Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 20, 1998PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, ~FLORIDA AUGUST 20, 1998 - ~GULAR MEETING MINUTES Ct} i$S O APPF V'AL BOARD-MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed ~Merritt, Stefan Matthes, EdLounds, Tom ~itley, Donna Calabrese, Diana Wesloski, Albert Moore, Carson McCurdy, Doug CoWard Secretary LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Calabrese APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 16, 1998 Chairman 'Calabrese asked if there were 'any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. Coward stated that 'on page 14, second paragraph from the bottom, change the word "role" to "rural". Chairmm~ Calabrese asked.if there were any other co~ections. · . Chairman Calabrese asked .for a motion. Ms. Wesloski made a motion to accept the minutes with the 'noted change, and it was seconded by Mr. Coward. Upon roll.call, the motion was apProved 7-0, With Mr. Whitley and Mr. Matthes ~abstaining2 .'- F~E chairman Calabre~,~lained the Planning'and ZOning Commission'hearing · . Mr'. Mike.Picano .presented Staff c nts, and Arbell Miles ,for a C e. in Zo._ _ __ _ ...~.,fr°m the RS,4'(Residentia!, Zoning'District, District m the CN (Co~erCial, Neight>ornooct)~ Mr. Picano stated that: the, subject·, prope~y islocamd at 3076 South 25th S t. He :stared that the CN General) I (InStitutional)to the.~southwest, Mr. PiCanO· .stated that the-CN (Commemial, Neighborhood):~ ~Zoning·: DiStfict'is~. compatiblein· · . the· RU (Residential, Urban). -future land use, :subject. to Board of C'Ounty Co~ssion~approval.. · in 'Mr.~ Picano stated that staff finds that this petition Section 11.06.03 of the Land Development Code-and is not staff is therefore ~reeo ding that f0rward.:.~this ~petiti0n. ~.': f royal. Co~ssioners w~th a reco~endat~on o. an. of County reSidences on this property, and the~ . ,appficant has requested.that~one, ~ . . ~ be mined into: Mr. ~Picano .stated that is correct. ~ ' __ CN to Mr. Coward. asked· . .. Mr..,~ :Picano.why. we-me''· notPursUing CO (Commercial, O.~as opposea __ (Commercial, Neighborhood). Mr. Picano stated that staff looked at the surr°unding areas to, the east,'~ family homes and dete~ned that fit the use. better than CO. He single-family residence used as a tax preparation service, He stated'~he second single-fa~ly residence will be their home' they Mr. Coward stated that it. appears staff is stating that CN would.be less intrUSive to the~ neighbors, gle-. is a -for twelve years. ;itc. ' his cOntcem is that' CN all0ws gas .stations,. CO would not, he is curious how staff is m~ng the judgme, nt why CN is. leSs intrusive than CO. Mr. Flores stated that the.parcel to the ~ immediate north is zoned CN with a gas'station, there is a large tract of CG property to the west, a gas station to the.northwest,-the current cirCumstances, and the probable future .uses of the area make CN more cOmpatible. Mr. Coward stated, that. Mr. Flores' answer seems more compatible with the CN as opposed to Mr. · ~cano s ~response about the:neighbOrhood, .He stated that his personal opinion is that CO has less of an impact on the neighbOrhood than a ~gas station and: CN. -'-~ Ms. Wesloski asked staff if a conditiOnal .use heating, is required for a gas station. Mr, Flores stated.that in CN, a food..store would need to be your primary use, the gas pumps would be-an accessory, you cannot have just a.gaS statiOn as a conditiOnal use. Chai~n Calabre'se aSked if there were any other questions for staff. Mr. Coward stated that he is concerned about the language in the staff report ".if this rezoning is approved, their single-family hOme. will become non-conforming". He asked staff if it is standard .practice.to allow a rezoning 'to .create a non-conforming situation. Mr. Flores stated-that this rezoning consists of .two residences, the .apPlicant has discUssed the possibility of turning the Other residence intoa.business in the furore, the applicant is fully' aware that the change' in.zoning makes it anon-conforming use. Mr. Coward asked staff~why~the western parcel has a ~future land use of Commercial and the eastern side has a f~.~ture land.use .of Residential,. Urban. He asked if there is any background as to how that decision 'was reached. Mr. FlOreS stated that ~he did not know. Mr. Lounds stated that if the applicant, in the .future, wanted to sell the residential home that they currently, live in, as a real estate.office, they would not need to come back before this board to do so. Mr. Picano stated that is correct. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any' other questions for staff. Chairman Calabrese asked if the applicant was present and Would like to address the Board. Mr. Jim Childs, 3121 SoUth 24th Street, 'Fort Pierce, addressed the:Board. Mr, Childs stated that Joe and Arbell Miles are on vacation. Mr. Childs .stated that their new home is not actually on the parcel in questi q to get back.and forth to work.: ~Chairman :CahbreSe ~ asked if there Were' any questions for Mr. ~Childs, Mr, Lounds asked .Mr. Childs if :their new.residence is east of the Mr. Childs stated yes, they o~n!ots. 1,6, 17 and 1..8 in:the.same: block.'. Mr. Lounds asked where~Mr. Miles residence is located, Mr. Childs stated lots 3 and4. Mr. Lounds .asked Mr. Childs if his business in locatedin the ,residence on Mr, Childs .stated that is' co~ect. He stated that ~hey .~made a~angements, with?~ ~. ~.~ MiIes.m.~ do this as a joint petition because they are his in-laws. Mr. Coward asked Mr,~Childs if it:was CO. Mr..Childs stated that he has no :preference' their intention.is t°:have ataX °~e at:~s i°cati°n until he retires, either z°ning ~will allow him to ~have his business at this location' .:. Mrs..Connie Childs, 3i21 SoUth that they. chose CN because accounting in CN.~ She stated,that either CN or CO will work. Mr. Coward~stated that :he is.not opposed.to the.existing use, he supports ~it.: He stated that he. is concerned about the rezoning in that it is to .sell ' him, he the property and the CN is granmd, .someone could bUild a ~ ' the door woUld for furore impacts to t~he other residents in that area Mrs. Childs stated that ,presently there are gas stations On both comers arid ~e'.understands'.Mr. Coward's .concern. · Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other.questions. At this time, Chairman,Calabrese opened, the.public hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked ifthem~was anyone that would 'like m speak in~ to this petition. · Hearing.no further arguments, in faVor~ of or ni opposition' ' to the petition, Chairman Calabrese closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman C.alabrese :asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After conSidering'the testimony.presented during the public heating, .including ~staff comments, a-nd the standards of review as set forth in Section 11..06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. ~fley moved that.the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County C°~ssioners grant apPmvfl to .the appliCation of James and COnnie C~ds and Jose a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single£Pamily - 4 g District to ~the CN~(Commercial, NeighborhOod) Zoning DistriCt. Mr..Matthes seconded the motion, and Upon roll call the motion was approved 9-0. Chairman Calabrese stated that ~the petition would 'be forwarded to :the Board of County Commissioners with a .recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING Local Planning Agenc ng and. Zoning Chai~an Calabrese convened'.'the ~Board las the .... . ~ ~. ~ ~ ,..~.~- . ..... C0~ssion. -~ ~... ~...,, :....~.._~ ~_ _~_~~nr. nennisMnmhv.~nresentedstatl~co~.~ents·' ~. ~ ~_ ~ ~ :' ~ - ...... Ordinance 98-015 is being Withdrawn the first of the year, ~after Chairman :Calabrese :asked Mr..Mushy why, Mr..Murphy statedthat .there-are outstanding this matter and. :the general cOnsensus of' county staff .is: to allow .that process :affect Chairman Calabrese asked Mr..Murphy if'a motion is .necessary, Mr..Murphy stated that the hearing was.continued and staff haS withdrawn, ~. MuShy asked Mr., Lancaster to address the question. .Mr. Lancaster'stated that the since it has' been.-withdrawn, no action is required, Mr. Murphy-stated that when this Draft Ordinance .comes baCk, it will againbe duly noticed and advertised. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 98-019 FILE NO. ORD-98-019 Mr. Dennis Murphy presented staff comments. Mr. Murphy stated 'that Draft Ordinance ~98-019 will update all .of the county's building codes in Chapter. 1~ .of the Land DevelOpment Code to the current State standards as approved-by the Department of Community' AffairS. ~ .... . .. Mr. Murphy stated that every two years the Florida Department of Community Affairs re-adopts new statewide building codes :and each local government is required to adopt one of the approved State Building 'COdes. Mr. Murphy stated that staff recommends that this Board as the'Local Plamng.Agency/Planning and Zoning Co~ssi0n forward a recorn_mendation of approval of Draft'Ordinance 98-019 to the Board of Countty CO~.ssioners. Chairman Calabrese aSked if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy. At this time, Chairrnan CalabreSe opened the public hearing. Chairman Calabrese ~asked 'if there WaS anyone 'that would like to speak in favor of or :in opposition to :this Draft.Ordinance. .- Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Draft Ordinance, Chairman Calabrese closed .the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. · After ~considering:the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff~comments, Ms. Wesloski.moved .that the Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning CommisSion forward Draft Ordinance 98-019,to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Whitley seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 9-0. Chairman Calabrese stated thatDraft:Ordinance 98-01-9 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a.recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING ~20 Mr. Dennis ' MurphY presented staff.comments. .Mr. Murphy stated that~ Draft OrdinanCe'98'020,~. ~ meeting last month by ~Mr. Dan~Harrell, representing a the County. . . actiwities within a wefland,'regardless.of size. that has a blanket restriction on development aCtivity :in wetlands Comprehensive~.,Plan: and .the Land activities ~in wetland areas subiect obtaining District, the Department of Environmental Protection, if'nece: anyone else who has legal authority o.r jurisdiction in this particular,area, Mr, Murphy stated that this particular:amendment flexibility. If.you have a wetland:that meets' the j 373.,421 (1) ~ofida Statutes, proVisions . environmental ~resource pe~tas ad~nistered Mr. Murphy statedthat the .petitioners Chairman Calabrese asked if there were 'any queStions for Mr. Murphy. · Ms. Weslos~ asked :Mr. Mu~hyift~s gives the ~pefifioner even order. · Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Coward stated that. he~ is. also concerned· ~ about.. our permitting, because the end result of that has .not have stricter standards than state and Federal pemtting agencies. Mr. Coward stated that he would like to submit alternative lan the applicant is se~ching for, with ~additional provisions, he og the of the and gineers, and ~ that :same under Section ate he to dea! with' , we should the intent of. the 8 original cOde. Mr. Coward 'prOvided 'the following "Recommended Revisions:": Section 6,06.01 (b)(i 1) 11. ,Environmentally Sensitive Areas: · Mining .activities shall not be permitted in the following environmentally sensitive areas: Within anY jurisdictional wetland or within fifty (50) feet of any jurisdictional · wetland eXCePt, that ~n~ng may occur in small, isolated wetlands w~ch have. -dominated by_ , _ non-native plant, cOmmunities, ifand to..the extent: , , · NOt more than five (5) total acres of wetlands shall be altered. be Savannahs State Reserve and'Indfio North SaYannah~ Atlantic~ Coastal Ridge; do resource conservation project~.' e, Dune Preservation Zone. Mr. Coward'stated that his Draft Revisions to the Ordinance retained a good portion of the language submitted' bY the aPPlicant to allow ~ning to occur in isolated wetland areas, which he does not have a problem with, particularly impacted isolated wetlands. He stated that he simply clarified, that the applicant is dredging,, .an. impacted wetland .area that is dominated by non~n ~ e~ species,· and that ~ning .activities require:~ the appropriate~ State and Federal per,ts, Mr, Coward stated that ~figation was never Cl~ified he ' would 'like to: to be the Mr, Coward stated~that~he wOUld like:to see a c~ activities in impacted upland areas, and not opening the wetland areas. imp ~ning. sensitive Indfio NOrth Savannahs to item b, he es it is equally ~as habitat dOes nol privately-owned .conservation lands~ that .......... i~., ........ ~-',~ .~W"~",m~ti,afion rermirements ~shall be'above Ch .CaIabreseaSked Mr.. cowara,now, can w:~u~-~ t~u.~ ~ ~ ........ ' -. · ond the reclamauon re mrements .and.bey.. ...... ~ q ........ 'he and count the reclamation area for your ~figafion' Mr. Lounds asked Mr. CoWardif ~figafion is already ~underway :fO.r count that as ~mifigafion for an~ additional. ~ wefiand~ ..~ ~hat_.~ they~are.. ~in~ Mr..Coward stated that..he .does ,not' mining is reclamation, .and'. You do a littoral shelf'Planting. 'He stated and ': Mr. Lounds stated that .one does not suffice, for t-wo. Mr. Coward stated right. Ms. Wesloski asked Mr. Coward'to deftne "above and beyOnd". · . Mr, Coward stated that we can. clarify ~ that phrase,.'he would like for it~ eXisting reclamation. they can't oUt. · as part of to:impact be done above ~ition to the 10 Ms. Wesloski asked. Mr, Coward if he is ashng 'for.more plants. Mr. Coward stated yes,-and there are different types of mitigation. Ms, ~Weslosh Stated to.'Mr, 'COWard that he: is being very vague, in "above and beyond", how can an appliCant'knoW.What their.coSts are going to be. Mr. Lo, unds stated to .-Mr, Coward that "above and beyond" may not be the same to any two applicants. Mr. Coward statedthat heis open to suggestions. MS. Weslosh.'stated.that She is not sure she has. a problem with the way Draft Ordinance. 98-020 was originally, written. -Mr. Murphy stated ::that the' language in ~Draft Ordinance 98'020 .was supplied by.the representatives of Brown Ranch. Mr, Mu]rPhy stated:that his concern with'the sUbmitted amendments to paragraph a is the statement "occur in small isolated wetlandS". What .is"-mall"-s . In paragraph 3, what is' "'above and beyond". He stated that. the. wording needs to be Clear, when its open to interpretation it tends to open the door to problems. He stated that he would.defer to counsel regarding the Board' s ability to' ' make changes more 'restriCtive. than .what Was originally proposed, if it is more liberal staff would need to readvertise and start all over. Mr. Mmphy asked: Mr. 'Lancaster if the ~bOard wishes to 'amend and they are more restrictive, they are within the confines of advertising. Mr. 'Lancaster nodded his head. Mr. Matthes stated.that'he, belieVes~ most ~nes due to their size Will be governed by Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) iSsued through the SFWMD. They have established guidelines for mitigation done on wetlands, he is not sure if they will cover the smaller wetlands, there is a size li~tatio~,a on what 'their impacts are goVerned byl This Board may be ~able to ~default to 'the~ guidelines that are established in the environmental resource permits.. Mr, Matthes asked Mr. Cow.md if SFWMD will cover the small isolated wetlands, less than ½ acre in size. Mr. Cow.ard stated that he 'doesnOt know.the SFWMD size. Mr. Matt]hes stated that he believes it is ½ acre, he will have to do a little research. 11 Mr. Coward stated that if it is not we because Mr..Matthes stated .that permit, which the importance and how good are. ,the ERP with mitigation,· , :he bdieves the ERP Will set up a ~ guideline : for any 'hnd of need for ,an,impacted wetland. ~ ~th~' you will Ms. Weslosh asked Mr,~ Matthes if this~,~figation woUld bein addition, to the :mC!amation? Mr. Matthes stated .that he is'not sure, we ~may ~need.,to keep it in, If they may not realiZe that ,the County has.these standards : established, as "'he Ms. Weslos~ ~suggested the wording ,t ~.~,, ~reclamation~-~wi!l~ .... ,not count to~, ~,~ ~-~, ,.s ~tigation~ . ofa weua. . they are :setting up, the owner could ~still contribute .tow ards -that. the ~or recipient -site Chairman Calabrese asked.Mr, Co,ward ifhe was ¢o~ogable with: ~the Bo~d ~anging his wording to above and beyond, '~ ~'~ ~::: ~ Mr. Coward stated yes, ,absolutely. Chai~an Calabrese asked the Board ifthey were coCoa-able with thech e:in ~ording :to"above and beyond,' in paragraph 3, everyone, agreed. in wording:of "on , Mr, Whitley stated .that he does not'have~a prob!em.~with the far, He stated .that ~ · , ,, ~ ' ' d" also in Paragraph a, the verbiage.of ~have been previously tmpacm: and paragraph 4, the wording not more than stated that he is in favor of,adding'the Indrio North Savannahs to' Mr. Lancaster stated that staff will need'a definition of jurisdictional. He 12 Mr. CoWard stated that.the ~statutory definition is:.OkaY. Chairman Calabrese 'asked the Board if they had any comments or opinions~ on Mr. Whitley's comments. Mr. Coward' statedthat the rationale for allowing impacts to wetlands on this site was that it was an impacted ~area, its not a native system. He stated 'that he believes .it is extremely important that if we c . ~wetlands we are talking about impacted wetlands that are isolated, that are' situation. Mr. Lounds,asked how and who deter~nes whethera wetland has been impacted. Mr, Matthes stated :SFWMD throUgh the environmental resource permit process.. Mr. Lounds aSked :Mr. Matthes if. SFWMD actually goes out and determines whether it is a functional wetland or one'that has been altered. Mr. Matthes stated yes, that is .part of the :process. Mr. :Lounds asked staff, if.the :Statute supersedes the.county code or is this below their fi~tations. Mr. Murphy .stated-that the county standards are probably not as strict as the ERP'standards. In general, 'there may..be some areas ~that. may preclude the ,county from having a stricter ,standard, and deferred to Mr. 'Coward. Mr. Coward stated that .he agrees with Mr. MUrphy',s ~statement. He stated.that in response to Mr. Lounds' question, the county,' SFWMD~and DEP have staff that can determine whether a wetland has been previously impacted:with an,aerial map'and/Or field visit; itis not a difficult task. Mr. MattheS asked Mr, Coward what made him set the limit' of five acres, considering these are mining olperations. Mr. Coward .stated ~that he struggled with a limitl this 'is just a draft¢ he. believes by putting in an upward cap will help direct mining info upland areas. Mr. M~tthe~ stated'that ~a jurisdictional wetland by definition .of the Army Corps is hydric soiI. .He stated that for example you take an area West of town, where you want your .mining operations to take place' the majority ~of the site may be jurisdictional by Army Corps definition of hy,~ric soil, the site Size rnay be jurisdictional 'from their standpoint, but.there may not be any wetlands there. You mitigate in these areas because the :value is' not high~ Your impact area may exceed 'the five acre limit, that is his only concern with setting a limit. 13 dollars and cents for the owners, Ms. Wesioski asked if there.is.a limit o'n ~wetland impacts 'for :other Ms. Weslosh stated why hoops why ~, are .they being~ , ~penafiZed, place, they,dig, make lakes, and canals, and not the-.other. Mr. Coward.stated'thathe ~does not consider ~ning :acfivities'to-have the as other development ~acfivities, mines are 'aqUifers' total water supplies, create, salt damaging type uses. Mr. Lounds' asked.Mr. Coward if the.five acres is cumulative. on ,one and .them in the .more the draft was a starting point..for..discuSsion, Chakman Calabrese stated that she would like to reCap'the changes. ,.. ~ Mr. Lancaster stated that it ~g'htbe easier if the'Board:m°difies,the'°rdinance as :presented'by staff, based-on the..language, presentedbyMr'~-C°ward'~ ~- . . , · ~ ' ' . the .Board will accept the statutory definition, of jurisdictional. -~ ' ~ · ' "" to i~de~the w°rd"small". Chairman Calabrese ~stated that Mr. Coward would hke paragraph a. · . 't ', Mr. Coward, stated that if there is a problem w~ like to change the an impacted site or not, he -~whmh~ha~ ..... . been previoUsly. ~ . . ~ impacted andth~. ~ ~ we are it is by Chairman Calabrese aSked the applicants if:they. WOuld like to this proposal. 14 Mr. Tom McGowan, P.Ei' with' Lindahl,:BrOWning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., 2222 Colonial Road, Suite 201, Fort. Pierce, addressed the Board and stated .that they represent the petitioner. He stated that-Mr, A1 Brown .of Brown Ranch, 'Inc., and Mr.: Nick Stewart .of Stewart Mining Industries and the ~ne operator are-also present to address the Board's questions and/or co~ents. Mr. McGowan stated that they agreed with the language prop~ He stated that the requirements imposed .by the 'environmental 'resource permit ,is Y figomus*~-rocess, it includes'the.quality and. function of the wetland, whether it has been impacted or not, the mitigation ratios which are derived from the site visit:and eValuation, and they feel very~comprehensiVely to protect that resource. ~ Mr. McGowan stated that. Mr. Stewart mines coquina rock which is regulated-by DEP and the South Florida Water Management.~District. He stated ~that the comment regarding creating .additional mitigation as opposed :to t~ng credit for the 'shoreline 'restoration instead of the 'reclamation.process ~s a requirement, .they do n°t recognize shoreline mine reclamation as .a form of mitigation, impacts made .require .addi.fiOnal ~wetland ~tigation to be above and beyond or in addition to shoreline restorati,on. Mr. Matthes stated that the draft ordinance the Board has before them will apply to all mines, not jl.1 '~ st Mr. Stewart' s-mine. Mr, Matthes asked Mr. McGowan if South Florida Water Management · District cOvers all ~ning in.any type of situatiOn, .and could double dipping occur if the Board does not address the issue. Mr. McGoWan stated that :he believes it would be prudent for the ~Board tO include the language, he has no objectionS. Double dipping has not occurred in the County because of the. flat prohibition against ~ning applications that have gone to the Water. Management District with restoratiOn :have not 'been mitigated. Mr. Moore asked Mr. McGowan if he considered his client's project to have been previously impacted,. Mr. McGowan stated that they lie within a totally improved pasture. The canal system has changed the hydrology of the wetlands in this pasture and while they still have some native vegetation characteristics to them, they are not what you would Consider a pristine wetland. He stated that in the ERP process they would be required a certain mitigation ratio, in this particular instance, because of the'low 'quality, the ratio would be very Close to a 1:1 exchange. He stated that ERP ratios vary depending on the type of vegetation, fOr example if you Wanted to impact a one acre,, good quality cypress wetland, you would have to give twenty acres of mitigation in return, it is a sliding scale depending on the function and value of the wetland. 15 Mr. Moore asked',Mr, Mr, to.the Mr tough, - Mr. McGoWan stated. that it will not hurt..them pre.senti.y, ,it may hurt furore. Mr. Stewart stated thatthereisa~e''~ Small.vein ofr0ck inthis on Mr. Brown's~ : prope~y., is 'oniy~ . 1~..,000 feet wide..The ~ein. ridges mined. They are out away from these ~ County and many other contractors, and when small means of remowingthem~ .:. to capmre_ .: the.. ~ · .reSOurce.~, .~ . be the The ,:vein on the been , ~ Lucie way they.need a criteria is for five He stated;that even in the ERP process, 4 Chairman.Calabrese asked Mr. McGOwan if.over Mr, ~McGowan staed yes. ,big the?.State. ranch, the hkelihood that they would encounter more.one is probable, the fi~e acre: total, cap woUld-be, a:hindrance. .~ .? Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Smwart to describe the p°nd~like that is in the way, Mr. Stewart stated that it is a depressiona1 area where the cows .can graze, acre. 16 Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Stewart if it was left from the tomato..days and grows a little red root with arrowhead. Mr. Stewart stated thatit has some bullrush grass all over it. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Stewart if it is knee deep. Mr. Stewart stated that it is now, it was not when they started. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Stewart if~he could have mowed it three months ago .when it wa~dry. Mr. Stewart stated that you can mow it now. Mr.Mc(_/owan" .stated that they.would like to disagree With the jurisdictional assessment on this non, functional wetland, ~thOugh it meets .the agencies requirements for the type of'sOil that is underneath it, 'the water table is within 18-24::feet-below it in the wet season; therefore it meets the definition. Mr. Lounds asked Mr.~ McGoWanif prior to Scott and. Madison making a tomato field out of it in the 1950'~s, was ita wetland, has it been a wetland since. Mr. M 'Gowan stated not'-a.funcfional wetland. Mr. Stewart provided a picture of the Wetland to.the Board members for their review. Mr.McGowan' stated that to su~ari-ze, they could live with the cap but in the interest of future endeavors and perhaps some of the other miners in the County they would request that the language n°t be included~ He stated .that he would urge the Board'not to include the wording."p~rev~ous~y' ' impacted wetland" ibecause itis ~possible ~a.one or two 'acre wetland may be present that ~does not have a ditch running through it, supports vegetation ~ that is Still under the ERP rules, could be mitigated for at a m~ach higher ratio, that is an economic decision the miners are capable of making. He stated that they support the language that ~tigation not be a part of the mandatory mine reclamation. Mr. Stewart stated that unlike other developments that this acti'vity is allowed on, they create watermarks, they remove, the grated waterbody and then re-build the wetland, they are not building houses. · ._. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Stewart how deeP.they go. Mr. Stewart stated 5.0 feet. Chairman Calabrese stated that accordingto Mr. Coward the inventory of environmentally sensitive upland habitats .does not exist and asked Mr. Murphy to respond. 17 ~N Repog, as the foundation doc ,~r~e estab!is nt of .s program. Mr. Coward stated .that there is a specific component .in the Land Develop t COde that~ States create this~ inventory, which has. not been done. Mr. Murphy stated that the' KBN Report is the inventory. Chairman Calabrese 'asked Mr. Mushy :if the Board~shoUld clarify the langU~e i~ Paragraph d. and refer to that~report, · ~' "~ ~:~: ~'~" ...... ' :~ Mr. Murphy stated that f°r~!egal'reas°ns he'w°uld prefer to not m~e.any cMn~s m p~agraphs b, c, d,.:or e... .Mr, ::'Murphy stated.~ that- from..a s Coward _.should Chairman Calabrese~'askedMr:' Lancaster .... if he.agrees...~. : Mr, iLancasmr'stated that to ,make changes m paragraphs b, c,d' or e Mr."Mu~hy stated .that he woUld like to cl~ify p~agraph 3 ~of Mr. e. He aSked Mr, Coward if he is ~stming that he does~ not or coral zones as part :of meeting' the-~fig'ation req Mr. Cowgd' stated that is co~ect, he Would prefer~tigati°n m be done on Site', :and as a last~resort he: dOes not want to.see.it leave the ~County, . ": . .3 :of ProVided by Mr. bodies. if and to.the extent". Mr,Mushy asked Mr.. ~Coward is he affect. Mr. Coward stated yes. He .stated may be interest to 'impact higher quality wetlands, his make the .ordinance ~more flexible to ~alloTM impacts from mining stated that let's not open it :so far that we are.now talking that include nafiv, e species~ ~and are ~ stil!~ :functioning.,.~ This',.~ Mr. Moore asked.Mr. Coward if the hOOps Mr. MCGowan has to Jump thr°U~ that there be not to, · in.his mind.' · 1¸8 Mr. CoWard statedthat .the hoops are not.good enough. He does not believe we need to swing the originfl language and at the same time giVe some flexibility so the property owners, such:as this, can continm~ to ~ne :on an impacted piece of property. He.stated that~he does not have ,a prOblem with impacti~ag smaller poorly functioning wetlands. Ms. WesloSki asked Mr.' McGowan if you 'have a high quality wetland, you will look at a higher ratio of mitigation. ' C Mr. Mc ~/owan stated that is correct. He.stated 'that the .photos provided to the Board had., a ratio of , the Water Management. D~stnct :s nunlmum starts at 2 and goes-as high as '20. He stated that one of the requirements of'their .environmental .resource,permit for the creation of this mitigation, area is.they develop a five .year maintenance program, with annual 'reports to the. DEP-to'ensure that the mitigation remains viable With 8'0% coverage, if80% is not .maintained they are required to replant, andin perpetuity they are required to remove exotic species and other nuisances, He stated that there are significant safeguards in,the State permit process that cover mitigation. Mr. Whitley~Statedthat after hearing specific eXamples from .the petitioners and Mr, Coward, he supports .the original language presented by staff. Mr. Me~rit.t stated that in Mr.Coward' s' recommendation in paragraph 3, he is requesting that mifig.ationbe accomplished on-site, or at.an approved mitigation site.in St. Lucie County. He stated that we do not have an approVed mitigation site in St, 'Lucie County. Mr. Coward stated that he understands that. Mr. MenStt asked Mr. ~Coward ~how long will it be before the County~has an approved site. Mr. Coward .stated let's get staff-to answer that, we are in .dire need of one. Mr. Wazny .stated that staff recently had an ~agenda item'before the Bo-md of County COmmissioners to allocate $2M worth of ESL funds to create a 100 acre~tigafion bank, to be .accomplished within 30 daYs and to begin s.elling'credits within 60.days. He stated that the Board detemned using ESL- 'hnds may .not be an' apPropriate.use and requested staff review other funding soumes for the creation of the mitigation bank, and using a private investor would take a minimum of two years. Staff did this and determined that there were no other viable ~altematives to using the ESL funds as a seed fund. T · ' ' ~ here were no.other pubhc revenue resources available and any public.private partnership still required considerable up-front investment On the part Of: the .CoUnty before the private management would take over. Mr. Wazny stated that staff will go back to the 'Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that ESL funds be used to create a mitigation area in-County immediately and not 19 lose County~ MI'. tated that:the ~;~tig~0n ba~ Wou!d take a ~e take.a ~minimUm :of Mr. Cowed stated designated,b enhance and so forth. Chairman Calabrese asked. Mr. ,Coward if the ~nin.g Mr..Coward stated, yes, Chairman if the sentence, could read omsne or at another~ site,Within ,St, Mr. Coward stated yes, the , ~,within the County. Mr, M stated that he would the St. Lucie requirements of Section 6,06,~03,of this Code Mr, ,Coward stated that it sounds ,good., be on-site or, at a by the Mr. McGowanstatedthat-~they w°uld'haVe no .objections the ,requiremel~t~°n'site.or ,within. the County. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were,~any questions for"Mr. McGowan Mr;~ ? . 2O At this time, Chairman Calabrese Opened the pUblic hearing. Chairman.Calabrese asked, if there was anyone that woUld like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this Ordinance. Ms. De:lores Hogan-JOhnson, President, St. Lucie Waterfront Council addressed ~the Board. She appreciate any consideration that can be given to the waterfronts, and natural tabl community in the wetlands areas, and to pay ve~. clOse attention 'to what is happen managed control and development inthe COunty. are stated that :Mr, Meffitt's queStion.regarding mitigation within .the County is eds ~to work on, they .appreCiate the Board' s consideration when these items ~cauSe'ofthe geography and'topography of the land in the ~State :and specifically we need to be very careful of:the natural wetlands' areas. Chairman Calabmse asked if there was anyone else who would l~e .to raise any issues regarding the proposed :change. Ch ~rman Calabmse asked if there were .any further questions for Mr. McGowan or. Mr. Stewart. i arguments n .favor ~of or in oppoSition t° 'the ordinance, Chairman the public portion of the hearing. Ms. WeSlOsh asked 'Mr. Mushy if St. Lucie CounW has ~an ordinance that prohibits mitigation.out of the ~COunty. Mr. Mu:~hy stated no. Ms. We~.loSki~asked. Mr. Murphy if them has been an occasion 'where mitigation ~has occurred outside of the County. Mr.'Mm~hy stated that there 'havebeen occasions where project mitigation has occurred outside the political'confines of St..Lucie County, and there have alsO been occasions where.~tigation projects from outside the pOlitical confines of the County have come to St. Lucie-County. Mr. Murphy stated-'that staff is trying to make sure there are areas available Within the political confines of St. LuCie County.that would qualify as mitigation areas, that-the .County, 'the private development community or anyone can use to meet mitigation requirements :shOuld it be necessary. Ms. Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if :there is more going out than coming in, Mr. MurphY stated~that according to South Florida Water Management District there is a little more coming iin than going out. 21 to .be -in other areas.  r. Murphy.stated probably not, ' finding - places to.~tigate in Palm Beach ifficult,even With~theL°XahatChee and the EVerglades oPtions. .Mr. Coward asked Mr. MuShy~ to clarify what ~tigatiOn is' co,rig intone. Mr. Murphy letter from. Mr. Coward. asked Mr, Mushy the strazzu!la property, Mr. Murphy stated that may be one,of-them, he , thought there were' others. .Mr. Coward stated that'he woUld the Board sothey: from more easement over it, the County. Hestatedthey,are we are getting St. LuCie County is actuality St. Lume-Coun :y is 30 .'acres, lB Chairman Calabrese asked Mr,· Coward if this~ is why he-has a negatiVe feeling ,about the state.. · Mr: Coward stated that the County needs to work with .the property ~owners on imPacted wetlands, Chairman Calabrese stated that keePing the ~figation within the .COunty isa.good start. Mr.. Coward ~stated that. it is: es'senfiaI,,it,:is ~not just an environmental-: is quality, it protects .our-water.resources. ~which:are economy, We have to protect the water ~sheds. that protect the_ waterways. ~Chairman Catabrese-stated remaining is the five.acres. local Mr. Coward. stated., that he ~is willing' m budge ff the only in impacted wetlandS. He stated that if we are talking Ol stated that if we are talking about going into native areas, we -are found ~that. He no :question 22 about it, he woUld prefer We - stay 0ut of the native systems all together. He stated that if we talking about impacted areas, he is willing to move on 'the cap. Mr. Lounds stated 'that some'.of the confusion is what .is a native wetlands and what is a flag pod. Mr. Lounds aSked Mr. Coward if he has a problem With a flag pod surrounded by bullgrass. Mr. Coward stated that-he has no problem with that. Mr. Lounds stated that is the issue here. Mr. Coward ~stated.that. what he:is proposing will.allow them to do-what they want to do, he is: afraid of opening the dOor. ' Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Coward up to.five~acres. Mr. Coward stated t~hat he would move if we stick to allowing dredge.and fill activities in impacted wetlands, that~need.s to be very clear, 1 ' · et .s not open the door outfight to any type.°f Wetland that the Water Management District or DEP ~Will 'allow. Mr. Lounds stated that he is not sure how to insert that into the language. ~Mr. Coward stated that :he tried to do that in the language he submitted in paragraph a "isolated wetlands', which have .been previously impacted and that are entirely surrounded by uplands dominated by non-.native plant communities". Chairman Calabrese stated that in using Mr. C ' ' oward s language you would only be able to impact previous][y impacted small isolated wetlands. Mr. Muqphy .stated that his only question from an implementation point of view is, what is the definitiOn of previously imPacted, whatis the threshold? He stated that he does not want to go into a functioning:wetland and removeit for the purpose of mining or any other activity. He believes the ERP process, is.fairly strict and Will .catch if not all, pretty close to all, and his..definitiOn of previouSly impacted may not be the same as someone elses. Ms. Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if a situation could occur wherein a mining permit would not come under these outside pe~tti.ng processes, if they wanted to impact a wetland, . Mr. Murplhy stated.not likely and he .would refer to Mr. McGowan for further comment.since he was more versed in the pemtting procedures than he was ......He stated that if you are running a mine', at a minimum, you have to go through the South Florida permitting requirements, as you move into the other categories you move into the DEP component and the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Wesloski asked Mr. MurphY if they Provide the mitigation ratios. 23 Mu h s ueston. ~ Mr. 'Coward asked Mr. McGowan if he could answer :Mr. ' i Mr. McGowan stated yes. Mr, .Coward asked Mr. McGowan for his thoughts on how tc Mr. McGowan stated, that them is . no . standard definifi°n for the that away that 'has lowered ~the. . fair, good, pristine), and what he. may think, is mta!ly 'imPacted ~and~ ~ has might say is good or fair. Mr. Coward~asked Mr. McG°wan if the three :categ°ries were Mr. McGowan'stated that :there are five categories:' impacted, Mr. Coward asked, if there is. an existing.~defi~nition that we can use that'has ~eady been defined. Mr..McGowan staed yes. ':-' '.: Mr. Coward stated let's take that language ' and say in the area that isdefi~as i~acted'WeflandS' we have.no problem with allowing~ning.. . ~ in. those'areas. .:: ' Mr. Whitley stated ~that Mr, McGow'an ~also stated that is was very suhicerise.'' Mr, McGowan stated'that, there are no written definitions as Mr. Coward stated that they are within the .guidelines: :environmental scientists that go out and - . Mr.,Matthes stated that of impact and the way they. are and work there way up 'm~ something that has not Mr. Matthes asked impacted ,5, Mr. Coward stated that there are existing definific Board ~could use to define impacted and he, would prefer.: :'~the in the field.that the ;e areas. 24 Mr. Matthes asked Mr. ~McGoWan if he agrees with the statement that non-impacted WOuld! only be under the pristine definition. Mr. McGoWan :stated that how that wetland grades setS the ratio that: you will mitigate. Mr. Matthes 'stated that the 'higher the .number the higher the ratios. Mr. McGowan'stated that poor.or impacted Will.be 2:1, good would be in the neighborhood ~of 15:1. Mr. Matthes asked 'Mr. MCGowan if good has some impacted associated with it. Mr. MC:Gowan stated yes. .Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. McGowan if the State has defined pristine. Mr. McGoWan stated no. Chairman Calabrese stated .that the Board needs to define pristine. Mr. McGowan stated that. he would be 'comfortable with Mr. Coward's definition, if an agency reviewer visited the site and stated'the wetland is pristine or very good, then hands off. Mr. 'Matthes stated that you will not want ~to' mitigate . that 'wetland anyway. Mr. McGowan stated that. is correct, because it is subjective, the Corps of.Engineers jurisdictional reviewer.may say it is good, the Water Management District person may say it is fair, He stated that when you get into the ecosystem of pristine there are very few wetlands in South Florida that qualify as pristine. .Chairman ~Calabrese~asked.:Mr. MCGOwan if the environmental experts have a classification they assign to .wetlands .and Will'they all use the terminology of pristine, very good, good, etc. ' .. · Mr. McGowan stated that they do not use that classification system, there is no uniformity. Chairman Calabrese asked :Mr. McGowan if he would expect that it would be clhssified as pristine, very gOOd, good, f-air or horrible. ..~ ~ ' Mr. McGowan stated yes and the definition of impacted could be everything up to pristine, as Mr. Matthes stated earlier, and they would have ~no objectiOn to that. Mr. Merritt stated that he knows of no wetlands in St. Lucie County-that have not been impacted by someone,. 25 Mr. Coward stated ~that he, perSonally befieves ,that good.and pristine wefla 'i~ Uld ~be excluded. Chairman Calabrese asked ~Mr...C0ward~ ~ . if the~ language~ ~ ~ .~ should, read "c!assifiedaS. ~ ,,,~-· ~,,~g°°d or pristine.. by,State agencies". Mr. Coward asked staff if the Bo~d can make a general Commissioners, ' -'~ ': Mr, Murphy stated that ' technical wording w°uld need re.be added ,~ener~E, .. ~ ----'anoliev direction. He stated~. Staff can work on' the .the a Co~ssion hearings if.this .B'oard so dkects Ms. Wesloski stated that the Board .agreed to the verbiage Mr, Murphy pmsented?~ forp~. ,~ . h 3 and asked Mr..Murphy to re-state that'language. all wetland rmtigatlon shall :be on-site or at Mr. Murphy stated that "' . ~' ~ the approved by Sit. Lu¢ie requirements ofSe¢fion6,06~03 of this. code may be~ ' . Ms. WesloSki stam'd that she wOu!d!ike :to. a.mofion~that the Board o nd iapproval of Draft Ordinance 98-020' with the fo!lowing changes: pma~aph'a shall inclUde the ,words pristine and g0od withthe paragraph 3 shall read: "-11 wetland ~tigafion shall be on?site or.at LUcie County,.~..except that no wetland, littoral ,zones-. requirementS of Section :6;06,03 Mr. Whitley-seconded the motion. Mr, Matthes stated that the Indfio North Savannahs is impogant, they wanted to stay away from. Sto the ation. the !ndrio North Mr. MUrphy stated that he'does not-haVe the flexibility in the Savannahs.. Ms. Wesloski stated that the Board WOuld like to make a recommendation staff add the Indrio North Savannahs in future amendments to the Land Development Code. 26 Mr. Murphy stated that'staff advertised the language 'requested' by the applicant, and staff has -administratively noted the requested change. ' · Mr. Lounds asked if the motion includeS or excludes item 4 under paragraph a. Ms, ~ ~' W :sloskl stated that it excludes it. Chairman proposed by' -a ,.difference in item 2 as proposed by staff and item 2 as Mr. MUShy stated that'staff.reco. ,mmends .the existing language in Draft Ordinance 98-020 items 1 and 2 .remain unChanged, Staff believes they are the same. Mr. Coxvard asked 'Mr.',Murphy if the Ianguage.inclUdes the federal permits anti,Corps if.needed. Mr. Murphy stated'yes. Mr. Coward stated that he ,is comfortable With that. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was any .further discussion. Upon roil1 call the motion was approved 9,0. 27 Chairman-Calabrese asked staff what items are on the agenda for next month, Mr. Murphy stated'that Draft Ordinance.. 98,016 (general text amendments :to ~' L~d..Devel°pmere Code), a rezoning, and a.conditional use. Chairman Mr, CoWard stated that,he wanted to thank the Board for their patience.'in ~discussion, he aooreciated :it. ,~ Mr. MurphY~ stated that the elections fOr Ch and. Vice-Ch an are h in January unless a special election is necessary. Chairman Catabrese ..asked if a'special election would be held ~next month or inoCtober, Mr, Merritt asked if.the Vice,Chairman could'be Chairman until~January' ' Mr, Murphy stated that would~be the discrefion °f the ~B0ard. .,. Chai~an Calabrese suggested that the Board members they may'wamm s~.~ ng about,what they want to do. Ms. Weslos~ asked Mr. Lancaster.if. ~she~ -should. disclose every time she ~recei~es'a letter. there Mr, Lancaster stated :that Draft was no need for youto diSclose, 'had it been 'qUasi'judiCial you whether written or .phone calls. Ms. WesloSki' stated that as ,a general role she should justdisclose·, everyt~ng. . . way. :she will not make an error. Mr. Lancaster stated yes. the Board, Chai~an Calabrese asked .if· someone from.the public wanted.· , m allow staff to do the ,distribution if the info~ation is received timely,-as.. something they can state for the record that the information beyond that is received by :Board members they could volunteer mail and Ms. Wesloski asked Mr, Lancaster for his legal advice, should she continue, m open-me disclose whatever .necessary. 28 Mr. Lancaster 'stated that Ms, WesloSki does ~not have to :open'her mail and can simplY Pass it on tO staff, it! she does not look at it, there is n° need to disclose it because she has .not been communicated tO. Mr~ M.~arphy stated ~that :a Iist~of the BOard members names and addresses exist, ~staff may be ~able to make a notation that Correspondence be provided to staff and allow staff to ~make ~distribution as part of the packages. Chairman Calabrese stated :that'the Board does 'not want to .make an ~error in disclosure, if the public p ovlde, s~nformation to one members the same .information should be ~provided to ever~,~bne. .. Ms. Wesloski asked if on-the application a statement could be 'made that direct correspondence is discouraged due to .the Sunshine :Law. Mr. Murphy stated 'that it is a matter of m~ng sure ~that everyone is informed and aware and staff will look into the notice procedure. Mr. Whitley suggested that an agenda item'be added to the agenda that would allow the Board to diSclose all correspondence for the entire ~evening. Ms. Wesloski.asked Mr. Whifley if he would recommend in the beginning, just after the approval of the rrfinutes? Mr. Whitley stated yes. Mr..Lancaster stated that ~the purpose of the' dis.closure is to inform the public that'information has been provided tothe Board to assist the .Board in making their decision, staff will do whatever it takes to foster this. Ms. Wesloski stated that creating an agenda item is a great idea. Mr.-Coward stated that.Chairman Calabrese raised the issue of electing a Chairman and Vice- Chairman.and it was never cl~fied, he would like to suggest that the elections be held at the next meeting. He stated~ that it would be interesting' to know who the seniors are as this information would be useful when the Board makes their decision on who should replace the ~Chainnan.. ~ Chairman Calabrese stated that Mr. Coward can.survey the Board now and everyone will have a month to think.about it. Mr. Coward stated that'he would like to suggest that staff summarize this information and make it available to' the Board. Mr. Kelly stated that staff will summarize and provide in the packet. 29 Mr, Mr, they make a There.being no further.bu~ness, the meeting adjourned ~8:49 p.m. ning 30 St. Lucie County Planning .and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room 101 August 20, 1998 7'00 P.M. AGENDA C_ALI.~TO ORDER~ A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements A_GE~DA ITEM Action Recommended- Approval. Exhibit #1- Minutes of July 16, 1998, Meeting. A_GE~DA ITEM 21 AND CONNIE CHII~DS Petition of Joseph and Arbell Miles and James and Connie Childs, for a Change in Zoning from the RS.-4 (Residential, Single-Family _ 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Staff comments by Mike Picano. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2' StaffReport and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 31 Consider Draft Ordinance 98-015, an ordinance amending Section 3.01.03(AA) _ HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission · Exhibit #3' Staff'Report and Draft Ordinance AGEND~ ITEM 4: Consider Draft Ordinance 98-019, for General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended- Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Draft Ordinance Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda August 20, 1998 Page 12 AGElgDA ITEM 5~ Consider Draft Ordinance 98-020, for General Amendment to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 6.06.01(B)(11). Staff'comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5' Staff Report and Draft Ordinance O_TI~LR BUSINESS1 Ae ADJOURN Other business at Commission Members' discretion. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, September 17, 1998, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building. N ,~ OTICE- All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to .the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586. FAX NAME: FAX NUMBER: LAST TRANSACTION REPORT FOR HP FAX-700 SERIES VERSI ON: Et 1.03 DATE: 14-AUG-98 TIME~ 12:49 A-AUG '12:47 $ 94659984 ~ 0: 01: 24 ~ OK 5'63140 t 0~A2 S=FAX SENT I=POLL IN(F O=POLLED OU TO PRINT THIS REPORT AUTOMATICALLY, SELECT AU TO PRINT MANUALLY, PRESS THE REPORT/SPACE BU!¢ NATURE SAVERTM FAX MEMO 616 ~ ' #of - j Co - -,---, ~4~ . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA JULY 16, 1998 - ~GULAR MEETING MINUTES BOAR~) MEMBERS PRESENT. Ed Merritt, Ed Lounds, Albert Moore, Donna Calabrese, Diana Wesloski, Carson McCurdy, Doug Coward BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT. Stefan Matthes, Tom Whitley (both excused) OTHERS PRESENT. James Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Coordinator; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Mike Picano, Planner I; and JoAnn Riley, Administrative Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Calabrese APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1998 Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Chairman Calabrese stated that on page 18, fifth paragraph down, change to read "Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Moore if he seconded the motion with the change". Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other corrections. Chairman Calabrese asked for a motion. Ms. Wesloski made a motion to accept the minutes with the noted[ change, and it was seconded by Mr. Coward. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 5-0, with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lounds abstaining. ANNOUNCEMENT: Mr. Kelly' stated that he would like to address the Board regarding Agenda Item #5, the petition of Aero Colmnunication Systems, Inc., for a 125 foot monopole Communications Tower to be located at 5014 North U.S. 1. Mr. Kelly stated that at the Board of Adjustment meeting held on July 15th, the vawiance for the tower was denied, therefore staff can not bring the Conditional Use petition before the Planning and Zoning Commission as meeting the technical requirements of' St. Lucie County. Mr. Kelly stated that each Board Member should have before them a letter from Bruce R. Abemethy, Jr., attorney representing Aero Communication outlining their understanding that the Planning and Zoning Commission will not hear their petition tonight. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not want anyone in the audience waiting for the petition to be heard. Mr. Coward stated that there seems to be a procedural question as to whether a development that requires a Board of Adjustment approval needs to be heard by the Board of Adjustment before coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is fairly clear in the memorandum, but he would like to clarify. Mr. Kelly stated that his interpretation is, it must be heard before the County Commission can act, the Planning and Zoning Commission could have acted with a condition in their recommendation to the BOard of County Commissioners recognizing that the Board of Adjustment still needed to act. Mr. Kelly stated that it could have been done in either order. AdjustmentMr. Coward prior stated to that this particular case shows why we should send the projects to the Board of coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that in this case ~t was denied and therefore taken off the agenda, it would seem to make sense that we set up that same process in the future. PUBI'IC HEARING J & J BA~R ENTERPRISES, INC. FILE NO. RZ-98-012 Chairman Calabrese explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures. Mr. Picano stated that he was presenting the application of J & J Baker Enterprises, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District. ' Mr. Picano stated that the subject property is located at 4120 Selvitz Road. He stated that the surrounding zoning is IH (Industrial, Heavy) to the north, south, east, and west. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) is located further to the south. Mr. Picano stated that J & J Baker Enterprises has applied for the requested change in zoning to allow construction of a lime stabilization facility to serve septic tank pumping and small wastewater treatment facilities. Mr. Picano stated that staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is therefore recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Picano. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Picano to explain the lime stabilization service, what the service will entail, he is particularly concerned about any potential impact to ground water to the adjacent areas. Mr. Kelly stated that in a previous petition and discussion of lime stabilization, he visited a very large lime stabilization plant in Hawthorne. He stated that when septic tanks are pumped they have a waste product that comes from the tank that needs to be treated, lime stabilization simply takes that waste product, puts lime in it, aerates it, to mix it, and that process neutralizes the waste. Mr. Kellly stated that it is then permissible to spray that product on the ground in agricultural operations. He stated that the operation he saw was in the front yard of the owners estate, a large buried taxflc, the process took place in the tank, the stuff was then pumped into the trucks where it was taken, out and spread in groves and other agricultural uses. He stated that there was very little smell, there is nothing that takes place on that site other than the closed tank and the waste must then be disposed of at some other location. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other questions for staff. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Picano if any studies have been done regarding mn-off, where the water goes, what happens to it when it leaves. Mr. Picano stated that any development that occurs will need to comply with all Local State and Federal environmental regulations. ' Mr. Kelly stated that this is a closed tank operation and disposal is by truck at another location. He stated 'that mn'off would be isolated to the parking lot, and the same type of mn-off that we see at other locations. Mr. Lounds stated that it does rain and things do fill up and over-flow. Mr. Kelly stated that the tanks are capped and are not open to the weather. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly how big are the tanks. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not have the size of these particular tanks, the applicant may be able to answer that question. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any further questions for staff. Chairman Calabrese asked if the petitioner was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Dave Peters, J & J Baker Enterprises, 4120 Selvitz Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Peters stated that to answer the question regarding rain mn-off, the tank is 60,000 gallon, 12' wide, 15' high, 54' long, above-ground, and self-contained,. Mr. Peters stated that the material that goes into the tank comes in by truck and goes out by truck. Chairmam Calabrese asked Mr. Peters if Mr. Kelly's description of the lime stablization is similar to his operation. Mr. Peters stated pretty close, it will be a tank with bags of lime underneath an over-hang, the material comes, is placed in the tank, lime stabilized, mixed, and then hauled off. He stated that it has to be permitted by the St. Lucie County Health Department in advance of any waste being taken into it. Mr. Men'itt asked Mr. Peters where the sewer is coming from. Mr. Peters stated that there are small packing plants still out on Hutchinson Island, and there are small plants throughout the county. He stated that the need is to have this wastewater brou h treatment facility, treated, and then taken to a land a*---~:~-: .... , ........ g t to a · .},p~at,on s~e, currenuy me land application site is designated in Martin County. Mr. Peters stated that in recent rule changes, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has mandated that wastewater biosolids are stabilized prior to being land applied. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Mr. Lounds aSked Mr. Peters why they do not haul straight to the utility plant instead of stablizing at another location. Mr. Peters stated that the City of Port St. Lucie does not accept septic waste, the only two treatment facilities that accept septic waste in this area are located in Okeechobee County, none of the public utilities that he is aware of in Martin and St. Lucie County accept septic waste. Mr.Lounds asked Mr. Peters why. Mr. Peters stated that he can not answer that. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Peters what's going into it that comes out of someone that has sewer hook-up. Mr. Peters stated that there is nothing different in a septic treatment facility that you wouldn't see in a gravity sewer system or a collection system. He stated that he can not answer that, he stated that at one time the county provided that service to a private contractor at the landfill, for some reason that fell through and currently there is not a permitted septic treatment facility in either Martin or St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Peters why this particular piece of property. Mr. Peters stated that they own this piece of property. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Peters if there was any chance they could swap this for a piece further west. Mr. Peters stated that would not be their desire. He stated that directly to the north of their property · a porta-toilet facility that is consistent with what they are proposing, and directl 18 a porta-john or to the so'uth and to the Y east is an auto salvage yard. Mr. Peters stated that if you drive down Selvitz Road you would have to look pretty hard to find the tank, it is sitting in the back, it is a contained system. He stated that a septic truck would actually back into a receiving pit, unload the material, they would transfer into their tank, lime stabilize it, a truck would then take it to the field, and land apply it. Mr. Lo~tds asked Mr. Peters where they are taking their p.roduct now. Mr. Peter's stated Martin County. Mr. Kelly' stated that for clarification purposes the map shows the entire parcel as cross-hatched, the rezoning is only for the back 102 feet. He stated that the site would be limited to just the back portion of the site and would not be up on Selvitz Road. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Peters if they are inspected by the Health Department. Mr. Peters stated yes they are inspected by the Health Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Peters if he is subject to inspections on a regular basis once this goes in. Mr. Peters stated yes. Chaim~an Calabrese asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Mr. Coward stated that he was curious about ingress and egress from the site as they head southbound to Martin County. Mr. Peters stated that they will travel southbound on Selvitz to Midway, then Midway west t° State Road 6,09 (Angle Road). Mr. Coward stated that he is not sure moving this facility west is in the best interest of the county, this is an industrially zoned area, the property is Industrial, Heavy now, with a cluster of industrial uses, this may be one of:the more appropriate locatiOns for this type of activity. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Peters. At this time, Chairman Calabrese opened the public hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Calabrese closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Merritt moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St Lucie Board of Coun Comm~ · County ty 'ssioners grant approval to the application ofJ & J Baker Enterprises, Inc. for a Cha?e in Zoning from 'the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District to the U (Utilities Z ' District because the Ut~ht~es Zoning District is consistent with the zoning in the ~urroundln~°anr~enag Ms. Wesloski seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. Chairman. Calabrese stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of' County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING PARADISE PALMS FILE NO. PA-98-001 Chaim~an Calabrese convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to explain the Plan Amendment, as staff looked through the Comprehensive Plan for this particular use in Institutional, which is to be an ACLF, there is a designation in the Comprehensive Plan of Preferred Residential area. He stated that if you look at the map, effectively everything in the urban service boundary is in the Preferred Residential area and the Policy 1.1.8.4(7) indicates that prior to a change to Institutional Zoning for the ACLF use, the Local Planning Agency and County Commission has to remove the Preferred Residential area. He stated that he believes this is the first time this has occurred and he is available to answer any proced0ral questions the Board might have. Mr. Mike Picano presented staff comments. Mr. Pic,mo stated that he was presenting the application of Paradise Palms for a Change in the Future Land Use Classification by deleting the designated Preferred Residential (PFR) as established under Policy 1.1.8.4(7) of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Picano stated that the subject property is located at 8311 Indrio Road. He stated that the surrounding zoning is AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) to north, south, east, and west. I (Institutional) to the east. RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) to the northeast. U (Utilities) to the east. Mr. Picano stated that Paradise Palms has applied for the requested Change in the Future Land Use Classification in order to allow an Adult Living Facility. He stated that the Institutional Zoning District .allows Institutional Residential Homes as permitted uses, subject to Board of County Commission approval. Mr. Picm~o stated that staff finds that this petition meets 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 that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Picano. Chairman Calabrese asked if the petitioner was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Jim Minix, 5500 Saint Lucie Boulevard, Fort Pierce, owner of the property, addressed the Board. Mr. Minix stated that he and his wife own a large home, his children have left, they tried to sell the home, had it on the market for three years, one person looked at it and they of course didn't buy it. Mr. Minix stated that he contacted staff about the possibility of tuming his home into an assisted living :facility and after review staff'advised it would meet all technical requirements and with that he reql~ested the realtor to sell the home as that type of' a business. Mr. Minix stated that he would not have put the home up for sale for this thought it would hurt his neighbors' pror~ertv valne..q ho. ,-1,,,~e ~,"~ type of facility if he - ~ ~ ..... , .......... ~ believe it will, he has been involved in these decisions before and he would not do that knowing it would hurt their values. Mr. M~mojkumar Patel, 333 South Federal Highway, Dania, addressed the Board. Mr. Patel stated that he is the Petitioner and the buyer of Mr. Minix's home. He stated that they can use the home as an AssiSted Living Facility for the elderly in the area who need assisted living, he will be creating jobs, he believes there is a demand for this type of facility in the area, he has an Assisted Living Facility in West Palm Beach which he has operated for five years. Chairman Calabrese asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Patel. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Patel how many residents would he be allowed to have at this facility. Mr. Patel stated that the State determines the number of residents, they are estimating 20 residents. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Patel how many people will he employ. Mr. Patel stated 9-15 full-time employees. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. At this time, Chairman Calabrese opened the public hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Chairmm.~ Calabrese asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Mr. Edward Becht, 321 South 2~a Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. He stated that he represents a variety of residents who have found Mr. Minix to be a good neighbor, they obviously disagree with his analysis of the impact of this business on their property, and the residents requested that he speak to this Board tonight. Mr. Becht stated that with due. apologies to Mr. Kelly he opened up the law books and they provided him with some guidance that he would like to share with the Board. He stated that Assisted Living Facilities are governed by Chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes and there are a couple of relevant sections that he would like to read. Mr. Becht stated that Chapter 400.441 states that any new facility regardless of size that applies for a license on or after January 1, 1996, must be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, he does not believe that Mr. Minix's property is currently serviced by centralized water, he could be wrong, that would be a question the Board or staff should be asking of Mr. Minix, it is relevant. Mr. Becht stated that Chapter 400.4445 states"factories""' with a licensed capacity of less than 15 persons shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 419". He stated that Mr. Patel indicated they will use the house, how will they use the house for 20 residents and 9 staff members, them are living area requirements for the residents, he can provide the formula, this is not going to work for Mr. Minix's h°use. He stated that they will either have less than 20, knock it down, or expand, if they are going to have more than 20 residents that will dramatically impact the neighborhood which consists of estate homes, the owners of the estate homes are here tonight, they are single-family homes and they do not want this type of facility with 20 residents or more adjacent to their property. Mr. Becht stated that Chapter 419.001 states "a home that is located within a radius of 500 feet of an area of single-family zoning substantially alters the nature and character of the area". He stated that one of the issues this BOard is to look at tonight is: does the proposed rezoning or land use amendment alter the nature and character of the area. He stated that he would suggest to the Board that the Legislature of the State of Florida has already addressed this issue for you and: they have said a home that is located within a radius of 500 feet of an area of single-family zoning substantially alters the nature and the character of the area, the area is AG-1 with single-family homes. He stated that he ~vent to the definition of AG-I thinking that perhaps multi-family was allowed in AG-1, you can ask staff but he does not believe you can put multiifamily in AG-1, AG-1 is a single-family zoning district. Mr. Beclht stated that if the Legislature has already said they can not put the home at this location and if the Legislature has not ruled on the issue, this project floes not belong at this location, it may be a worthwhile project, but it dOes not belong in a single-family neighborhood. Mr. Becht stated that at the zoning level you do not have the capacity to limit Mr. Patel or Mr. Minix to 20 res/[dents, once the 11 acres is rezoned to Institutional, if he were on the Board he would want to know from staff how many residents he can create on an 11 acre parcel. He stated that if his reading of the law is correct on the issue of automatic fire sprinkler systems and Mr. Minix is on well water, he does not have centralized water to the property, that would be a substantial cost, he does not believe Mr. Patel can allocate that cost among 20 residents, he would have to allocate that among the residemts that would be brought in on an 11 acre tract. Mr. Becht stated that they are asking that this Board deny the application and he would like to echo these cornments again for the next agenda item.' Chairman Calabrese asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Becht. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in opposition. Mr. Jim Russakis, 8803 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Russakis stated that he own the property immediately adjoining the property being rezoned and his son lives immediately to the west of the property being rezoned. He stated that they are in a very nice neighborhood and let's assume all of the home are equal in value, for example 3x, this rezoning is approved and the -9 facility goes in with an Institutional zoning, immediately that piece of property should be worth more because it is revenue beating now, so it may be worth 4x, unfortunately who wants to live next to it, so his property will be worth 2x, and that is a problem. Mr. Russakis stated that another problem is when Mr. Patel receives his Institutional zoning and you are not allowing another Institutional facility within 1,000 feet. He stated that the best thing to do if something moves next to you that appreciates, your property depreciates, try to use your'property for the same thing to get the same appreciation, all the neighbors are all within that 1,000 feet, we are all 0eprived of that. Mr. Russakis stated that they ask this Board to please consider denying this because it will certainly disrupt their neighborhood in a very negative fashion. Chairman Calabrese asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Russakis. Chairman Calabrese asked if anyone else would like to speak to the Board. Mr. Minix asked Chairman Calabrese if he could speak to the Board. Mr. Minix stated that he would like to let the Board know a little more about this particular.area, there are churches on both sides of his property, them is commercial to the east of his property, there is commercial going in to the west of his property, Paul Rhodes owns 30+ acres just a half a mile down the road that is going commercial or has already gone commercial, there is an RV park planned for Indrio Road, Indrio Road is going commercial, that is why he could not sell his house, not because there is a church next to his house or because he is between two churches, he believes this is just not the place people want to build nice homes in, the area is totaling changing and will continue to do so. Mr. Dominick Scotto, 8600 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Scotto stated that he is a life-long resident of St. Lucie County, he takes a little exception to Mr. Minix's comment, his house is five years old, he bUilt in that area because the homes were nice homes including Mr. Minix's, he wanted a piece of property that was AG, he is in the agricultural business, where his kids could have a horse, raise a steer, have a duck pond, etc. Mr. Scotto stated that most of the residents built in the area with the idea that it was rural, you are restricted on what you can build, he owns 3 ½ acres and he can only have one house on it, the homes in the area are not all old. homes, this is not an old area that is now going in another direction. He stated that this is an area where most residents built there houses because they liked the rural atmosphere, they liked the AG area, his concerned is that and he would like to echo Mr. Russakis' concern, once this is changed they are not sure what size building could be placed on the property, and it would really change the whole character of the area. Mr. Scotto stated that having grown up in this county and meaning no insult, zoning has always been a joke because you could have a shack next to a mansion, he realizes it is nOt that way anymore since we have Comprehensive Plans. 10 Mr. Scotto stated that most of the residents built in this area with the idea that the homes would be family' homes, homes with AG purposes with horses, steers or a .grove, and this rezoning would really i[mpact the area quite a bit. Mr. Salvatore Merola, 8500 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Merola stated that he purchased his home last April, the 6 bedroom, 4 bathroom home is on approximately 7 1/4 aCres, he has :four children, his wife and youngest daughter love horses and he always promised them that they would get a place where they could be comfortable. Mr. Merola stated that since they purchased the home, he has spent over $70,000 in improvements, and he is very concerned about this change in zoning. He stated they built the home to stay in for the rest of' their lives and retire in, to be able to have enough room for their children and their grandchildren. He stated that he made the back portion of his property suitable for two horses, he has a pm:k setting that is natural with oak trees, he has put a lot of time and effort in it, and he is very concerned. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Merola. Mr. Jim Russakis, 8803 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, re-addressed the Board. Mr. Russakis stated that this is an AG community, groves surround this property, the neighbors behind this property have swine m.~d cows, airplanes fly in the morning during fruit season, we must be fly free, they spray every 21 .days, the neighbors who live in this area come from an agricultural background and they understand this, he is afraid of the people who may be coming in may be opposed to the potential odors, the sprays, the noise of the airplanes in the morning, and that would be a problem. Mr. Russakis stated that he would like staff to check with the Fire Chief to see where the major runs in this m'ea are because there are three or four similar facilities in the area. He stated that Port St. Lucie Convalescent keeps excellent medical on-site staff, when they get sprinkled out into the community, they don't do that, as soon as someone coughs they don't want the liability, and the fire rescue rrms all night long, please check and verify that information. He stated that the neighbors living in 'the area have to listen to this all night long, he would do the same thing, he would not want an elderly person ill and he was unqualified, the first thing he Would do is call 911 and this will go on all night long, so again he would appreciate your denial. ' Chairmm~ Calabrese asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak. Mr. Nick Russakis, 8475 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. He stated that he is the resident immediately to the west of Mr. Minix's property. He stated there are churches in the area and they converge on Wednesday nights for an hour and on Sunday mornings for maybe two hours, they do not have someone there everyday, he has a dog that runs free as well as Mr. Minix, and he would like this Board to deny the petition. Mr. Russakis stated that he built his home five years ago and he is concerned about the wells in the area and the septic system for the residents, there will be medical waste, elderly patients take more medications as they become ill, where will this waste go and will it contaminate his septic system 11 and his drinking water, he is very close to Mr. Minix's yard. Chaimaan Calabrese asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opPosition to the petition, Chairman Calabrese closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Patel if he would like to address any of the issues raised. Mr. Patel stated that the issue raised regarding the fire sprinklers, they do not have to be connected to the city water and sewer system, they can be connected to the well water system, he has a proposal with him which he had made for the property. Mr. Patel stated that the occupancy is determined by Florida Statutes, he does not make that determination, State inspectors come out and advise how many they will be allowed to put in the house. Mr. Patel stated that medical/medication waste is all covered by Florida Statutes which they are bound by, they have guidelines just like hospitals to dispose their medications through the pharmacy and not through the septic tanks and/or down the toilets. Mr. Patel stated that he has tried to answer the issues that were raised, if there are others please ask, he would be happy to address them. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Patel if he is planning to build. Mr. Patel stated that they do not plan to build, they plan to use the current house, the beauty of the house and the settings are tranquil and peaceful, he believes the seniors they intend to place in this house will like the atmosphere, it will be a more peaceful atmosphere than West Palm Beach which is a bustling city, the whole 11 acre parcel is just beautiful. Chairmm.~ Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly why Institutional versus AG-1. Mr. Kelly stated that there are three levels of residential homes in St. Lucie County, family residential home, community residential home, and institutional residential home, they all carry exactly the same definition except for the number of residents, they are limited to six in family residential, fourteen in community, and more than 14 in institutional. He stated that where they are permitted is different, and the only place the institutional residential home is permitted is in the Institutional District. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Patel. Mr. Lounds stated to Mr. Patel that some day Indrio Road, despite what we would like to see it today, is going to be a rather major intersection coming into Fort Pierce. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Patel if there is any other area in the northwest corridor of Fort Pierce or St. Lucie County that would 12 suit his needs, besides this particular parcel, knowing what kind of traffic in fifteen years will be on that road. Mr. Patel stated that his current Assisted Living Facility in West Palm Beach is on a main artery, U.S. 1 :in the commercial district with heavy traffic, much more traffic than here, it should not affect them at all. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Patel if five years from now will he build other facilities on the remaining piece of land and what prevents that from happening. Mr. John Finck, the administrator for Paradise Palms, addressed the Board. He stated that the mason they chose this particular site is the fact that it is small, it is home-like, they want to their residents to be comfortable and not over-crowded, they chose this site because they also plan to have horses, they would like to put the residents on a wagon and them around the property, they plan on a petting zoo for the residents as an activity, they do not intend to make this into such a facility that will spread out on the land, they will use the land to benefit the residents, not to expand the residence itself. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Finck how many units/buildings can he place on this piece of property if this passes. Mr. Finck stated that he can not answer that. Mr. Kelly stated that St. Lucie County will not have a limit on the number of residents, due to the institutional residential home greater than 14 with no upper limit specified. He stated that the number of buildings would relate to the ultimate number of residents which would be regulated by the State, the county would not have a limit. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not make himself very clear, he asked Mr. Finck how many more buildings can be placed on this piece of property to expand your operations five years from now. Mr. Finck stated that he could not answer how many the county will allow them to have on this piece of property, they do not intend to expand the house, the only renovations that will take place will be to the primary house itself, they do not intend to put up any other buildings, the only out-cropping they would plan on would be a stable. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly if Paradise Palms decided they wanted to place another building on the property, what would the process be and how would it be handled. Mr. Kelly stated that this is a parcel just under ten acres with a lot coverage requirement of 35% and a height of 35 feet, large buildings could be placed there, he does not believe this to be the intention. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly what would the process be, could this be done without coming before the county at all. 13 Mr. Kelly stated that the institutional residential home would be a permitted use, they would have to come back fora site plan for a facility of this size, if it meets the technical requirements of the building, Parking, landscaPing, county codes and all other issues, it would be effectively a permitted use. Mr.. Finck stated that his staff at the West Palm Beach facility are certified nursing assistants, this ~s not :required by the State of Florida, the State of Florida dictates they have an Emergency Management Plans in case of flooding and/or other natural disaster, the State of Florida is entitled to visit their facility at any given time day or night, and they are subject to Chapter 400 which Mr. BeCht spoke of. He stated that they must dispose' medications through the prOper Channels, it would be a Class 1 violation if they disposed of them through the septic system, and they would be shut down immediately. Mr. Finck stated that the State of Florida dictates the type of client they are allowed to have, it would not be fi~asible for them to take someone who just had major heart surgery, the client must be able to respond to fire alarms, if the sPrinkler system goes off, would they be able to motivate, which dictates the type of medications they can take. He stated that for example if the client is taking a heavy sedative they would not be allowed at their facility, because if they are sleepi g and something happened in the middle of the night they wouldn t be able to get out, they would~leep through it. Mr. Finck stated that they chose this piece of property because of the location, because it is out in the middle of nowhere, they would be able to have the petting farm and horses, these are all activities that their residents will enjoy. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Finck. Mr. Coward asked staff if central water and sewer will be brought to this property anytime in the near future. Mr. Kell3~ stated that water and sewer is available at the Elementary School, a short distance to the east, he is not aware of plans at this time for anyone to bring the water and sewer to this site, it is available that close. Mr. Coward stated that being this is a future land use designation change it will require the Department of Community Affairs to review this, in the paragraph describing their review there seems to be a pertinent statement that reads development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide service capacity to accommodate growth. Mr. Coward stated that we may very well need this facility but he questions whether it is the proper location, based on the rule of character of the area, and ~lso the lack of central water and sewer in this area. He stated that with the intensity of this being proposed, his question is Whether we will eventually be providing water and sewer to this site, it sounds as if we are not. Mr. Coward asked staff how are we consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan if we are not bringing water and sewer to this property. 14 Mr. Kelly stated that the question of water and sewer specifically for the applicant, will be regulated by those who regulate ACLF's, if water and sewer is required that will be an issue they have to deal with. He stated that when a developer needs water and sewer and it is nearby they mn the lines, if it is permisSible on the well and septic tanks for small use, he does not find a tremendous inconsistency. He stated:that if this were a very large development it would need water and sewer, we are talking what is now a large home with a number of seniors living in it, and he does not believe this is a real inconsistency with the plan. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Kelly if he was referring to the State Plan. Mr. Kelly stated yes, and they may disagree with staff. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Kelly to elaborate on staff's comment "Policy 6.A. 1.4.3 permits the use of a septic system for residential development at densities greater than two dwelling units per acre only when central water and sewer systems are not available". Mr. Kelly stated that this Policy speaks to residential densities of dwelling units per acre, this is an institutional use, if we compare it to residential, there is one dwelling unit on ten acres, it is not residential densities or greater, it is one large institutional use with more people living in it, if the Health Department and the other agencies would permit this on a Septic system, and he does not know that they will, he believes they are the appropriate authorities to regulate such. Mr. Becht stated that the size of the parcel is 11.36 acres, Mr. Kelly has stated that the parcel is less than 10 acres. Mr. Kelly stated that the legal description submitted is 9.85 acres, it was originally advertised at 11.36 acres, there is a requirement for it to be under 10 acres for a small area amendment, so the legal description has been amended, the legal description will show that the 10 acres is carved out of the middle so that a buffer is left around the entire outside of the property. Chairmm.~ Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly if the amended legal description changes anything that has been presented this evening. Mr. Kelly stated that it does not change any of the facts, it is a matter of changing the legal description. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if the reason Mr. Minix's home has two septic systems is because of the size of the house. Mr. Kelly stated that he would assume so, it is a very large home. Mr. Lounds stated that he is concerned the current septic system will not be able to handle the number of residents they plan to have. Mr. Kelly stated that if they cannot, that will be regulated by the Health Department and the State. 15 He stated they will need to meet all of the requirements of the State in order to establish this use. Chaim~an Calabrese asked what would be the pleasure of the board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, Mr. Coward moved that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County' Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Paradise Palms for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RS - Preferred Residential (Residential Suburban) to RS (Residential Suburban) because of the incompatibility with adjacent land uses and also the lack of public services in the area at this time. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 5-2, with Ms. Wesloski and Ms. Calabrese voting against the motion. Chairman Calabrese stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. 16 PUBLIC HEARING PARADISE PALMS FILE NO. RZ-98-008 Chairman Calabrese stated that the Board will now reconvene as the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Mike Picano presented staff comments. Mr. Picano stated that he was presenting the application of Paradise Palms for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Mr. Picano stated that the subject property is located at 8311 Indrio Road. He stated that the surrounding zoning is AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) to north, south, east, and west. I (Institutional) to the east. RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 dU/acre) to the northeast. U (Utilities) to the east. Mr. Picano stated that Paradise Palms has applied for the requested Change in Zoning in order to allow an. Adult Living Facility. He stated that the Institutional Zoning District allows Adult Living Facilities as permitted uses, subject to Board of County Commission approval. Mr. Picano stated that staff finds that this petition meets 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 that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Picano. Ms. Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the applicant can have this zoning without the land use. Mr. Kelly stated that Policy 1.1.8.4(7) requires that we change the Comprehensive Plan in order to have this zoning for this use, we would not have to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to have Institutional Zoning for a church, for instance. Chairman Calabrese asked if the applicant has t° have a use to change the zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that you do not need a use to change the zoning, for instance if this Board and the Board of County Commissioners were to change the zoning to Institutional the applicant could come before this Board and proceed forward with a church, if the applicant came for an Assisted Living Facility they would have to come back to this Board for the change in land use. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Minix if he would like to proceed with the Change in Zoning to Institutional. Mr. Minix stated that at this time he should let the sentiments of' this Board rest, he does not want 17 to rezone to Institutional without a reason, he would rather come back when he has reason for Institutional zoning. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly if this petition is being withdrawn. Mr. Kelly stated that he cannot speak for Mr. Minix. Mr. Mi:nix stated that he will withdraw the petition. Chairman Calabrese asked if there were any questions from the Board. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Kelly what happens when this goes forward to the County Commission. Mr. Kelly stated that this will go to the County Commission, he believes it needs to go with a recommendation, unless Mr. Minix completely withdraws the petition. Mr. Minix stated that under these circumstances, the petition needs to be heard. Chairman Calabrese asked if the petitioner would like to address the Board, to state anything new or restate their case. At this time, Chairman Calabrese opened the pUblic heating. Chairman Calabrese asked if there was anyone that would like to add anything. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr.. Becht if he would like to address the Board. Mr. Edward Becht, 321 South 2~d Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. He stated that he would like to reiterate his previous comments. Mr. Jim Russakis, 8803 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. He stated that he would like to reiterate his previous comments. Mr. Salwttore Merola, 8500 Indrio Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. He stated that he was n Mr, Mm~x s home when it was for sale, he has six members in his family, if he were to live in this home as a family he would need to add a 'bedroom in the garage and a bathroom. He stated that Mr. Patel and Mr. Finck said they were not going to change the square footage, they would renovate the inside, is this home big enough to house 20 residents and staff, are there laws that govern how many square feet per person. Chairman Calabrese stated that their licenses are regulated, which includes the number of residents and the staff that would be required. Mr. Finck stated that the State dictates the square footage per resident, at this time 80 square feet of 18 living space per resident is required. He stated that they planned to renovate the garage into two bedrooms. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Calabrese closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Calabrese asked what would be the pleasure of the board. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Moore moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Paradise Palms, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District because of the incompatibility with adjacent land uses and also the lack of public services in the area at this time. Mr. C°ward seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-1 with Ms. Calabrese voting against the motion. ' Chairm~m Calabrese stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. 19 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 98-016 FILE NO. ORD-98-016 Chairman Calabrese convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Dennis Murphy presented staff comments. Mr. Murphy referenced Draft Ordinance 98-016 which proposes a series of amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, these amendments effect several Chapters of the Code, and he would go through them briefly. He stated that he believes the Memorandum adequately summarizes the amendments, the amendments have been requested from a variety of senior county staff memb ers, one specific amendment from a member of the general public, and concerns that have come up over the past seVeral months. Chairm~m Calabrese asked if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Murphy that based on the language comained in this Draft, would you be able to access Flotilla or Marina Drive with a commercial use or activity? Mr. Murphy stated that you would not be able to access Flotilla south of Marina, unless specifically sanctioned by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Coward stated that there were provisions in the Land Development Code to address grass parking areas. Mr. Murphy stated those provisions still exist. Mr. Coward stated this Board recently had an interesting case where the lot size was 3 or 4 acres and the owners were using about 1/4 of it for the actual building and parking, yet they were clear cutting the entire property, the amendments proposed make it sound like they would have to save the remainder of that or at least a good portion of it, he sees a gray area coming in the future. Mr. Murphy stated that he would disagree with that assessment. There will be additional amendments to Chapter 11, specifically strengthening the vegetation removal section to make it more effective, which may preclude people from coming in and simply cleating the property, unless they wanted to go through the entire permitting process. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Murphy if the sentence on page 31, subsection 7, "preservation of existing native vegetation is required where the location of said vegetation is not in conflict with the proposed building or parking areas" is only within the width of the required landscape buffer as opposed to all areas outside. Mr. Murplhy stated that within any activity area on the property. He stated for example if a property 20 owner comes in with a 3 acre parcel and will only physically construct on half of the parcel (the building, parking and drainage) and would like to Clear the remainder of the parcel for storage, the county has no way to tell the property owner they cannot do that if the owner meets the land cleating code requirements. Mr. Murphy stated that staffwill continue to work with owners to protect as much as possible, and so far we have been pretty successful, a good example would be Flying J out at Orange and Kings Highway, that particular project pretty much knocked down all of the exotic infestations, they were able to save four very large oaks trees by incorporating them into their design plans, it's not much, but it's a start. Mr. Murphy stated that there are a number of oak trees at Th-County Feed Store on U.S. 1 that we have been able to work around and protect, this is the type of site by site review we are speaking of, and this will help reinforce those particular actions. Chairman Calabrese called a break at 9'07 p.m. due to the length of the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission reconvened at 9:14 p.m. Chairm~m Calabrese stated that during the last amendment of the landscaping requirements, input was received from Florida Power and Light, she recused herself from voting on that particular section, there do not appear to be any changes in this current amendment, and asked Mr. Lancaster if she is okay. Mr. Lancaster stated that she is okay, there is nothing effecting Florida Power and Light tonight. Chairman Calabrese stated that the record should reflect Ms. Wesloski had to leave. Chairman Calabrese stated that this meeting is going to be long, she would like to address one chapter at a time, allow the Board to ask questions, and then allow the public to ask questions. Chairmm.~ Calabrese asked the Board if they had any questions regarding Chapter I, General Provisions, page 5 and the top of page 6. Mr. Coward stated that there seemed to be some discussion about local street, he would like to make sure it is well defined in the Land Development Code. Mr. Murphy stated that the definition is in Chapter II, page 42 "local road or street: a route providing service which is of relatively low average traffic volume, short average trip length or minimal through-traffic involvements and high land access for abutting property". He stated that is a standard ITE traffic engineers language definition for a local street. Chairman Calabrese asked if anyone in the audience would like to address Chapter 1. Mr. Mike iRiordan, 213 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Riordan stated that he 21 would like to request the Board move forward to the chapter pertaining to the warehouse issue, instead of going chapter by chapter. Mr. Murphy stated that this is not a specific warehouse issue, the proposed amendments to Section 1.06.02 and the proposed amendments in Section 7.05.05 are related to each other and have broad applica~tion throughout the County. He stated if he could put words in Mr. Riordan's mouth, he believes that he is reallY concerned about the specific issues of access or the use of residentially classified property to access non-residentially classified property. Mr. Riordan stated that is correct. Ms. Pat Ferrick, 4802 South 25th Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Ferrick asked if Chapter 1 includes Chapter 1.06.02. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Bill Heam, 5051 Tozour Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam stated that he does not understand the implications of all the changes that are being proposed, he would like to go as far as we can tonight, do as much as we can, and have a workshop for the public to come in and find out what the implications and the ramifications of these changes will be. He stated that he does not mean to delay this, he feels this document is of great importance, and without asking a lot of specific questions and taking up a lot of'time, he cannot participate the way he would like, he would like to have a meeting where the public could come and have an open discussion with staff, line by line of what these changes mean and what the implications will be. Ms. Pat Ferrick, 4802 South 25th Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Ferrick stated that she is a representative of the North Fork Property Owners, and her letter to the board states: Dear Ch~firman Calabrese and Board Members, reason LDR 98-016. Your revision to the St. Lucie County Development Regulations Rules of Interpretation 1.06.00 A and B will adversely impact residential areas and take away the protection from adverse ingress and egress i.e. truck deliveries entering and exiting on a residential street and it dove tails on 7.05.05 which by adding the word excluding to that will have the same effect. Ms. Ferrick stated that she listened to what Mr. Murphy stated earlier in that the Board of County Commission will have to make the determination on those roadways as to whether they will be able to ingress or egress these properties, there are a lot of residential streets that could be adversely effected, she is not sure if the word excluding is placed in the sentence "excluding public or private street or road ri " ghts-of-way, by putting that in there she does not think anybody has the ability to make any' other determination other than to exclude those streets by putting that word in there. Ms. Ferfick stated that there needs to be some other method of controlling this for ingress and egress especially for those institutional areas that were discussed earlier, in her neighborhood as far as commercial properties being ingressed and egressed they have a very serious problem and they ask thatstaft cxclude' this or find some other way for inclusion. 22 Mr. Murphy stated that the phrase "excluding public or private street or road fights-of-way" is so that the typical street is not zoned, if you read that paragraph in its singularity your assessment is correct, you open the door to having that exact problem, the use of local streets for deliveries, for commerCial access to non-residential property. Mr. Mttrphy stated that paragraph B states "except as may be specifically authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, no street or road classified as a local roadway shall be used for access to commercially or industrially zoned property". He stated that the definition of a local street covers the majority, if not all of the residential streets in the county, the next step up is an arterial or collector roadway. Mr. Murphy stated that Midway is not a local street, it is an arterial roadway, 25th Street is an arterial roadway, Oleander is an arterial/collector, portions of Sunrise arguably are collector, Sunrise could be an issue into that area, but that issue already exists, he believes the safeguards are already in place, we are not going to encourage people to come down Citrus Avenue for commercial or non- residential purposes. He stated that paragraph B speaks to commercially or industrially zoned properties on local streets can only be granted by special approval. Ms. Ferrick asked Mr. Murphy what section and page he is reading from. Mr. Murphy stated the Section 7.05.05, page 21, paragraph B. Ms. Fen:ick stated that she must not have an up-to-date copy. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Murphy to read Section 7.05.05, page 21, paragraph B. Mr. Murphy stated "Except as may be specifically authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, no street or road classified as a local roadway shall be used for access to commercially or industrially zoned property". Chairman Calabrese asked the public who has that version. Ms. Ferrick stated that no one has that version. Mr. Murphy stated that there were early production drafts that may have been obtained. The draft he just read from is the one that was noticed, advertised and provided to the Board. Ms. Ferfick asked Mr. Murphy what would give the Board of County Commissioners the exception to allow tlhe local street to be utilized, this is still a problem as long as that language remains because the public does not know what the exceptions are. She would like a definition as to how the exception, will be interpreted and what the exceptions are going to be, she believes that the residential areas are too important and they generate enough tax dollars for the county, we should be protecting them and not taking away what has been put in definitely to protect the residential areas. Chairman. Calabrese asked Mr. Lancaster if the Board is properly conducting the meeting if the 23 material given to the public is different from what the Board has. Mr. Lancaster stated that the copy advertised is the copy staff and the Board has, there were copies in Community Development of earlier drafts which obviously are different, he believes legally the Board is okay. 'if the Board feels that the public should have the opportunity to review another draft, it is certainly within the authority of the Board to continue the heating. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels certain sections require discussion, some are date changes, he would suggest that the Board vote on the easy issues tonight, he too would like a workshop, he believes there is some meat to this ordinance that is good for the county, he believes some of the meat is good for some areas and not others, it should be discussed openly, and the public needs to have a correct draft. Mr. Men'itt stated that he would like to continue the heating at this point, even on the date changes, the perception is that the Board might be going forward without the public being properly informed, he would like to make a motion that the Board continue this heating until the August 20t~ meeting. Chairm~m Calabrese stated that another rather significant Ordinance is on the agenda for the August 20th regarding density on Hutchinson Island, she asked the Board if they want to hear both Ordinances the same night. Mr. Merritt that he does not want the public to have the perception that the Board is trying to do something. Chairman Calabrese stated that her inclination is that we should continue the hearing, she does not believe it is fair that the public has a different version. Chairman Calabrese asked the Board if they were up for having two Ordinances next month plus whatever petitions might be on the agenda. Mr. Lom.~ds asked if two meetings could be held in one month. Chairman Calabrese stated yes. Mr. Mul~phy stated that there are other documents winding their way through the system that we should have green lights on next week, and if they break free their will be some additional issues that will need. to be discussed. Chairmm~ Calabrese asked Mr. Murphy if the other issues have timetables that are urgent. Mr. Murphy stated that two of them may. Chairman Calabrese asked if the consensus is that we should continue this meeting. Mr. Coward stated that he believes we should continue this hearing. He stated that the Board has not fully addressed Mr. Heam's recommendation that there be a workshop, he would like to concur, it is an ideal way to get the public further involved in understanding what the ramifications of this 24 Ordinance are. Mr. Moore stated that if we are going to have a workshop, he would suggest that we continue this Ordinance for two months, instead of having two Ordinances next month and trying to squeeze in a workshop. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Wazny if the workshop is something the County can arrange. Mr. Wazny stated that staff will schedule a workshop. Mr. Lounds asked Chairman Calabrese if the Board members can attend the workshop. Chairman Calabrese stated yes, it is open to the public. Mr. Brian Killday, 923 Jackson Way, Fort Pierce addressed the Board. Mr. Killday stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Conservation Alliance, they have numerous objections to a number of these amendments, they object to the manner in which these amendments are being proposed, all of these significant changes in one night and in one amendment, these could have easily been broken into eight or ten different amendments and still have a lot of valuable discussion in meetings and give everyone a chance to express their opinion, important changes such as these should not be held in July when a lot of residents are up north, and especially sinCe there is no urgency. Chairman Calabrese stated that if the Board votes to continue this meeting, and you are not available to speak: on that date, you will be allowed to speak tonight, because the public has something different from the Board, she is assuming the public is willing to come back for a September meeting. Mr. Murphy stated that staff will work on the semantics, he is not sure that we can call it a workshop. It would need to be in August. He has procedural questions in his mind but he understands what the Board is looking for, he will find a way to get there. Mr. Killday asked staff if it were possible to break it down, to make it more manageable. Mr. Muq.~hy stated that standard practice has been to keep it all together. Ms. Nancy Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. She asked the Board when they vote on this amendment, if they vote one vote for everything, or are they taken individually. Chairman Calabrese stated that she maintains a list of comments, issues and recommended changes, based on public input and the opinions of Board members and advise staff regarding each Chapter. Ms. Spalding asked if the Board votes up or down individually. Chairman Calabrese stated that a tally is kept of the changes made along the way, and there is one 25 vote at the end of the entire Ordinance. Ms. Spalding asked if items can be eliminated and/or added. Chairman Calabrese stated that the Board may eliminate items, they can make items more or less restrictive. Ms. Spalding stated that the workshop will be held with staff only, she has been talking with staff for months, they know exactly how she feels, she really wants to talk to the Board. Chairman Calabrese stated that generally the workshops are held to make sure the public understands the history of the changes, Mr. Murphy stated earlier this evening some of the changes are coming from Commissioners, and other issues that have prompted changes. Mr. Lancaster stated that there will be a workshop with staff to answer any questions the public might have regarding the ramifications of the amendments, subsequent to that there will be another public hearing where the public will be able to address the Local Planning Agency with their concerns, the workshop is just an extra step in a more informal atmosphere. Mr. Lounds asked Chairman Calabrese the date of the August meeting. Chairman Calabrese stated August 20th. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands Mr. Merritt's concern in not wanting to proceed any further with the public having the incorrect Ordinance, if the Board proceeded with the sections that are simply date changes, would this help alleviate the load. Mr. M~phy stated that if the Board would like staff to break the Ordinance into pieces, staff'would need to re-advertise, with the exception of two or three points in the Ordinance, an explanation may take care of a lot of concerns and issues, he is confident that a couple of these may not, and they will be addressed individually. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Riordan if he wanted to say something. Mr. Riordan asked staff if the Section that deals with the restriction of commercial traffic on residential streets could be removed from the Ordinance and dealt with separately, he believes the majority ,of the public present tonight was interested in that particular issue. Mr. Coward asked Chairman Calabrese to poll the public to see if there is an interest in a workshop. Chairman. Calabrese polled the public to see how many would attend a workshop held at night and stated a good number of residents raised their hands. Mr. Murphy stated that the workshop will be held in the later part of August. 26 Chairman Calabrese asked how would the public contact staff for the date and time, and when should they call. Mr. Muxphy stated that in one week staff should have a date and time established, staff'will publish a notice stating the date and time of the workshop. Chairman Calabrese asked JoAnn (Recording Secretary) what phone number should the public call for information regarding the workshop. JoAnn stated that the public may call 462-2822 or 462-1586. Mr. Dart Harrell, Gonano, Harrell & Ferguson, 1600 South Federal Highway, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Harrell stated that he would like to address approximately 10 words in the Draft Ordinance, he is not sure the 10 words effect anyone else, if it is the pleasure of the commission to move forward to September, that is okay, however he has a conflict with the August date. Mr. Hanrell stated that he represents the Brown Ranch and their issue is time sensitive in regards to Section 6.06.00 which simply addresses the issue of affording mining activities the same ability to receive a wetlands alteration permit as any other development activity, including most governmental activities. He stated for instance, if one were to build a storm water retention facility adjacent to a roadway' it may impact a wetland, and would qualify for a wetlands alternation permit, but strictly speaking, a permitted mine, as a permitted mine, would not, simply because as Mr. Murphy characterized as an anomaly in the code. Mr. Harrell stated that they are simply requesting that the anomaly be addressed relatively quickly and it not get caught up with the balance of the Draft Ordinance which may have a much longer time through the process, he does not want to create a problem in terms of advertising and the other requirements, if there are concerns that members of this Board have regarding this Section, he would like to be prepared to address the concerns at the next meeting. Mr. Coward stated that he personally believes it is not a very wise move to be doing mining activities in jurisdictional wetland areas, he believes we have seen the negative impact of this type of operation in the North and South Savannahs where it is not only impacting wetlands but also the surficial aquifer which is the primary source of drinking water in our county, so he definitely has preliminary concerns about approving mining activities in jurisdicational w~tlands. He stated that he would also be very interested in knowing how the State and Federal Government would permit this type of activity. Mr. Harrell stated that there may need to be some tightening of the language that was suggested, to take care of Mr. Coward's concern. He stated that the Brown Ranch has an isolated wetland that is in the way of veining of extractable material, the impacting or alternation of that wetland is otherwise completely permitted under the County's regulations, DEP, South Florida Water Management District, and the Corps of Engineers. He stated that the wetland qualifies as completely exempt, agricultural activities have occurred on the property, we are not talking about an area like the Savam~ahs which is historically protected, there are comprehensive plan provisions that deal with 27 those areas, and they are fully consistent with any other activity. Mr. Harrell stated that :they believe the current language in Section 6.06.00 is simply too tight and does not recognize the realities of the situation of isolated wetlands. Mr. Coward stated that he agrees with Mr. Harrell to a degree, he believes the size and function of the wetland is very important. He stated that if we are talking about a large natural systems, it is completely different than a small isolated wetland that is not fur~ctioning. He stated that maybe we need to more clearly define the type of wetland area that might potentially be allowed to be impacted by mining activities. Mr. Murphy stated that the language contained in this particular section was submitted to staff. Mr. Hah:ell stated that if there is some way to address Mr. Coward's concerns and still be able to undertake this very limited type of activity, he would rather have the comments now and have a month to address them. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Harrell the acreage of the isolated wetland. Mr. Hanrell stated probably less than a ½ acre. Mr. Coward stated that there is a standard already in the code for other types of purposes, maybe this standard could be looked at, he believes the function of the wetland is important. Mr. Harrell stated that if this were any other type of development activity, it would not be otherwise permitted, it is wholly consistent with every aspect of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, there is simply an unusual provision in the mining section that flatly prohibits any impact of any wetlands, and the flat prohibition is inconsistent with the other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Calabrese asked the public if they had any comments for Mr. Harrell. Chairman Calabrese asked the public if they would like to address any issues before a motion is made. Mr. Lounds asked Chairman Calabrese if the Board is going to address the wetland and mining issues. Chairman Calabrese stated that the Board is not taking action on this issue, Mr. Harrell requested a sense from the Board as to how they would respond to that particular section, Mr. Coward provided some ideas as to how he and staff might reword that section. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell if the wetland is holding up his mining operation. Mr. Harrell stated yes, the vein needs to be adjusted, and the adjustment needs to occur by 28 September/October. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell where the mine is located. Mr. Harrell stated on the Brown Ranch. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell north or south of lndrio Road. Mr. Hmxell stated south of lndrio Road. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell if the surrounding zoning is agricultural. Mr. Hmrell stated yes. Mr. Loumds asked Mr. Harrell if the property was pasture or grove at one time. Mr. Harrell stated yes. Chairm~m Calabrese stated that if this Board does not move on this matter tonight, it will not be heard until the September 17th meeting. Mr. Murphy stated that if this Board acts on this issue tonight, the County Commission would not give this final consideration until late September or early October, the problem with timing already exists. He stated that Land Development Code amendments require one hearing before this Board and two hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. Chairma~a Calabrese stated that if this Board roles on this section tonight, we could save Mr. Harrell two months. Mr. Hah:ell stated that he greatly appreciates the effort of the Board, he is concerned about advertising and if'this places them in a situation of jeopardy regarding procedure, if not, he would greatly appreciate stepping forward, he understands Mr. Coward's concern, and he would rather have a Local Planning Agency recommendation that is favorable then to break this off and have a procedural problem. Chairmm~ Calabrese asked Mr. Coward if he has some wording that might work. Mr. Coward stated that he would suggest that the wording in paragraph 6.06.01 (B)(11)(a) in the Draft Ordinance "unless and to the extent permitted in accordance with Section 6.02.03 of this code" be changed. He stated that he would prefer to reference Section 6.02.03(B)(1)(a), which states "isolated wetlands, less than one-half (1/2) acre total area, entirely surrounded by uplands" as opposed to opening the door to all wetland areas in the County, particular larger systems. Mr. Harrell stated that we are talking about a non-jurisdictional wetland. 29 Mr. Lo'unds asked if the wetland is jurisdictional. Mr. Coward stated that it is a jurisdictional wetland by State. and Federal Code, but not by the County Code, he referenced this section based on the size of the wetland, this is the only area in the code that identifies and isolated wetland less than ½ acre. Mr. Hmxell stated that the two wetlands involved are each less than ½ acre, they may be very close, based upon what Mr. Lancaster pointed out on the procedure, they better not break away, they should take the month and try to straighten out and address Mr. Coward's concern. Mr. Murphy stated that staff can separate this item from the package, although not the preferred option, .and bring it back to the August 20th meeting. Mr. Harrell stated that he will not be available. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell if the person in charge of the mine could attend. Mr. Hanrell stated that if he is able to address Mr. Coward's concerns satisfactorily and there are no other serious concerns in terms of the language that is being sought, that may be an approach, he will attempt to address Mr. Coward's concerns with staff, possibly using the language suggested and possibly' slightly different. Chairman Calabrese asked Mr. Coward, as an expert in this area, if he would be available tomorrow or early :next week for conversation with staff. Mr. Coward stated that he would be available early next week. Mr. Murphy stated that he would be available mid week. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Harrell to check on the specific sizes of the wetlands. Mr. Harrell stated that he will obtain all of the necessary information and have it available. Chairman Calabrese closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Merritt made a motion to continue Draft Ordinance 98-016 until September 17th at 7'00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible with the exception of Section 6.06.00 which will be continued until August 20th at 7'00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Murphy ~stated that all public heatings, even though referenced for continuation tonight, will again be duly advertised. Ms. Spalding asked Mr. Murphy if the advertising will be in the same format. 30 Mr. Murphy stated yes. OTHER BUSINESS. Ms. Jeanne Heam, 5051 Tozour Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Heam stated that it is her understanding that the legal notices state that the materials are ready to be viewed at the County Administration Building or available to the public. Ms. Heam stated that she often finds that changes are made and/or the material is not ready at the time of the advertising, and she would like the Board to urge staff to have the information available and correct when the advertising is done, it would be more appropriate than having changes come up after having spent hours reviewing information that may or may not be correct. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned 10:05 p.m. 31 PLANNING ~ ZO~G COMMISSION REVIEW: 08/20/98 File Number ~-98-013 ME M O RAND U.M DEP~TMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUB. CT: LOCATION: E~STING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: FUTURE .L~D: USE: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SU~OUNDING .ZONING,: Pla .nning and:Zoning Commission Planning ~Manager ~]~\~ August 13, 1998 Application of james & Connie Childs' and Joe & ArbeH Miles for'a change:in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning~Disffict to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zo~g District. 3076 South 25th Street RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4.du/acre) N (Commercial, Ne~ghborhooct) RU (Residential, Urban) 0.88 acre To allow an office for :tax preparation services. UTILITY ~S ERVICE: the west and~northwest. CO (Commercial, Office) to the south. COM (Commercial) to' the west and northwest. RM (Residential, Medium) to the north. RU (Residential, Urban) to the south and east. Station #1 (2400 Rhode Island) approximately 1 mile.tO the north. is located The subject properties currently utilize on-site well and septic systems. August 13, 1'998 Page 2 Petition: James & Connie Chil'ds and Joe & Arbell Miles File No: RZ-98-013. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY .ADEQUACY: ,SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE ~y DOCUMENT ~Q The fight-of-way width for South 25th Street is 80 feet. None at this time. Concurrency Deferral Affidavit '.RE~ VIEW AS SET COUNTy LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE rezoning, the Planning and Zoning: Commission shall le e e Se ~St. LuCie ed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the eVelopment Code; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements-of the St. Lucie specifically has met the standards of ~Section 11.06 ~. Whether Lu amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. ; The is consistent-with all elements of the St. Lucie The COM (Commercial) CN.(Co~ercial, Neighborhood)~development. Whether and.the extent to which the propOsed zoning is: inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The Nei Preparation Services. consistent with the existing land uses. The Commercial ~stabhshment of offices speclahzlng in Tax 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 public facilities, inclUding but not limited~ to on sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass ~transi~, and emergency medi~ai facilities; August 13, 1998 Page 3 Petition: James & Connie Childs and Joe & Arbell Miles File No: RZ-98-013 '7. The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to 'create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to .support such development. Whether and the 'extent to which-the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse imPacts on the natural environment; The, proposed, rez°ning is not ~anticipated to create adverse impacts ~on the-natural enwronment. Any development, will need to comply with local, state, and federal environmental regulations. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect the property-values in the area; The proposed amen~ent is nOt expected to negatively affect .property values of Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logieal..development pattern specifically identifying any negative ~ orderly: pattern will occur with this change in zoning. generally-uSed for commercial uses which are c°mpatible with the proposed change in zoning. Whether the proposed .amendment would be in confli.ct ~th the ~public interest, and is in harm°~,Y With the pUrpOse ~and intent'of this COde; ' Theproposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony With the 'p~ose :and intent of the St. Lucie County Land: Development Code. COMMENTS chan The petitioners., James .and Connie Childs and Joe and AJ'bell Miles, have requested this - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN Street in order to preparation se~ices, Tbs tax omc .occupation. The., this location, .they their home :at and use of from the Circle K to the south. 25th continue as their tax office for tax ;s for over twelve years as a m-site. In order to continue at this use. The Miles. alSo have ~become non- as it is not destroyed by a continuous parcel August 13, t 998 Page 4 Petition:James & Connie Childs and Joe.& Arbell Miles File No' RZ-98-013 Staff haS reviewed this petition, and determined that it conforms 'with 'the standards of review as set fo~h in Section 11,06,03 of the St. LuCie County Land Development Code and is not in policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff .~fo~ard this petition'to the-Board Of County Commissioners With a approval. Please.contact this office if you.have any questions on this., matter. Attachments mp cc: James and COnnie Childs Joe,and Arbell Miles File Suggested motion to reco~end approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. AFTER CONS~ERING:THE TEST~ONY P~SENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF CO~ENTS, ~ THE STAND~S OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH ~ SECTION 11.06.'03, ST. LUCIE CO~Y L~ DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HE.BY MOVE HAT rile PL G'.~ ZONING CO~SSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCre CO~TY OF COUNTY CO~ISSIONERS GRANT. APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATiON'OF JAMES AND-CONNIE CHILDS AND JOE AND ARBELL MILES FOR A CHANGE ~ ZO FROM T~: RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY_ .4 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO ~T~ CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT. BECAUSE ... [CITE ~ASON ~Y - PLEASE BE.SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DE~: ~TER CONS~ G THE. TESTIMONY P~SENTED DURING THE P~LIC ~ARING, INCL :~3~G ST~F CO S, ~ T~ STAND~S OF ~VIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION' 11.06.03, .'ST. LUC~:CO~Y L'AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I ~REBY MOVE T~T ~'.~ P G Z G CO~SSION ~COMME. ND THAT THE ST. LUC~ CO~'Y BO~ OF CO Y' CO~SSiONERS DENY THE ~PLICATIO~ OF JAMES AND CONNIE CttlLDS.~ ~AND JOE AND ~ELL MILES FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE RS-4.(RES~ENT~, SINGLE-F~ILY- 4 DU/AC~) ZO~G DISTRICT TO THE CN (COMMERCI~, ~IGHBO~OOD) ZONING~DISTRICT. BECAUSE ... [CITE ~ASON ~Y- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. CO E:' C, S ~£ i ' ' ' S ~£ ~ S 9£ AINflO0 3~80HO3El~l'O 39NV~ s y_£ & Joe and Arbel Miles & James and Connie Childs Zoning R? '98-013 ' ' RE-2 9 ' '0 ~S-4 0 ! . ~ tr Edwards Road · .. |7 N;S,L,R,W.ld:D, ..' ' ' Canal ...... -No. 'rS i' South Edwards Rood Barbara I 3 4' 5 6 ? 8 $ I Avenue Elizabeth .Avenue I CO RM-5 i 1 Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map revised July 23,1998 Joe an,d ArbelMiles & James and Connie Childs 'Land Use RU RM 'E tlw or ds R.o o~d · COM. t FlU Edwor,ds Rood 1__~ ' .. N.S,.L:R.W~.M!'D.. ' "'' ' Conol No. 9 .~1 South Edwords Rood .... Borboro Avenue Elizobeth Avenue RZ Community Development Geographic Information Systems MaP revised July 23,1998 .AGENDA- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1998 7:00 P.M. Joseph and Arbell Miles and James ~and Connie Childs, have petitioned St. Lucie County for a C'~ange in Zoning from. the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, .Neighborhood) Zoning District for .the following described property: SEE A TTA CHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~Zocation: 30,76 South 25t~ StreeO Please note '.that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a.person decides to'appeal.any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any. matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the p~ oceedtngs, and'that, for ,Uch purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ~made, .which.record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be bm~ed, Upon the request of anyparty to ~the proceeding, indt.viduals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in, ~ Any partyto the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual test~ing during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will al~o be considered. Prior to this. public heartng, .notice. of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners AdgUst 7, 1998. Legal-notice was Published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, .newspapers of general circulation inst. Lucie County, on August ~ 199& File No. RZ-98-013 .......... .! ........ i_, . i 1 ~ . i = Oi~.O.~ ,,lDO0 00;Oi 1 : i , ' !t ~ O ~ i ~', :, "'~ f/ t ~ ~ I < ' I/ , ~ ~. I ~ ~ :~ t/ / t ~ I ~ i , I ' I I I I. '1'' '1 -I I 'ST. LUCI.~ COUNTY -PLANNING AND ZOiNINO COMMISSION . PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA '.AUGUS¥ 20, 1998 ,, TO WHOM IT. MAY CONCERN: NOTICI~ is hereby given in accordance with Sedi°n 11:00.03 of the St. LUcie C..ounty Land Devel- opment Code"and.in accordance w~ith the provisions of ti~e St. Luci~ County' Comprehensive Plan~ .that the following .alSplicant~'. have requeSted that the St. Lucie County Pic~nning and .Zoning COmmission consider their. request' as follows: ' ' 1. Joseph and Arbell Miles and James and Connie~ Childs, have petitioned St. LUcie C°~ntl~ 'fo~ Change in Zoning frorti"..~the RS-4 (Residential, ' Single. Family'S': alu/aCre) Zoning District tc~ th6 CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zon- ing District fo~ the fOllowing described property: Edgew°od Acres, Block 1, 'Lots 2, 3 and4 - less the west 15 feet. (0:66. AC)(OR 11'2.9-..968) (Tax i.D, # 2428-603-0002-000/5)~-and, Edgewood'ACres, Block 1, Lot 5 less the west 15 feet 10.22 AC) (OR 370-28t5) (Tax I.D..# 2428-603-0005-000/6.) (Location: 3076 South 25t'h Street) A PUBLIC HEARING will be held in Room 1.01~ St. Lucie Couniy' Administration Building,..23.00 Vii'- ginia. Avenue, Fort Pierce,. 'Florida ~n August 20; 1'.998, beginning at 7:00':i~.M. or as soon th6~eafl~r as possible, ' PURSUANT TO'Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes~. if"~: to appeal any deci. sion made by a board,-agency, or commissio'n with respect to any matter considered at a meeting'-Or hearing, he will need' a.record'of' the proceedings, and that, for s~)ch purpose, he may' need to ensure - that a verbatim record of the pro. ceedings is made, which reCOrd .includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is-to' be based. · PLANNING AND zONING. COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/DONNA CHAIRMAN . 1998 No. 2629~ ST. LUCIE'COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBUC HEARING AGENDA AUGUST 20, 1998 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: . NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11...00.03 of the St.. LuCle County Land 'Development Code and in accordance with the provisions of the St.: Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, that the following ~appttcants have requested that the St. Lucle County' Planning and Zoning Commission consider thelr request as follows: I. Joseph and Arbell Miles and James and Connie Childs, have petition~d St. Lucle County for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 .[Residential, Single-Family.. 4 alu/acre] Zoning DistriCt to. the CN- (Commercial, NeighborhOod] Zoning District for the following described property: EDGEWOOD ACRES, 'BLOCK 1, LOTS 2, "3 AND 4 - LESS THE WEST 15 FEET [0.66 AC] (OR 1129-968] ' [Tax I.D. # 2428~603-0.0027000/5); AND, ' EDGEWOOD ACRE~i"BLOCK" 1, · LOT "5 - LESS THE WEST 15 FEET . (0.22 AC) (OR 370-2815 [Tax I.D. #2428-603-0005~.000/6] · .(Location: 3076 South i25th Street] . A PUBUC HEARING will be held in Room 101, St: Lucle Cou.nty Administration Building, '2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on August 20, 1998, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida S. tatutes, 'if a person decides to appeal any' decision made by a board, agency, or commission with respect-to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record 'of the proceedings, and that, for. such purpose, he may need to ensure that a Verbatim. record of 'the proceedings is made, which record Includes the lestimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ DONNA - CALABRESE, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DATE: August 7, 1998 , COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 1998 Ordinance 98-015 MEMO RAND UM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Land Development Coordinator DATE: August 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 98-015, amending Section 3.01.03(AA) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Hutchinson Island Residential District. At the Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 16, 1998, the public hearing on the above referenced Ordinance was continued until August 20, 1998 at the request of both County staff and the Hutchinson Island Presidents Council. Draft Ordinanace 98-015 addresses certain clarifications to the existing County regulations governing the location of Hotel/Motel and Other Transient Uses in the Hutchinson Island Zoning District. The pursue for this continuance was to provide additional time for the President Council representatives to discuss their views on these proposed amendments with both County staff and other senior policy directors for tho County. As of this date, County Staff has not received nay additional direction on this matter. Consequently, Draft Ordinance 98-015 is being withdrawn from consideration at this time. This item will be rescheduled for further reView at a later date, but no earlier than January 1999. If you have any questions, please let me know. DJM/cb attachment 98-015m I (a48) cc: County Attorney Planning Manager COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 1998 Ordinance 98-019 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning CommiSsion FROM" Land Development Coordinator DATE' August 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 98-019, amending various sections of Chapter 13of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Building Codes and Standards. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 98-019, which proposes to amend the various Building and Construction Safety COdes found in Chapter 13 of the County's Land Development Code to the most current State standards. Every two (2) years the Florida Department of Community Affairs re-adopts new statewide building codes. Following their action, each local government in the State with building inspection reSponsibilities is required t© adopt one of the approved State Building Codes. These cOde adaptions must be done by a specific action of the local governing body for that community. Staff recommends approval of Draft Ordinance 98-019. If you have any questions, please let me know. DJM/¢b attachment 98-019mi(a48) cc: County Attorney Planning Manager 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 WHER the roi ORDINANCE NO. 98-019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TItE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 13.00.01 CODE~ TO ADOPT THE 1997 STANDARD AMENDING SECTION 13.01.01 ENERGY EFFi OF ST ADO THE iE, BY BY ADOPTING THE 1997, FLORIDA EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE; BY MECHANICAL CODE, BY iMECHANICAL CODE; BY REPEALING .CODE, AMENDMENTS; BY iELECT~CAL CODE, BY ADOPTIN iELECT~CAL CODE; BY. P~VENTION CODE, BY ADOPTING BY AMENDING SECTION 13.07.01, STANDARD GAS CODE; BY AME ][lOUSING CODE, BY BY PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, FILING WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE, ~ODIFICATION. BY 'G CODE, CODE 1, SECTION 1 , 1996 NATIONAL 13.05.01, FI~ FIRE CODE; 1997 13 , STANDARD 9 PROVIDING FOR , PROVIDING FOR PROVIDING FOR AN AND PROVIDING FOR · Code. 21. The B~ amen~ 91-21 93-01 .. ;ommissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made of County Commissioners of St. Lucie ad°pted the St. Lucie County Land Development of County Commissioners has adopted certain to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the following Ordinances March 14, 1991 91-09 November 7, 1991 92-17 February 16, 1993 93-03 May 14, 1991 June 2, 1992 February 16, 1993 Ordinance #98-019a Draft ~1 $~rike Tl-,roug-,h is for deletion Page 1 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 40 . 93-05 - May 25, 1993 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-18 - August 16, 1994 95-01 - January I0, 1995 97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-23 - September2, 1997 XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX.-XX - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On August 20, 1998, the Local Pla Zoning Commission held a public hea after publishing notice in the Port St. least 10 days prior to the hearin proposed ordinance be approved. On September 15, 1998, this Board proposed ordinance, after ' Port St. Lucie News and the 93-06 - 94-07 - 94-21 - 96-10 - 97-09 - XX-XX - XX-XX - XX-XX - Age on the May 25, 1993 June 22, 1994 August 16, 1994 August 6, 1996 October 7., 1997 and mended On October 6, 1998, th proposed ordinance, Port St. Lucie New: hearing on the · in the 998. 6. The proposed ...... Develo publi the ne hearing on the hearing in the ber 24, 1998. d St. Lucie County Land are the general purpose, goals, rds ucie County Comprehensive Plan health safety and public welfare of the anty, Florida. NOW, 'ri Lucie nty, Fie INED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. ii~.~CII"IC,?:,~i~i~NDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE AND COMPILED FOLLOWS, INCLUDE: Ordinance #98-019a Draft ~1 Underline is for addition Gtrike Throu~ is for deletion Page 2 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 CHAPTER Xlll BUILDING REGULATIONS PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRU 13.00.00 BUILDING CODE 13.00.0'1 GENERALLY A. ,ADOPTED ']'he Standard Building Code, 1994 1997 edition, i~ii~i:uding Southern Building Code Congress International. -of the County, to apply to the unincor County. filed in the office of the Community during the regular business hours of s .D L s promulgated by the the Building Code of such Code shall be for public inspection 13.01 13.01.01 The Florida~ is as of All Buildin in St. Lu~ ~s. A copy of such public in ENCY BUILDING CODE Buil( Code, -19~3 199_7_ edition, will serve the needs of the County and ing Code Standard for Energy Efficiency in the Thermal Design and ~uilding permit is issued after-January I, ~, o,:,o,'"~'° .(insert effective date of sUbject to the exemptions contained in Section 553.902(1), Florida lo Shall be filed in the office of the Community Development Director and shall during the regular business hours of such office. Ordinance ~98-019a Draft ~1 Underline is for addition Ctrike Through is for deletion Page 3 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 41 42 43 44 45 13.02.00 MECHANICAL CODE 13.02.0'11 ADOPTED The Standard Mechanical Code,-1-994 ~1997~ edition, including Appendix A heat (loss/gain), promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., is adopted by Code of the County, to apply to the unincorporated areas of the County. A copy of s~ be filed in the office of the CommunitY Development Director and shall be during the regular business hours of such office. 13.03.00 PLUMBING CODE ~4") h,') ft,~ A II/ll'"l[ll"~li/ll'"'kl"l'~, I ,d,V~,~,l,/& /"t11111.-i11./11111..il I 60o,.."""- Up. ~be N.~nal .Elec!nc.al .C.oa~iiiii~ii~iiiiiii~iiiii~iii?' ,,,oo 1996 ed,t~on, as promulgated by the Nabonal Rte Protect,on Ass0,~!iat~on, ~s aaopmo r~y:~i~ee as the Electrical Code of the County, to apply to the unincorporated area~i~:f the County. A cop~iii~f ~'~'~h Code shall be filed in the office of the Community Development Director a~ii~all be available for.tii~i~blic inspection during the regular business hours of such office. :"~i ii?i!i!iiiii i ii! iii!iii iii !iii!!i~iiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~i~iiiiiiiiiii?!iiiiiiii!!iiiiiiii~i? ........ ******************************** Ordinance #98-019a Draft #1 Underline~ is for addition ~rike Throug-h is for deletion Page 4 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 13.05.00 FIRE PREVENTION CODES 13.05.0'! ADOPTED The Standard Fire Code, 1994 1997 edition, as promulgated by the Southern Building International, Inc., are adopted by reference as the fire code of the county, to a areas of the county. A copy of such codes shall be filed in the office of Director and shall be available for public inspection during the re, Congress Development such office. 13.07.00 GAS CODE 13.07.01 ADOPTED The Standard Gas Code, ,oo-, .1997 edition including Appendix D (example problems) and Appendix E Building Code Congress International, Inc., is adop~ to the unincorporated-areas of the county. A co Development Director and shall be available insl office. A izing), ts the h fixed orifices), by the Southern of the county, to apply office of the Community ular business hours of such 13.08. N OUSl 13.08.01 The Standard International unincorpc DeVelo office. E as promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress the Standard Housing Code of the County, to apply to the of suCh code shall be filed in the office of the Community shall be available for public inspection during the regular business lNG PROVISIONS. if the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinance #98-019a Draft # 1 o=zike Through is for deletion Page 5 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 47 ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby suPerseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. PART C. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordinance is for any mason held or declared to be unconstitu such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, if this thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, affect its applicability to any other person, property, or ' or void, any provision holding shall not PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable throughout St. Lucie Sou PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to s~ Administrative Code and Laws, Department of Sta' PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance Shall take effect upon th copy to the Bureau of 32304. PART G, ADOPTION. A, er m otJ[~!~iiiii~i~;~ii~iecond, is ordir ..... ,,,:i~ii;;i!¢i!ii!i¢i~;::' ...... d;~i~~i~i~!~r Cliff Barnes !ii~!i??' c~m'i~:sioner John $. Bruhn iiii~ii~ ....... ~iiii~mmissioner Ken Sattler s as follows: Ordinance #98-019a Draft #1 ~de~~e~--i~ for additi~ Strike Throug-h is for deletion Page 6 PRINT DATE: 07/22/98 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 PART H. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE 98-(:11 ~i~~'~'ends - disc Ordinance #98-019a Draft ~1 _r,J n d e r ~ ~-e --i"~ -~ o--r--aq d-~ t--iT ~ ........ Strike Tl~roug-h is for deletion Page 7 PRINT DATE: 07/22,/98 AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1998 7:00 P.M. Consider Draft Ordinance 98-019 (General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code). Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of anyparty to theproceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of general ,circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 6, 199& File No. ORD- 98- O19 NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT . OR CHANGE OF REGULATION AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The St., Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. Pro- pose to adopt the following Ordinance: ' ORDINANCE NO'. 98-019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. 'LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY SECTION 13.00.01(A), BUILDING C AD THE. 1997 STANDARD BUILDING ENERGY THE 1997, BUILDING FLORIDA CODE; BY CODE, BY BY CHANICAL CODE, 13.04.01, NATIONAI~ 13.05.01, FIRE STANDARD ; CODE, BY SECTION 13. ADOPTING PROVIDING FOR S PROVID ,DE, BY BY ROVIDING ADOPTING The purpose of this public hearing is to amend'the St. Lucie County Land DevelOpment Code to provide for amendment t° the County, s Building Codes and Regulations to be consistent with the Codes and regUlations adopted by. the Florida BOard of Building 'COdes and Standards. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 98-019 will be held. before the gt. 'Lucie County Planning and Zoning CommiSsion/Local 'Pianning ency on Thursday, August 20, 1998 at 7:00 PM or as s°on'therea~- ter as possible, in 'Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Ad~stration Building, 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft.. Pierce, FL. Matters affeCting your 'personal' and .property rights may be heard and acted upon. AH interested persons are invited to attend and be heardi Written com- ments received in advance of the public hearing will.also be heard. Copies of the proposed ordinance, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pier~e, Florida 34982, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed ordinance may be made. at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any mat- ter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, com- missions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need record of the proceedings and that, for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, Which.record should include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals"testifying during a hearing will be sworn' in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request.- This notice dated and executed this 22nd day of July, 1998. PLiNNING AND ZONING'COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/DONNA CALABRESE, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DATE: August 6, 1998 NOTICE OF HMENT The St. Lucie County.. Board of County Commissioners propose to adopt the following Ordinance: ~ ORDINANCE, NO. 98-019 AN ORDINANCE'AMENDING THEIST.. 'LUCIE COUNTY LAND 'DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 13.00.01(A),BUILDING CODE, TO ADOPT THE 1997 STANDARD BUILDING CODE; BY AMENDING SECTION 13.01.01 ENERGY EFFICIENCY'BUILDING CODE, BY ADOPTING THE 1997, FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY CODE EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE; BY AMENDING SECTION 13.02.01, MECHANICAL CODE, BY ADOPT- ING THE 1997 STANDARD MECHANICAL CODE; BY REPEALING SECTION 1.3.03.02, PLUMBING CODE, AMENDMENTS; BY AMENDING SECTION. 13.04.01, ELECTRICAL CODE, BY ADOPT' lNG THE 1996 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL .CODE'; a~' AMENDING SECTION FIRE PREVENTION CODE, BY ADOPTING THE 1997 FIRE CODE; BY AMENDING SECTION 13,07.01, GAS~ ADOPTING THE 1997 STANDARD GAS CODE;~BY 13.08.01, DARD HOUSING CODE, BY BY PROVID- ING F G FOR SEVER- DiNG FOR FIL- ING DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AN PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING The purpose Of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucie County Land O' ~ Development Code to. provide, for amendment to the C unty s Building Codes and Regulations to be consistent with the codes and regulations adopted by trhe Florida Board of Bui!.ding Codes.and Standards, ~' ,~'~' . .. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance '98-019 will be held before the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency on Thursday, August 20, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafteCas possible, in Room 10.1 of the St. LUcie County Administration' Building, 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft~ Pierce, FL. Matters affeCting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. · Copies of the proposed ordinances, are available for review in the office of the CommUnity Development Director, St. Lucie county Administration Building, 2300-Virginia Avenue, Ft.. Pierce,. Florida 34982, .during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed ordinance may be made at the public hearing. · If any.person decides to appeal any decisiOn made with .. respect to any mat- ter considered at the meetings Or hearings of any board, committees, com- missions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need record of the proceedings and that, for such purpose ~may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which record.should include the testi- mony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- -examine any individual testifying during a-hearing uponrequest. This notice dated and executed this 22nd day of July, 1998. PLANNING'AND zONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ISl DONNA CALABRESE, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DATE: August 6, 1998 COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 1998 Ordinance 98-020 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO' Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission FROM' Land Development Coordinator DATE' August 13, 1998 SUBJECT' Consider Draft Ordinance 98-020, amending Section 6.06.01(b)(11), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mining, Restrictions, Regulations and Conditions on a Mining Permit to Provide for the Ability to Mitigate Wetlands as a Part of a Mining Operation. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 98-020, which proposes to amend Section 6.06.01(b)(11), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mining, Restrictions, Regulations and Conditions on a Mining Permit to Provide for the Ability to Mitigate Wetlan,ds as a Part of a Mining Operation. This proposed amendment has been submitted on behalf of Brown Ranch Inc., and was briefly discussed at the Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 16, 1998. Based on those discussions, the proposed amendment to this section read as follows' 6.06.01(b)(11) '11. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Mining shall not be permitted in the following environmentally sensitive areas' a, Within any jurisdictional wetland as delineated in Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, or within fifty (50) feet of any jurisdictional wetland except that mining may occur within an isolated jurisdictional wetland ontimly surrounded by uplands, if and to th° extent: Alteration of such wetland is permitted in accordance with .Section 6.02.03 of this Code, and; 2.) Mining activities have received appropriate environmental resource permits issued in accordance with Part IV (Management and Storage of Surface Waters) of Chapter 373 August 12, 1998 Page 2 Subject: Ordinance 98-020 .(Water Resources), Florida Statues, b,, Savannahs State Reserve; C= Atlantic Coastal Ridge; d,, Within any area listed in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Native Upland Habitats or within fifty (50) feet of such an area; e= Coastal High Hazard Area; or, Dune Preservation Zone. This proposed amendment provides for the ability of a mining operator, subject to obtaining the appropriate State and local resource protection permits, to expand their mining activity into isolated jurisdictional wetlands, unless otherwise prohibited by County Codes. If approved, this amendment would confer onto the mining industry, the same mitigation rights as any other property owner in the County has in regard to mitigation of wetlands altered through development activity. This proposed amendment is consistent with Polices 8.1.4.2, 8.1.7.1 and 8.1.7.5 of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of Draft Ordinance 98-020. If you have any questions, please let. me know. DJM/cb attachment 98-020ml (a48) cc: County Attorney Planning Manager Dan Harrell, Esq. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 98-020 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 6.06.01 (B)(1 '1), MINING, RESTRICTIONS, REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON A pERMIT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE ............. ~i~bS AS A PART OF A MINING OPERATION; BY PI; ~?~LICTING PROVISION, BY PROVIDING FOR SEVE ~ii~,,G FOR APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR FILING ~~i~T OF .... STATE, PRovIDING FOR AN EFFECTI~ ~!ii~iiii~i~R~.~ · WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ~iiiiiCounty, Florida, has made the following determination: !iiiiiii!i iiii!iliiii!ii~i~?~ ~. 'on ^ugu~t ~, ~990, th~ ~d o,~~~ Com~i~$~ig'":'o, St. Lu~ County, Florida, adopted tb~i~~~~.ounty ":~~ ....... Development 2.. The Board of COU~i9 Co~issio~?~~ ~s adopted ce~ain amendments to tg~gt. Lu~j$~?'County~?~and Development Code, through the follo~~brdin~es .... ~ ? ..... ::~?~?::: ...... 91-03 - ..:::~ M~ 14, 19~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?~?" 91-09 - May 14, 1991 .:~::~ ~ ~9:!-21 - ..:~ ~~mber 7, ~~ ~ ? ........ 92-17 - June 2, 1992 . '"':~?:~ ~ ~~?: ...... - ...... ~?~ ~~~:993 93-06 - May25,1993 ......... ?:~ ~~ ~[~ ~ .... "~:~~ ~; ~3 94-07 - June 22, 1994 ..... ~g~ ~[~ ~:: A6~~~[~94 94-21 - August 16, 1994 ..... ~~ ~ ~ janu"~~?1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996 .... ~? ~?~~ ~[~[~ ~)~ March ~?:~ 997 97-09 - October 7, 1997 ..... ~ ?:: ......... 97-23 ...... ~ ~gtember 2, 1997 xx-xx - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..... ~:~ ~?" xx-xx -' ...................... ~~:XXXXXXXXXXX xx-xx - .... ::::~?~??' ~XxxxXxxxxxxxx .... ~::~::~: XX-XX - XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3. 2o, 99s, t,e genoy/ :~ ~}~ ~ ~;~ .... Zoni~Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance ~~ ~ ~ ~~:~g~~ublishing notice in the Po~ St. Lucie News and the Tribune at :~ ~ ~ ~ ~j }~ ~st 10 days prior to the hearing and recommended that the ........ ?~?:~ ~ ~?~?? ....... proposed ordinance be approved. Ordinance ~98-020b Draft ~2 ......... ~de~~e--i~ for addition ,Strike Th:cou~-h is for deletion Page 1 PRINT DATE: 07/27/98 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 . On September 15, 1998, this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on September 3, 1998. 5. On October 6, 1998, this Board held its second public hearing~,,~;~n the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of su~i~?~,,~head~i?~'in the News and the Tribune on S.eptembei~i ~iii~,liii~i~§. Port St. Lucie 6. The proposed amendments to th,~ i!i~i!~i~''': Luci:~!iiii iii~~~iii~:~ ...... Land .... ~i!~!i~iiiii.iiiii~' Development Code are consistent wiii~?ihe gen::~ii~¥?P~ii~~ii!iii~i~ls, ........~,,::?,~iiiiii":?? .... objectives and standards of the St. Lu~Coun.~~mpreh'~~~~ ? ..... and is in the best interest of the healt~~~?~d public welfa:~~~:::: ...... citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. ''~?~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~ ...... ' .................... NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the~?~Beard of~:~~~~D~mmissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: PART A. THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT.,Siiiiii~'~TE Ei~::'i LUCIEii~OUNTY CODE AND COMPILED LAWS TO READ AS FOLLO ** ...... STANDARDS co. mo.s o. ~?~ ~? i~;b~!!~:~ ~!~i~l to excavate or mine, as defined in Chapter il, any real property in St. Lucie County ':==~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~J~¥'obtaining a mining permit for such activity, except as exempted in Section 11.05.11. B. All mining operations conducted under authority of a permit issued in accordance with the provisions Ordinance ~98-020b Draft ~2 Strike Throug-h is for deletion Page 2 PRINT DATE: 07/27/98 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 of this Code shall be subject to the following restrictions, regulations, and conditions' Paragraphs 1 through 10- No Changes 11 Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Mining shall not be permitted in the following a. Within any jurisdictional wetland a~ Statutes, or within fifty (50) feet of to the extent: Alteration of such wetland of this Code, and; areas: on 6.02.0 resou e of Surface b. Savannahs State c. Atlantic d. Within any Hal · listed i~i~ Invento~ ~f Environmentally Sensitive Native Upland ~ig::~~'ch an area, ',''..ov,s,o.s. acts of the [i!~'ida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucia County..:,,O~iii:hances and County resolutions, Or parts thereof, in conflict with this ~i~iii~i~ei~a~eiiii~~by superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. Ordinance #98-020b Draft #2 Underline is for addition Strike Through is for deletion Page 3 PRINT DATE: 07/27/98 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 40 PART C. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ,ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable t~iiiany person, property, or circumstanCe, such holding shall not affoct its applicabi.!i~l~ to ag~ii ~iher person, property, or circumstance. This ordinance shall be applicable throughout St. PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT..::O~i~i!~~iii!iii The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith~O ~i~i~a certi~i~iiiiii~i~ Bf this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code aa,~ ii!~~i ~p~artmen'~{iiiii~¥?State, The Capitol, This ordinance shall take effe~ ~Pon fi.!~j~ ii~ithtb~ii ~epartment of State. After rnotion':'~::~i~ ~~ th;~iii~!~ i~i ~his ordinance was as follows: Mi~i !'h n Paula A. Lewis iii!~°mmissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner John D. aruhn Commissioner Ken Sattler TE effe~ ~pon ~iii!~i~iiii~Gary D. Charles, Sr. XXX ~ ~'hairma XXX XXX XXX XXX Ordinance ~98-020b Draft ~2 Strike Through is for deletion Page 4 PRINT DATE: 07/27/98 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 PART H. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "artj,,~!e", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renu~,bered~i~?~elettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that parts B throug~ ~ iS,b,~a!iiiiiii~ot be codified. BOARD ~ ~i~i~TY coMMIS$~::::i~i~i~!~ii~S ATTEST: ST. LU Cl E':: ~6~i~~¥:... FLO RI DA ...... ,::?,:?,,~ ........... C O U N ~ ATTO R NEY 9 a '~-6~g~i~~"n d s- dis c ~ 7) Ordinance #98-020b Draft Underline is for addition Strike Throu~-h is for deletion Page 5 PRINT DATE: 07/27/98 AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDA Y, AUGUST 20, 1998 7.'00 P.M. Consider Draft Ordinance 98-020 (General Amendment to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code) amending Section 6. 06. OI (B)(ll). .Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to theproceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 6, 199& File No. 0RD-98-020 NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF REGULATION AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The St. Lucie :County Board ~of County Commissioners pro- pose tO adopt 'the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE, NO, 98-020 AN ORDINANCE MINING RES ONA MITIGATE OPER/tTION; PROVISION, BY BY WITH THE EFFECTIVE PROVIDING PI ' THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND SECTION 6.06.01(B)(11), AND CONDITIONS' FOR THE ABILITY TO AS A PART OF A MINING ' FOR - CONFLICTING F OR S EVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR FILING STATE,. PROVIDING FOR AN lING FOR ADOPTION . AND , The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the S.t. Lucie' County Land Development ,Code tO provide: for the ability to mitigate wet- 'lands as a part of a mining .operation. .. A PUBLIC' HEARING on' Ordinance 98-020 will be held. before the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning COmmission/Local Planning .Agency on ThUrsday, August 20, 1998 at 7:00 PM or as soon thei:eaf- ter as possible' ,in Room '101 of the ,St. Lucie County. Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Ave, Ft.-Pierce, FL. Matte'rs affecting your .personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and 'be heard. Written .com- ments received in advance Of the public hearing will also be heard. . -CoPies Of the proposed ordinance,, are available for review in the'office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982, during re~lar business hours. Amendments to the proposed ,ordinance may be made at ,thee Public heating. · If any person decides to. appeal any decision made .with respect to. any mat- 'I/~r comidered at the meetings-orhearings of'any board, committees, c. om- missions,. agency,, council' or advisory group, that- person, will"need record of the. proceedings and that, for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedl-ngs is made,, which record should include the testimony and evidence uPon Which the appeal is to be' based. Upon the request of any party to the prgceeding, individuals testifying during a. 'hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examin,e any indiVidual testifying during a hearing. upon request. This notice dated and.executed this 22nd day of July, 1998. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/DONNA CALABRESE, CHAIRMAN .PUBLISH DATE: AUgUst 6, 1998 NOTICE OF ESTAB'LISHIRENT OR OF LAND' The St. Lucie. County Board of County CommissiOners. propose to adopt the following Ordinance: ORDI,NANCE 'No. 98 AN ORDIN E.AMENDING..THE'ST. LUClE COUNTY' LAND I T CODE 'BY AMENDING 'SECTION 6.06,01 RESTRICTIONS,' REGULATIONS A.NDC~ N A MINING, PERMIT TO '*PROVIDE FOR TH MITIGATE WETLANDS AS**A PART' OF A 'ION; BY PROVIDING FOR CON- FLICTING Y PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL- ITY, APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR RTMENT OF STATE, PROVIDING PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION .AND FICATION' The' purpose of this public hearing is to amend. the St. Lucie COunty Land Development Code to. provide for the ability to miti-' gate wetlands as a part of.a mirning operation. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 98-020 wiil'be held before the: St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local AgencY on Thursday, August 20, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. or' as soon thereafter ~as possible, in Room 101 of the 'St..Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL; Matters affecting your personal and property'rights may be .heard- and acted upon. All interested .pemons are invited to attend and be heard,' Written comments received in advance of the PubliC hear- ing will also be heard. ,, Copies of the proposed ordinanCe 'are-available for review in the office of the Community DeveloPment Director, St..Lucie County .._ Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982, during regular business' hours.-Amendments to the pm- posed ordinance may be made at the public hearing.. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, .council or advisory groUp, that person will need record of the proceedings and .that, for such pur- pose may.need to ensure that'a verbatim record~of the .proceed- ings is made, which record should include the 'testimony and evi- dence 'upon which the appeal is to be based. UPOn the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing Will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any 'individual testifying during a hearing upon request. This notice dated'and executed this 22nd day Of July, 1998. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL pLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /SI DONNA CALABRESE, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DATE: 'August 6, 1998 S . LUCIE AUDUBON SOCIETY ,, P.O. BOX 1745 · FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA 34954 August 17, 1998 Donna Calabres~e Chairwoman Planning a'nd ~Zoning Board St. Lucie County Co.mmission 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce, FL 39482 AUG I 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'ST...LU._C..i.E COUN~Y,_F_L Dear Ms. Calabr'ese; The St. Lucie A.udubon is concerned with the proposed change to the county code that' ,addr-esses mining in wetlands. We urg.e the bo'ard co:nsider abandoning any language change 'in the code that would adversely effect wetlands. Isolated wetlands have important values in ecosystems. The wetla:nd/uPland i.nt~erface is extremely important to many speci~es w~hich utilize b~oth habitats in their life cycles. The proposed change' is vague in its definition of the effected wetland size as it sets no upper limits. Clear language' should define the acreage and functionality that will be dest:royed. Also reclamation of the effected wetland should absolutely not be consid;ered mitigation for the mining operation. . We hope yo.u and your board take these comments consideration before making your decision. into Sincerely; y Gersony President cc- Board of County Commissioners Draft Ordinance 98-020 Mining Restrictions, Section 6.06.01(b)(11) "Recommended Revisions" Section 6.06..01 (b)(11) 11. Environmentally Sensitive Areas' Mining activities shall not be permitted in the following environmentally Sensitive areas: a. Within .any.jurisdictional wetland or within fifty (50) feet of any jurisdictional wetland excePt that mining may occur;in small isolated wetlands which have been previously impacted and.that.are entirely surrounded ~by uplands dominated by non-native .plant communities, if and to the ~exte.nt;. Alteration. of such wetlands are.permitted in .accordance with Section 6.02.03 of this Code.; '2_). Mining. activities have received'appropriate state and federal permits; All wetland mitigation requirements shall be above and beyond the reclamation requirements set'forth in Section 6.06 ofthis Code, and shall be accomplished, on- site or. at .an .approved :mitigation site in St. Lucie County; and, Not more. than~ five (5)~total .ac, res. of wetlands, shall be. altered. b. Savannahs State Reserve and Indrio..North Savannahs; c. Atlamic Coastal ~dge; iL. Within Two-Hundred (200) feet of any public or. privately-owned natural .resource conservation project; e. Dune Preservation.Zone.