'thence N14°09'53" W, a distance of ~242.58 feet; thence N ~2°27:35" E, a distance of 39.61 feet; thence N 29°13'49" w~r~ distance of 280.04' feet; thence N 07°13'39" W, a distance of 222.22 feet; thence N 03000'12" E,'a distance of 59,95 feet; thence" N 04°54'56.'' W, ia distance of 221.93 feet; 'thence N 17,°51 '33" W, a distance Of 60.24 feet; thence N 35°24'06" E, a distance Of 74.68 feet;'thenc& S 70°38'31" E, c~ distance 'of 91.16 f~et; thence S 78°08'31'' E, a distance of 187.63 feet to the beginning 0f.a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a: ~'adius of 161.90 feet; the 'chord of which bears N '63°40'43" E; thence along the arc of.said curve 'through a central angle.of ~°49'09", a distanCe.°f 185.99 feet t~ the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, .having a radiUs-of 656.00 feet. tt~e chord of which bears N 3'1 39'20.".E; thence along the arc ~)f said curve through a cen'tral angle of 26°4I'20.", a dista~i~:e of'302,78 feet; thence lq 45°00'00" E, tan~er~t..to Idst described' c'urv~, a 'distance of 1 !34.06 feet; thence' S 45°00'00", E,'a distance, of 636.49 feer to the:be'ginning of a curVe 'concave' ~o 'thO',Southwest, ha~,ing a radiu~ 'of 2900,00 feet; the cho~d 'c~f Which~bears S 35°41'31~' E; thence along.the arc. of said curve through a. central 5 14'09",'a distance of 2368',53 feet; the~.s. O0°l 4'09" W, a".distance,of 2059.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. -: angle of 4 o . · .Containing'352.98 acres, mope or less. ' ' ' ' ' ' ?''' ' ' ' :::'.' Tax Id No. 4308-000,0000L000/7' v .... .,. - 4309-000-0000:000/0.. . -. "-: ,- . ' ' Location: I~lorth of Gatlih Blvd West of I~feri~tate 95 6, A ChOnge in the rbounda'ries for a pre~,i0'~sl);' ~'e~:Omn?ended rezoning to PMUD for the Wesk:hester DeveloPment Corporatiofl.for the iai!by'lng described pr6perty: . , . Being a.parcel of land 'located in Sections 9, and' 10~.~'ownship 37 Sc~uth, Range 39 East,':S~. Lucie .County, Florida. Said parcel .being more particularly described' as follows: · ' ...... ' · ' " Begin at.~he intersection' of the centerline of (~aflin .l~Olevard, (aiso being the North line of 'S~,~fic~ '1 ~) anc~ ;he'V¥e"st'erly limils of Gatlin gO~l~&rd Right-of-Way and the WeSterlY limits of those lands .d~sc~ibe~l in an Order 'of. Taklr~g~'-;.d~ted July'24, i 979 and recorded.in OffiCia'l' Rec6rd l~o°k 31.1 ~bt' Pc~ges ~294~ 'through, 2952, it/ciusive, PUblic Records;bt St.~L~i6 County,' Florida, an.d as show~'ofi, the Florida .Department of TranspOrtation Right.of-Way map~ fc~r State Road #9 (I-95), Secti6n 94001-2412, dated 6 /2 /77 ~ ~ .with last revision of. 9/~ 1/79;' thence' S :8~°57'05" ~/i ~lo'ng said centerline a dlstah'ce of 2815.40'fe~t; thence.'. N 0o , # . . , 0 14 09 E,. a distance of. 2059.65 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve.con~ave to the' SouthweSt, having a radiu,s~of 3000.00 feet; ithence.along~ . t~e.arc of saicl curve'Shrough, a ~%tral angle of ~6o~3,4.7... , , a distanCe of 1399.56 f~,et- thence N63 30'22""E a' distah¢e of'100,00.feeti thence Ni-'63043'13~ E~a dist~e of I'~6.36 fee~ ~0 the b'.~inntngof a ~Urve Con~ve t0 the -South haVi~ radius_of 5.25~00 feet; the. Chord of whk:h"l~;s ;N 78°2~'42'* E. thence ' ' th® ar~ of.,,i,~' ~,,,"" ,~,,,,~,~, ;, ,.~.~,,~",~,,~iZ' 29 2~'59, a...d~stance of 269;89 feet; ·thence. 86°48'48" ; leer'to the benin'nlm,, 'of'a ~-urve',.x;,,~.,,- ~ ~,,, N0rthwe~t, having.a ~-adius of .............. a .... ,. . ,~,,,,,~¥.,,~. .... central :;ang!e. o~ 9 ! o 11 '51 '", ~hord Of. 'which bear~ N ng the arc radius of 527.~97' feet; the a curve Concave 'to the East 40~'10'5r261~ 'a 'distance of .1956,76:'f~e~ ..the.Chard of which thence'along th&':'arc · distance o~ '920;42 feet :to ' '- chard'of'which bears hi 193'.92 fee~ tb-tl~e begir~ning .of a bears $ :a9007'i~;3"' E; thence 8 06 45 E, a. distance o'f .389.S chord bf "which'bears' 'S 29°00'27". Ej. 'feet .to'.a point of reverse curvature the. East 09°04'45~"E; ithence along the 18°15'~21..",-,E, 'a: distance. 100,00'"fL,~J~; the chOrd c~f- concave the distance 0f'57.'12 feet; thence N S 90°0,0'00.." EI a distance ' 25:00' feet;.-tfie~c.'& ' . W~ a di~tance of 290.00 feet;-.thence thence 1s'90.o60,0'0, E,,a distance of curve concave to' the West~ having a curve throUgh:'a.cent~:al angle of 41 NorthweSt, :'[taring a. radius of cenfl:al .an~l:le of .131 · curve concave to the Southeast, having, al said cur~e ~h'r~'ugfl'a central angle of §3~ 89o57!.05,!.E, .a idistance of 588.36 feet; thence 0.0g.feet'to the " - Containtfig223:.:40 acres,·more or less;" · '- ~ ii~;i.i:'i'i' ' ' ; ':?"' Tax Id'Nb. 431:0~21~,0001.000/2 ;.'. ,,~ :'" ' ,-. ' - ~ "'- ' "~' . .. . ..- ..,,,..., ,; ,. · ..~:,!~-::-,/ ..... 4309-0.00-0000:;000/0 ;'""'?~" :'" ' :' ':"" . :.' ' . Lc~catiom. Nqrth' of ~atiin 'BIv~l West. of Interstate. 95 ~' ' '' '' PUBUC.HEARI'NGS .will-be.held-in Commlssion.Chambe;rs.'i Roger Poltras'An~ex, ~.300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce"Fl~rlda 'on F-e~ruary;l.'5;'2OO1;'.t~. ginnlng atT:(~Q. P,M~ Or:aS"s~n ther~ter as possible;i . ; '.i:' . ': '. - ~ ~. ; '. PURSUANT TO' Section 286:0105; 'FlOrida statutes, if a pdt. son' decid'es't~ appeal.any decision made 'by a b0ai~d, &genc~, C~r:l commission with respect'tO c~hy ma~ter c~nStdeFe~d.~ a meeting or hearing, he Will 'need' a' recor~ of the ProCeedings~ an~l that,:fd~J such pui~Pb.' ses,.:he m~ylnee~l to' ensure that b'~'~b~dim re~:0rd of the proceedings· is'made,. Which.record tncl~des th~.t&stlmony.an~t.l evidenc~'~upon Which the appeal is to be based.. ~..: ' ' . ' ~ · ' ' ' ' i' . PLA'INNI'I~IG AND; ZONING COMMISSION "'~ : · ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA . ' ' -'.. ' : /S/Stefan Mafth'es, CHAIRMAN : , '..'~ PUBLISH. DATE: February 5, 2001 ". '~".; " ~ '~ :' · PLANNING AND ZONING COMMiSSiON REVIEW: 2/t5/01 M.E ,,M O R A N :D .U .M DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM- DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager .~ ~Fe'bruary 7, 2001 SUBJECT: ApPlication of Westchester Development Company., for a boundary :change to a previously-recommended-Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the Project' Known .as Westchester- PUD. LOCATI.ON:~ ZONING D ...... '" ' ESIGNATIO.N, PRO'POS'ED ZO. NiNG: North side of Gat!in Boulevard immediately west of the !'95 .l:ntemhange, approximately one mile west .of the intemection ofGatlin BOulevard and Brescia Street. AG-1 (Ag.ricultural. Resid:ential 1 - du/acm) PUD (Planned Unit Develo,pment- Westchester) LAND USE DESIGNATION: .RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 35:2.98 acres PROPOSED USE: 600 Single-Family I. ots with associated recreational uses and required open space. infrastructure,- S U RR O U N DING 'ZO:NIN G: .. SUR'ROUNDING LAND USES: AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 alu/acm) to the north:, south, east, and west. RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south 'and west; and MXD Gatlin Boulevard to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: uTILITY SERVICE: Station #10 (777 SW Dalton Road), is located approximately 5 miles to the east. Port St. Lucie .Utilities or St. Lucie West will provide wat;gr and sewer services. .. February 7, 2001 'Page 2 Petition: Westchester PUD TRAN $ PORTATI ON .I M PAC TS RIGHT-OF'WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY :OCUMENT REQUIRED. Consistent .with prior.recommendation .for approval COnsistent with prior recommendation for approval ,Certificate-of Capacity. COMME,NTS ,At last monthS .meeting, the .Planning and Zoning .Commission unanimously recommended that the 'Board of County ~Commissionem .appmve the Planned Unit Devel.o:pment.and rezoning for the west side of' the We.stchester Development, SUbsequent to that recommend:ation~ concerns over the e~.ension .ofGatlin .Blvd: required that mi;nor ~changes to the project bou:ndaries w. hich the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed be made. These.changes delete the area south: of the center!ine of Gatiln BlVd.. from this project in .order to allow" for better management of the entrance-mad construction. In order to .maintain consistency between the Planning and. Zoning Commission. and the Board .of County.Commissionem, staff recommends that you acknowledge this change i.n~.project boun:daries a.nd recommend its inco.rpomti~on into the pmvious, lY approved plan. Please contact this office if' yo.u have 'any qu:estions on this maEer. Attachment cs cc: - ' Westchester Development Company Greg Boggs, Thomas LuCido & Associates File ~Suggested:motion to recommend approval/denial..of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO :~PRO~ ~TER CONS~E~G THE TESTIMO~ P~SENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUD~G ST~F COMME~S, I HE.BY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION .~COMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO~RS GRANT APPROVAL TO 'THE APPLICATION OF WESTCI~STER DE~LOPMENT FOR A .P~LiM~ARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROV~ FOR ~ PRO~.CT KNO~ AS ~,STC~STER . P~, AS .AME~ED, AND FOR A C~GE ~-ZO FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL . 1 DU/AC~) ZO~G DISTRICT TO ~PUD (P D ~T DE~LOP~NT . WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... :[CITE. ~ASON(S)'~ - PLEASE BE. iSPECIFIC] MOTION. TO DENY:; ~TER CONSIDER~G THE TESTIMONY P~SENTED D~G THE PUBLIC HEARING, ~CLUDING S F. CO~ENTS, I HE~BY'MO~ THAT ~E PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION ~COMMEND THAT THE ST. .LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CO~ISSIONERS DE~~ APPLICATION OF WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ..FOR A P~~~Y PLANNED ~T DE~LOPMENT ~PROVAL FOR ~ PRO.CT KNOWN As WESTCHESTER , P~;'.AS AMENDED, ~AND FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL . 1 DU/AC~) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. WESTCHESTER) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) ~Y- ~LEASE BE SPECIFIC] 3.01 03 A. AG-1 Purpose AGRICULTU:~L,,; 2~ . . . . . productive a.gricultural surroundings;'. ~ Residential 'densities.am restricted,to a maximum 'of one ('1) dwelling unit each identified use. corresponds to thewS.lC code The. number 999 applieS ~toa' use not defined under: the :'SIC-code but Code. · Permitted-Uses g. h. i. j. Family day, care :homes.,,~!..(~). ::Family residential h°mes provided ~that.su~.homes shall nOt be Iomtod.within. a mdius one.thousand (1,000) femof~an0ther exiSting 'sUch '~mily ~residentiat home and.pmvided:~at: .by HRS, (~) ..... " Fishing, hunting & trapPing.~(o,)-. Forest~ (0$~. ' ....": Kennels. (o~s2)-. ' 'R Singl .Rehabilitative':services(HRS);nofifies': -. !atthe time of hOme oc~, '~ Upancythat the-home ~is/iCenSed:. ~-- ,Lot.size, ·,mquirements...., . ~. shallbe..-in.: ...~'aCCordan~.. . 'with Table·. 1 in Section ~7,04,00. . .., · ., ' Dimensional mquiremegtsShallbe ~:inacC°rdance With,Table.1 '-in sectiOn 7,04.00: ', 'Off, street Parking and 'Loading Requirements . . . Off-street .parking-and~rlOading requirements are subject to Section 7,,06,00~. · ~Landscaping-Requirements - · . LandScaPing requirements amSUbject,to,,SeCtion 7.09,00, conditional Uses Agricultural labor housing. ¢)99) Adopted August 1, 1990 94 ... Revised Through 08/01/00 e -b. e. Airports and flying, .landing,' 'and takeoff' fields, Family'residential homes located within a radiuS of one thousand (1,000) feetofanother:Such family .residential home, (999) Farm products warehousing and storage. Gasoline service stations, Industrial wastewater disposal. (999) Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemiCals (2) -Food & .kindred products (3) Lumber & wood prodUcts, except fumiture(2,~) -.Mining and ~ quarrying of nonmetalic minerals, except fuels. Retail, :trade: (1) .Farm .equipment and related accessories. (2) Apparel & accesso~ stores. Sewage_. diSposal ,sUbject to 'the m.quirements-of Section 7.10.13, Tele~mmuni~tiOn·.. . 4 r ...: :-Towem:-.:subject tothe. .. · "standards.. .. of.SeCti0n 7,'1.0.23 -Accessory:Uses. - Accesso-~yuseS are~subject~to the requirements of Section 8.00-00,..and inClUdethe.foilowing:~ a. Mobile.h°mes.s~bject'to the 'requirements of= Section 7,10:05.. - b~ Retail tradeand wholesale tm-de'~ Subordinate to the.primary c. Guest-hoUse.subject..to the requirements, of~ Section ~7.10:04:(~) Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01/00 ' DEV STANDARDS 7.00.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Chapter is to provide development design and improvement standards development activi~_'in ~the, unincorporated area of.the County. 7.01.00 P~N'N'ED UNIT,DEVELOPMENT , 7.01.01 PU:RPO:SE _.. The Planned Unit Development(PUD)Dis~ct is :intended to a~ieve msidentiailand development of Superior- quality thmu-gh 'the encouragement-of flexibility and rCmativity in design options that:.. A. Co D.. 7.01.02' permit .'creative approaches 'to the. development of residential '.land reflecting'~ ~anges.''in:~.the'-: technOlogy, of/and,development; ,.,?,. .... -.. .allOw,for the'*i efficient use 'of;land, Whichcan.:result in smallernetworks ofutilities :and~ streetS'and-, thereby Iower,developmentcosts; - ' ' ' ' ' ........ : ~ *'"-": :" " " · P pa g allowdesign:o tions thatencoumgeanenvironmentofstablecharacter, com tiblewithsurroundin land uses; and- permittheenhancement of nelghborhoods throughthe~Pmservati0n ofnatural~features, the prOVision of undergrOund Utilities,..and the-proviSion of recreation areas and open-spaCe, AUTHORIZED USES PERMITTED:USES Any, permitted~ ~c0nditib'nal ' or .- accessory use in the Agricultural~ 1~ (AG-1);Agricultural-:2,5 (AG-2,5);. Agricultural:5 (AG,5); Residential/Conservation inthe Agricultural-1 (AG-l); Agricultural'2,5 (AG-2~5); -Agricultural-5 (AG,5); Residential/Conservation (RC); ReSidentiai~, .state:;1 (RE-1);?Resldent~al~..., Estate,2 (RE~2);. Residential,' Single-Family-2 (RS'2); Residential, ResidentiaI,Single'Family~.(RS-4); Residential, Multiple,Family,5(RM'5); Residential;Mobile;Home,,-,,- 5 (RMH~5);'Residential, Multiple-Family-7 (RM-7); Residential, Multiple~Family,-,9(RM,9): Re~idential;r.~,.;.:~::.?:~¥.~.. Multiple-Family,11. (RM-11 );-and Residential; Multi may be Permitted in a Planned Unit Development, District subject.to: complying With:, 9n'ttai.. 'densities described in Section 7.01~03(B). · ...... .:. · ,- ,::- ,,,,~,,,,~ Adopted August 1, '1990 375 Revised-Through 08/01/00 B, · ' '" ' Plar NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USES 7.01.03 Uses of the types permitted in the COmmercial, Neighborhood (CN) District.are also-permitted an amount not to exceed three (3) percent of the.gross area of the ~Planned Unit Devel°pment orten (10) acres, whichever is less. In 'addition, playgrounds, .public and non-public parks, golf cour;s.es? country clubs, bicycle paths, ra ~. uet SPortS facilities, riding stables, marinas, clubhouses, and I°dges~/i: may be permitted in'a Planned, Unit. Development Distdct' STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS S,tandards: and requirements for:a .Planned unit Development shall-be'as follows: A. MINIMUM SIZE . .-~ ,. . , ,,, ,.,_A Planned:.:~UnitDevei0Pment Shallbe'a~ minimum :of:.._._ five (5)~contiguous acres of land. under common' ownu. mn~p or'.contml, .... · '- - - . ... . DENSI~ he maximumrpossible:permiEed densi~ Of a Planned UnitDevelopment Shallnot exceed :thedensity ~:.~ reflected in. the of. theCompmhensive Plan. 'On North and South HUtchinson' Island, .the ......... ' ........~ AREA, YARDi AND,HEiGHT. REQUiREMENTs . :Area, :. yard, a Development .Plan has not been 4;0 .. time ;ofPmliminary andlr~;F|nal? .' ~y: Zone-shall apPly. PUBLIC FACILITIEs -1. - .. - ThePlan ~.coSt forthe drainage systems, and other, utility systems',- .. ~. ' _, ... .'. . , The minimum :size of all'water:mains used, or intended.for use, infim pmtection activities is six (6 ..) nches, Actual water., main requirements Will be determined by the'.St..LUcie.CoUnty. - .'Ft. Pieme Fire:Prevention Bureau. · that'amThe minimum.,Iocatedsizeon,.'of~ail,,~water mainS:a dead-end :Used~'~nainOr -'.intended for .use, in '.fire protection 'actiVities," ' '- -.. water is eight: (8.') inches:..'.~ACtual..,. Water'.' mai9 -- -requirements. Will ,be determined by the St.' Lucie-C0unty-Ft,!. Pieme Fire-.Prevention 'BureaU,- .Ad~:llPted August 1. 1990 376 Revised Through 08/01/00 ( E. Planned The maximum number of fire hydrants that may be located on 'any dead end.Water, main is-.??.. one (1). 4... Fire hydrants shall be:provided at .a.minimum spacing'of one every six hundred (600) unless otherwise apProved by theSL Lucie 'County-Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention'Bureau,' , TF~IAiFI= lC AN DTM PEDE S TRIAN C I RCU LATI O N -. Every dwelling unit, .or :other use .permitted in ,the .Planned Unit Development .shall ~have acCess to a public stmet~.either directly or.through an approved pdvato.mad,' a 'pedestrian. ,way, or:other ama dedicated tO public or private, use.' P~ncipal VohiCular access points shall he'-designed :to-:permit. smooth-traffic flow~-With controlled tuming:rmovement and'minimum-hazards to vehicular or pedestrian .tmffic~ Minor. ~streets Within~the ~Planned UnitDevel0pment ,shall not.. be-.,connected to ~stmets outside':the-~:: · ,development:sO, aSr to enCOurage, their'use by. thmugh..traffic,~ --- -. · The, p.mposedPlanned Unit ~DeveloPment shall..be designed so thatit will not cmate.traffic.~ congestion on-the arterial :.and collector roads surrOundingthe ~proieCt,. or.such surrounding collector Or,arterial roads :'shall:beimproved so that they.will.not beadversely, affected~. ' All :non,msidential.landuSes~ within.me..Plannedr.'Unit~Developmen:tShal!:~havedirect~ s!ii,:i-:.?~..:.!: ~to .a cOlleCtor or,arteriair street withoUt creating ~traffic hazards,~,or:c0ngestion..on.any.s~eeti::i;i:.'::r: ? ' S'treets in a.Planned:U.nit:D.evel0pment .may 'be dedi~.tedto ,~pub-li~C: Use".or .retainediUnderi~ :~ . ,, : ,. . .. .. . -.....,. .., ..... . , ., .. ~ .:: , '! :, . private. °Wnemhip~.. and .assOCiated improvements .wa of the Plann:ed'Unit DevelOpment. all.:r°ads~ and. streets shall...;intersect.. at. an approximate ':±5oyangle of ninety -unless ~cimumstanceSacceptable to SL,Lucie 'County indicate aneed for a lesser,angle intersection, · Street jogs. or ~;'entedine offsets between any local street.Or mad.with: another IocalStreet,.Or.::(? road, shall be no less than-one hundred fifty feet (i50). The intersection of any'two !oc~l roads :or streets with a.Major.Coilector, or.A~erialRoadWaYi:, .:' ,', .';',:.i-- ~ . shall be.separated,by:a minimum distance of six:hundred sixty feet(660), as measured'.:~om:;:.'. centedine to centerline, . , Adopted August I, 1990 377 Revised Through 08/01/00 Fo Planned Unit hundred and one (501) feet in length. The length of a dead-end street shall be measured .along the centerline of the street from the its point of perpendicular'intersection with the .centerline of.intersecting street to the end of'the dead-end street or'roadway. All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum dght-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet. Iff 'the dead end roadway is five hundred (500) feet or less in length, a "Y" or 'q'" type of rum around '.may be approved, If:,~a dead end.street iStemPorary in n. atum then a temporary cul-de-sac shall be required until ~'lIhie roadway is connected to 'angther street or road. In tl~e center of the cul'de,sac an unpaved iSland, surrounded by a curb, improved with grass and lands~ping that Will'not intofl:om with sight ~distance, may be' proVided. Centor islands sh~all have~a diameter-of ~not less ~than seventeen. (17) feet, unless otherwise approved ' Atl?~moadways, exclusive.0fintedor parking.and access aisles amas, regardless of ownership, Shall-be .Ioc~ted'a.minimum of-ten (10)-feet.. ~om any exterior :building Walls, except for security gate:hoUses.or.similar se~dty structures located in. a private street or road right-of- way. ~Anr~''~ .Pedestrian cimulation~ system ,and .its m!ated walkways 'shall: be insulated from.the. .vehicular:street :system,, This.shali~include,.when deemed to be necessary by the Board0f Cou~n~ commissioners~ pedestrianunderpasses or overpasses in the vicinity of plaYgroundS and,Other m~eation areas,, lOcal, shopping areas, and other neighborhood uses Whr|Ch generate a .considerable amOunt,of.pedestrian traffic. -- Access'points onall colleCtOr or arterial stroets se~ing a Planned Unit Development shall be :.llo~ed .andlr,spaced ~s0 :that ~traffiCmoving..into and' out of ~the arteriar.'streets ~d0 ~not cause tlraffic con§estion. . PARKING AND LOADING . The n.umber,'~pe, and tocationOf parking spaces shall be'determined at the time of-. final .Planned. Unrit·~DeveloPmentplan apl~roval. The determination of the number of spaces required Shall be based on Section 7.06:01(F) of this Code. The'number of. parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial. competent evidence that the reduced number of .spaces is adequate for the proposed use. or.that, parking may be sharod .by proXimate uses that-operate at different times or on different days. · . ,Reservpd.~parking spaces ,may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject ~ Section. 7.'06.02(C) ~of this COde, . Adopted A~ugUSt 1, 1990 37'8 Revised Through 08/01/00 . Off Street Parking and Loading Off-street,parking'and lOading requirements are governed by Sections 7.06,02 and 7~06:03 - · ' of this Code, and:the folloWing standards: .¸ a. Off-street ~parking and :loading' areas-shall be designed to provide travelways. between adjacent uses.while.discouraging through traffic. b, Off-street parking.and loading areas shall bescreened from adjacent roads and pedestrian wal~ays.With hedges. ~dense planting, or changes in grades' O'r walls.'. :..,1 On Street Parking · In ~PlannedUnit'DevelopmentS;.0n. ~ ~ ,. . .. ~.., ~ . ~.. . .~stmet. parkingmay be. . used so long as the mad on:which"?, is pmp0sed lies'entirety within the limits of the defined Planned ~unit../ ~y other provision of-.tl~s Code-Orthe:i~' St, Lucie COun~ COde ofordinance;~ S, Whom such on, Street parking, and. loading isused,.,it,?:~ shall :be.consiStent.with ~e following design standards: ,a, The minimumsize of.aparking .stalI shall'be as fOllows: · ., .parallel 8 feet X 23 feet :angled 10 feet X 18 feet - " handi~PPed(paral!el) ' -' 12 ~feet- X :.23 feet. .' ;handic-'apPed(angled): · 12 feet X.. 1.8 feet " C;, ACCess.,for emergen~?fim vehicles shall be in accordancewith NFPA standards: .NO; morethan~fiffeen spaces shall be permitted in a continuous.mw ~ landscape .ama of 360 square feet. ~rso,as to .prevent direct glare Ol"rh~rdOUS; any,,kind ;I streets .or proPerties. ' ,~NDSCApING AND NATURAL FEATURES · 1.i,~.. Native;trees ~and vegetatiOn,and 'other.~ natural features shall be preserved to ~the extent; ,- practicable. All sensitive:'enyironmenta/vegetation, .trees and "areas. shall be preserved:to the 'ext;~i'~ practicable, · . . , Adopted August'1. 1990 379 Revised' Through 08/01/00 ., . "' ~ .... Planned Unit .. LandScaPing for.off-street parking and loading.areas shall meet the minimum requirements o[ $Oction 7.09,00. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS . A minimum of thirty-five (35)percent of the. gross ama of land to be Committed to a P .Unit Development must be for use as Common open space, which maY include, ' - recreation areas, 'biCycle and pedestrian .paths and faCilities, marinas, Swimming beaccommon open space, common landscaping~ and.planting areas, or'other areas of PubliC? purp°ses or-use '°ther than street,' r°ad~ Or ~lrainage righis~of-way, above ground exClUding st°rmwater treatment facilities, and 'Parking areas.,' A minimum of 15 percent of any existing native upland habitat on the pmpe~, must the remaining~ . ~m.mon. ~. . . open. space requirement. All. areas :to ~be.dedi.-~.~.ted for c~mmon. OPen sPace shall be'identified as part-of':'the Preliminary.. DO¥olopmontPlan, . ...... ~or. the Planned,Unit DOYelopment.· ~ Areas. lakes. . ~Wetlands,i~.... ...and". ~ stormwater retention. . ~amaSr .. -may. be. applied open 'space requirement, 'subject ~to' the requirement, onthe prope~ -' mUSt be included as pad. ofthemquimd 35% common','open space., · of the ~Final :Planned Unit ;DevelOpment-submisSion process, .,the.deVelOPer or. the 'Planned Unit Development Shall pmvidefor one ~of,the [ollowing: . ¸3. a. The advance ~ agency thatwi!l, upon. a~ptance~ any buitdings~.'structures-or, improvements :that.haVe been :.Placed on it. dedications or:conveyanceS:, , Shall ~be Completed:. .... ., -prior'to the iSsuance permits, includingland Clearing, forany~podi0n of the Planned unitDevelopmenti;Or, b. A .phased COnveyance... ~ ofthe land' to a~publiC.or:acceptable :pdvate'.agencythatwill;..:~'.:~.~:' . .pon.,acceptance, agree.to.'ma~nta~n:.th:e common open space and .any buildings; strUctures .Or improvements thathave been Placed .on it. 'The~ schedule ..for · 'Phase~ cOnveYance of any such.lands to be used for:common oPen ~spaceshall ~bei~.;.. a specific Condition of approval for the Planned Unit Devel°pment. ~o parcol of land idontifiod for use as a park.or common opon spa¢o shall, bo less~than one ( I ) Contiguous acm, and ali such areas shall, be physically Part~ of the Planned unit Devel- opment, . ' Areas provided or reserved to meet any other environmental Proservation. or'proteCtiorl.?,? requirements of this code or other lawful regulatory, authority 'may b'e counted.towards:, the overall common open-space requiroment, provided that the common open'space meetsthe ., Adopted August, 1, 1990 380 J., Ko requirements of this Code. SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL,.LAND Pl'anned-Unit Developments adjacent to land,.used for ~agricultUml purposes, or desig agricuituraiuse on the Future ~Land :Use Map ,of the ~SL LUcie County Comprehensive ~lan~':Shall provide setbacks from'the agricultural land.suffiCient 'to protect the function and operation 'of. uses fro.m the encroachment of UrbanactNities or.uses. PHASING . A Planned .unit Development:may.be developed .in m°re than one stage .or phase~ .. If. a Final. Development Site:Plan apProved~by theBOard of County ~CommissionerSis tO.be ~developed in stagesorPhases~ :eaChSu~ssive'phase shall,be constructed' and,devel~' in..~a reasonably continuoUs fashion, .No. mom than', ~0 (2) -years · requirements ~ am. subject to .- approVa! -. by {he BOard~ .of. County Commissioners, othe~iseamended by the Board,: Site.Plan review process, One or.m.om..major recmati0n:~cilities, and other major .amenities,. · issuance of buildin! ,pementage that number ,.of authoriZed amenities home of;more than fo~ :be appropdate.'based on prior..to iissuanceofbuilding .- or m=Obile., Y flnal~plat .within that phase. b, · . -., Adopted August 1, 1990 subject to the requirements in Section 11 ;02.05, 381 . Revised Through 08/0i/00 .-'~ .... _.:'~..':~?~..~:. ,~ ,': · . . . · .·, ,.? RAN~£ OKEECHOBEE COUNTY T 36 S T 35 $ T 34 s SNE£D ROAD HEAOER CANAL SHINN ROAD 37 $~~' m N A Petition .of St. Lucie Fa-tins Inc. fora 'Rezoning from AG-1 (Agricultural, 1 uniYa--~cre) to PUD (Planned Unit D~evelopment): and PMUD (Plan'ned ,Mixed Use .Development)for the i~roiectknown as Westchester, an 800 unit. mixed use residential development. RZ. 00-015: This pattern indicates ..... ..... subject ~parcel Go~ Bird - Communi~ Development Geographic Information Systems Map prepared December 1, 2000 '~T :.. ' ..... : ..... "- .- ' . T~S~.'.&~r.,~ ..... : ..... .. .~0 :--:.:.: ...... . . · . : . · , ......... · .:. ~. :.~IORTHWESTLOJAIE.QUARTI~COF SEGT 'PAN " ';::-' [E.R, O~ SAI_D. SECTION. 3; THEN..CE...,NORTH 00°16'38' WEST ALONG"~E EAST (INE-oF THE NOR~t~F~v~T.~I.U.'AR'~~IRT~.~DtR~ U!!'!'. ' SAID SECTION _3 A DISTANCE OF 39.67 FEET TO THE NORTH Ri~HTuOE-WA¥ LINE C~F MtDWAY'~) ~R.,O,,F -..:. MIDWAY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 712) A DISTANCE Ot~' 39.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WA~. LINE OF LUClE RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT '-CANAL NUMBER 93 AND THE' POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT, OF-W. AY .LINE OF 'SAID MIDWAY ROAD SOUTH 89~48°08' WEST:A'.DI~ FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID' ~tGHT-OF~WAY LINE NORTH 00~18'$~#.WEST ~'DtSTANCE OF:,~ INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH 'LINE OF' THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH, .EAST A DISTANCt~ OI~ '1318.4~ FEET; THENCE NORTH' 89°59'41' EAST A DiSTANcE OF 1 ~88:9~1 WEST RtGHT.-OF.WA¥.,LINI~ OF SAID ~N~L N~MBER 93~:~T~ENCE ~OUTH 00°00'43~ WEST ALONG WAY LINE PF ~AID CANAL NUMBER 9~ A DISTANCE OF .1318.97 FE~. TO THE INTE - T~E 'NORTH~ST . NUMBER 93, SOUTH' 00°16'38' EAST ROAD AND THE-POINT ..,-.,.-' ~ ' ' '~'~' "?"~':?.'.~., "' . ~ '."x;;;' The Iot~'62 Taxld BC~ if west Midwdy Roa~L Roa~, ~ppr, o~imately'~0CI zo.n. lqg ~rom' CG 36 ~ /he lot. .. ....... : ............ . ...... . .... .~:. ,~ ......... ~ ~., .:.,~ ............. :: ..... . ........ . ......... :. :,.:., -: '.- ..:-,-:..: .: :.:,..,.-..::. ;. ,.....,.-.: . :. ~~.~,~:.,~.a !;D? ~-':'""';' ':::';"':" :-;;:':':-'-; :" 'i' '. :.. :: .... ::: :;.!::... ;;: ' .-.' ....': ': :. ~o/.'.,/;z,.z,.:w,ar:r,'~,i;.;~vis,o~:~~;~T~ ,~~~~.411.::.'!,:.:.:::::::':::: ..-"' .: ':-:-: .-:". ~:'-::::: ':. :.:: i:',::':.'::'.:.:' ..: ,..':"-" ' ';: :,'/ ,..:." :.- Begineing;'~r~'~nttnu~"~ '89~,5~,f0~'~"'"'"" '~"""';'"~,'"~"..:~i~-, C ", .-"~.~.~,,r,';~q~:?;:.::!"!ii:!:::'.:. :':'-~. :"i.;:!-'i' "":':'": :. :. : ..... . .... ... -. · :..: .: .... · ..~ ........ *;.: ........ ;'...*:,.:~ .... '~';~'~.-,~.'~'s°~-~.~,.:.~;~,~;~*~"o~..~~. '.:~1~i:: ':~:~.::.:.. · ...: .: ' ': .... ... .,... · . ,/-..,.,o:.L/..c, aa,s,onceor ,.yo..14.teet;~.~,,E, adi.stanco:~f. 48..8.1..feei, lt!~_..'ceN14o12,1.2,,;~~6~....:: .:..:....:. . ' '' :'.' : '" ..-. : . :' feet fO tile beginning of, a non-ta.ngen't,,t:~:i~~ S<;uih~t 't{~vlnd"6 r'~i~'~."t'9$0 00 fe~t- ,ir ~h.Ord:hOrd~.~".~l!of ~:tch be~ . ' , . : · ? · '. · : . ·" o · # ,. . ', '"-('-' ~:; ,..~," ~.~' '~ ~1','-'" :.!,..- ..dk', (' ; e., ~ ' ' o ' · ' '~'; '' ' " $' ' '" .... , "" '." "6805833':E'thenceal°ngthe'arc:ol~'"~~~i-~ceritral-ongle.'bf133831,. adistancqof.464,2~l~'.~,:':-'-..'.. '' - ...... -.:." ' · ... ... '... ;-..-' ."" .-. ~z 1.1:3~.".;.~,.'.'~ distu~e',:of 100.00.:'.~tL~en~.:,S'(,S.e~'0~' E, a:distci&e:.of.49~.~5'i '~, to"th, i~gi,~i,g ~f~' ~'~i'~.~il:'. - .i .: :'.'; :-:. 'i:.' :-:: -:';. : '.' "'.;:'- .. . :..: .. ·....-:. '.. ~oncave,o?h?.':No,h, ho;i,g a ,odi.~,:]~...gS0:00:~.~:'~,~.ce o~ong,n, arc:~f,,0U'~,.~,,th,~h a co.~,o~'~~f;]l':'.' "' ii'.' ' ":"~.: '::. !:.:. '.'::.:::' .. '' · distance of.~0.4..2.2 feet; thence N 32."4~,1.i$" E, msn-.!a~ent to'last described ~:UrVe, o distance of.33.95 fee~~J ' ... :::'-:. :' :; ::J .'.. ;"'. ;.!: :. W, adistan¢e.of 315.54 feet; tlmnce N.78°49'36"-'E;.:6.:distance 0f;214.11 feet;'nence N 84052'28". E;a di~~~'~j:-II · - ;' :' '- -"- ' . :' ·-: · . .- thence N 14°09'53" W, a distanc~ of.242.58 feet; thence N ~2°27;35" E, a distance of 39.61 feet; lhence N 29o13'49" W,',~i~ .' ' ' -' ' : :: ..' -..':: distance of 280.04 feet; thence N 07°13'39" W, a distance of 222,22 feet; thence N 03°00'12" E, a distance of 59.95 feet; thence.· :'..' -.. :. · . .. , N '04o54'56." W,.a distance of 221.93 feet; thence ~ 17,°51'33" W, a distance 6f 60.24 feet; thence N 35024'06" 'E, a distance Of . . .i .' . · · ' ' . 74.68 feet; thence S 70°38'31" E, a distance of 91.16 f~et; thence S 78°08'31" E,a distance of 187,63 feet lathe beginning c~f'a " ." ' .- - ' ' ' ' .-. . .:. :.. · non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a: ~'adius of 161.90 f~et; the Chord of which bears N'63°40'43" E; thence along ., .:..: ...... : .' rathe arc of 'said. '. curve, through. . a central angle of ,6~5°49'09", a distance.of 185.99 feet 1o the beglnntng' ' of a non-tangent' curve . ncave to the Soul. beast, having a radius of 650.00 feet; the chord of which bears N. 31 °39'20*'. E; thence al6ng the arc Of said · curve through a central angle of 26°41 '20", a distafice of 302,78 feet; thence N .45°00'00" E, tangent., to Idst d~. scrlbed c'urve, a . '.'". 'distance of 1134,06 feet; thence'-S 45°00'00". E,'a distance of 636,49 feel'to the-beginni.~ of a curve concave' ia the 5outhwesl, ".-' ha~ing a radius of 2900.00 feat; the chord c~f 'whicii~bears S 35°41'31r" E; thence along.the arc. of said curve through a central -. angle of 45° 14'09",'a distance of 2368:53 feet; th~i~i'S.00°14'09" W, a. distance.of 2059,65 fe~t lo the Point of Beginning." ' ' . Containing.'352,98 acres, mo~'e or Jess. ' ....... "' · .. ' ' ,. . : ,. - :':'.' ' _ Tax .Id No, 4308~000-0000~000/7 '. - .,: ; · : .- . - ... --' '. 4309-000-0000:.000/0. " ,' -. :.'. Location: Klorth of Gatli~ Btvd West of. I~teritate 95 . . ' ' '-' ' .' - .:'." ' ' ' . .... '. -:- '" ' ' '." "..' . 6: A Change in the b~undaries for a I:F-e;4o'~sl);'~re~:ommended rezonlng to PMUD for the West~hester Development Corporatio~.for -. "' : ' ' "' the follbwing described property: · . · . . Being a parcel of !anCl .lOCated' in Sections 9, and'lO:. Township 37 S(;uth, Range 39 East,':$f, Lucie .County, Florida, Said parcel being mb.re particularly-described as foliows~ ..... " '... B~gin at.the 'intersection'. of ,the centerline of Gaflin..B~;tevard, (al~o being 'the I'~orth line of $ecti(~ '15) ~nc~ ihe'We:sie~ly limlis of (Dc;tlin 'BoUl~'.&rd .Righl,of~Way and the. We~t~ly fimifS of thos~ lan'ds .desc~ibe~l in an Order.of Takir{~;~.d~ted July'24, '1979;and recorded .in. Official ~eCord I~k 311 bt'Pc~ges :~4, .'.through, 2952, pUblic-Recordsi'bf St. Luci6 CoUnty, FlOrida, and as shown-on the Florida " ' #9 ~t-95), Section 94001,24.12, dated .'-. 6/2/77/.wlth last said cefiterline a distance of 2815,40'feet; 'thence: N 00° 14~09" E, curve con6ave to th~ SouthweSt, hav|ng a radius of 3000~00: 'feet~ ;thence a!ong 'the q)f said c.urv~' distcmce of 1399,56 f~'et;thence N;63030'22, E, a' distance of 4 "' ' ' ' radius of F a c.' ~.urve concave to the SoUth, .having ci' a central angle'of .......... 29°26'59", a distance of N°Hh~fJ h6Vihg,a ti~dius of 'which bear~ .... central.';ang!e a curve corm. ave 'to th9 feet; 40°.1 ,'q 'distance of ! 956.76 I the.:':arc 'of ,8- 0645 · E~ a. d~stance of · chord bf ~Which' ' feet to a point of reverse'curvature With' 09°04'45" 'E~. thence ' the. am-of ,s~id 18°1-5'2]1~".-.E, a: distance. · ~ oo,oo--~e~t; the chO,d'. distance of ~7,:i 2 's '90o00'00, ~., a 25,00' feet~ th~<~ $:: 00~00'00* 'W; a di~tan¢~ 0f thence S curve-concave to' curve central · : Inning, ' ......; · . - ' ' " - ,,'.~',, · - :' ' L, Tax id'No, 4310-212-0001-000/2 ,,. ....... ~.~. ;- .. . '.:: :' ': '.;..?. ." '.'" : 4309-000-0000:000/0 . . ' . -'":.. :' ;--'-'.~".: · ') '. 'L-' :,,!~':!.-. '.- ; .' "- .. L6cation:North o~ O;ttin 81¥~1 West. of Interstate. 95 ;i' ... ' ' . · . :';';.i~.:''? '. '- .'. . ;. · ' PUBLIC HE~RINGS will,-be held' ·in Cotnmissi0n C~amb~rs; ,'Roger Poitras Annex~ 2300 Vlrgfnla Avenue, .Fort Pierce, Florida 'on Fe.bruary'15;' 2.001; ~ginning at7:00' P~MJ °r'as.'s~n ther~ter as POssible;ii . ' .' : .~ . . ' .. .: ) PURSUAN'T TO Sect~0n 286:01'05;"Florida. Sta~es; if a p~. son' deCides't& appel any de~isi0n, made 'by a b0a~d, agency, or commission with respect to c~hy matter Cdnstder;~d ~ a meeting or. heari;~g, he ~,Jil neecl'a record of the praceedlngs~ an;d thai, f6~~ such .purl:re.' scs,: he .m~y.need lo ensure that a ~,~i~m re~:0rd of. tl~e proceedi'ngs' is'made Which reCord includes the .t~stim°ny' an~!. evidence upon which, the appeal is to be based~ ..... :. ... PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION : ,., .ST..LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ' ' ':" '.- . /S/Stefan Matth'es, CHAIRMAN .'- , PUBLISH DATE: February 5, 2001 ":.. ":' WES TER In September 2000, St. Lucie West Development Corp. filed plans with St. Lucie County to develop Westchester, a 2,033-acre, master-planned community near the intersection of !-95 and Gatlin Blvd. Plans call for a self-contained community that provide residents with access to commerce, recreation, employment and education opportunities right in their own back yard. lhe initial development phase will include 58'0 acres with 800 residences, a 78,500-square-foot corporate park, 75,000 square - feet of retail ! commercial space and civic sites. WESTCHESTER - What is the Westchester Corporate Park? An important component of the Westchester community is a corporate park, which should bring~new employment oppor- tunities, higher wages, an increased tax base~and improved quality of life for area residents. An attractive business envi- ronment is essential to bringing the kinds of high-wage jobs the Treasure Coast region needs. As part of that, we are committed 'to enhancing the educa- tional resources available to the community, which is a key element in the region,s economic development efforts. Exceptional schools will help the St, Lucie County area attract and retain new businesses and residents. What is proposed for the Westchester School? Phase 1 of the Westchester community envisions a school to serve St. Lucie County residents. An important element of the school is its QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . How will Westchester developers ensure protection of the native environment? Responsible community development must include the protection and enhancement of the existing natural environ- ment. Environmental stewardship has long been a hallmark of St. Lucie West Development Corp. and will be vital to the development of Westchester. Many of our environmental practices ~ such as the native landscaping and wetlands mitigation in St. Lucie West - have become models for local, regional and state agencies. One half of the initial Westchester development area is pro- posed for parks, lakes and greenspace for the enjoyment of area residents, and all existing wetlands will be preserved. What will be the impact on St. Lucie County? Master-planned communities such as Westchester are Corporate Park, : .... ... which could ~., ...... '~¥ ........ '.~;~.-.'..~ ......... '"'. "- dramatically increase the '"'. . attractiveness of the park to new "' employers. St. Lucie West Development. Corp. is currently working with the School Board of St. Lucie County to discuss a number of potential options for developing the school. The develop- " ment company. has a long histo- ry of supporting schools and making education a 'top priority in its communities. The St. Lucie :West development, for instance, features on-site K~12 programs, community college and university campuses. That commitment to educational excellence-will, continue with the development of Westchester. designed to combat many of the prob- lems associat~ ed with unplanned growth, by providing easy access to commerce, recreation, education and: employment opportunities within a self' contained. community. Westchester falls well within the land use guidelines ,...~.,.: .~.,.,...,, ~: ............. established by [-}'.a~:ct~,.]'(:~:.:? ~:, H/~,'~,:i'chester ~~) St. Lucie .............. County. In fact, the initial development phase calls for only approximately 25 percent of the residential units that could be built under existing permits. COMMISSION REVIEW: March 6, 2001 Resolution No.: 01-011 File No.' RZ-00-015 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM' DATE' SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Community Development Director February 28, 2001 Petition of Westchester Development Company, for Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the construction of 200 unit residential project, a 56.3 acre civic site, 14.1 acres of commercial uses, a 2.1 acre church site, and 78.19 acres of open space to be known as the Westchester PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development. (File No.: RZ-00-015) LOCATION- EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LAND USE DESIGNATION: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING- Northwest quadrant of 1-95 and Gatlin Blvd. Approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of Gatlin Bird and Brescia Street. AG-1 (Agriculture- 1 dwelling unit/acre). PUD (Planned Unit Development). MXD - Mixed Use Development- MXD is a designation which allows for a mix of integrated uses. All proposed uses are consistent with the MXD land use. 223.4 acres 200 unit residential project, a 56.3 acre civic site, 14.1 acres of commercial uses, a 2.1 acre chumh site, and 78.19 acres of open space. AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) to the north, south and east. The property to the west is also zoned AG-1 but is the subject of a concurrent request by the same developer for PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) zoning. The property to the east is controlled by the petitioner and labeled as future development. SURROUNDING LAND USE: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: Right of Way Adequacy: Scheduled Area Improvements: TYPE of CONCURRENCE DOCUMENT REQUIRED: All surrounding properties are vacant or are being used for agricultural purposes. Station #10 (777 SW Dalton Road) is approximately 5 miles to the east of the proposed development site. Water and Sewer Services to be provided by the either St. Lucie West or Port St. Lucie Utilities. The existing right-of-way for Gatlin Blvd is 200 feet. The developer plans to construct a four lane entrance road to the site within the 200 foot right-of-way provided by this developer and the adjacent developer to the south. A Certificate of Capacity will be required with final Planned Unit Development approvals. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03 ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the official Zoning Atlas, the planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1 Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The current application for Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development approval has been reviewed for consistency with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and particularly Section 7.03.00 of the Code and has been determined to meet all applicable standards of review for Preliminary Planned Unit Development approvals. 1 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The amendment has been determined to be consistent with all applicable elements of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The project's density is well below that allowed by the Plan. = ,, if the project were proposed or developed at its maximum density, approximately 600 units would be allowed. The proposed project in conjunction with the associated Planned Unit Development (PUD) is providing various services to its anticipated residents including employment and shopping opportunities, schools, and recreation. The project lies entirely within the Urban Service Area. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development Plan and the accompanying request for change in zoning have been determined to be not inconsistent with the general land uses in the surrounding area. The Future Land Use Maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan indicate that the petitioned property is suitable for development at a density of up to 5 du's/acre. The proposed development plans call for a gross density of 1.3 units to the acre based on the residential acreage. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The development site is proposed to be served with water and sewer services by the either St. Lu¢ie West or Port St. Lucie Utilities. Port St. Lucie has provided letter indicating that these services are available. The developer will be responsible for the extension of these services to the project site. The subject property is located west of the existing terminus of Gatlin Blvd. According to the applicant's traffic impact report, the following roadway facilities which are located in the project study area are scheduled for improvements within the Port St. Lucie Capital Improvements Program. Airoso Bird 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Blvd to Prima Vista Blvd FY 2000-2001 Gatlin Bird 4-lane divided from 1-95 to Port St. Lucie Bivd FY 2001-2002 Bayshore Bird 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Blvd to Prima Vista Blvd FY 2001-2003 The applicant's Traffic Impact Report (TLR)indicates that the project will not negatively affect any surrounding roadway links. The applicant has committed to construction of a four .lane divided extension of Gatlin Blvd. From its current terminus to the project entrance (approximately one mile). The applicant has also agreed to construct a section of a possible north/south arterial roadway which could ultimately connect to Glades Cutoff Road. Open space requirements of the Planned Development are met. The proposed development will address its impact on the School District through payment of the School Impact Fee or credits toward the fee as may be allowed based on the provision of an on site school. All other required public facilities appear to be adequate to handle to proposed development. Sm = = w Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed amendment is not expected to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed development site has been used for agricultural activities in the past and is nearly all cleared. The applicant, through the Planned Development process, has proposed a development plan that provides for the protection of the: majority of the remai ironmentally sensitive areas. The applicant will need to obtain permits relating to e~ impacts on the Site prior to any construction. These agency's include but are not I to the Army Corp of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The environmental Impact report indicates that there are a number of wetlands located throughout the subject parcel. In this phase of development, the applicant is proposing to preserve nearly all of the wetlands on site through incorporation into the project design. The applicants submission of this project as a Planned Mixed Use Development affords the maximum amount of existing resource protection while still providing the property owner with the maximum use potential of the project site. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely effect the property values in the area. The proposed development of this property as a 200 unit residential project with the associated uses is not anticipated to have any significant negative effects on the property values of the surrounding area. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; While this proposed change in zoning is the first project proposed in the area, it is consistent with the uses anticipated by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this project will provide for an orderly development pattern for this area. 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 has been determined not to conflict with the public interest and the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. COMMENTS: The developers of the Westchester PMUD have submitted a petition for Preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development site plan approval for the construction of a 200 unit residential project, a 56.3 acre civic site, 14.1 acres of commercial uses, a 2.1 acre church site, and 78.19 acres of open space on a 223.4 acre pamel of land, located west of 1-95 and North of Gatlin Blvd. The subject property is currently vacant and/or used for agricultural uses. The surrounding property is also vacant or being used for agricultural purposes. The developers of this project have submitted the required Environmental and Traffic Impact Reports. The Environmental Reports did not identify serious environmental constraints to development of this property. 'l'he project site plan shows several small wetlands which are to be removed. The majority of the existing vegetation on this property is cabbage palms, several scattered oak hammocks are also found in future phases. The develOper intends to preserve the oak hammocks and preserve or move the cabbage palms as necessary. The subject property is located west of the existing terminus of Gatlin Blvd. According to the applicant's traffic impact report, the following roadway facilities which are located in the project study area are scheduled for improvements within the Port St. Lucie Capital Improvements Program. Airoso Blvd 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Bird to Prima Vista Bird FY 2000-2001 Gatlin Blvd 4-lane divided from 1-95 to Port St. Lucie Blvd FY 2001-2002 Bayshore Bird 4-lane divided from Port St. Lucie Bird to Prima Vista Bird FY 2001-2003 The applicant's Traffic Impact Report (TLR) indicates that the project will not negatively affect any surrounding roadway links. The applicant has committed to construction of a four lane divided extension of Gatlin Blvd. From its current terminus to the project entrance (approximately one mile). The applicant has also agreed to construct a section of a possible north/south arterial roadway which could ultimately connect to Glades Cutoff Road. On January 18, 2001, the St./ucie.County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this petition. Following that hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission vOted 5 to 0 with 2 members absent, and 2 members recusing themselves to recommend approval of this petition. On February 15, 2001 the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held an additional public hearing on this petition. Following that hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 with 2 members absent, and 2 members recusing themselves to recommend a minor change in the projects boundaries and to reaffirm their approval of this petition. Site Plan details for this project are attached to the Westchester PUD package which will be considered as a separate item on the March 6, 2001 agenda. If approved, this Resolution would grant Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for this project. If approved the developers of this project will have 24 months to receive Final Planned Unit Development approval for any phase of this project, or the entire project, if the developer so chooses. Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 01-011 subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit 'A'. SUBMITTED J~a ShewohU~k ~ornmunity Development Direotor D_ a~i~l' M_c'l'ntyre,~" ,) County At torn.~~j cc: County Administrator County Attorney County Engineer Planning Manager Greg Boggs Jirn Zboril RESOLUTION NO. 01-011 FILE NO: RZ-00-015 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER A PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: CHANGE IN ZONING , Westchester Development Company presented a petition, for a change in zoning from AG-1 (Agriculture - 1 dwelling unit/acre) to PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) for certain property in St. Lucie County, Florida. On February 15, 2001, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, of which due public notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and the Ft. Pierce Tribune and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and recommended to this Board that the requested change in zoning from AG- 1 (Agriculture - 1 dwelling unit/acre) to PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) be granted. , , . , SITE PLAN The petitioner is proposing to construct a 200 unit residential project with 14.1 acres of commercial area, 56.3 acres for civic uses, 2.1 acres for religious use, 78.19 acres of open space and infrastructure in the northwest quadrant of 1-95 and Gatlin, on the property described in Part B below. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary site plan for the proposed project and found it' to meet all technical requirements and to be consistent with the future land use maps of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions set forth in Part A of this Resolution. On February 15, 2001, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, of which due public notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and the Ft. Pieme Tribune and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and recommended to this Board that Preliminary Development Plan approval for the project known as Westchester - a Planned Mixed Use Development, be granted. On March 6, 2001, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Ft. Pierce Tribune and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. File No.' RZ-00-015 March 6, 2001 Resolution 01-011 Page 1 , , . 10. 11. 12. The proposed project is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County. The proposed project will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed project on the immediate vicinity through building design, site design, landscaping, and screening. The proposed project will be constructed, arranged and operated so as not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. The proposed project will be served by adequate public facilities and services. The applicant has demonstrated that water supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire protection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: A, B. Pursuant to Section 11.02.05 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the Preliminary Site Plan for the project known as Westchester - A Planned Unit Development is hereby, approved as shown on the site plan drawings for the project prepared by Thomas Lucido & Associates, P.A. dated September 1.5, 2000 and subsequently revised through February '23, 2001, and date stamped received by the St. Lucie County Community Development Director on February 23, 2001, subject to the conditions as outline in attached Exhibit 'A' The property on which this preliminary approval is being granted is described as follows: See attached legal description - Exhibit 'B' (Location: Northwest quadrant of 1-95 and Gatlin Blvd) C, The approval of this Preliminary Site Plan is contingent upon the developer obtaining final Planned Unit Development approval within 24 months of the date of approval of this resolution, if Final Planned Unit Development approval has not been obtained within this period, this site plan shall expire on Mamh 6, 2003, unless a Preliminary Site Plan approval extension is granted in accordance with Section 11.02.06(B), St. Lucie County Land Development Code. D. The conditions set forth in Section A are an integral nonseverable part of the site plan File No.: RZ-O0-015 March 6, 2001 Resolution 01-011 Page 2 approval granted by this resolution.. If any condition set forth in Section A is determined to be invalid or unenfomeable for any reason and the developer declines to comply voluntarily with that condition, the site plan approval granted by this resolution shall become null and void. E. A copy of this resolution shall be attached to the site plan drawings described in Section A, which plan shall be placed on file with the St. Lucie County Community Development Director. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows' Chairman Frannie Hutchinson Vice-Chairman Doug Coward Commissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner John Bruhn Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 6th (Jay of March, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: DEPUTY CLERK ' COUNTY ATTORNEY File No.: RZ-00-015 March 6, 2001 Resolution 01-011 Page 8 EXHIBIT 'A' WESTCHESTER PUD/PMUD' CONDITI. ONS PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE .,, The developer shall, dersign and construct the stormwater management system in accordance with applicable South Florida Water Management District regulatory criteria. ., The surface water management system .and. any required littoral planting zones shall be.designed, constructed and maintained' in accordance with South Florida Water Management District ERP requirements. EDUCATION m All residential development within this project shall: be subject to the terms and requirements of St. Lucie County Ordinance 88.-.16, Educational' facility Impact Fees, and as may sUbsequently be amended. Any contribution toward, or develop~ment or dedication of sch°oi land or facilities shall'-, be. eligible for Educational Impact Fee credit to the extent permitted, under the County's Educational Facility Impact Fee ordinance.. FIR~EMS PROTECTION m All development, within this project Shall be subject to the terms and requirements of St. Lucie County..Ordinance .... , Fire/EMS lmpact~ Fees,. and.-as .may subsequently be amended.. To the extent permitted under the County's Fire/EMS Impact Fee regulations, any contribution toWard or development or dedication of' land for Fire/EMS facilities may be considered for ali or Part ora Fire/EMS Impact Fee Credit. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 1 General building Setbacks shall be as followS;. a. Single-family ho.me sites west of the North/South corridor: Minimum .lot size: 42'W x 1-00'd Maximum lot size: Maximum lot coverage' Front setback: Side setbaCk: Side setback (Corner): Rear setback: 100'w x 125'd 8'0% 20 feet (15 feet for those homes with a front, side loading garage layout) 6 feet (0 feet and 12 feet for zero lot line .homes) 15 feet 15 feet (screen rooms/pool decks and other ancillary structures may be a minimum of five feet from a rear PSL:2941:1 Page 1 of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1,200.1 b,, PSL:2941'1 property line. provided that no such ancillary facility interferes with any drainage or maintenance easement). Maximum lOt size: Maximum lot coverage: Maximum building height: Fr°nt setback: side setback (Lots <50' width):'. Single family home sites east of the North/South corridor: Minimum lot size' 30'w x75'd ' 100'w x 1.30'd 90% 35 feet 10 feet (15 feet for those homes on a 'Perimeter block lot that 'use a front loading drivewaY) (Lots >50' width)' Side setback (Corner)' Rea.r~ setback: Lots with re:ar garage access: Lots with front garage access: Minimum alley easement width: Minimum alley pavement width: Minimum alley radius: 0 feet one side/no openings 3 feet on other side (minimum separation between adjacent structures is 12 feet or structures with less than 1'2 . . feet separation shall .have automatic fire sprinkler systems) 3 feet. (minimum' 'separation between adjacent structures is 12 feet or structures with less than 12 feet separation shall' have automatic fire sprinkler systems) 15 feet 15 feet (screen 'rooms/pool decks ~and other ancillary structures,, excluding garages, may be a minimum of zero feet from the property line provided, that no such ancilla~ facilitY ..interferes with any drainage 'or maintenance easement) 15 feet .(screen rooms/pool decks and other ancillary structures, inclu.ding garages, may be a minimum of zero feet from the property line provided that no such ancillary facility interferes with any drainage or maintenance easement) 20 feet (One-way alleys) 10 feet (One-way alleys) 25 feet in direction of travel Muiti-Family/Townhome. sites east of the North/South Arterial Road Minimum lot size: Variable width/average depth. 85 feet Maximum lot size: Variable width/average depth 110 feet Maximum building lot coverage,:Variable Maximum building height: 50 feet Front setback: 10 feet. Page 2 of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1, 2001 Side setback between bldgs: Side setback (.Corner). Rear setback: Lots .with rear garage access' 20 feet 15 feet 1'5 feet (screen rooms/pool decks and other ancillary' 'structures, excluding garages, may be a minimum of zero feet -'from the property line provided that no such ancillary facility interferes..with any drainage or maintenance' easement) Minimum alley easement width: 20 feet (One-way alleys) Minimum alley pavement'width- 1'0 feet (One-Way alleys) Minimum alley radius: 25 feet in direction of travel 6- Any obligation of. Westchester Development Company-hereunder shall be assignable to a community, development district created, by Westchester Dovolopment Gompan¥ for such purpose. . . HABITATAT, VEG.ETATliON' AND WILDLI. FE " . Wetlands identified to be preserved on the Master Plan referenced: in Part or as. may be delineated in subsequent permitting, documentation, shall be retained' and/or restored~if necessary, and maintained, in accordance with South Florida Water Management District permit conditions. Such wetlands shall be protected by conservation .easement, deed restriction., or other appropriate legal mechanism, and future maintenance responsibilities shall be assigned-to a community ~d'evelopment district or other entity approved by the South. Florida Water Management District,. In the: event that threatened or endangered species are found, DevelOper shall' comply with applicabl'e' regulations. As part of Final Development Plan Approval, wetlands that :are identified, to. be preserved on-the Master Plan referenced in Part or as may be delineated, in sUbsequent permitting documentation, shall be identified', by spe¢ific numeration; .. . Wetlands identified to be altered, as depicted on' the Master plan referenced in Part . , may_ be altered to the extent shown with the~ remaining areas ,of such wetlands being' retained and/or restored if neCessary, and maintained in. accordance with South Florida Water Management District permit conditions. Such wetlands shall..be protected bY conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate legal mechanism, and future maintenance; responsibilities shall be assigned to a community development district or other entity approved by the South Florida Water Management Di'striCt. In-the event that threatened or endangered species, are found, Developer shall comply with applicable regulations. As part of Final Development Plan ApprOval, wetlands that are identified to be altered on the Master. Plan referenced in Part or as may be delineated in subsequent permitting documentation, shall be identified by specific numeration. '9. Wetlands identified to be impacted on the Master Plan referenced in Part or on subsequent 'permits, may be altered to the. extent shown thereon, if PSL:2941'1 Page 3 of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1, 2001 necessary, the Developer shall obtain Permit approvals to alter/eliminate these wetlands from the 'South Fl°rida Water Management' District and the US Army Corp of Engineers and shall meet ali aPplicable mitigation requirements and standardS, in the 'event off'site mitigation is req. uiredl the applicant shall first seek t° PerfOrm' all-such.' mitigati.on in St. Lucie County. As part of Final. Plan ApproVal', wetlands that are identified to be im d/eliminated on the ~Master ~Plan referenced in Part or as may be del 'subsequent permitting: documentation, shall be identified by specific numeration. 10, Lakes or canals shall not be excavated' within 200 feet of those wetlands, which are to be preserved or restored on the .project site, unless otherwise approved by South Florida Water Management District. Any wells in the shallow aquifer shall not be located within 300 feet of those wetlandS, which are to be Preserved or restored on-the ~project site. South Florida Water Management-District must approve, any exceptions to this conditiOn. A C°py. of any South Florida Water 'Management. District permit'or other consent addreSsing this condition shall be provided to St. Lucie County prior to final plat approval. 11. In order to. 'promote maintenance or implementation of predevelopment hydroperiods 'within the enhanced and/°r restOred wetlands and within any wetland, mitigation areas., final drainage plans shall' provide for routing of sufficient ~vol'umes of' runoff from acceptable sources to the preserved or restored wetlands prior to routing of any excess.-rUnoff through the project off-site ~diScharge outfall, in accordance with South Florida Water 'Management District .standards. Control elevations shall be established consistent with the intent to maintain', or improve predevelopment hydroperiods within all wetland areas. The SOuth Florida Water Management District mUst approve the .roUting of runoff and control elevations-as shown On the final drainage· plans .'to achieve the intent indicated above,- CoPies ~of the S°uth Florida W. ater Management District construction permits shall be provided to St. Lucie County prior to final plat approVal. 1~2. The Developer shall Plant and maintain a buffer zone of native vegetation around all enhanced, restored, or created 'wetlands on site in accordance with the requirements of the South Florida Water Management District.' RECREATION AND OPEN sPACE 13. Ali' residential development within this project shall, be subject to the terms and requirements of St. Lucie County Ordinance ...... , Parks Impact Fees, and as may subsequently be amended. To the extent permitted under the' County's Parks Impact Fee regulations, any contribution toward or development or dedication of land for recreational facilities may be considered for all or part of a Parks Impact Fee Credit. PSL:2941'l Page 4 of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1, 2001 R .~ ,OADS IMPACT FEES 14. All development Within this project shall be subject to the terms and requirements of St Lucie County Ordinance , Roads Impact Fees, and as m-ay subsequently be amended'. Any contribution toward, dedication or development of road. right of way or facilities,, including but not limited to all dedications or improvements in roadway'capacity, that exceed the need to provide safe and adequate access for the-project shall be eligible for Roads Impact Fee credit to the extent permitted 'under the COunty's Roads Impact Fee Ordinances. 15. 'Westchester Development Crompany may apply any credits, from transportation impacts mitigated, by Westchester Development Company for the Phase ! PUD/PMU~D-in excess of the ~needs of the-Phase ! PUD/PMUD toward transportation, impacts generated by development of adjacent properties owned by Westchester Development Company. TRANSPORTATI-ON - 16. Gatlin Boulevard west of !,95 shall be designed as a primary public :acce.ss route extending from its current terminus to the-proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Gatlin Boulevard and the unnamed north/south corridor. Design and construction of the'rOadway shall meet all requirements of St: Lucie County and the Florida Department of' Transportation (FDOT). .. 17. The. proposed traffic cimle and." un:named north/south corridor, as'.'shown on the site' plans, referenced i.n Part. ,-shall be. designed as. a primary public access route. Design and construCtion of the roadway shall meet all reqUirements of St. Lucie County and FDOTi. --.. 18. An emergency/tempora~, access shall be provided to the Westside Residential prior to the issuance of the 250th Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit in the Westside Residential area. 19. To the extent practical, and based upon the transportation devel°pment and service plans of the local transit providers, the final development-plans for the area referred to as the Westchester PMUD/PUD shall consider the inclusion of dedicated transit stop and areas in its final project designs. WASTEWATER 20. All wastewater within the Westchester PMUD/PUD shall be connected to a central wastewater treatment service, except that temporary 'buildings shall' not bo roquirod to connoct to. a contral wastowator troatmont systom until such timo as one is made available to the temporary building site or otherwise required by the St. Lucie County Public Health unit. For the' purpose of this development ordor, tomporarg buildin§s shall bo thoso uso0 in connoction with construction activities, models, buildings used in co.nnection with agricultural uses, and' any PSL:2941' 1 Page 5of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1, 2001 other-buildings, that may be so excepted by the St. Lucie Cou'nty Code. WATER SUPPLY: POTABLE AND NONPOTABLE WATER Ali Potable water within the Westchester PMUD/PUD shall be provided by a central potable water system, except that temporary, buildings shall not be required to connect to a central water system until such time as one is made available to the temporary building site or otherwise required by the. St. Lucie COunty Public Health Unit. For the purpose of this development order, tempom.ry buildings .shall be those used in co.nnection with construction activities, models, buildings used in connection with agricultUral uses, 'and. any other buildings that .may'be so excepted, by the 'St. Lucie COunty Code. 22'. The Pri:maW source of irrigation water shall be water derived from the su.rface water management 'system of lakes supplemented by wells, as permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. No withdrawals from .lakes Srhall be permitted which would adversely affect wetlands required by this development order to be preserved on Site, or wetlands and littoral zones created on site as mitigation for wetland functions and values lost as a result of this development. At the' time of water-use permit issuance or reneWal.',, the developer Shall comply with aPplicable South Florida Water Management· District rules and criteria for permit isSUance, which criteria may.. in... the future require the use of reclaimed' water. 23; T° the maximum extent consistent with. wetland-protection', 'surficial aquifer Wellfield:s serving the Westchester PMUD/PUD shall be located such that . principal land-uses within the cone of influence of such wells are open space, prese~e, or residential area. in no case Shall' development, WhiCh would use, handle, storo, or procluco hazarOous or toxic matOdals, occur within tho cone of influence (i.e., one foot drawdown area) of a su~iCi, al aquifer potable water supply we'll, unless such use, handling., storage, or'production is Consistent with binding wellfield protection'regulations. PSL:2941' 1 Page 6 of 6 Westchester Conditions - Preliminary March 1, 2001 Exhibit B /PMUD Being a parcel of land located in Sections 9, and 10, Township 37 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Said parcel being more particularly described as follows' Begin at the intersection.of.the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard, (also being the North line of Section 15) and the Westerly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Right-of-Way and the Westerly limits of those lands: described in an Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311 at Pages 2946 through, 2952, inclusive, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way maps for State Road #9 (I-95), Section 94001-2412, dated 6/2/77, with last revision of 9/11/79; thence S 89o57'05'' W, along said centerline a distance of 28'15.40 feet; thence N 00o14'09'' E, a distance of 2059.65 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 3000.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 36°43'47'', a distance of 1399.56 feet; thence N 63o30'22'' E, a distance of 100.00 feet; thence N 63°43'13'' E, a distance of 196:38 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the South, haVing a radius of 525.00 feet; the chord of which bears N 78o27'42'' E; thence along the: arc of said °26'59", 6° , ,, curve through a central angle of 29 a distance of 269.89 feet; thence 8 48 48 E, a distance of 62..97 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 275.34 feot; tho chord of which bears ~ 47034'02:'' fi; thonce along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 91°11'51", a distance of:438.26 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 527.97 feet; the chord of which bears N 20°16'30'" E; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 40°10'52", 'a distance of 370.26 feet to a point of reverse cu~ature with a curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 1956.76 feet; the chord of which bears N 26°56'51" E; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 26o57'03'', a distance of 920.42 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a curve conocav,e t,o, the Southeast, having a radius of 525.00 feet; the chord of which bears N 28 02 14 E; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 21°09'50", a distance of 193.92 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the NOrtheast, having a radius of 1550.00 feet; the chord of which bears S 49°07'13'' E; the arc of said curve through a central angle of 17°59'05'', a distance o~ ence S 58°06'45" E, a distance of 389.'95 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 450.00 feet; the Chord of which bears S 29o00'27'' E; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 58°12 36,, a distance of 457.18 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1050.00 feet; the chord of which bears S 09o04'45'' E; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 18°21'13'', a distance of 336.35 feet;: thence S 18°15'21'' E, a distance of 855.11 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a ~radius of 100,00 feet; the chord of which bears S 31°48'09" W; thence along the arc of said curve through a'central angle of 32°43'41", a distance of 57.12 feet; thence N 90°00'00" W, a distance of 696.16 feet; thence S 00°00'00'' W, a distance of 320.00 feet; thence S9 ° 0'0 0 00" E, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence S 00°00'00'' W, a distance of 9 ° ' " 0 00 W,a 290,00 feet; thenCe N :0 00 00 W, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence S 00° 0' " distance of 270.00 feet; thence S 90° 0 00 E a distance of 25.00 feet, thence S t II ! , 00°00'00'' W, a distance of 290.00 feet,' thence N 90000'00'' W, a distance of 15.00 feet; then~ ', 00°00'00, E, a tance of 275.00 feet; thence S 0 00 00 E a distance of o ! ii I :; thenCe S 1 02'47" E, a distance of 115.63 feet to the beginning of a tangent cave to the WeSt' having a radius of 810.00 feet; the chord of which bears S 07°4 ~ ence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 41°39~54, a" " dis feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cu~e concave to the Northwest, having a rad 10~ ' r ~ ' ~ O ' ' ' ' 00:0 feet, the chord of which bears S 28 21 25 W; along the 0 51 11 ..~ sarC33 °°f05sa'id26''Wcu~e through..a central angle of Ir31:0, 52, a distanc feet,' thence :, a d~stance of~397.79 feet to the beginning of a cu~e con to the Southeast, a radius of 500.00 feet; the chord of which bears S 1'43" W; thence alo rh a central angle of 33°05'26",a distance :of 288.77 feet; then ,of 87.07; Thence N 89057'05" E. a distance of 588.36 feet; t ~nce of 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 223.40 acres, more or less. L_ co~ /..66 i~99~ Tgi; DD '~T TO/9;~/~O _J L .. ,,m* 166!199['T9!; XV,:I ['l~ 'irt 7' 'FE]~-22-200]. :~5:38 P. 02/02 390T7g 2x10'"2124/Ol'"Comp:-P|art.- Page I - Composite The St. ~Lucie COunty Board or~' Counly Commission l'prop~es .... to .... review ...... the ..... SL... Lucie Coun~'l l Comprehensive Plan in its entirety. J PUBUC Rearings on this ma.er will 'be held 96 I.-429--~-~-.p,;',i ~,'-,' the COUnty, Commission ,'%_ . '~-~ 1:1 I~ .. ¢',.,, , i i~f~ flnr a~cting your personal and 'heard "a~-'-ac~d-. ~~-, ~~~-e invited '~ a~end and be heard. Wri~n .comments ~--.' ,, , ~' ~ - - - ~ receive8 in oBvonce o/' ~e pubE"~rin9 will .Isa be. ! ,he p~rp~e o¢ !his public keoring is ~ amend the 5~. J,~ .~.J.LUcie c°un~F'C°mprehensive Plan.' .....~' · .', , ... Copies at the proposed e~emenb, are avai~ame 'r~~" in--the--°ffi~e-of--~-- c~~ni~ D~el~ment Dire~r, St. 'Lucie Coun~ Administration Builaing, I'~0"~;rginia Avenue, FL"Rerce;....EL, during regulor l business ~ours. Amendments to the Proposed elements may be' made at the' public' :~earing.' i'i~ any'person decides fo appeaf~'%g' d-~ision made '.,' "'- --,' ".~":-. ,..,'L.~,. or h~nn s or any b~rd, comm,ff~,, ~commbs~,,.,, ' r ' ~ ~¢ .r ' ' need a mca d at., he procee~ngs and mat mr such purposes may need' '~' ensure ~-~ verbatim mco~d Of the p~~edings is made, which record should !'inc!ude"lh~-~stim&nY and evidenc~ upon which the ITWs 'notice dated' and .... ~ec~-., this 2is~ day of . ' BOARD OF COUN~ COMM!SS!ONERS ~,. ~.CIE ~~NW, F~ ,~ . PUBLISH D~TE: Februa~z4,~' .2001 TOTRL P. 02 FEB- 22-200i i 5: 3'? P, 0 i /02 .MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division TO' Board of County Commissioners From: David Kelly, Planning Manager Date' Mamh 19, 2001 Subject: Enron - Midway Energy Center- Draft 'P & Z Minutes .Please find attached the draft minutes.from the February 15, 200.1 Pl.anning and Zoning hearing on the Enron - Midway-Energy Center. Technical problems required that' we:-recreate portions of them over the weekend. I hope this 'has not been too much. of an inconveniencei.~Please call me if you have questions. cc: County Administrator ,County Attorney Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM,#6: ENRON ~,,,MIDWA,Y FNFRGY CENTFR Chai.rman 'M.atthes and Mr. 'Merritt recused themselves based .on conflicts of interest and ~took leave from the'board. The gavel was tumed over to Vice-Chairman Carson McCurdy. Mr. Kelly stated that Ms, Snay,would be making the staff comments in reference to the Midway Energy Center. He would like to give a brief review of Planned Development applicatiOnS in this case it is a PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development). He :explained that the ~board's responsibilities are to look-at the area and make a :determination on'the zoning., that is, is thirs the appropriate place, in this case for a power plant. There Will be details concerning the site plan shown in the presentation but the site plan .is 'not being reviewed. You am revie~ng the site plan as much as necessary 'for you to determine;if it is an appropriate zoning. Ms. Snay stated that. Agenda Item #6 is ther petition of MidWay Energy Center ,fo-r a rezoning from, AG.1 (Agricultural I du/acre) and AG'2.5 (Agricultural- 1 du/2.5 acres) to PN'RD, The applicant is requesting preliminary PNRD for .the. entire 116.60 acres of land and final PNRD for-'35.97 acres of iand. The applicant is proposing to pro'vide for a 39,r04.acre tract of land to remain as open space and 41.59 aoros as vacant land' for future development. The p'ropedy, which 'is the subject of the final PNRD is designated on the Future Land 'Use Map. as M. XD- Midway Road. Wi:thin the MXD-Midway Road designation, the prope~y is. designated with a Low Intensity. According to Policy 1.. 1 '.7.5 of. the Future Land Use Map, the SUrbject property is allowed the following intensities' Residential 'lnstitutio-nal Professional Services/Office General Commercial Public Service / Utility 5 du/acre .5 FAR .5 FAR .5 FAR .25 FAR .Mr. Kelly interjected to define FAR for anyone who might not be familiar with the .. term. It is an acronym for Floor Area Ratio. In the example in the' Chart it will allow for each acre of ground to have one half acre .of floor. The intensity of uses in these areas is contrOlled by these: ratios. Ms Sqay continued, this results in the prel._imi.nary PNRD being, permitted the following development intensity on the entir~116.60-acre sito: Residential Institutional; 583 du (5 du/acre) 2,539,548 s.f. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 1 . , .Professional Services/Office General Co.mmer¢ial Public Service./Utility · 2,539,548 s.f. 2,539,548 s.f. 1,269,774 s.f. The apPlicant is proposing a final PNRD development on 35.97 acres of the,site, Based upon the intensity ratio, this site is permitted: Residential Institutional Professional Services / Office General Commemial Public Service / Utility 180 du (5 du/acre) 783,423 s.f. 783,423 s.f. 783,423 s.f. 391,713 s.f. The applicant's proposal for132,55'0 .square feet of development .meets the FAR criteria-ailowed~ within the Comprehensive Plan under the Public Service / Utility land use category. The subject property irS ~surro.unded 'to the..north, east and west by AG-2-5 zoning and to the south and east by.AG-1 zoning. The surrounding land use to the north, east and west is AG-2.5 and MXD to the east and south. The applicant's request has been determined to not be in confliCt' with any provision of the Land Development COde. Within Section 7.02.02 of the PNRD Zoning Regulations .the all. owed permitted use for the MXD- Land Use am those uses allowed as' permit:ed, conditional or accessory uses within the CN, CO, CG, IL, IH, U and. I zoning districts and any .non-'r.esidential permitted or accessory use identified in the ^G-l, AG-2.5, ^G-5 Zoning District. In addition, Section 7,02.03 designates the minimum size for the PNRD desi.gnation allowed ~thin the Commercial., Industrial or Mixed Use Land Use Classifications .as those in the CG. .The proposed .project has a designated set aside as open space of 39'04 acres of land. The :minimum 'required is 40.81 acres of land. Upon development of the proposed future parcel' an additional 1.77 acres of land will be required to be designated as open space. Also, the app ~cant s proposed project, is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated the Comprehensive Plan designates thre proposed property as MXD-Mixed Use - Midway Road land use. Therefore, the County has designated the area under question to be of a'more .intense development than is currently existing within the area. The proposed change in zoning and' accompanying Preliminary PNRD and partial Planning and Zoning Commission, February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 2 final PNRD Will continue the existing modification of development within the surrounding area: The Ton Mile Crock Attenuation Facility-is Iocatod to the north of the proposed .site, there is a large tract of Heavy Industrial zoned land and Utilities (FPL Booster Station)located just east of !-95 and scutch of West Midway Road. Further, east on the north side of West Midway Road is the St. Lucie County Land Fill and the Tropicana Facility. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the surrournding area. The subject prop.e~y will result in minimal demand on public facilities. The proposed project will be' serviced potable water and sewer through an on-site woli and septic system, The' electrical plant has applied for permission.from the SFWMD to permit the property to withdraw water from the Floridian Aquifer, which will not affect the surrounding properties water .levels. The proposed project will' not affect, the natural environment. The subject property is an abandoned citrus grove'with portions of .the site being overrun by Brazilian Pepper. There are no unique species .located on the site and therefore no prese~ation of.spo¢ies is roquirod. Stormwater will be handled through the widening of an existing stormwater pond on the proposed Pamel 3.. This stormwater pond will be'utilized and enlarged to handle ther runoff of the entire 116.6-acre PNRD. The electrical power plant will .be located within the center of the proposed subdivision (Parcel. 2). The northern most land parcel is to be utilized as open space:. The so.Uthern 41,59 acres will be left in its natural state and designated for future development. The power plant site has ~met the criteria for air emissions established by EPA. The applicant will be-required to obtain a permit from EPA for the operation of the e ' electrical g nerat~'ng plant. The applicant's sound report, indicates that the electrical power plant will be within the allowable throsholds :of. the St. Lu¢ie County Code of Ordinances, 65 decibels during daytime hours and 55 decibels during night time hours. The applicant, is proposing to' .operate the electrical power plant for a.maximum of 3,500 hours -a ¥oar. They are requesting the opportunity to produce the p°wer. when necessary by oil for a maximum of 1,000 hours. The total time frame..permi~ed~or-operation is a function of the EPA permit process. 'The applicant will bo roquirod to operate tho facility under any rostrictions placed on them by EPA and_by SFWMD. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 3 Staff.is recommending :approval of this application, subject to the conditions found on page 8 .of the staff report, with the following modifications: Conditi.on 7 - The applicant shall connect to central water and sewer services upon the installation of ~central water and sewer lines along West MidWay Road for rpotable'water and'domestic sewer services. The use of the private well shall be diScontinued except'for irrigation use until such time as an alternative water resource ~for irrigation is available. Condition 9 - All power lines for'the proposed subdivision shall be required to 'be' placed underground, except for the transmission lines from ~Lot 2 to the FP&L facilities. Condition 12 - Prior to the applicant being permitted to increase the number of hours of operation for oil or gas, the applicant shall be-required to submit a modified PNRD application to be approved by trhe Board of County Commissioner- The applicant will be permitted a total *operatiOn time of 3,500..hours, upon approval by the Environmental Protection Agency .(EPA). Condition 13 - Prior to the issUance of any .building permits for the proposed'-strructure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. Mr. Malefatto representi'ng the West Palm Beach !aw firm of Greenberg & Traurig on. behalf of-the applicant.stated that he is' ioi'ned by a team. of .experts and consultants at this meeting and is well prepared to address'any questions by the public or .members of .the board. He will be saying a few words this evening. Mr. ~Crouse, the project mana:ger will then give a more detail description of the proiect. Mr.. Bo.ggs,, the landscape consultant, will go over the landscape plan and' the overall compatibility ~of the site with surrounding uses. Mr. Malefatto stated that ~the rezoning request for the property is from. AG-1 and AG-2 Zoning Districts to P'N:RD Zoning for the entire .116 acre tract. There-is a site plan approval for the Board of County Commission to review. Lot 1 is the southernmost parcel that Will be rezoned to .PNRD but no uses proposed at-this time. That would be for remai-ning future development within the PNRD zoning allowable uses. The current prope~y owner will retain ownership of that. If' thai property owner wishes to develop on any of that prope~y they would have to submit for site pi.an apprOVal. The center parcel, lot 2, thiS is where the-power pi:ant .facility WOUldrbe located. ~Mr. Crouse will discuss the equipment and operation of that facility. Them will be an extensive landscaping program with 'buffem surrounding the entire prope:rty. Mr. Boggs will discuss that in detail. Lot 3 will the water management tract .and open space tract, That proPerty will remain Planning and Zoning CommiSsion February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 4 in a natural state as a ~citrus grove, so that would be the preservation tract in the future. His staff has worked very closely with the County staff and appreciate their' cooperation and recommendation. They agree with the staff report and the conditiOns as provided, He .would like to note. that condition 12 rofers to the~hours of o.peration and that is pending ~on the EPA permit being issued. Actually the permit will come from the State of Florida DEP, which has delegation from the EPA. The permit was ~received from, the DEP and it is being reviewed currently but th believe'i~t to :beacceptable. There will be acopy provided to .staff 'before th nd recommended apprOval for ~he rezoning all criteria has bOrOn met for rezoning. Mr. Crouse, of Enron North America, stated that this company' haS offices .over in 34 ~different countries around the world, rib Florida alone there are $3 billion worth of assets,.~Enron has been in ~Florida about 40 years. They have developed nine of these peaker plants throughout the country in seven different states. A peaker Plant is a~power-generated facility with the sole purpose to provide power during peak demands. This facility is a .510 megawatt facility using gas,~.with the option of oil burning When. gas is not available. Mr. Crouse stated that Tuesday night they hosted an open house to take an · - oppo~unity to meet with some~ of the neighbors. There were invitations sent to all property Owners within a mile~of the proposed location and, an ad was run'in the paper, He had the opportu:nity to show the public the plans and answer questions. Mr. Crouse explained that.the .permit that was ,received from the DEP is more stringent than the one they put in the application. The total number of run hours · would be 3500. They made an arrangement with' DEP that there would 250 hours on oil, ,If it would ~need to go above that 250 hours, then every additional hOur above,that 250 would reduce a total number of run hours by tWO. DEP agrees this is a workable arrangement and, great for the environment. Mr. Crouse.referenced that the conditions that the County Commission put on Duke Energy rezoning. The. ,Power. plant is potentially three .gas tiro furnaces. These 'do not generate Smoke, 'there. are exhaust stacks associated with the plant. The facility is designed to .meet'County Codes for sound.. The water to be used will come fromr 800 foot flOridan aquifer wells, There will be no impact on the neighboring woli$, The design for water treatment is to recycle the waterto extinction. He explained eve~ drop. of water from the ground will be used. Mr. CroUse st~ated that they wo. uld like to start construction this summer, He further stated that they.believe that'they are on .a 10 - 12 month construction schedule. The objective is to-be online and operational next summer. They anticipate during :construction there will be 100 to 300 jobs created. Once the Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft.Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 5 facility i.s completed it will cost about $150,000,'000 to build, which will be the tax 12 employees. There-will virtually .no impact to the .infrastructure. Mr. Crouse then introduced visual photographs into the record. He explained that they had' taken 'digital photographs from three different sites. There are before and after pictures demonstrating the Visual impact.. He indicated that the photograph for 1-95 indicates that as a vehicle travels on !-95 the plant will be barely visible, The second Photograph is taken from the west looking east and indicatres that the visi~bility of:the facility is minimal. The' third photograph was taken from Midway Road., the facility is located 1,500 feet north of Midway. Road, the visibility of'the facility from Midway Road will be minimal. Mr. Crouse introduced Mr. Grey Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates, to explain the proposed Landscape Plan. Mr, Boggs stated that most projects require buffering. He stated that the south line .has a 50-foot wide buffer with a five foot high-berm. The eastr and West have a 3-foot' berm, within a 20-foot to 30-foot wide buffer. There will .be roughly 350 Plant materials, consisting of-Oaks, Slash Pines, Holly, and ~a considerable number of tall cabbage palms surrounding both the south east and west~iimits ~of the parcel. The:facility is back off of Midway 1 ' Road 5.00 feet, so the.site line'!ooking.at the plant from' Midway Road will see the top .of the stack. But after that they began looking at the close up view with the berming and the.significant native landscapi.ng surrounding the site, They are :hOpi.ng that as the trees mature and the palms go higher the facility and stacks become masked by'vegetation. He detailed sectional .graphics for the western, and southern buffers, as to the effect of 'planting tall .cabbage npalm trees a d plant~ng the hierarchy of woody-plant, material under the heads of the cabbage palm trees.. This Will result that at maturity, the plant facility will be masked andr only the ve~ tops of: the :stacks will be visi.ble. He explained that, .according to. Ms. Snay's graphic, the plant is located on the western limit of the MXD There .is low intensity to the west,, medium as it goes east andre ange it is high. According to the ComprehenSive Plan, the MXD land use desi atiOn 'allows for various amounts of activity and intensities. 'The facility being the western edge and what type potential for what Could be on the . parcel is obviously that the proposed facility is a lesser impact than. what could be .al you review the six different land uses that could be in the Iow densitY/intensitY MXD. Based upon. the location,, the skyline will not be' degraded with additional lines.due to the location of FP&L s 200 foot wide line going to their substation. As. far as land .use, compatibility of the site, mitigation, and enhancements.it is better that what COuld be on the proPerty. .. Mr. Lounds asked what the.planr is for the front fifteen hundred feet between Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 6 Midway Road and'the facility. Mr.. Malefatto replied that ~there are no specific plans at this time for that area. The 'plan'would be to 'make that a PNRD. The property will not be owned by Midway Development ~LLC or Enron; it 'will be retained 'by the cu-rrent owners Cooney Midway Groves for future development. At that time in the future they would have to sUbmi:t for their specific plans. Mr. Lounds requeSted for .more information on the water use. He asked what the daily water consumption would be. Mr. Crouse replied that under circumstances of no operation there will not be any water consumption. The facility will be limited.to 3,500 hours a year .of operation. When the plant runs on gas the water consumption will 10 gallons per minute. ~When the plant runs on oil the water consumption '900 gallons per minute. The purpose for the water' when oil is burned is the water is injected in to the gas turbines and. it decreases the emissions. This water is not potable water and irs from the Florida AqUifer (brackish, nonconsumable, not potable wate0. As it is used it is continually recycled until is extinct to conserve as much water as possible. Mr. Lounds stated ~th-at.the:agriculture community has been irrigating with that type of water from deep. wells for~years. He would' like to knoW if it .is pos:sible'to reuse water from'other industrial uses in that area rather than 100% of the water coming from. a deep water well. Mr. Crouse replied in the affirmative, but stated that the only industry that has enough water 'to ~b.e-~used iSr FO~ Pierce Utilities.Authority and they h'ave already dedicated their used water to Duke Energy, Mr. Lounds asked how much water irS: used at the Tropicana plant daily. Mr. Crouse replied that-he did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Lounds instructed him to find the answer by asking Tropicana. Mr. Crouse stated that as a part of the water-use permit, they.were required to submit an application to the South Florida Water Management District, and they- have successfully demonstrated that the water withdrawal being requested will not negatively impact the community. Mr. Jacobi introduced himself to the board and explained he works with Mr. CroUse on .this project. He stated that the question just asked is a very good question, but needs to be put' in perspective of the operation hours proposed for Planning and Zoning Commission February, 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 7 this plant. He explained 'that.they water will o.nly be used when natural gas is not available. The total, plant operations will be limited to 3,500 .hours on natural gas, which is less. than :half of.the annual hours in the year. The expected run hours on .fuel oil is approximately 250 hours that is why they developed the permit condition described previously. The:reason for water while running oil is to abate emissions and it is required by law. If you look at the likelihood of running on fuel oil and.rWith the maximum number.of hours, it is on an overall basis a very limited use of the water resource. Mr, Lou~nds rePlied he understands that and he appreciates the comments from Mr. Jacobi. 'He stated that he does not know a lot of the details with Tropicana's waste water and does not know a-lot about the' future water consumption for this proposed .plant, He explained that he-knows enough about the land that the Tropicana is surrounded with and the problems they are having getting rid of their wastewater it seems like clever people could do some. clever things, He commented to the applicants that they are coming to a community wanting to be good stewards then .it 'would be beneficial to everyone involved.to get o. ut of the box and go help somebody out. Mr, Jaco. bi replied they would be happy to follow up on that situation, Mr. Crouse stated that the reason this .site..was picked out 'as a good site .was because of the existing :power lines and the gas lines. There are 500KV lines bisecting the property. He stated that it was important to site a facility that was out of site from as much community as possible, but close to high voltage power lines and the other factor is that the gas transmission pipeline is currently . adjacent to the Flori'da Turnpike. Mr. Crouse further 'refere'nced the large FP& L Substation at the intersection of !- 95 and Midway Road,. This subStation has .500 KV lines pass through the property as they go north and south. There are aisc 230KV power Irines that go east, .he reviewed that the .si.te is very strategically located in relationship to the. existing infrastructure. Mr. Hearn asked staff to point out similarities ,and differences with this proposed project and the power plant project approved last month. Mr. Kelly replied that .they are in similar locations in that the enti-re area has access to the power grid and fuel. He explained that for peaker plants, though an issue, water is not an overriding issue...The intersection of easy power grid access and fuel makes these good sites. This proposed site has 3 turbines ~=nd Duke rEnergy has ~8 turbines. He does not know a lot about turbines, bUt thinks these proposed turbines must be larger th.anDuke Energy' 's because they produce ~mo.re power.' The concept .for both of the plants are relatively similar. Planning and Zoning ,Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 8 The intent in both cases is to .effectively have the plant sit idle until the current plants 'can not produce enough electricity, at that point the peaker plant will 'be instructed b.y whichever-electrric Company is bUying trheir power to-go in to to ,ask the appliCant, Mr. Hearn~ asked how far apart the two plants will be from' each other. Mr. Kelly answered that'the Plants are roughly a mile apart from each other. Note: A check after the hearing showed a distance of about a mile and a half. Mr. Akins asked if these peaker plants, they are Peaker plants because as he understandS it that the ,current state of the law in .Florida that is all can be built, he asked if that is correct. Mr. Crouse replied in the .affirmative. He further stated that there are some conditions where a-company other than a electricity utility can build'a power plant. Mr. Akins asked if that was why the board was dealing with peaker plants at this time.. Mr.. Crouse .replied in the negative... He stated that the proposed facility did not have angthing to do with deregulation. Mr. Akins asked if this board could regulate anything pertaining to-increasing the houm. if the peaker plant provisions were changed from the state. Mr. Kelly explained ~that the other type of power plant is a combirned cycle plant and il runs essentially 24-hours a day, and you add steam turbines to it plus a ' number of other things, This board's approvals.and the proposal are specifically for peaker plant's. If there were over to.be a. proposal to come back and modify these plants or.to build another pi:ant, that was a combined cycle plant, the process would start~ from the beginning and it would come before this'board. There is nothing in this approval that leads there, it must come back to both Boards for approval. Mr. Crouse stated that this plant will only be a peaker plant currently and in the future. In combined cycle plants, the legal requirement, is that if you have. a steam turbine greater than ~75 mw, application must be 'made through the State, through the siting act. Thero will be no steam turbines on this project. There request is only for a peaking plant, as a peaking plant, getting back to the Planning' and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 -Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 9 question of wat.er use, they are Utilizinrg significantly less water, than a combined c¥cle.f'aCility would and typically when .you put in a combined cycle plant that is generally when you deal with upgrades and infrastructure to add water use-.at delivery to the facility, because the plant 'will run 24-hours a day, 365-days a year and the consumption is..significant. Again this is not that type of facility. They are only requesting 'approval for a peaker plant. Mr. McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Allen Ciklin, attorney from West Palm Beach, representing the owner of LTC Ranch, and is the 600 acres east of the proposed plant. Mr.. Ciklin introduced into the record a conceptual site pi:an mater plan for a proposed residential golf course community along with a Town Center, and a proposed hoteFconvention center, which his client envisions on the property. His client objects to this application ~because of the compatibility problem.with the power-plant and his conceptual prOject. What this graphic indicates is that there are about 4 other power plants proposed Or approved within the general area, and_ immediately across the street, which lines up with :the~ access for the ENRON plant is the LTC th:at they will develo, p .!ess residential units, than approved. He explained that the proposed location of .this would leave a POwer plant adiacent to. a residential community and immediately :across the street to an .approved residential community within the COunty. Mr. Ciklin stated that he has several' other objections, comments and questions, many of t'hem are taitored in the standards.that are set forth in the zoning codes. He stated ~that staff has ~stated they are all met, but his client has some doubts. He stated that the PN:RD district aCcordi,ng to the definition suggests creative approaches to development, design options, encouraging compatibility with surrounding land uses, and permitting the enhancement of neighborhoods. He would, suggest that in this pa.dicular case the proposed power plant does not do. these things. He stated th,at the use of the 41.59 acres immediately..adjacent to Midway Road that will not be .owned 'by Enron that would need a separate approval for future d'evelopment is a large issue. He stated that once this plant is approved for this location and an application for those 41.59 acres comes in for development the first thing they say is .th:at they ~are beside an approved and~or developed power plant, thus setting ~a precedent for that property. He stated that when .proposing ra plant next to residential communities when there are severe questions of compatibility, it would seem that it should be Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 10 known what is going to go on the 41.59 acres before complete approval of the power plant.. He explained that his client definitely would like tO rknOW now, in case ii is another power plant or. an enhanced ~plant then it may be loss objectionable, The other .issue. that it perhaps raises th:at depending on 'what is proposed for those acres it may trigger the development of regional rimpact statute, and they may have to go through a regional review. He and his client think there are probably aro some significant regional impacts and one already discussed ~is the 'water usage for this pa~icular project. He said it is easy for' them to that they do not use much, but this is agricultural area and this community is f~ ' does not know if them has eVen been a. FI been i are ion. He does not whether :a South that it .has not affects on the Aquifer He stated 'hre ~stili has some i'ssues on whether or not it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He-stated that the 39.4 acres, which is the most northerly phase, has.a-land use designation of AG -2.5. He stated that is not consistent with a .Utility pl-ant.~.He 'explained that the argument would be that the particular areais open.space for drai-nage..'He explained that it is open space and drainage fOr the utility plant. He said it would be no different than. saying the parking lot :fora shopping .plaza'does not need a land use designati°n of . commerci:al, it should be alrl t.he same land use and should be compatible. He respectful~ly suggests ~hat this proposal needs a land use change to make it compatible for the ~rest.of the project. He does not think the proposed power i ' s client s conceptual master s~te plan graphic, and they feel that t ~s With the already approved LTC Ranch and his clients proposed residential community. He does' feel the ground water will be a potential, problem. He stated that as far as the emissions mentioned in the staff report, he is not a scientist and does not know what these things aro or what they do. 'H'e stated that is the type of'thing-that will .make the residential properties less desirable~ He feels there should be a more complete study other than a statement that says they meet EPA standards.. He stated that there should be.a definition of :these emissions, what does it do to crops,, what does it do to people and children and what they do to the environmenI. How far away does it travel? The noise issue :was also raised. He suspects that as far as meeting the county's noise standards on non-operational hours is one thing, but-if the plant is operating 24-hou-m a day, when the plant is running., there will be a constant hum below the noise standard. He suspects that this would be as aggravatirng and Planning and Zoning Commission February '15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 11 bothemo.me as the peaks and valleys over the noise standard. Mr. Ciklin further ~questioned whether or not the proposed plant result in an orderly and logical development pattern and is it in 'harmony ~th the intent of the Code.. In .his opinion the faCility will have 80-foot towers. He stated that this is the eq.uivalent, to ~an 8-stow building, if .they were requesting an 8-story buildings, he suspects that 8-story bUilding, singl.e family residential homes/goif- cour'se communities don't really mix. it is really'the same thing. 'He stated that Mr. Boggs did a ve~ credible job on the landscape plan., the fact of .the matter you ise 80-foot exhauSt stacks .and that brings up the 41.59 acres along Perhaps those stacks will be even greater. Is the petition in conflict with the public interest? That is a subjective issUe. They would suggest that..the ~petition is certainly in conflict with the LTC Ranch owners and the adj~aoent property owners. One of the standards that was left out of the staff report, Which he feels is crucial, whether and to the extent that the proposed amendment advemely effects property values in the area. This is not addressed in the Staff Report .therefore no conclusions for the"B0ard ~or any recommendations.. He thin.ks, although, he is not. an appraiser, this is. a common sense answer. On.e 'question is does the existence of a power plant nearby effect whether someone will~livethere. In. his opi.nion, it.does, people are afraid · of FP&:L Transmission Lines and all sorts of things and we were talking about plant emissions, he thinks~, they~will be and what would you pay for a home near a power plant. WOuld you pay less? In his opinion, you will. Mr. Ciklin stated that in conclusion he doe,s not feel this. project meets the standards and some of the standards in-the staff report are not met. He stated there are a lot of questions that need. to be answered for his client and. others also. He would like to see: what is going to happen with the 41,59 acres, figure it out .now :tell us now, .and don't ask us to trust you because later on down the road, the developer will: pOinting..toward the existing plan. He would like to see the effect on gro.undWater Within the existing agricultural community, what: ~about the emissions, what is sulfuric acid mist what does it mean t° people and really what is the effect on prope~y valUes. Mr. Hearn asked if any of the concerns had been diScussed with staff by Mr. Ciklin. Had he an opportunity to sit down with staff and voice his cOncerns. -Mr. Ciklin replied in the negatiVe.. He said his client did meet with the applicant, He stated that his client, will meet with. staff before the County Commission moo{lng. Mr. Lounds asked why Mr. Cik[in was not here for the-Duke Energy presentation. Planningr and .Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 12 Mr. Ciklin stated that his client did ~not'have any concerns with the proposed Duke Energy plant and is a considerable distance from his client's-property. He W ~ asn t sure whether or not his client knew.or whether owned the property at the time, but we were not there to oppose Duke. Mr. Lounds asked if ~his client's ~property is in the urban service area west of Interstate 95 for' the County. Mr. Ciklin replied in the .affi,rmatiVe. Mr. Lounds asked if~ his client is going to put a high-end residential areas amongst a concentrate plant, the proposed-power plant and an approved power plant with a municipal dump, He'would like to know what that is going to do to r ! , the value of the p operty that'you re proposing to put in right now. Let's be real about this thing. Mr. Ciklin stated, that this power plant is not approved to the best_of his knowledge. These two plants are in industrial areas. He. would respectfully suggest.that it is different to buy a piece of property knOrwing what has.to be dealt with as far as surrounding uses such as the solid waste facility and the FP&L Transmission Line., .across the street and being able to deal with. it then than have something: be-approVed that you did not know about after you purchased the property. Mr. Lounds asked staff .how long the conceptual master site-plan permits had been in place for the. proposed conceptual development.. Mr. Kelly'stated'that nothing ~has been submitted to the County. Mr. Ciklin stated that the proposed master site plan had not been approved and no applications had been. filed. His client does own the property and the LTC Ranch is approved as a development order from the County. Mr. Lounds asked if there was a golf course-planned for the ~property and how many gallo,ns of water will be used for that daily. Mr. Ci~klin replied that grey-water will be used for irrigation and will .come from the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. Aki.ns asked the name of his client. Mr. Ciklin replied Jim Hall President of'TJH inc. Mr. Akins asked if there are high-powered transmission lines across a portion of Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 13 his client's property. Mr. Ciklin replied in'the negative. Mr. Akins asked if that is where the proposed high-end development will be constructed. Mr. Cikli.n stated that most of the project would be to the east of that area. Mr. Akins asked if the lower ..portion of the golf course is part of the LTC Ranch property that-was previously spoken about. Mr. Ciklin responded in the affirmative. Mr. Akins asked for clarification on whether the owner of this portion of the site was 'his client. Mr. Ciklin reprlied i:n the negative but stated that. he has done SOme work for them. Mr..McCurdy stated the ne~ pemon could address the board. Mr. Harold Melville, rePresenting LTC Ranch, presented the same exhibit as Mr. Cik!in, Mr, Merlville'oxplainod that LTC Joint Venture is .his ¢iiont and they own' the ~2,067 acres, south of Midway Road. The LTC joint venture gained a ~. Development of Regional Impact (DR i) approval in May. 1997.. The DRI approval was th. rough St, Lucie Co. unty. He' stated that.certainly the Enron Company had to know about, the approval since it isa recorded docUment in the 'Real Property Reco'rds of June 1997. The Development Order that St. Lucie County approved for this ~property, for LTC .Ranch, south of Midway and to the West of Interstate- 95 is fOr 6,500 residential dwelling.units. Mr._ Melville i.ntroduced a .conceptual' drawing which is' compatible with the. standards in the DRI ap:p.rovai. The conceptual drawing shows basically a multi- family area closer to Midway. Road; a town center which would be.shopping, restaurants, and a movie theater, on what is considered' to be the "drag" There are two different kinds of communities, one is'a golf course community, and the other is a lake front, community, There will 'be an institutional area, which 'is proposed to be a high.school site, and a' fire station site.. At this time that is the general-conceptual lay out. Mr, Melville stated that-:hi's client, LTC Ranch, is very concerned'-about the number, issue of' power plants and 'howthey will affect their propo~y. Bocause, the power ~pl~.nts are not Compatible with the existing approved development at Planning and Zoning Commission Februaw 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 14 this r'lOCatriOn. :'He refers to the graph, he stated he felt that the Board should keep in mind what has been approved for power plants and what has not. He fu~her stated that Duke ~Energy, as he.understands it, is located to the northeast, has recently been approved. He .fu:~her stated that Competitive. Power Ventures (CPV) located to ~th:e southwest of the proposed project, Which is located within the City of po~ has'recently been approved. Panda ElectriC which is a proposed site iatel'y to th.e ~east has not been approved. Also, the prOposed plant before you this evening, ENRON.. He would like to put on the record that LTC Joint Venture is not opposed to power plants or peaker .plants, they are perfectly good things. The question is whether or ~n,ot this isthe right place for the location of a power plant. Peaker plants or power Plants are perfectly appropriate in Industrial ~parks and Industrial zoned areas, in ~places where they ought to go. The County and State needs them and there are lots of Places for 'them to be constructed. The area where Duke Energy is.'propoSed contains alot of industrially zoned, area that. are . suitabire for .Power :plants.. On the conceptual site plan graphic of_ my client, the area where that is an industrially'park and we feel that it is an appro place, these sites are all east of Interstate 95 and exist in industrially 2ned areas. All we'have to the west especially.with proposed location .for Enron is all Agriculturally zoned .right now. He asked the ~board to try ~to .envision people coming to. a'large scale residential -development-coming-off. of~ Intemtate ~95. and having a power plant basically at the entrance, to the property. In my opinion, clearly common, sense tells, us that. will devalue and degrade the .property. For whatever roason .rightly or wrongly, people do ~not want to live next to~powe.r plants. It is just a fact, it's common sense. Somotimos people fear that the oloctd¢it¥ in the Iinos may affect them, there is scientific argument back.and fOrth, i'm not sure there is anything settled on the issue. But peOrplO foar and are concerned about the issuo. He further,. stated that ~people ~do not like to lo0k at power plants. He stated that he Pul'led the. amhitectural elevations for this pliant. He asked the Board to consider the drawing~ then. ask themselves if this is something that a person wants to look at coming to a residential' community. I.would suggest ye.ur common sense tolls you no. According to their drawings their smoke stacks will be 80 feet high and rather large fuel' tanks in a 40 to 45 feet height. He further stated that to imagine on a .nice ¢ool evening, these proiected 3-story high building i'n this area., and you open your windows at the 3rd stow when your up above ali nice little pi'ants that are proposed. When you look out yo.u're your .. window you hear the 3,500 houm of whine/hum of the plant. That is riot going to. be compatible .With the kind of residential-units, that his client wants to $o!1- This. County has a proliferation of fai.rly inexpe, nsive residential' units and. that does nrot do a ~h~ng to tho tax baso ospocialty with tho $25,000 homostoad oxomption. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 15 If :you want to .be~ able to sell higher-end units, you have to have a site suitable to them. His -' · ~ (,l~ent is very'concerned with the plant and obviously, has a lot tied ~up in the 2,067 acres and in the ~approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI). in his opinion his client has been working diligently after moving down the road to ~start the construction on. the project. We are very concerned about the compatibility of the power plants on the~ west side of Interstate 95. East of Interstate-95, they are in industrially zoned and in industrial parks. BUt west of !-95 we are very concerned. My client is also very concerned about the front forty-one acres, if you look at the very nice drawings, that were presented, tonight, you can see the top of the plant. Well that is the plant, constructed 1,500 feet or so to the rear. We don't, know · what is .proposed to. the front 41 acres and you don't.know either, because you haven't been told. I would suggest to you, that if you allow this PNRD to be approved, What you'are doing is opening the door for someone el. se to come in n ' ' a .d. say, I .should :really be able to expand or. have another power plant in the front 41 acres r. because I am right next to a power plant, it gets tough to turn it. down', once yOUr allow it the first time. 'In simple terms they do not believe this use is co.mpatible With 'the' area or with the p ~e-:ex~stmg approved development in the area. There is nothing wrong with this use, inherently, if it is put in. the right. place, but. We believe this is not the right place, or an appropriate location, and this is the issue before.the BOard~this-evening. The issue on the table is.this is not the appropriate location for this project. Mr. Lounds asked' Mr. Melville what has his client done with the. property in the last 4 to 5 years. Mr..Melville stated that there has been a great deal of things done on the property. On the DRI there, has been work on the east side and has been table. Mr, Lounds .stated that there, are two plants prroposed to be developed in the middle of what his Client is going to.develop within the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. MelrVil~ stated that'the area to the east of lntemtate 95 is an. Industrial Park. That is the purpose of the' Industrial Park. Mr. Lounds requested that Mr. Melville point out Thomas Produce on his map. Planning ,and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 16 Mr. Melville responded that he could not point it out. Mr..Lounds asked Mr. Melville if he was familiar with the-piece of ground as it sets. Mr. Melville responded in the negative. Mr. LoUnds then requested that Mr, 'Cain lend assistance with the property location. Mr. Ralph Cain, the project manager for LTC Ranch, pointed out the 387 acres partially farmed by Thomas 'Produce and part of the 2,067 acres on the west of Interstate 95. is being farme-d-by Thomas Produce. He further stated that the 387 acres has PUD 'approval by the City' of Port St.-Lucie and the preliminary plat has been approved bythe City of'.Port St. Lucie. They have .an annexation agreement with the City to bring water and sewer across the rail. road into the 387 acre land-parcel, which is Phase 1 of the LTC Ranch development. The 2,067 acres 'is under contract, to Golf land America. The proposed Conceptual Master Plan being pr.resented b ' r, yMr. Melville s Client is Golf land America for develop, me'nt. He will be processing ~planS for approval commencing within this year: Mr. Cain.pointed out this i:s not. "pie-"~n~-the-sky''' development, it is reality, This development is :well ,under way. Mr. 'Lounds stated he underStands 'Mr.' Cain's Industrial Park and he thinks it is an :ideal place for one. He.stated that the power lines and other industrial areas that are there from, Including the overall industrialization that is in the Midway Corridor from theC,. ounty Landfill' to Tropicana plant and other areas around thoSe sides, to me does not lend itself to .what is being proposed as what can-be. conceived as high-end residential area in a Midway Corridor. Mr. Cai.n stated that the County approved this .DRI. as 6,500 residential units for this entire tract. At that time the County thought that was appropriate.. CPV and Panda are both to locate-in, this zoned Industrial/Commercial Park and Duke is in a Industrial/Commercial park. Both of. these plants have agreements with the City. of Port St. Lucie to use their grey water to run'their facility. Duke Energy has an agreement with Fort Pierce Utilities Authority for the City of Fort Pierce grey water. He furl:her stated that the ENRON facility does not proposed to utilize grey water. Mr. Cain-fu~her stated that in some' point in time, where do you stop, you .have to stop somewhere. The reality is this is an entrance intO'the city and'the county. He asked: if the area Was j'uSt going to be dotted with power, plants. He asked if tho only thi,ng pooplo would soo whan tho¥ came into the. community was power plants. This property was pumhased ten years, ago with the .purpose of Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 17 developing .it, A.great deal of money has been spent to have residential dewglopment approved and 'to saY that these do not have an adverse impact on the value of these properties. That's absurd to me. They absolutely have an effect on the .value of thi.s particular individual to develop these properties. They are right at the :front door. Mr. Tom Kindred, 1.905-Wryoming Ave, he requested a letter be placed into the official-.record. This letter is 'attached to the end of the minutes as Attachment "A". 'He represents the HH.HP Properties and the HHHP Associates, which is a trust fund of Mr. Hyman. Henler, trustee and Mr. Allan Schwatz, trustee. These individualS own .a po~ion of the property which is on the north side of Midway Road, west .of Interstate 95' which was been previously as a portion of the 600 acre land trract north of Midway Road. That property is being proposed for high- end residential development. The owners of .the property, Mr. Kindred, represents .certainly agree With everything that was presented/~aid by the two previous ~akers,.. They feel that this power Plant is not compatible With the type Opment that they want to do on the property in Which they own. I feel that .the previous two speakers have addreSsed all points that the owners ! represent would cover. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Kindred where or not they have spoken with Staff regarding their points and issues. Mr. Kindred-responded in the negative, but he and his cli.ent would meet with. staff regarding these issues, .prior to the next public hearing.. Mr. Maurice Sn. yder, 4832 S. U,S. 1, Ft, Pierce, Florida, stated, that he has been. a resident of St. Lu¢ie County for 29 years. He further stated his profession was a licensed Florida Real Estate Broker. He is speaking to the Commission on .behalf of him self and hopefully on behalf of the citizens of St. Lucie County. He stated that he has sat on the citizen,s budget review committee, where they dealt with the issues of attempting ~o make certain that the tax. dollars-extracted from the po plo s pockets were properly expended. Mr..Snyder stated that we are. abundantly aware that our nation :has-an electdcal, energy crisis. It is. abundant .in California and Some. other western 'states and it is soon to arrive in .Florida unless and until something is done. 'You. are being asked to do something. This piece of property is i.n an industrial corridor. It is .according to County Staff in compliance with the pOlicies of' the County, It will have .an estimated construction cost'Of $1,500,0'00.00. The majority of the workers Who build the facilitY will. be employed from the County's local labor pool.. Which~as we all know, the County has suffered high .unemplOyment rates over the years. Mr. Snyder stated that the County has another problem and that is production of sufficient ad'valorem .taxes, with which to. defray governmental costs- I have Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 18 requested that the. St. Lucie County Property Appraiser to prepare an estimated of taxes derived if'this plant.is built and placed on the tax rolls. Mr. Snyder introduced the numbers into the record (Attachment "B") . He stated thatthe armount of :dollars that the proposed-power plant would Produce in ad valorem taxes i'n the fi.rst year would 'approximate $1,3:00,000..00 going to the school syste and .an.additional $700,000 per year to the Sheriff's office, for a total of $3 ,000,-00. He further.pointed out the rfollowing: a) there is a need in fact; b) the property is well :situated and well located because it can feed its electricity into~ it roduce a major return to the taxpayers and .h-o our ual properties will be reduced. There is one additional ~issue that I have heard'arll power what record, rise Th ren due interest. properly and.that is, the location of a ng. I submit as a matter public about th high- ~t ~ ~ Au hont within wa~ ! request that give applicant, C of the pU Mr. Gardson stated that in is opinion having 6,'500 homes with a large portion being built directly across· from. the landfill, and the homeowner' 's are going t° open their Windows and hear sound, I submit to you they are going to close their windows from the. smell. ~This' power plant.has to tell everyone what they are going to do With those front few 'acres, in my opinion the Point was. well brought out that the owners.of-the LTC Ranch property has had projects within the County to.4 - 10 years that they have said what they are planning on doing, but h ~1~ ~ . they avert t done anything with. it. I reside in Ft. Pierce and represent clients in California, Colorado, New Jersey, Florida, and Brazil' lam a Power Plant engineer. ! do work in therse locations, these types of plants are State of the art; and it is what is going on. ! can also tell you tl~at if the Nuclear Plant goes down this summer, if we lOSe one. unit, in July and August the County will be in serious trouble.' In.the past, we .have lost u ~its 'in Crystal River and Turkey Point. You know yourself,'it is going .you to setback and have to explain to homes, where they' are going to get their electricity from. This is seriours, if you drive up and' down 1-95 and look in the JU ~ see what is going on down there, you know with ali these home energy shortage. Righf now we are able~'t, continue to do you are doi~ brown and O ly, i' power plant th'at have been, t ht.now, we are in an ..~.~_' ead of it. UnleSs, you is going. an.d any other area. Planning and Zoning CommiSsion, February,15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 19 Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Garrison to explain the gas turbines that were install,ed into the downtown Ft. Pierce Power Plant. Mr. Garri.son answered in the affirmative, explaining that the project was started in 1983 and went online in-1985. Mr. Lounds ask:ed what the,decibel noise factor upon completion of the .installation of the gas turbines. Mr. Garrision responded that the plant had a reading of 65 decibels at the fence line and 90 decibels at the unit. Mr:. Loun,ds asked Mr. Garrison if he knew what the decibel noise factor of the average:semi-trailer. Mr. Gardson stated that it is much greater, that normal conversation is at 60 decibels,- The road in front of the power pl.ant~'was much louder than the plant at the fence line and the freight train was al'so louder than the plant. Mr. Scott Williams, attomey representing the land owners - Cooney- Midway Groves, stated 'that the property ownem are fully supportive of the project of the Midway Energy Ce:nter. He spoke on Lot 1, stating that his clients will maintain ownership of Lot 1, and they have no plans at this time. for Lot 1. Mr. Ciklin raised-the implication ~that possibly the' Power Plant would be expanding southward 'toward .Midway Road. He fu~her stated that expansion prospeCt has never come.up in any meetings betweenr his clients and the Midway Energy Center representatives. '~t this time, we'are presently negotiating property · owner's association documents for the Sharing of the maintenance of the roadway and :the maintenance of the drainage facilities. Those documents aro being heavily negotiated:., which leads me.to believe they do not plan on taking over the ownership .position of Lot 1. Dr. Kenneth Owen stated' he was a 20-Year resident of: St. Lucie County and his occupation is a consultant in the energy and environmental field. Mr. Owen stated he would Ii, ko to clarify for the record that FP&L is as, we are' meeting this evening ~is engaged in increasing the capacity of the units in .Ft Myers and Florida is healthy b.ut on: the edge. It is very difficult to get power into'the State or out.. The State has a long narrow corddor, along the eastern shore.. In addition, there: is very little intemonnection between the east coast: and west coast. The State does have statewide economic dispatch. That's to say this is a situation which will natumll'Y occur under the deregulation ~environment which is proposed Planning and Zoning Commission February 115, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 20 ~for the least expensive plants will operate at maximum capacity'first, these are the nuclear plants. From there you go'up' the chain.. If you look at the number of hours Where 'th~ere is peak demand .i-n the State of Florida, in the ~summer there is a peak that slowly increases .in the :day and reaches a maximum around dinne~ime. In the winter, there may be a .po'ak in the earl. y.morning if it is a chilly morning. These peaker plants Will not operate until the demand for power reaches a 'peak, typiCally, this aP hour peak.. Unless, there is an ab to fill the nd :at some: place on the way up to the (early mom of the c; this st oil, Boa ~ grad:ual in the winter it can be ~arp peak dinner tim~). The oPe hours wh :ed at 40% t, is ve~ ambitious. The of 30~. The oil proposed for that natural gas is ~unavailable. It price of gas and you look :at the price of I, you aro going to burn gas. I would urge this Y Energy center petition. Mr. Lounds ~asked.Mr. Owens whether or not FP&L plants were COnverting t.o more natural gas in.their.operations and are becoming more environmentally friendly to the surrounding area because they are UtiliZing less water and having less emissions. Mr. Owens responded by.saying that if you are comparing them to a oil-fired plant which 'has virtually~no systems for environmental-control. These facilities are grand fathered in' from when they were permitted. They do not have electrical reciprocators or scrubbers. Some of the plants in Florida.were licensed to burn 2 ~' o, ~'Yo sulfur oil,. The newer plants are restricted to 1% sulfur oil. The Martin County facility is restricted to 0.7% sulfur oil. This facility can burn 1% sulfur oil and natural gaS simultaneously to dilute the oil to meet the restricted emission criteria. I can gUarantee that the backup oil utilized in these facilities is distill:ate oil, which has ve~ little sUlfu~r corntent.. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Owens if he was part of the Midway Development Team. Mr. Owens responded in the negative. Mr. Lounds aSked if Mr. Owens. was an independent and at the. meeting on his own accord. Mr. Owens responded, in~ the affi.rmative. Mr. Lounds asked whether or not the plant being converted in Ft. Meyers .was · similar to .the proposed plant before the Board. Planning and Zoning Commission. February 15, 2001- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 21 Mr. Owens stated that the facility in Ft. 'Meyers will be a combined-cycle plant. They .have two units at the Ft. Meyers plant, one unit 'has 160 megawatt and 400 megawatt, and both permitted to operate on oil. There was not natural gas · will be used in ~thr:e~heat.r.recovery steam generators to produce steam, that will operate the old steam :turbines, so they are increasi:ng the whole capacity of the plant and .will be firing gas with the backup fuel. Mr. Lounds asked if the question raised about the .emissions from the stack cont:aining sulfuric acid mist and such have ~you, does that come from burning natural gas. Mr. Owens stated th.at the. emissions will come from oil. Sulfuric Acid Mist-will form as a droplet if the :temperature drops very Iow and the 'concentration has to be very high' The 'type of Oil being burned on a backup situation, the exhaust temperature from those stacks is too high for acid mist to form. Mr. Collins, 4/10ths of a mile down Midway Road from the plant site, stated he. has some questions that he would liko answered on the rocord. Mr. Crouse agreed to answer his questions. a). I am concerned about the impact of 900 gallons per minute on the sulfur wells in the community. Are you telling us that this facility will not' have an · impact on these wells? The residents in the ~neighborhood are concerned, they use the water to water crops, feed the-animals. b) Mr. Crouse stated trhat the residents of the neighborhood would see no impacts from the withdrawals made by the facility. Will 'the discharge from the water use have any affect? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative further explaining that the there will be n~o water discharged from the facility, the water utilized will be.recycled into extinction. c) When you .bum sulfuric fuel, will the exhaust in' any way effect the plants.in the neighborhood? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative, further stating there will be- no smoke from these stacks. d) Will the fuel emissions affect any animals that eat the plants? Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 22 Mr. Crouse responded irn the negative. e) Will the emissions affect the ponds in the area? Mr. Crouse responded in the negative. f) The land that you .do not own you do not understand will be residential? Mr. 'Crouse responded in the negative, as Mr. Williams representative of the property stated there are no plans to-develop the property at thiS time. g) Do you know if there has been any environmental impact studies as to 'the suifu~r exhaust or water usage? Mr. 'Crouse r:esponded .in the affirmative, they had submitted an application for an air permit from the Florida DEP, addr°ssed completely the air emissions, They had recently received approval for their air permit from FDEP. h) You can assure us that there will be no adverse effect on animals. Mr. Crouse responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lounds asked. Mr. Collins the length of time 'he resided at his property.- Mr. Collins stated he has resided on this specific piece of property for about 30 years. Mr. Doug McClellan, resides in the vicinity of the power plant for 38 yearn, stated that he was born and raised in St. Lucie County and has resided hem for'65 yearn. He . hasn't got anything, against power plants. He stated he doesn't want the plant in his - backdoor. There are other places where it can be put. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. McClellan how many acres he owned and Where the location of his property was to the proposed facility. Mr. ~McClellan stated he owns Y~ acres of land and is located about 700 feet to the west. Mr..Crouse pointed out that the location of Mr. McClellan's home is approximately 1 600 feet from'the facili, ty. -= ' Mr. Gary MCCourt, 300 W. Midway Road, stated he was the operator of the ~Plant Haven Nursery, ~he. 'has considerable concerns about the water'consumption of the Planning and Zoning Commission FebruaW 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 23 facility. He stated that during the summer he had to alter irrigation practices to incorporate the very Iow water table.. In his opinion, additional water .is going to be needed to cool the turbines. AnOther major concern is the additional trucks on Midway Road, bringing fuellto the facility. Another concern is the sound produced by the facility, Would like.to see if the facility is approved that a sound .barrier is installed. He would like for the .Board to limit the,sound to 45 decibels at the facility, Mr. Carson asked Mr. McCourt to clarify where the water for his operation was coming from, the Floridan Aquifer or shallow aquifer. Mr. McCourt stated that his water does not come from the F.l-oridan Aquifer,. His well-s are about 80- 100 feet deep. Mr. CarSrOFI stated that as he understands it if water is pulled from the Floridan Aquifer they won't be in the same aquifer that you pull your water from. Mr. McOourt stated he assumed that if-water is taken from 'one area it reduces the level in the other areas. - Mr. Paul Freeman., Southeast Citrus Corporation, which owns the property directly adjoining the power plant site to the north. He has concerns over pertinence and consistency. ~Frorm the standpoint of for and against, he is not here to speak for power plants or against power plants. Is this area an appropriate place for a power plant? He stated that in his opinion that the Duke site was a good use and. appropriate place for a power plant because it is all industrial. In his case, we have citrus groves that adjoin this property for 18 -years.. We owned through the good times and now when we barely make enou~g~h money to make our mortgage payments: The CoOney grove is over run. Our water usage.is important to us. All we have heard' about water usage is what are you using, how much are you using, when are you going to use it, how many hours a year. The important thing is when are using the water and when do the surrounding properties need water. We need water in a freeze. The plant will also need water in a freeze, because.that is when the power use is the highest when people are turning their heaters on. When 'we have brown outs a couple of months ago.-.They will ,e taking our - water from the aquifer we are using-and we are not going, to be able to irri our groves, we are not going t© be able.'tO.keep them warm. If they are going ake the - water in the middle ~of a rainy season in the middle .of a thunderstorm in an rain-it will. make no difference to us. But we all know, t at s not when they are going to be using h ! the w- ~' ater. They are be using it when.we need it. That will have a very adverse affect on us and here for alongr time. The second issue I have is. i'n that aquifer there is salt. Our .water that we take out of the aquifer has to be pumped into a ditch because of the salt content..As they start to pump the water needed for the facility, it will increase the salt content, decrease the quality of water and create more of a problem on the grove. Basically, they're telling us. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 '- Draft Minutes - Midway Energy Center Page 24 dour groves 'ont matter .and they're not there. In fact, that ~may be the case. If this is.a compati~ble use, then this is an .industrial area. The State instituted Master Plan h ! ~ c anges ~year.s ago because they .d~dn't want what you addressed in a prior hearing, spot 'zoning.. This is 'my .definition of~spot zoning' you are taking one piece that is surrounded by nothing, 2 ~-.acre, 5-acre, 1-acre I. and tracts rural and taking a: piece not connected to i :n d.u st ri al ands ~. that it is an industrial use that is a good use here. We~ still think that these. Peop 'to the north shOuld still be 1 du/2.5 'acres. They can sell that ranchette to that person t'hat wants to be out in the woods 'listening to the birds in the night. The real-issue is this where you want a power plant, is it the right place and if it is then the whole area needs to change, you need to make a master plan change in this area and make 'it industrial. The reason Duke works is because 1-95 is a natural buffer and if you go up and down the state and you take a look at the Turnpike and the Major Expressways-you will see industrial on one side and residential on the other. What you won't see is in.dustrial going right down with no transitional zoning, When you are in the Community~ Development business they don't take high rises and_put them right next to acre estates. They don take~ warehouses and put them next to expensive homes. They .transition, you ~have a different product going ne~ to different things so your uses are compatible. The ~oth.er issue we have in Particular is that there is no buffering along the northem property line. We would like to see a berm installed along the northern, property line. CompatibilitY is a major concern. The last concern is the effect of the plant on property values. will have a negative effect on. their proiect. In his opinion, the facility Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Freeman if the wells for his groves are aquifer deep wells and what the salt content of the grove was. Mr. Freeman stated he wasn't really sure, but he believes they are. He couldn't give the salt content. Mr. Lounds asked staff is there are any provisions for a berm on the north end on the. project- Mr. Kelly stated that at:this time there are none because there is additional 39 acres owned by the applicant to the north .that was t° left as open space. Mr. Lounds 'asked Mr, Freem~an how much acreage of groves he owns on the north end of this property, and' what' the status of the groves were. Mr. Freeman stated 'he had 2:0 acres that is currently inactive grove and an additional Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 25 10 acres that isnot beingcultiv~ated at this time and an additional 20 acres across ~Mulle.r Road. Totally 50 acres, with 20 acres prodUcing. They have 10 acres red. and. 10 acres ValenCia oranges. The Valencia trees are probably 20 yearsr old and the Reds are mixed with alot of young trees. A! Malefatto representing the applicant, stated that the facility will be bound by the PNRD conditiOns and site plan apProval, as well as the environmental reports from DEP and SFWMD. If the facility is not in compliance with those permits and approval the facility will be in violation. They have every intention of being in compliance with their approvals. Mr. Malefatto stated that there will approximately 40 acres between the power facility an.d the northern .property line. There is an existing FP&L Transmission Line and right- of-way. The towers of the FP&L power line go up to 150 to 175 feet. There is already a problem with the view as .the lines can be seen over the existing .oranges trees on the north side. If their proposed facility was not to build there those power lines would Still be them. The are proposing a buffer with preserved open space and a lake. In his opirnion, them is ce~ainly adequate 'buffering. The most telling' questi'on is the appropriateness of the location, in looking at the power plant projects that have been proposed and the existing electrical infrastructure, this is an ideal location. We do have the FP&L Transmission Lines existing just north of -the proposed'facility. The facility will be connecting to the lines without conStructing additional transmisSion lines to get to the substation.. N'one of the comments from Mr. Cain,. Mr. Ciklin or Mr. Melville did they mention .the~.existing· F.P&L S'ubstation. This is the attractor with the eXisting tranSmission .lines. This is ~whem all of ~the plants have t° hook intO. The proposed facility is the shortest distance, from all.~ of the proposed Plants. These plants which they say are appropriate:Will, have to get across 1-95, down to MidWay Road and~build a line there, reSUlting in. more of ran impact from'the other plants, i would also point out that these two facilities as pointed out by. Mr. Melville are proPosed on LTC 'Ranch property. So whether or not they have an additional interest ~there, I can't speak to, but it looks S · 7, usp~c~ous, Regarding Mr. C kl~n s client s property to the east he is concerned again about the i -' I ' ~ impacts of' our p-roject.- But again We.have this FP&L Transmission .Line, a 500 KW, lots that aren't going to be moved:. They are going to be there between his. client,s proposed residential, .development and, the proposed power plant. Again, we have-an issue there about the appropriateness of location, whether or not his residential development which is right now a cartOon, will: .ever be approved and if that is. an appropriate location for the plant. Mr. Ciklin was concerned about the 'air emissions from the= facility, i dare say that the 6,500 residential units and all those cars it produce and. the traffic it ~produCes is going, to produce, a. heck of a lot more air pdllution-that-the gas turbine generators. There was: a comment about the water use. The facility, has their application pending Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft. Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 26 with .the SFWMD .and as i'~believe all of you know the District looks .at the water issue very seriOusly., They are considedng th~ application and we believe they will issue the ~perrnit ~with appropriate conditions. One of the conditions they are going to make sure we don't' do is impact existing users, that is a very critical issue that they are going to have to satisfy the District on and we believe we will satisfy their concerns. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any one else who would like to address the Board seeing .non .he retUrned to the board. Chairman MCCurdy closed the public hearing. Chairman M¢Curdy asked if there were any other questions for staff. Mr. Hearn addressed the Board, stating that one of the most important things that our elected officials and people who serve on Boards Who make recommendations to elected official:s, need to do and have not done a good job in the past doing is to protect. our prope~y values and the people's investment in our community, that have spent their hard earned money, their lifo long work in St. Lucie County. Many people look at our protected, lam not su.re that putting a power plant in an area that thiS one is proposed for is in the best interest of people's investments in St. :Lucie.County. i think our reputation as the County is at stake here, as far as, is this a good place to put our moneY into. ! submit to you that we have some of the best natural resources, if not the best, in the State of Florida, here in our community. Why should we have such Iow prope~y values and a Iow tax base? ! think it is because of the mistakes we made in the past. i think we need to start looking real carefully at what we approve and whero we approve it. I for one am going to vote against this project. Mr. Jones stated he was in ,support of the, project. He stated he doesn't see thre project as being a significant impact to the neighboring properties when you view it in the perspective of the other existing improvements like the power lines, interstate, i share the residents concerns with. respect to potential.-environmental impacts, but, i am confident that the regulatory agencies will permit this project only if it demonstrated not to have such an .impact. Mr. Lounds stated that this had been one of the best informative public hearings that the Board .has had. ! asked each of the landowners how long they have lived in the residence in which he has been in. My concern is for the residents. Ithink you are goOd st~'wards of ~the land and good neighbors. One of my concerns, is if ! own a nursery in that area is what is goin,g to happen from the emissions from the stacks,. ! think .that question was answered as long as you are burning .natural gas, there will be no problem with emissions. I think there are probably more emission's into the air from Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2001'- Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 27 the semis .delivering fruit to. Tropicana than there is from the proposed facility. Property values, Mr. Freeman .has some pretty good ideas. I share his concerns and lalso share his over trying to make a profit on oranges and g apefru~t, ~n today s r ' ' ' citrus market. I th. inkthat 'maybe by having this Plant, his piece of property will increase in value. I am for thiS petition for several reasons: ! don't like the location of it, but I think the draw for this loCation is the fact that the FP&L SUbstation and tranSmissiOn lines there. ! that if the lines and substation ~was further out Selvitz-Road the I rthillk the question of location keys to the tran 'F ' I am ~not concerned with because I know wh it ~and. I have viewed the F in Ft. Meyem, Sa ~ has merit. I also think that is paying taxos as ! rs that .are living in this Mid The~ baSe for t~ doesn't do industrial and good from employees, on St. needs from this as the most d~esn't impact our ces: such as roads, ~or hoS think this type of industw coming tO Lucie County'is need' it to increase our tax base. Mr. Lounds stated that.after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, inclUding staff.comments, and ti~e sta~dards of review'as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move,., ,..that ti~e ~!annir~g and Zoning Commission r°commend tl~at the St. Lucie ~,oun,y Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of and A motion. Upon Merritt and Mr. and for a change in zoning from the AG-1 the PNRD zoning district ~ Mr. Jones seconded the motion was approved by a vote of 3 to 2 with Mr. Planning and' Zoning 'Commission February 15, 2001 - Draft Minutes Midway Energy Center Page 28