Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 21, 1997 t. Lucie County Planning and Zoning. Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting .St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room 101 August 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TOO ' ~.~'~ · RDER. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements AGE~)A ITEM '1: MINUTES OF ,THE JULY 17,!997, Action Recommended: Approval. ~ibit #1: Minutes of July 17, 1997, Meeting AGE~A_~ ,I~, ~M 2.r MINUTES,,OF ~~ JULY, 31, 1997, SPF~CiAL. ~F~TING .... Action Recommended: Approval. ~ibit #2: Minutes' of July 31, 1997, Special Meeting AGENDA,ITEM 3: FILE NO., RZ-97-009 PHIIJJP AND SONIA HOFF~R Petition of Phillip and $onia Hofer, for a Change in Zoning from the RM-1I (Residential, Multiple-Family- 11 alu/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District Zoning District for the establishment of an Adult Congregate Living Facility. Staff-comments by Teresa Mancini. Action .Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps Planning and .Zoning Commission Agenda August 21, 1997 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 4: HLE NO. RZ.97.008 BRANDON CAPITAL CORPORATION PetitiOn of Brandon Capital Corporation, for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District for an 80-unit single-family development. Staff Comments by Mike Picano. Action RecOmmended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: .Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. 0RD.97-009 ORDINANCE 97-009 Consider Ordinance 97--009, which proposes a series of minor amendments to the County's Land Development Code. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit 4?5: Staff Report OTHER BUSINESS: B. Other buSiness at Commission Members' discretion. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on September .18, 1997, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building. NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, ..are electronically reco.rded. 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, indMduals 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. P~iNG ~ ~ZONING CO~ISSION/LOCAL P~NING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY JULY 17, 1997 - REGIJLAR MEETING MINUTES . BOARD MEMBERS P~SENT: Doug Coward, Diana Weslos~, Donna ~itley, Ed Mer~tt, Jim. Minix, ~Stefan Matthes, and Robert Klein BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Ward (excused) OTHERS PRE~ ENT. Heather Young, Assistam County Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community Developmem Director; De~s ~MUrphY, Land Development Coordinator; Julia Iversen ShewehUk, Growth Management Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III.; Teresa Maneini, Planner I; Mike Pieano, Planner I; Karen ZeiSS,r Administrative .Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEG~CE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Klein. Chairman Klein introduced Stefan Matthes, a local engineer and newest member of the Planning and Zon~g Committee. He stated that Mr. Matthes was a replacement for Mr. Randy LynCh, who moved out of the county. Chairman ~ein also. introduced and welcomed Mr. Ray Wazny, the newly appointed Community Development Director. APPROVAL OF P~NG ~D ZONING coMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 15, 1997. Chairman ~ein ~asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. :-Coward stated that on Page 14 Paragraph 5,' he stated that he was referring to the public use of the nature trail. He also stated that ~th regard to Paragraph 6, that he believed what Mr. Wynne said was that'the boardwalk would be open to the public. Mr. Coward clarified that in Paragraph 8, the name of the eco-toufism consuRant was Mr. Herb l~ller. He stated that with-regard to Page 25 Paragraph 3, he believed that it was stated that the nature trail would be added and would be open' to the public. There being no ~her additions .or corrections to the minutes of the'June 26, 1997,-meeting, Chairman Kle~ asked for a motion to .approve. Mr. Whitley made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by .Mr. Coward. Upon roll ,call, .the 'motion passed 5-0, with three members abstaining. Cha~an Klein at this time explained the hearing procedures. PUBLIC HEARING TRINITY EVANGELICAL pRESB~~ CHURCH FILE NO. CU.97-006 Ms. Teresa Mancini presented staff comments. Ms. Mancini stated that this was the application of Trinity Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Inc. for a Conditional Use'Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities and Child Day Care in Institutionally Zoned property located at 5150 Oleander Avenue, approximmely 850 feet south of Midway Road. She stated that the applicant is currently using the building as. a Sunday school on the weekends. She stated that the zoning surrounding the subject property includes I (Institutional) to the south and the west; CO (Commercial, Office) to the north; CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to the northwest; RS-3 (Residential, S~gle-Family) to the east; and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential) to the northeast. Ms' M~mcini stated that the subject property is bounded on the south by New .Hope Baptist Church; on the no~ by ~e Farmhouse - an antique store; and on the east by residential uses. White City Elementary is located across Oleander Avenue .to the west. She stated that staff found that this petition met the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be fo~arded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the condition that the student populatiOn for weekday activities shall not exceed 120-students. Chai~an Klein 'asked if there were any questions of staff. There being none he asked if the .petitioner was present. Mr. Bc)b Garment, Pastor, stated that he would answer any questions. At this time Chairman Klein. opened the public portion of the hearing. There 'being no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Klein closed the public .portion of the hearing. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, Mr. Merritt moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board .of County.Commissioners grant 'approval to the application of Trinity EvangeliCal Presbyterian Church for a Conditional Use Permit to ~ow Educational Sendces, FacilitieS, and Child Day Care in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Ms. Wesloski noted that the condition had to be included in the motion. Chairman Klein asked if Mr. Merritt agreed with the condition. Mr. Merritt stated that he did. Mr. Coward seconded the .motion, and upon roll call the motion passed 8-0. Chairman Klein stated that this petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING ST. PETERS EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH FILE NO. RZ-97-005 Mr. Mike Picano presented staff comments. He stated that this-was the application of St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church for a Change in Zoffing from RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 9 du/acre) to RF (Religious Facilities). He stated that the subject property was located on the east side of Jeans Road, approximmely 1,800 feet south of Okeechobee Road. Mr. Picano 'stated that the surrounding zoning to the east and north was RS-3 (Residential, Single'Family - 3 du/aere) He stated that further to 'the north was CO (Commercial, Office) Zon~g and .CG. (Co~ercial, General) Zoning, and to the west RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 5 alu/acre) Zoning. He stated that the..applicant has requested this .change in zoning on 1.8.3 acres of property located .on the e~t Side of Je~s Road, approximately 1,800 'feet south of Okeechobee 'Road in order' m establish a church on the subject property. He stated that stafl has .reviewed .this petition, and found that it conformed with the standards of review in the ~nd Development Code and was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Staff ~recommended this petition be forwarded to the Board of .County CommiSsioners ~th a recommendation of approval. Chairman Klein asked if there were any questiOns of staff. Mr. Me~kt stated that it was his understanding that there was a distance~waiver requirement for bars and restaurants to religious fac~fies of about 1,000 feet. He stated his 'concern that with the approval of this appHcafion, which woUld place the church in .one of the most intensively used interSections, any hotel development in the southeast quadrant would be slowed. Specifically those that would like to offer a hotel and restaurant facility. He asked staff if they have worked with the applicant, and was aware of this issue. Mr. P~cano stated that there was a waiver under Section 07.10,11, which-states that the requirement is 1,600 feet, but the waiver allows for a bar and restaurant facility that is part of the hotel. Chairtnan Klein asked if the petitioner or representative was present. Mr. Pat Murphy, of Hoyt C. Murphy Realtors, was present to represent the land owner, Mr. Placido, and he stated that Pastor Ted Rice was present also to answer questions. Chairman Klein opened the public portion of the hearing. Hearing .no .fu~her arguments.in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Klein closed the public portion of the hearing. After conside~g the test~.ony presented during the pub.~e heating, including staff comments, ~. ~fley moved that the Planning and Zoning Com~ssion recommend that the St. Lute County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of St. Peter's Evange~eal Lutheran Church for a change in zoning from the ~-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 9 :du/aere) Zo~g District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District in order to establish a church ~on the subject property. Ms. WeSlos~ Seconded the motion, and upon roll call the Commission voted 8-0 ~ favor of the motion. Chairman ~e~ stated that t~s' petition would be forwarded to the Board .of County Co~ssioners ~th a recommendation of approval. PUBLIC H~N . OPM-USA, INC. FILE NO. CU-97-008 Chairman ~ein explained that he had a conffict of interest with regard to this petition because his law.firm Was representing the land owner, Green Groves and Ranch. He passed the gaw~l 'to Vice-Chairwoman Donna Calabrese. Mr. R.~}r Wazny presented stuff comments. Mr. Wazny stated that what .the applicant was asking for was a conditional use permit to allow the attac~ent of additional antenna to a previously permitted communications tower. He stated that the tower WaS intended.solely for the use of the Florida Highway Patrol, and ~ be located in :the e~reme northwest section .of the county, in the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District. He stated that-there .were .conditions ~ the July 15, 1997 memo written by Planning Manager David'Kelly. Mr. Wazny.stated that the conditional use permit .does not autho~e the construction of the tower, but just additional antenna being attached. The conditions stated that .the conditional use permit ' woUld expire 1 year from the date of approval by the St. LUcie County BOard of County Commissioners, unless a certificate of Zoning ComPliance is secured or an extension is granted in accordance with Section 11.07.05(F) Of the ~St. Lucie County I~nd Development Code Mthin the one year period. Mr. Wazny stated that .staff recommends approval of this petRion with these amended conditions. He stated that s~ce the tower is to be' permitted and constructed t~ough, an alternative process, it is to the County's advantage to provide for full location of an additional antenna on this tower. He stated that the representative was present and would address any questions. ~. Whitley asked fi.the tower was permitted previously. Mr. Wazny said it was not. He stated that it was permitted administratively by the Community Development Department for the Florida Highway Patrol. He stated that this petition for a conditional use to allow the attachment of commercial antenna to the permitted tower. Mr. John Arioli .of OPM-USA, Inc. stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairwoman Calabrese opened the public portion of the..hearing. Mr. Palidori of St. Lucie County stated that on July 8, 1997, the Commission passed Ordinance 97-022 to ~place a moratorium on communication towers. He stated he didn't recall an~hing aboUt p~ggyba ~ g, which he stated was an attachment. He stated that, Mth that ordinance in .effect, he .did not feel that anyone could respond or approve this petition. Ms. Heather Young., .Assistant County Attorney, stated that the hearing Mr. Palidori was refeffing to was the first of ~o public hearings on that ordinance. She stated that the second hea~ng ~I1 be'on ~Tuesday, July 22, 1997. She stated that ordinance has not been adopted yet. She also .stated that this ordinance did not address applications thru were already submitted. She stated that this application was submi'tted prior m the public hearing process hvoMng the mormorium ordinance. She stated that although it did not apply ~ this ease, ~there was an. exemption 'for public safety type .towers such as the Florida Highway Commission. ..Mr. Palidofi .asked about"grandfathering" before the ordnance. Ms. Young stated that it may or not be grandfathered. She said that if an app~cation is pending at the t~e the ordinance is being considered it can still be considered by the Plan~g and'Zoning Commission. She stated that she felt that shoe the ordinance was not ~ place, that it was approp~ate for this application to be considered. Mr..~'nix asked if there was already an existing tower. Mr. Wazny stated that there was no tower on the site. ~Mr. Mi~ asked for clarification on the tower issue. Mr. Wazny stated .that the .tower was specifically being built for the Florida Highway Patrol, and what OPM'US& Inc, was .aSldng for was permission to attach additional antenna onto the tower. Mr. Jolm Arena of Fo~ Pierce appeared before .the 'Commission and stated that new uffiiCensed technology had been developed that would replace the antenna. He stated that this new technology would just be placed outside a window,, and would involve a satellite. Mr. Arena suggested putting a bond in place so that in the future the taxpayers would not have to pay to have the towers removed. ChairWoman Calabrese at this time opened the public portion of the hearing. Hea~mg no further arguments in favor of or in opposition 'to the petition,. Chairwoman Calabrese closed the public portion .of. the hearing. Mr. Coward asked staff hOw many other applications are pending now that would be considered "grandfathered". Mr. Wazny :stated that there are a total of three towers outstanding. He' stated that it was requested that the moratorium be put in place to halt the 'construction .of .towers until the ordinance was in effect. He stated that there has been no rush of applications due 'to the pending morato~um. Mr, Wazny stated that he was just told that there was just one tower outstanding. After considering the testimony presented during the public he.g, including staff ,comments, ~. Matthes moved that the P!a~ng and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the petition of OPM-USA, he, for a conditional me pemit to .allow the attac~ent of co~ercial antenna equipment ,,on a pe~tted-tOwer constructed for the use of the State of ~orida. He stated that the~:cOnditi0nal'.use permit did not autho~e installation of the tower. He also stated that the conditional use permit for ,the commercial antenna would expire one year ~om the.date of approval by the St. Lueie CoUnty Board of County Commissioners unless a Ce~ifieate of Zo~ng Compliance is obtained or an extension is granted wit~ that one year period. Mr. Whit!ey seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. .P~LIC HEARING RIVERSIDE MARINA FILE NO. CU.97-009 Mr. Mike Picano presented ,staff comments. He stated thru this was the .applicatiOn of Riverside Marina, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow ship, .boat ' building and'repairing 45 to 150 feet in length in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. He Stated that t~s actMty was allowed as a conditional use in this zoning district, subject to the Board of County Commission approval. He stated that the surrounding zoning is CG (Commercial, General) to the west, IL (Industrial, Light) to the south and east, and St. Lucie Village is located to the north. Mr. ~Picano.stated that staff found this petition, with the recommended condition, met the standards of renew as set forth ~ the Land Development Code and 'is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that .staff recommended that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Co~ssionerS ~th a reco~endation-of approval. Letter dated July 14, 19917: Dear County Commissioners and County Residents: Th~ letter is 'in response w the request by Riverside Manna for .a Conditional Use Permit to allow boat building and repairs up .to 150 feet. This request should be .denied! Riverside.Marina does not demonstrate the-responsibility required to manage ~the business they now have, much less a larger one. There is a lack of discipline as to what is allowed to be worked on whetherby RiversMe or independents worla'ng ~on their own. Junk from their boat works is everywhere; some on.theirproperty, some. on others~ This ~needs to be corrected .and maintained. At th~ time, the entire property is an eyesore. The EPA needs to test the soil, surrounding-waters, and.river bottom. For years, .bottom paint has been removed from boats on Riverside property. That :alone should interest the EPA and local residents. The EPA considers bottom paint a hazardous waste to be disposed of property. In closing, Rive~ide needs to clean up its existing operation before it considers any new business. Sincerely, 7~mothy W. Ritter. Chairman Klein asked if there were any questions of staff. Mr. Minix asked about complaints from the neighbors regarding this property. 10 Mr- Ray WaZny stated that some nearby Tamac buildings had been condemned, and told the manager ,of the Ma~na that the area needed some work, and it would be made a condition of approval that the area be cleaned up. o Ms. Heather Young stated that such a condition ~ would be appropriate. Mr. Minix stated that he agreed ~th the Assistant County Attorney that it could be a relevant factor. Ms. Weslos~ .asked how you can put a condition on a petition that is properly zoned. Mr. Wazny ~stated that there were two pieces of property involved, Tarmac and Riverside. Ms. ~We. sloS~ asked..Mr. Wazny ff a condition could be placed .on the-other property though this conditional use. Mr. WaznY stated that that .was his understanding through what Ms. Young stated. Ms. Young stated that she believed the discussion.was about a conditional use for the parcel where the existing operation was. Cha~.an ~ein. clarified that the question-was where was the offending behavior, on this parcel or the adjacent one. Mr. Mink asked if the petitioner was looldng to expand onto the adjacent parcel. Mr. Mi~ defe~ed his questions until the applicant had a chance to answer questions. Mr. Merritt asked 'if a sawmill operation was permitted in this zoning. Cha~.an ~ein stated that.there was .an allegation about that, and asked staff to check that infomafion.' Mr. Wazny stated that it was a code enforcement issue, i~espective of what decision this Board made. ~Mr. Coward asked 'Mr. Wazny if it was correct that there were no current code violations at this .time. Mr. Wazny stated that that was correct. Mr. Coward asked about the environmental permitting, and what oversight is given regarding the paint that was mentioned. 11 Mr. Picano stated that the County defers the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). monitoring of these activities to the Mr. Coward asked, if staff had received any co~espondence from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding any problems on the site. Mr. Picano stated that they had not. Mr. Coward asked ff the issue of noise monitoring had been addressed. Mr. Wazny stated that 't~.~ ~ough ~Code Enforcement, he was not aware of any noise complaint regarding the facility. He stated additionally, that if a noise complaint had been filed, it would have been'filed ~th the She~s department, and that would be the place tO inquire about it. Chairman ~ein .asked ffthe applicant was present. :Mr. Gerald Concannon, Vice,PreSident and General Manager of Ri.'verside Marina stated that there.'were ~o different pieces of property being discussed. He stated that he had no jurisdiction over the. Tarmac property, and was happy to see the-property cleaned up. He stmed that his operation.would be mom than happy to comply with any direction from the County and CoUnty Code E~orcement. ~. Concannon. stated that Riverside Marina had been in operation for 20 years,.and stated that they' have been se~eing boats for .20 years or for as long as they have owned the property. He stated that ~th' the comprehensive rezoning, .involving the airport and such, there was a. change-over, and there was then a question of how large the vessels could be with regard to the piece of'property. He stated that there was a sawmill on the property and they do. mill lumber, which is consistent with the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. Mr. Minix asked if Mr. Concannon had any plans to expand onto the Tarmac property. Mr. Conca~on stated that they 'do not own that property, and do not dictate what is to be .done with that property. Mr. Mink 'clarified that the Tam.ac piece of property, when mentioned had nothing to do with the Petition-before the Board that evening. Mr. Concannon stated that was correct. Mr. Mi:nix asked Mr. Concannon for cla~cation that this facility had been in operation for 20 years, that they had been .repairing boats up to 150 feet. 12 Mr. Concannon stated that his father had bought the property 20 years ago, and before that a similar operation was in effect since 1955. He said the operation had been there long before he was bom. Mr. Minix asked if Mr. Concannon was trying to bring his .operation in compliance with the local ordinance. Mr. Concannon stated that was correct. ~. M~ i~omed ~. Concannon that the Mayor of St. Lucie Village, Mr. Hosldns, wrote a .letter bringing several ~dietmems aga~st him. Mr. M~ re.ad excepts ~om the letter, then read excerpts .from the letter from the Vice- Mayor, Mr. William '~.~Theiss. ~' .Conca~on stated that he was not aware of any noise complaints from the neighbors, and if h~ d received anY:he would: take measures to correct the situation, He said he did not see the sa~flI being'a problem. He stated that it is .used rarely, and is more of a personal ~use situation, that they use. to block boats with. He stated that.St. Lu'ue Village to the north is separated by a mosquito control canal. He stated that there is-no' fence, but he .was not aware of any problem. Mr. ~~ asked the applieam ff he would be doing anything different after this conditional use is approved than what he had been doing. Mr. Concannon stated that he WOuld .not. He stated that bigger boats used to be docked there to unload concrete. .. . Mr. Mink asked ~. COnca~on ff his business operations would be the same if this- conditional use pemit is approved. Mr. Conca~on :stated that they would be the same. Mr. Coward asked for cla~ication ~on how the Department of Environmental Protection is involved in their business, and how they permit and monitor the business's activities. Mr. Coneannon stated that theY have a land lease and inspect the property at least-once a year. He stated that they have not been cited in .the 20 years he's been on the property. He stated that he was aware Tarmac had their buildings condemned, but he did not have any jurisdiction in that property. Mr. Coward asked if there were any outstanding violations. 13 Mr. Concannon .stated that to his knowledge, there were none. Mr. Coward asked what the paint disposal process is while work on the boats is being done. Mr. Concannon ~stated that the paint is put'into sanitary dumpsters and taken to the landfill. Mr. Coward asked if'the paint was washing off the .property in any way. Mr. Concannon stated that it was not. Coward asked ff Riverside: Marina had specific hours of operation. Mr. Concannon stated 8 ~ to 5 :PM, but some boat.owners work on.'their boats f~om dawn til dark. ~. Coward ~asked ff there 'was any other ~d. of buffer between the north .property line besides the canal, such as any trees or fence. Mr. COnCa~on stated that there was no fence, but there were Brazilian Pepper trees. Chairman Klein at this time opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. John W. Jones, of 24'97 No~h Indian River Drive stated his property borders the north boundary of the 'RiverSide Marina property. He-stated that his property completely'borders the ~subjeCt property ~om east to west. He stm:ed that his property has owned t~s property since 1857 and will never be sold. He stated 'that the Concannons were good neighbors and they-do business with them, being -ommercm! fishemen. He stated that he would like the operation to stay as is with no expansion. Mr. ~ix cla~ed .for '~Mr. Jones that Mr. Concannon just wanted to conform with the- proper ordnances, and that the only t~g that would change, would be that Riverside Ma~a .would be ,able to service and build bigger boats. ~. M~k asked ~. Jones if that was the basis for his opposition. Mr. Jones stated that it was. .Mr. Minix asked Mr. Jones if he has ever seen a boat there 150 feet in length. Mr. Jones stated that he had not, and would be surprised if one could bring one of that length in that area. 14 .Mr. Whitley asked 'Mr. Jones .what the largest size boat he has seen docked there. Mr. Jones stated that .the largest boat was approximately 55 or 60 feet in length. Chairman Kl. ein :asked Mr. Jones what he was objecting to, what' the difference is, regarding the size of the boats Mr. Concannon works on. Mr. Jones Stated that it would be a lot more work, they take up more-space, and the operation Would not be able to handle the additional wOrk. Cha~an ~ein.asked what the difference would be between the operation wor~g on three 50 foot boats or one 150 foot 'boat. Mr.-Jones ~stated that boats up to 50 feet can be picked up, and boat owners can work on their own boats. Mr. ~fifley ~asked ff the ~nd Development Code for the conditional use speffffy for 45 to 150 'feet, .or is there a. standard 'for 65 to 150 feet in length. M~. ~~k :asked ~. Jones if the app~cant was in compliance right now with the code, that he could work .On bores up to 45 feet in length, if that would satisfy him. Jones ~said it would, 'that 'he wants the operation to stay the way it is and not expand. ~. Hank Flores stated that per the ~nd Development Code, Riverside Ma-~.a was presently ~t~n its-'~ts, working-on boats 45 feet .in length or less, as a permitted use, and would need a conditional use to work. on boats 45 feet to 150 feet in length. Mr. '~~ stmed that,.as a iBoard, they.could grant: any part of the complete-conditional-use, or pe~t work .on boats, up to 100 feet in length instead of 150 feet. Ms. Heather Young, As~ sistant County Attorney stated that was. correct. Ms. WeslosM stated that her famfl'~ y had a41 foot boat they had-painted at this yard, and her boat was not the largest boat there. Ms. Debra Jones of 2499 North Indian River .Drive.stated that she has complained to Riverside Marina .about .animals, h'veaboards, and about sewage .and facility, issues. She :stated the mosquito control canal is fiall of boat waste. She stated that she was outside at 10 PM at night, and heard sandblasting and sails clanking. She indicated that it was not only the back side of the property that was a mess, but the fiver side was .horrendous. 15 Ms. Debby Wagner:stated that .instead of allowing bigger boats, they should operate within the limits they are allowed now. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Klein closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Whitley asked Mr. ~Concannon asked what was done, according to size, in the boat building business in the last ten years. Mr. Concannon indicated that he had a 70 ton lift. He stated that they have 'hauled and launched .boats .and had boats built on the property in excess of 45 feet in length prior to the rezoning..He said' he rarely gets boats bigger than 100 feet. He stated that they did not choose the boat lengths. Mr. ~Coward asked if he planned to purchase additional equipment or upgrade the facility in any way. He asked Mr. Concannon to address the question of the liveaboards. ~. Concannon stated that they do not allow people to Hve aboard the boats. He stated that-the.En~ronmental Protection Agency does not allow him to .touch the riverfront area, he .is not allowed to touch or.get near the area, and that there is a buffer 'zone with a ~gh water mark, and vegetation that is endangered there, such 'as mangroves. He stat.ed that the animals come ~Om St. Lucie Village, He stated that children come and play, fish and swim, and .he does .not want 'to prevent them from doing so. Mr. Coward stated that it was brought up earlier in the meet~g that thus far there had been no code e~orcement issues but likely there would be. He asked Mr. Concannon to address t~s issue. Mr. Concannon .stated thru he would be more than happy to correct anyt~g the County WoUld like, if he were prodded with-a list of things needed to be done. Coward asked if the Code Enforcement Division had been in contact. Mr. Concannon .stated that they had been, .and ~the marina had-taken action to clean up the area as instructed. Mr. Coward asked when .Code Enforcement had been in touch. Mr. Concannon .indicated that it had been within the last week. Mr. Merritt asked if Mr. Concannon had room to expand his facility or if he was maxed out on land use. 16 Mr. Conncannon stated.that'.he would rather haul one big boat than several little ones. The property he had now was 9.27 acres. He stated that he had no plans, as far as he knew, for purchasing any additional property. Mr. Merritt asked if he had land on both the north and south sides of the canal. Mr. Concannon stated .that the. bas~ is man-made and they own the property around it, and submerged land under it, appro~ately 3 acres. Mr. Merritt aSked if they could expand where Hudgeon's Fish House is now. Mr. Concannon.,stated that~they've leased 'the property ,for 15 years, and he doesn't foresee any change. Mr. Me~tt ~asked if they had the vacant land on the south side to expand. ~- Concannon said it. was too :shallow, berg 100 to 150 feet, to put boats there. He said it would be possible to :dock many small boats there, but they-never have and do not plan tO. Ms. Calabrese asked about the hours ,of;operation, and if the boat owners can-work on their boats and make noise until !0..or 12 PM. Mr. Concannon stated that people do not work after dark as a rule. She .asked ~. Concannon that, although the sawmill operation is locked up, could they still be worhng on 'their boats. ~..Concannon .stated that 'the boat owners could still, start their boats up and make noise. He stated that there were a lOt of commercial boats that make noise when they leave at 4 ~,'and he cannot control the boat owners. He stated that the boat owners do-make noise. Mr. Mink asked if the facility was also a marina, besides a repair shop. Mr. Concannon stated that that was .correct. Mr. ~nix asked if the dOg. and children problem would be .soNed with a fence. Mr. 'Concannon stated that he was unaware there was a problem. Mr. MiNx stated that the children being able to get to the sawmill would be dangerous. He asked if the sawmill was inside a building. Mr. Concannon stated that it has been outside for 50 years, with no accidents or injuries. 17 Mr. Merfitt asked the maximum, length of boat they are pulling out of the water. Mr. Concannon stated it was 90 feet in length. After conside~g the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff .comments, Mr. ~tley moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lueie COunty Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Riverside:Marina, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow boat, ship building-and repairing in accordance ~th the. following conditions: That the-property..shall be maintained ~th St. Lucie County Code with regard 'to trash, debris and 'unprovements. e The ~stallation of a fence on the north end of the property. The .m~-mum boat length for building and repair shall be 105 feet. Mr. Coward seconded the motion. Ms. Calabrese stated that there was a condition by staff that (~audible) be ~cluded ~ the motion. ~. ~itleya~eed that it should be included. ~She also.Stated she 'was uncomfortable with the question of a fence on the north end of the property. ~. ~tley stated :that the fence may decrease ~the noise, and flow of children and .dogs into the area. Ms. WeslosM stated that.the children were not coming in from that direction, but kom over the tracks and the road. ~..M in ix asked if that was ~om. the west as opposed to the north, where-the Florida East Coast Railroad is. Mr. Concannon stated that he had no problem with putting a fence up, but that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) would. He stated that the mosquito control ditch was there, and recently found that mangroves are located there and are protected. Mr. Minix asked about the west side. Mr. COncannon stated that the FEC was on the other side. 18 Chairman Klein asked the applicant ff he had a problem with the Board's ~mited .the size of boats to 105 feet. Mr. Concannon stated that he did not, and was .only trying to conform ~th the ordinances in place. Ms. WeslosM .asked ff a list .should be prepared for the applicant at the meeting and not just deferred to the-Code Enforcement dMsion. Mr, Wazny stated that if the condition in the motion referred to 1.9.19, that would be sufficient. Ms, WeSlos~ stated ~at-'she would ~e the conditions to-have a list. Mr. Mink asked 1~,~:. ~ifley how he came to suggest the boat length of 105 feet. Mr. Whitley~stated that the boat length was arbitrary.. Mr, W~tley amended .his motion to drop the :fence requkement on the north boundary, and added compliance ~th. the .code 1.9.19 to ~s motion. Chairman ~ein-clarified 'that the mOtion would be comp~ance with Code number 1.9.19, and would be also to limit the length of the boats to 105 feet in length. Also the conditional use would .expire in I year, as standard with all conditional use pemits. Upon roil call the Commission.voted 7 in favor, ~th Mr. ~Minix ~ opposition (7-1) and one member absent. Chakman Klein asked if'staff .could ~clude a memo in the motion m include the conditions for the Board. Chairman Klein stated that this petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 19 P~LIC HEARING PALM BREEZES MOBILE HOME PARK FILE NO. RZ-97-004 Mr. Matthes explained that. he had a conflict of interest with regard to this petition due to the fact that the enginee~ng tim that he works for is representing the applicant. Ms. Teresa Mancini presented staff comments. She stated that this was the application ~of Palm Breezes .Mobile Home Park for Pre.nary Planned Development Site Plan Approval for a Project to be known as Palm Breezes. Mobile Home Park, and a change ~ zoning ~om the PUD (Planned Uffit Development) Zoning District to the ~P~ .(planned Unit Development) Zoning District, Ms. Manc~i ~dicated-that the previous development approvals for the existing P~ have expked and in order for this project to move ahead, a new site plan and PUD must be approved. She 'stated that this. action requires rezoning ~om PUD to PUD. ..She stated that the-subject ~property'is surrounded by the AG-1 (Agricultural - ! du/acre) Zoning Dist~ct to the north ~and the west. ~-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zon~g District to the~south and the east; .and I (Institutional) and RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family- 4 du/acre)Zoffing :Dist~cts to the east of the subject property. Ms. Manc~i stated that the Future ~nd Use Classffications of the area surrounding the subject-property are RU (Residential, Urban) to the south and east; .RS (Residential, Suburban) to the. o~h and .the .east:, PF (Public Facilities)'and ~ (Residential, Estate) to the west, .She stated that' staff ~found this' petition met the standards of review as set :forth in the Land DeVelopment Code and is not.in con~ct with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that staff recommended that .the Board fo~ard this petition to the Board of County Commissioners ~th .a recommendation .of approval. Chairman ~ein .asked if-there were any questions of staff. Mr. Doug CoWard asked ff t~s was the property formerly known as Fort Pierce Woods. Ms. Mancini stated that it was not. Chairman Klein asked if the applicant or representative was present. Mr. Butch Terpening, of Culpepper and Terpening was present to represent Palm Breezes Club, also present was the landowner Mr. Roger Medema, and attorney Dan Harrell who was project counsel. 20 Mr. Terpening stated .that this project was originally approved ~ 1988 at which time the -zoning remained with the property but the site plan application expked. He stated that the new plan had more open space, more clustering affects, was in eonfo~.nanee with the I~nd Development Code, and had acceptable levels of service. Chairman .~ein opened the pubic portion of the hearing. Mr. Polidofi, ~of u~ncorporated St. Lueie County stated his opposition to the petition, stat'rog that mobile home par~' do not pay thek fair share of taxes. He stated that mobile homes degrade the-area. Ms. Rochelle 'Slade of Orange Avenue ~ension, stated that she was .concerned with the traffic in'the area, and whether-or-not the proposed mobile home park would worsen it. She also asked' if the..mobfle home park would be a retirement community or allow children. Ms. Gloustmeister of ~ 4290 -Orange Avenue: stated that she was opposed to the proposed project because.of.drainage concerns. She also asked whether the mobile home park would be for families or for retffement ~age citizens. Hearing no further arguments in ~favor of or in opposition-to the petition, Chairman ~ein closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Te~ening stated that it .would 'be an adult community, and thru children would be allowed for weekends and ~sits. He stated that the traffic on Orange Avenue now is at a level of se~ce B, he stated .thru Orange Avenue would be widened to accommodate the turning movements. He stated that the.facility ~H be a ~st-rate mobile home park community. Coward asked what level of service Orange Avenue is at fight now. Mr. Terpening stated it was. at a level of se~ce B, with approximately 13,000 trips per day. He stated that ~th regard to the South Florida Water Management District, they are in the conceptual permitting Phase. He stated that. all the existing wetlands will be maintained, and restoring ~o of them from agricultural uses in the past. Ms. Wesloski asked about getting a light placed on Orange Avenue. Mr. Terpening stated that they ~11 not be able to get a light for this project. He stated that this fact had been taken into consideration in regard to the traffic lanes, heading both north and south. Mr. Merritt stated concern about the narrowness of the lanes on Orange Avenue. 21 Mr. Terpening stated that~ at the time of permit submittal, if the lanes were~not wide enough, FDOT'~(FlOrida Depa~ment of Transportation) would .make them widen them. Ms. Calabrese asked about any .present gas lines, and if that could cause any problems. Mr. Terpening stated that they do not expect any problems. Mr. ~itley asked about exist~g l~es for water and .sewer. Mr. Te~ening stated that the utility-se~ees will be provided by Fort Pieree Utffities Autho~ty, and presently e~end out .to Orange. Avenue by Rock Road and the jarl, and that is where the. l~es ~11 be picked up. and run to the west where the property is. After .eonsidefing the. test~ony presented during the pubic hearing, ineluding staff comments, .Ms. Calabrese moved that the Pla~g and Zo~g Commission reco~end that the St. Lucie County' Board of Coun~ Commissioners grant approval to the applica!ion of Pa~ Breezes MObile Home Park for Preli~nary Pla~ed Development Site Plan Approval for a project to.be ~o ~m ,as Palm Breezes Mobile 'Home Park, and a Change in Zo~g ~om the P~ (Planned Unit ~Development) Zon~g District to the P~ (Pla~ed Unit Developmem) Zon~g Dist~ct. Mr. Whitley seconded the motion, and upon roll .call the Commission voted 6 members in faWor, .~th ~. Merritt voting in opposition to the motion. Chairman Klein stated that t~s petition would be forwarded to the Board of County ~Commissioners ~th a recommendation of approval. 22 PUBLIC HEARING STUART PROPERTY HOLDINGS,-LTD. (~OMAS KENNY HI, AGENT) FILE NO. RZ-97-006 ~.~Dennis ,Murphy presented staff comments. Mr. Mushy stated that t~s item and the next agenda item were the same proPerty, but with different classfficationS of different portions of it. Mr. Mushy :stated that. t~s was the application of Stuart Property Holdings for .a Change in Zoning for the first pan ~om the AR-1 (AgricUltural, Residemial- 1 du/aere), U (Utilities), ::and P~ (Pia~ed Unit Development) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoffing District. He stated that the second petition was for a change~om the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre)and PUD (Planned Unit Development)Zoning Dist~ets to the PN~ (Planned Non-Residential ~Development) Zoning District. Mr. 'Mushy stated that h 19'93 the County approved a development plan ~ the development thatsp~ts the Martin and St' Lucie County l~e, known as The Flofidian at the intersection of Becket and Gilson Roads, He stated that When t~s development was orig~ally approved .it was-for 160. units, including an 18-hole golf course and an 88-slip marina. He stated that 64of the 88 slips in the marina had been completed, the golf course was done, the clubhouse was under construction, ~o of the houses were: ~ ished, and the residential densiW, was berg reduced ~om 160 to 5.8. He stated that 20 u~ts were in St. Lucie County, and 38 were:in Martin County. Mr. Murphy :stated ..that the property owners, since .the original P~ ,approval, have made a couple of alterations to their plan, which includes the relocation at thek expense the intersection of Gflson and Becker Roads. He stated that' they also acquired some additional property which was not part of the original PUD. He-stated that the purpose of this petition was to reclarify the boundary'descriptions for the PUD, and have the reused development plan included as part of the-records for the project. He-stated that the second petition was for a reclassification of the area around the marina. He indicated that 'this was being proposed for reclassification to Planned Non-Residential Development Dist~ct. He stated that this was a commercial PUD for the purpose of providing' ~the developer the option of having a private membership club at this location. He stated that this woUld also pro. de the developer an opportunity to obtain FAA (Federal Aviation Authority)and FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) approval for the location, of an ait~rnate heliStoi~ facility, tO supplement the one which Was currently permitted just across the county line on the golf course driving range. He indicated that the 23 new alternate facility would be adjacent to the clubhouse, on the west side of the marina. He stated that the PNRD was a pemitted use within the'residential'land use category and the uses of the membership Club and the helistop are within the Institutional Zoning District, which is a recognized use in ~the residential 'lands category. ~. Murphy indicated that most of the primary infrastructure was built, the clubhouse was under construction and should be finished in ~the fall. Chairman ~ein asked if the aPplicant or ~their representative was present. Jack .Carmody, representing Stuart Property Holdings stated that the .first petition was "c ~ " b ' ' ~ ma~ly a .lean up matter, .and to. ming newly acquired property into the PUD. Mr. Carmody 'stated that the second petition was to have a private club ~ the ma~a area. He stated that there 'were no plans for that at the present time, but that it may be plamned for the ~ture. Chaffman ~ein opened-the public hearing-for the first petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition :to the petition, Chairman Kle~ closed the public portion of the hearing. ~er considering 'the testimony .presented dung the public hea~g, ~cluding staff commems, Ms. Weslos~ moved that the Pla~ng-and. Zo~g Co~sSion recommend that thru St. Lueie County Board of-County Commi'ssioners grant approval to the app~c.afion of Stua~ Property.HOldings, by agem Thomas Kenny III, for a Change in Zoning from PUD (Planned Unit Development), ~-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 alu/acre) and U (Utility) Zoning Districts to P~ (Planned ~t Development) Zoffing District fOr a portion of the project ~om as the Flohdian, a Planned Unit Development. Chairman ~ein confi .rmed that the File .Number for. this project was RZ-97-006, and the Resolution number was 97-093. Ms. ~Calabrese seconded the motion, and upon roll call the Commission voted 8-0 ~ favor of' the motion, ~th one member absent. 24 'PUBLIC HEARING STUART PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LTD. (~O~S KENNY IH, AGENT) FILE ~BER RZ-97.007 Chairman Klein stated that this was the petition of 'Stuart Property Holdings, Ltd., for a Change in ZOning ~om .the PUD (Planned Unit Development) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential- 1 ZOning Districts to the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) Zoning Dist~ct. Neither ~. Murphy or Mr. Camo'dy had any additional comments (Refer m ~-97'006). Chairman Klein opened the public potion of the hearing. Hearing no fu~her i ~ rguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman ~ein e · closed the public potion .of the h :..anng. ~ter considering the testimony presented'dung the public hearing, ~clud~g staff comments, Ms. Weslos~-.~moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that- the St. Lucie County :Board of County Co~issioners ~ant approval to th~ application of Smart Property Hold~gs, Ltd. by Agent Thomas Kenny Iii, for a Change ~ ~on~g ~om grant~g a rehsed pre~ina~ and. Final~ Planned Unit' Development Approval for a portion -of the project ~om as 'the ~:O~dian, a Planned Unit Development. Ms..Calabrese seconded the motion, and upon roll call the Commission voted 8-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Kle~ stated that this petition would be. forwarded t° the Board of County Co ~mmissioners ~th a recommendation of approval, 25 P~LIC HEARING ORDINANCE 97.009 FILE NO. ORD-97.009 Staff commems presented by Mr. Dennis Murphy. Mr.. Mu~.hy .stated that t~s was-one of the annual hea~ngs conce~ng a number of minor amendmems to the .County'S Land Development Code. He.stated that a~er :tonight's hearing, this Ordinance is scheduled to be heard twice by the Board of C°un*-Co~ssi°ners, once .on August 19, 1997 and again on September 2, i997. ~. Mushy .stated ~that the first amendment was a minor cla~cation in the de~tions section of the code addressing DeVelopment Orders. He stated that DRI (Development of Regional !mpaet)development orders had inadve~ently been ~cluded as a Final DO (Devel°Pmeht O~der)wh~n in fact it WaS a Preliminary 1~O as defined under the County's ComprehensiVe Plan, Agricultural :zoning districts, ..subject to meet~g the County's standard criteria for their use and locatiOn. He ne~ indicated that based :on a number of inqu~es and concerns expressed over a proposed .develOpment on :North Hutchnson Island, the COunty was Propos~g moving HOusehoM Goods ~reho~ing and Storage Mini-Wareho~es ~om a Permi, tted Use to a Conditional Use .~ the. Co~erci~, General (CG) Zoning District. He stated that the reason would be to afford a greater level of community input in the ultimate location of these facilities. Mr. Mi~ asked why this change was made. Mr. Murphy. stated that. there is a concern about a current project, which would not be affected by. this change, that appears to the neighbors as being in approp~ate for the proposed location and surrounding area. He stated that the proposed amendment was an attempt to address future concerns of a similar nature. He stated that most of the commercial property that was not close to residential lands was gone' As the remaining commercial areas :were developed-they would be encroaching into areas that were use for residential activities and there' was a feeling among staff that perhaps same additional review standards should be applied to this type of use. 26 Mr. Murphy next commented that Ordinance 97-009 "included language to clarify the applicability ..of hotel/motel developments in the Hutchinson Island Residential 'Zoning Dist~ct. He-stated that these changes should clear up any perceived inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the ~nd Development Code. Mr. Murphy .stated that the next amendment was to provide for a clarification of the legal description of the River Park Community Overlay Zone would be included also. He stated that the comers of.~roso and P~ma Vista were not to be included in this district, as they are currently due to a typographical oversight. He ne~ indicated that the .re. quirements for mitigation ~assoeiated with the removal of trees and ~other protected County vegetation would be' amended .and clarified. ~. Coward 'asked if this amendment reduced the ~centive to save trees in the lieu of planting new ones in order to meet the projects mitigation requirements. ~Mr~..MurPhY .stated that t~s amendment is more of an effort to get people to .save the 'larger trees on properW ~stead ofremo~ng the big trees and replacing them ~th .:-smaller ones. He :stated that ~th regard to Table 7 there is a clarification of densities. He stated that the reference .to 1.1.10 (x) should read 1.1.10.3. ~. Murphy indicated that the County was .also clarifying the County's General Standards for the pro. sion of 'Open Space.. He stated that specifically within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) street rights-of, way, landscape medians and such could not be considered as · open space. ~. Murphy stmed that this section did not ,apply to habitat preservation, but rather to generai open space only, which may or may not include native habitat preservation.. Mr. Coward suggested to the Board that they consider a recommendation that if native vegetation .is 'saved it could reduce the overall percentage requirement for open space. He suggested that the Board consider a similar ~centive ff a new open space standard is going to be apP~ed to residential land use-areas. ~There was general discussion about the open space requirement and the current habitat preservation incentives. Mr. Murphy stated that this would not apply to single-family residential homes. Chairman Kle~ asked why underground utility such as a gas transmission line would not be considered open space. Mr. Murphy stated that under the County's current codes power lines easements cannot be considered as part of the required open space for a Property. 27 Mr. Murphy stated that those areas can be considered as open space, but that they may not be counted as .pa~ of the .required open space for a particular development. Chairman ~ein asked if these lands are being preserved .for recreation uses or just to be preserved. Mr. Murphy stated they .are being preserved for both reasons. Chairman Klein asked about the last sentence of sub-paragraph C of the Comprehensive Plan, if it was different.than what ,was in Paragraph B - Section 8 stating that there is no 30 percent ~mitation. Mr. Murphy indicated that.as drafted, the 30 percent restriction ,does not apply to the open space requirements described ~ Paragraph C. Mr..Mushy .stmed thru Dra~ Ordnance 97-009 would amend the General Landscaping pro~sions of Section' 7,09.00-to address'the request of Florida Power and Light to keep invasive plant~gs away ~om-'utility lines and facilities. He explained that there was be a graphic that ~."accompany this :infomation with,regard to the placement of certain trees. At t~s t~e Vice-Chaff Donna .Calabrese mentioned that she may have a conflict due to the fact that she works -for ~orida Power and Light. Ms. Heather Young stated that a separate motion could be made on this portion, or Ms. Calabrese could abstain froTM the entire vote. Mr. Coward asked about landscaping plans and when they should be submitted. Mr. ~Murphy st-ged that it would have to be submitted with any application for building permit that required landscaping and that these plans would have to show where the trees and plants ~1 be with regard to utility facilities. Mr. Coward-asked why some plants and trees that are not considered to be invasive from a habitat perspective are still identified as being prohibited. 'Ms. Weslosh stated that although some of these trees amy not considered invasive, they may still grow to I00 feet and simply fall on the poWer lines although they are .planted farther away. Mr. Coward was concerned if any of the local landscape architects or landscapers have reviewed this information, and offered their opinions. Mr. Murphy stated that he was not aware of any of the local landscapers reviewing this information, and that it was being presented as it is based on the request of Florida Power 28 and Light. Mr..Murphy next reported that this Ordinance proposes to amend the Outdoor Display provisions applicable to the. County's commercial Zoning Districts to provide for limited areas of sidewalk display and for outdoor eating areas associated with an existing eating establishment. He stated there was concern about sidewalk sales. Chairman Klein asked how o~en could sidewalk sales be held. Mr. Murphy said it could be done on a daily basis. ~. ~Murphy ne~ stated that Section 10,00,02 .provided for a cla~cation-of the provisions for when a Nonconforming Use may be considered to be "terminated". Mr. MuShy, ~next stated that Section 11.00.04 was to clarify What shall be considered by the Board of COunW Commissioners as part :of their deliberations in reviewing amendments to the Code and to. the Zoning Maps of St. 'Lucie County. Mr.. Murphy stated that ~th regard .to Section 11.02.05, t~s amendment would expand the parameters.of what can be considered as a Min'or Adjustment to any Planned Development Site Plan- ~. Coward was concerned Mth-the language that stated that it could not be used unless a preserve area was "no longer n u~u. Mr. Murphy stated that ..SeCtion 11,-04..01, Guarantees..and Sureties, was being amended to change the bonding~ requkements. . of the C..ounty' 's ~nd Development Code. He stated that all it 'did was effect they way bonds were to be posted and released for private roadway case of private roadways, the proposed amendment would ~t the amount of bonding to 100% of the estimated cost of construction ~Stead of 110 percent. Mr. Murphy indicated that section 11.05.00 of the code was berg amended to provide for an increase in the value of construction before a boundary survey is required to be submitted as part of any application for building permit. Mr. Murphy indicated that also in the Ordinance would be clarification of the procedures for which 'the process to revoke a previously issued Conditional Use permit may be initiated. Mr. Murphy closed his comments by noting that the county was also proposing to amend the regulations that allowed mobile homes to 'be a permanent permitted use on AG (Agricultural) property even if the AG exemption which was the authorizing basis for 29 locating the home in the first .place were revoked or allowed to expire. Chairman Klein opened the public portion of. the heating. Mr. Les Hargrave, Ex, ecutive Director of the Chamber of Commerce stated that the Board of.Directors have expressed concerns about the Open Space Requirements as a proposed amendment to the land use regulations. He asked the Board to table this item until the Chamber has had more .t~e to review it and provide input. Hea~n.g no ~rther arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Ordinance, Chairman Klein-closed the public .potion of the hearing. Af~ter considering the testimony presemed during the public hearing, including staff comments, Ms.. Wesloski moved that the Planning and Zoning Com~ssion table-this issue. ~..~ 'seconded the .,motion:, and upon roll.: call it was unanimously approved by the Board to table theitem until the next meeting. 30 PUBLIC HEARING ORDIN~CE 97-023 FILE NO. ORD-97-023 Chairman. Kle~ stated .that he had a conflict of interest due to the fact that his law firm was representing a communications tower company, so he passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Donna Calabrese. Mr. Ray Wazny, Commuffity Development Director, presemed staff comments. Mr. W'azny asked~.the Pla~~g and Zoning Commission to consider Ordinance 97-023, an Ordinance repealing Ordinance 97-022, establishing a moratorium on the development of new Telecommunication Towers and an Ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. He. stated that t~s Ordinance would rerstrict the placement of towers in the County. He stated that the. Ordinance was developed to keep the towers away from homes in residential ~areas. He stated that it was prepped by-eonsolidat~g other .ordnances already ~ effect ~around .the state of ~°rida, ~alad Was.not prePared ~om scratch. Mr. Wazny indicmed that. information-was gmhered from indust~ representatives and concerned cit~ens-and Staff believes that the'ordinance is fair, and ~1! ~restrict towers from residential areas. Ms. Heather Young, ~sistant County Attorney stated that the members have received the revisions made since the packets Were sent out. She stated thru the Board has held one public hea~g on a proposed i80-day moratorium on approval of new.towers. She stated that the .-next public hearin' g is scheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 1997. She indicated that also on July 22,~ 1997, 'the Board ~11 also consider, in the first of two public hearings, Ordnance 97-023. Ms.. Young stated that although there is reference .to .the moratorium, it will not go ~to effect until Tuesday. She 'stated that the repeal of that Ordinanee will not take effect until after the second plablic hearing which is scheduled for August 19, 1997 for Ordinance 97-023. She indicated that if, however, the Ordinance is continued, whenever it is adopted, if it is adopted, the moratorium ~1 be repealed. She stated that she would prepare a memorandum for 'the Board meeting stating whatever action 'the Planning and Zoning Commission took that evening. Ms. Young stated that Ordinance 97-023 establishes regulations in the I2ad Development Code for the citing and application of new towers. She stated that currently all towers are .Conditional Use Permits, and would establish permitted uses in several zoning districts including the three zoning districts including Light, Heavy and Extraction. 31 She .also stated that the Ordinance would require the owner to establish a Cash Security FUnd, which would pro.de the County .~th a level of credit that would enable the County, through the ~nds, to remove the tower in case of abandonment. She stated that the amount of security would be $25,000 for the t-ower and $5,000 for an antenna array on the tower or ff it:is in another, location. She: indicated that it might be a good idea to address: the setback and separation requirements. She noted that on page 29. there is a table which establi'shes the separation requiremenB for towers from inhabitable residential structures. She ~dicated that the requirement would be that the tower be placed 300 ~feet Or 100 percent of the 'tower height, whichever is greater, and n n-residential land 20 percent of the tower height zon~g setback or fall radius, whichever is gremer. She stated that the fall radius is established from a letter ~om Engineering indicating what thru fall distance in the event of a collapse, would be. Ms. YoUng also noted that there is a separation distance of a minimum of one mile, unless the app~Cant .demonstrates that there is no alternative, and h this case Ms. Young was spea~g of.a pemitted~tower. S ' ~ . ' ~he ~.stated that this is in order to-prevent a barrier to entry that is one requirement under Federal Law; that the County cannot prohibit towers or effectively prohibit a business that- is conducted with the towers. She stated that under .additional.requkements in the ordnance in addition to .the .application process addres.sing the requirements for the related equipments such as-storage cab~ets, antennas and so .forth. Ms. Diana Weslos~' asked Ms. Young ff Federal Law prohibits a moratorium. Ms. Young.Stated that it.. did not. She stated that ff a moratorium was going to be in effect for ~more than a year, then that would prohibit, the business.from operating. She stated that the County's intent was m have an Ordinance in place by the expiration of 180 days. Mr. Coward asked .about a segment of the memo referring to minimizing the number of towers-~ St. Lucie-County. He asked how many towers were actually-needed to service the area effectively. Ms, Young deferred that questiOn to the representatives present from the industry who, she said could answer that-question more effectively than she could. Mr. Mi~ asked if this ordinance was modeled after other coumies, and where it came from. Ms. Julia Iversen Shewchuk, Growth Management Manager stated that the ordinance was modeled after ordnances from Other areas that have been successfully adopted, and not just in .the state of Florida. Mr. Coward asked for clarification on the service question he raised earlier. He asked how 32 many towers were necessary to ~bring .effective service to the County. Chairwoman Calabrese asked .that questions be directed to staff at this time. Mr. Coward asked if there was any language in the Ordinance referring to the total maximum height for the tower itself. Ms. Shewchuk stated that there was not. Mr. Coward,stated,that he:was concerned ~about the placement of towers in residential areas, and that was why he was concerned about the number of towers needed. He asked ff whether or not the towers could be located in agricultural areas. He~.stated that there was concern about setbacks and whether or not a tower would fall on a house but there seemed to be no concern about the aesthetic ,.aspect of the rowers being located there. He stated that t~s Ordinance does .not address that issue, 'that it seems to allow towers in each square mile, and in eve~ zoning. Chairwoman Calabrese stated that, .asa conditional use, that it would be the Board's responsibility to .decide each ,case ~dividually. Mr' Coward stated that that.was why :he 'wanted to ~.~ow how .many towers were needed to .effectively se~ee the ~ea, to detemine if multiple towers were needed ~ the first place. He .stated that-he~ would .Hke to see them excluded from residential areas fltogether. Ms. Shewchuk stated that the ~tent of the Ordinance was to steer the towers away from residential areas into ~dustrial, 'Utffity and Agriculturally zoned areas by means of .pe~tting process, She.-stated that Industrial and Agriculthrally zoned area~ the towers would be pe~tted uses-.subject to requirements present in eve~ zoning. She stated 'that in the other zoning dist~ets they .are :-conditional uses. She indicated that co-location is encouraged ~stead of erect~g .new towers. Mr. Coward stated that the issues are more directed towards the safety issue, and he feels that the aesthetic issues should be considered as well. ~Mr. Whitley stated .that perhaps one day ,it will be p: ss~bleo ' to hide the antennas, on existing buildings, eliminating the need' for new towers, or towers in residential areas. Mr. Minix stated that he did not understand why it would be allowed as a conditional use in virtually every zOning ,district, and that they could be restricted to more open area zonings.. At this time, Chairwoman Calabrese opened the public portion of the hearing. 33 ~. Bob Bangart, who'was representing the Holiday Pines Homeowners Association stated that he opposed the towers in Close Proximity oi homes. He indicated that the .tower companies should co'exist to avoid mOre towers. Mr. M~ix asked Mr. Bangart where he and the rest of the public were when past towers were being approved. Mr. Coward indicated that most of the past towers that were approved were located in agricultural areas. Mr. Bangart stated that most people do not get involved until it affects them directly. Mr. Greg PolidOri, resident, stated that he was in opposition to towers. He stated that tower companies should '"Piggyback". He stated concern that staff was not able to tell ~ 'the number: of towers in the county, but were approving more towers. Mr. Polidori stated that he was in approval of the moratorium, and felt that tower companies should pay money to the County for ha~ng their towers located here. Mr, Peter Amar of Fort Pierce, an amateur radio operator stated, that on. the ofiginal~draft · on page 4 regard~g the de~.tion of antenna, there was intent to exclude amateur radio antenna towers from the ordnance..He stated that on page 6 under teleco~unication towers, there is no mention .of e~lusion of radio antenna towers, and was hoping that it was just an oversight and 'would. be .added to the ordinance. Mr. Amar was. concerned ~that in the ~. ture ~reless Cable dishes would not be allowed. Ms. Young stated that Mr. ~ar was co~ect ~th .regard to the intent not to apply to the amateur, she stated that 'they have looked at language to put an exclusion in the de~ition of telecommunications ~towers. Mr. Mark RiCkards, .rePresenting NeWel Communications stated that their obligation to the cellular phone user :and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is to provide continUous· COVerage. He Stated that co-existence of antennas and tOWers anti use. of exist~g buildings, is their goal, and if needed a new tower structure. He stated that judging ~from the 'Ordnance, the towers are being encouraged in Industrial zones. · He indicated that a tower located 3/4 of a mile away would be loaded to capacity and would not meet the need 'of a cellular provider, and would force the provider to look for an additional tower location. He indicated that he would like some language providing a loophole regarding the one mile radius, stating that it would be allowed subject to staff's review, for cellular prodders in the language on page 29. Mr. Rickards stated, regarding Table 7-40 Setbacks, page 28 that with reference to the setback being 100 percent of the tower height, he sees a problem considering .the height of a 150-200 foot high monopole. He stated that this pole would have a hard time breaking, 34 and if.it did break, would not launch off its foundation. He stated that he would ~e to .see the language read 100 percent' of the tower: height to match the residentially-zoned land setback. He stated also, regarding paragraph F on page 23, security funds, that the County should not ~be responsible for removing the towers. At this time, Mr. Rickards gave copies 'of a tower removal a~eemen.t frOm ~e County to the secretary, who distributed them to the BOard members. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Rickards to clarify the issue of service area. ~Mr. Mink ~asked how many towers would be needed for a county 50 miles long. ~. Ri~ards said it could va~, and would be driven by the market demand, and said he would research that question. ~. ~nk asked~hOw many-more can be expected in the County. Mr. Rickards stated that there.was-no way of telling. Mr. ~nk stated that Mr. Rickards TOwer Removal. Agreement was o~y as good as the company that :stood behind .it, and felt ~that the way staff .suggests to handle it, with a fired, is better. ~.-Matthes asked Mr. Rickards ffhe could estimate the tower numbers ~using the density of an area. Mr. Rickards stated that there was no rule of thumb formula anyone-could ~use. He stated that what Newel t~'es to do is ~d an .existing tower. He stated that to figure a .number of towers ~ .any respect he.would have to know where development was going, to-happen, .and how much the demographics would change, and where the existing towers were, how close to capacity they were., and where a tall structure may be in ten years. Mr. Matthes asked 'Mr. Rickards if he understood him correctly when he said the more dense an area,-the more towers would be needed. ~. Rickards stated the more calls, the more cell sites, the more .cell sites the more antennae. He stated that that is usually the case, the more dense an area, the more antenna and towers. Ms. Shewchuk commented that for the one mile radius an average cell site can handle 54 calls at the same time, she stated that the more cell phones in an area the more cell sites were needed. 35 Mr. Rickards stated that the towers built now are designed for more than one user. Ms. Jean Heams, of 505! Tozour Road stated that she had a letter from her-mother, Mrs. ~ldred Tozour who resides at 5035. Tozour Road. Ms. Heams read the letter which urges the Board to take the following items into consideratiom setbacks, separation, co-location, and that. the applicant should. be reqUired to show need. Ms. Heams ..stated .that she was now representing herself. She stated that she brought a visual aid ~th ~regard to the height of the towers. She expressed .concern about the aesthetic impact the .towers woUld have on residential neighborhoods, and was also concerned about the safety'hazards of having a tower located next to a home. Ms. Weslos~ asked Ms. Hearns ff she had gathered any infomafion. Ms. Heams stated thru she and her husband had. spent .a month gathering information, after she .was told that a tower would be located 160 feet ~om her ~ont .door. .She noted that the dra~ :of' the Ordinance had changed significantly ~ the past 36 hours. Mr. Mi~ asked Ms. Heams ff she was aware of the fact that the engineers have informed the Board that ~ 'the event of a collapse, :the-towers collapse upon themselves and do not fall in one piece. Ms. Hearns stated .that in Dade County after the hurricane, parts of the towers were found 1/2 mile away. Ms. Heam ~.dicated that she-could not ~d ~any setback information in the Ordinance. Ms. Young stated ~that ~t~ the Ordinance it states that .the faHing setback requirement would be 20 percent of the-tower height or the ~nimum setback of the zoning district or the fall .radius, w.~.chever is greater. She stated that the setback section was section K now, since the pre~Ous section K was deleted. Ms. Heam .stated: that the property s~e should acco ~mmodate the tower. Mr. Matthes asked if any engineer has said the fall radius would be 50 feet. Ms. Shewchuk stated that they had not. combined with the separation standards. She stated that the setback standards had to be Mr. Matthes. stated that with residential property they were still looking at the tower height separation. 36 Ms. Hearn. stated that it did not have to fall on the property, and her point was that there should be enough property around the tower to accommodate its falling over. Mr. Coward .asked .Ms. Heam if she had copies of existing ordinances that would preclude a tower in a. residential area. Ms. Heam said .she did not have any that went that far, but she .did have some copies of ordinances ~th setbacks of up to 1,000 feet. She stated that this was a nationwide problem. Mr. Minix expressed concern ~th the fall radius. He suggested the fall radius that .should be the height of the tower. Chairwoman ~Calabrese suggested tabling the item to a date certain, or estab~shin, g a committee for this item, as has .been.done in the past for billboards. Mr. M~ suggested letting the pubic speak that had been waiting for three hours and continue the hea~ng .after that. Ms. Betty ~u Wells .stated that the item,should be tabled. She stated that the public has not ~own in the ~past about this .issue, and that it was probably because the press was not present to ~te about it. She stated that them have. been many ~gements upon oPen space in the past 50 years, such as bigger traffic lights, lift .stations, etc. Mr. Bill Heam of 505I Tozour Road stated that although he had many concerns about the Ordinance, due to the late hour, he would' be happy .to return if the matter was going to be tabled. There was general 'discussion as to when the first Board of County Com~ssion meeting would be and Whether or not-the issue should be tabled. Mr. Coward concurred with Chairwoman .Calabrese on tabling the issue, saying thru the public has not had time either to hear about what was going on. Ms. Yo'ung suggested that a special heating by the Planning and Zoning.Commission on this Ordinance. 'Mr. Heam-offered to share his information with staff. Ms. Marsha Wiekforce, ~th the law firm of Dean, Mead, & Minton stated that they represented PrimeCo Personal Communications, Limited Partnership. She stated that she felt that staff was on ~the right track, being in compliance with Federal Law, and working with the residents on this matter. 37 She stated.that, as a .representative of the industry, there were still a few areas of concern with. the Ordinance. She stated that one issue was the one mile separation between the towers and said that it may have the affect of precluding the construction of towers. She stated that a mile .separation should not apply in the permitted areas..She stated that this mile may create a gap in coverage, and~if they are:not allowed.to put a tower in to eliminate the gap, they-Would not be in Compliance with. their FCC license. ' Ms. Wickforce stated that t~s rule discourages co-location. She stated that if a 90 foot tower was erected, that tower would only be tall .enough for one provider, which would establish the need for another tower. She stated that on page 29 was a similar regulation regarding property that is not County property. She suggested that ~rather than a 90 foot .restriction, make the height restriction 150 foot, so more than one pro~der could use the tower. She stated that there was concern about the 300 foot or 100 .percent separation. She re£ereneed Cha~-40 'on page 28,. she stated that the ~dustry. did not see a need for a 300 foot setback uffiess the tower 'itself was 300 feet. She agreed with Mr. ~ckard, that' the tower would not launch from its .lOCation, and the height of the tower would be sufficient. She .stated that they. were:suggesting, was that ~om an .habitable residential structure the ~imum separation would :be !00 percent of the tower height. Ms. Wickforce .asked-staff what the reason-was for the 300 foot separation. Ms. Young Stated that it was for the aesthetic reasons, being located to a residential structure and .not a.commercial.structure. Mr. Coward .asked Ms. :Wickforce ~what an appropriate setback for aesthetic reasons would be. Ms. Wickforce indicated that she had never noticed, the towers before she 'started .-working on them, and that a 150 foot setback should be enough in a residential area. Ms. Shewchuk stated that :safety was a concern also, in the event the tower or its equipment fell. Mr. Coward suggested that towers be prohibited in residential areas and co-location be encouraged in permitted areas. Ms. Wickforce stated that the industry would ask for a waiver of the 300 foot setback-in permitted use Zoning Districts, and n~ake the setback 100 percent of the tower 'height. Ms. Wickforce indicated that the distance of file miles with regard to Search Area on page 5, they prefered the definition of Search Area be defined by an RF engineer. 38 She stated~ that 'with.regard to the abandonment of towers, that a removal ~agreement be used .or a net worth requirement in the Ordinance. She stated that ff a company met a net worth then bonding would not be necessary. Mr. Coward as.keri ff the net worth would be mean the tower, or the equipment. Ms. Wickforce indicated that it would mean both. She stated ~regarding the security fund, that the industry would like it clarified Ln the Ordinance that if the hdustry posts a $25,000 bond for a tower, then it does not have to pro. de a $5,000 for each antenna. She indicated that ff the tower came down then so would the antenna, and that. the $'5,000 bond should only be 'implemented if the antenna is placed :on a structure other than a tower. She stated that the financial strain on a.~company' would be considered a ba~er and would be considered against the law. Ms. WicMorce stated that ufili~ poles may be used .instead of towers., with regard to page 6, it stated that the poles WOuld not be considered towers with regard to .the Ordinance. She was con.cemed ~on page 4, which stated that all antenna on uti~ty poles would be subject to -all .regulations stated h the .Ord~ance. She asked that the uti~ty pole language be taken -out of the alternative tower structure definition. Ms. WeslosM asked ff the industry would not be in compliance with the FCC ff they were not allowed to erect as many towem as they needed. Ms. Wickforce said they needed complete coverage to be in compliance with their FCC license, and ff a local government said they could not erect towers, then that would be considered a. ba~er to entry. Ms. Weslosld stated that it seems the County basically has to allow these tower companies to Place toWers Wherever theY.wam~to, becat~se the industry Can state that they do not have complete coverage. Ms. Young stated that although the County can restrict the sites, they cannot prohibit the structures altogether- Mr. Whitley suggested remodeling the towers. .Ms. Young stated that such language is present in the Ordinance under section P, and that depending upon the amount of improvement done to a tower it may be considered a new tower. Mr. Whitley asked if adding 25 feet to the tower would be considered a substantial improvement. 39. Ms. Shewchuk stated that it would not, that for example adding 50 percent of the tower height would be a substantial financial amOunt, and would then qualify as an improvement. She stated that if 25 feet were added, it would generate another engineering report and wind load certificate. Ms. Wickforce stated ~th regard tO residential areas, that the industry tries to blend in as much as possible, and uses ball park towers, lighting, etc. Ms. Wesloski asked how the CountY would know a new tower is the last resort. Ms. Wickforce .stated that the industry has to prove need, and also that the engineer's report is relied on. Chairwoman 'Calabrese asked fOr a motion to continue. There was general discussion as to a-,date to continue the hearing. After conSidering test~ony presented dung the public hearing, ~c!uding staff comments, l~&~'~. Matthes moved that. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend continue the public hearing of Ordinance 97-023 to July 31, 1997. Mr. Coward seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion carried unanimously 7-0, with Mr. Klein abstaiffing. 40 OTHER BUSINESS There being no other bUsiness, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 PM. 41 PLANNING ~ ZO~G CO~SSION/LOC~ P~GENCY JULY 31, 1997-REGULAR MEETING BO~ ~~ERS P~SENT: Jim ,~ix, Tom Whitley, Ed Merritt, Doug Coward, DOnna Calabrese, stefan Matthes, and Diana Wcsloski BOARD ME~ERS ABSENT: Robert Kle~ (excused) O~RS PRESENT: Heather Young, Assistant Coun~ Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community Development Director; Julia Shewchuk, Growth Management Manager PLEDGE OF ALLEG~CE: The Pledge-of Allegiance. was led by Cha~oman Calabrese. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 97.023 FILE~ NO. ORD-97-023 Chairwoman Calabrese noted that this hearing was continued ~om the meeting of July 17, 1997. Mr. Ray Wazny, Community Development Director stated that he would be m~g staff eomme'nts. ' He stated that ~s comments would first be directed to the topic of "separation", which seemed to be the most controversial. He stated further changes had been made Since the last meeting. He indicated -that the te.rm "separation" referred to the distance between the tower and residences. He stated that' the :Ordinance-provides for pemitted uses ~ certain areas such as AG-5, ~dustrial, and ~~.ty areas, He stated that staff felt that 300 feet was appropriate for separation based upon review of :other ordinances, but that .the Board of County Com~ssioners dkected staff.to make the ordinance more restrictive, so the requirement was changed to 500 feet. Ms. Julia Shewchuk, Growth Management Manager discussed the chronological background of the meeting; that the Board of 'County Co~ssioners had moved the hearing .on the Ordinance from July 22, 1997 to August 19, 1997. She stated that September 2 would be the second hearing date. She noted that .staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Hearn as directed by the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated that the concerns of the - ateur Radio representatives were taken into consideration, and ~tten into the de~ifions, appea~g on Pages 4 and 6 - Alternative Tower Structure and Teiecormnunications Towers. She indicated on Page 20, Design and Improvement Standards for towers, A-3 and A-5, the language was made stronger to minimize the location of towers near residential areas. Ms. Shewchuk noted on Page 21, item D-5, clarification that banners on towers are prohibited. She stated that under Warning Signs, that a 24-hour emergency number would be posted on the sign..She stated that a typo would be fixed also. She indicated on Page 23, item D-3, that specific detailed and representative plans within 500 feet of the tower would be obtained. She stated that E-1 stated that towers and accessory buildings would have a neutral tone to blend in with surrounding properties. She noted on Page 24, item F, Secu~ty Fund Requirements, that $25.,000 fund was for the towers, and the $5,000 reqUirement w~ts for an antenna not attached to a tower. Ms.. ShewChuk commented :on Page 31, item M-4, regarding generators, generators must be used when other power sources are not available, stated that She stated that also on Page 31, Section Q, Inspections, Reports and Fees that they did apply to all towers in the unincorporated areas. She stated on Page 23,' item D, number 8 would become 9. She stated that there would be new language for-item 8 regarding compliance with FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulations. She indicated on ~Page 27, item H, .a new paragraph 5 was added regarding roof-mourned antenna height of not. less than 10 feet. Ms. Shewchuk stated that on Page 29, item L-l, regarding revision of Table 7.4., there were the changes stated, earlier by Mr. Wazny with reference to Separation. She stated that on Page '29, Rem L-2, a new paragraph D-would be added encouraging cluste~ng Of towers, and hopefully limiting the. proliferation of towers. She indicated the last..change was to Page 32, Section R, insurance requirement. Shewchuk deferred to Ms. Young. Ms. Ms. Heather YOung, ~sistant County Attorney stated that this would release the County from liability. Ms. Weslos~ asked .'about the placing of towers not consiStent with the-Ordinance. Mr. wazny stated that there is a variance .the tower companies can address if they can prove need to place-a tower in a certain place. Ms.. Young. stated that they would have to prove hardship, and they would have a route of action. ' Mr. Coward asked if there were restrictions on tower height in the other ordinances. Mr. Wazny stated that there were, mainly to construction costs, and the restriction of height may induce the proliferation of towers. Ms..Matthes asked with regard to the security funds, where the $25,000 amount came from. Ms. Ybung stated that the amount came from the Cable Consultant the County was us~g who specialiZed in this 'topic. Mr. Minix asked what the reason was for the mile separation in permitted areas. Ms. Shewchuk stated that the intent was to promote taller towers farther away from each other. He stated that the market should dictate where they could place the towers based on where they are permitted. ~. Wazny.stated ~that .it .would protect someone having a home in an .agricultural area ~om having two-towers behind their home. Mr. Whifley noted, a discrepancy wit~n the document regarding the exemptiOn of antenna placed on a utility pole. Mr. Wazny indicated that the intent of the ordinance was to not proliferate towers within residential areas, and allow companies to .use utility poles instead. Ms. Shewchuk said the large poles in uti~tyrights-of-way were exempt, being that they were not the usual utility Poles, She stated that it was their concern that the co~ect type of permit be obtained 'for the different types of poles. Mr. Whffiey stated that the distinction was ambiguous in the ordinance.. Mr. Coward asked about artificial pine trees. Ms. Shewchuk stated that there are towers disguised as pine trees. .Mr. ~ix asked if there were any suggestions from staff besides the Removal Agreement and the Security Fund options for the removal of unused towers. inaudible. At this time, Chairwoman Calabrese opened the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Marsha Wickforce, an attorney with Dean, Mead and Minton commented that she was. representing PrimeCo Communications, Limited Partnership. Ms. Wickforce.stated that she was concerned about the one-mile separation in pe ~rrnitted use areas. She stated that it should be excluded from permitted use areas. Mr. Jeffrey Sluggett, representing Nextel Communications stated that he felt that co- habitation on one tower would not work for this industry. _ Mr. ~tley asked which set of guidelines in the Ordinance one should follow. Ms. Shewchuk stated that the Ordinance makes the distinction between tower and antenna. Ms. Wickforce read excerpts from.a letter to stress that safety is not the .issue for .the setback from the residential structures. She commented that other noisy, permitted industrial uses are allowed to be within 300 feet of residences. Ms. Wickforee asked if the Identffication and InSurance provisions applied to all towers and not just those placed on County property. ~Ms. Young stated that was correct. Ms. Wiekforee stated that she felt it was inappropriate for"the County to ask for these requirements for land not owned bY the County. Ms. Young stated that other businesses whether on private or County property have to meet these requirements also, for the protection of the citizens. Ms. Wickforce ~dicated other general concerns of the industry. Miller from PrimeCo was present to answer questions. She stated Ms. Nancy Mr. Coward asked about the ~aesthetics aspects of the towers. Ms. Wickforce stmed that camouflage fadlities can be requested, and there are ways to make the towers aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Bill Gally, .of Sprint/PCS stated that he was concerned with the de~ifion of "Search ~ea", and that the actual 5 miles could be interpreted differently. He suggested the exclusion .of lightning rods and safety lighting from the height regulations, and this language be included in the Ordinance. He stated that his company was not in favor of the Security FUnd, but rather prefers the Removal Agreement. ~ Mr. Gally stated that his company had problems with the 500 foot and one mile separation requirements. He stated that the terrain is different in Denver, and that was why it was more appropriate there. He indicated that he felt a monop01e inspection was appropriate every 5 years. Mr. Gaily suggested less of a'separation requirement for monopoles. Mr. Gally, like Ms. Wickforce, stated that his company uses emergency generators only as a last resort for power' Mr. Wazny stated that the ,language would be changed to reflect emergency use of the generators. Mr. Gaily stated that his company's towers are made for at least two carriers, and could hold as many as 6 antennas. He stated that the appraisal firm of Callaway and Price determined that there were no property value differences between areas with towers and those without. Mr. Polidori 'complained .about the audio system. mountainous areas requirements for our area. He expressed concern over using He stated that the Board had-no right to use the air space of his property or to make this a conditional use, He ~dicated that he felt the tower companies should pay the 'county to put up towers. ~. Polidori was concerned about hurricane requirements with regard to the towers, and that there should-be a defined maximum height. He stated that the towers should increase, money in the County's pocket. Mr. Coward asked if there was a user fee for towers located on public land. Ms. Young stated that there was. Mr. Coward asked about hurricane requirements. Mr. Wazny stated that towers have to meet the 110 miles per hour wind requirement. Revenue would be collected from the permit and the tax collector would adjust the value of the property accordingly. Mr.-Coward asked abOut variances, and provisions to bypass the ordinances. Ms. Shewchuk stated that the variance would only apply, to dimensional requirements of the Code for the proPerty itself. Mr. Coward asked if there was a fee structure for public lands. Ms. Shewchuk there was some research .with regard to franchise fees, but staff did not look into that matter at all. Chairwoman Calabrese asked if there was any kind of regulation that prevented the interference with the communications industry. Ms. Shewchuk showed the Boa:rd a visual aid that would show areas that would fall into the ban and would come into conflict with the FCC. Mr. Mink asked if there were any significant differences between the draft ordinance of the City of Port St. 'Lucie and' that of St. Lucie County, and if 'staff has reviewed it. Ms. Shewchuk :stated that ~towers were only allowed as a special exception with a maximum height of 300 feet on property over 5 acres, up to 150 feet if .on parcels under 5 acres if bordered to non-residential land, and up to 75 feet for small parcels bordered on residential land. She stmed that she would have to check on their security ~nd, and that there was a standard setback. Mr. Bill Heam, of the'~d~o area stated that the public was not informed. He stated that there were ordinances in .place With 1 mile separation standards. Mr. Hearn recited the purpose .and intent of the Land Development Code, which is to preserve and protect the County. He stated that he a/nd Mrs. Heams.met ~th staff for two hours and discussed some of ~their concerns. He indicated on Page 20, number 3, the words "and promote" were added, and "to the extent possible" was deleted. He stated that on Page 21, number 5, the last sentence "shall be removed ~at the expense of the owner" it should be clarified who would remove it. He commented that on Page 23, he suggested that each indMdual 'living unit in condominiums be excluded :~th.~regard to the 'wording "all properties witch a 300 foot visual area". Mr. Hearn stated that on Page 26, number 4, the word "monitoring'" be included. He indicated that no one monitors these towers, and that it be done on a yearly basis at the owners' expense. He indicated on Page 28, number 1, setbacks, that .the distance .be changed to 100 percent of the tower height plus 50 feet. He stated that this was necessary due to monopole towers lying in highways after hurricane Andrew. ' He' also stated that on Page 29, Table 7.40, that the minimum be changed to 750 feet instead of 300 feet, to protect the aesthetic appearance of the land and to avoid visual pollution. He :stated that it should be 100 percent of the tower height and 50 feet for non-residential land. Mr. Hearn indicated that 'he had a packet of letters from California describing concerns of residents 'there with regard 'to towers. He stated that some of the concerns were difficulty with home sales and health concerns. -He commemed .that the language .in the ordinance .should remain strong and be flexible if needed later, rather than the reverse. Mr. Coward asked Mr. Heam his opinion of the 1 mile separation. Mr. Hearn stated that citizens should not be bullied. Ms. Heam stated that the ~towers could.ruin the appearance of some nice"homes in the ~area. Mr. Coward wondered if sand mines would be considered less .of an impact and would be more l~ely to be approved. Ms. Shewchuk showed the Board the map indicating the Industrial Extraction areas. Mr. Coward noted that a tower could go in these areas as a permitted use. Mr. Sluggett 'stated that communications companies were not in the business of 'building towers and were interested in co-location whenever possible. He stated that the 1 mile~ separation requirement could proliferate the erection of towers. The 90 foot height restriction was not an industry standard, and a height of 125 feet would be more realistic. He commented on Page 24, 'item G'2A. Mr. Coward asked how this refers to telecommunication farms. Ms. Shewchuk said this would be incorporated into the 1 mile separation language. Mr. Coward suggested looking at Avico for the answer on this topic. Mr. Sluggett stated that the search area for his company is much less than 5 miles. He stated that they agree ~th the removal agreement, and that Palm Beach County is already using such an agreement. He stated that his company was not in support of the 300 or 500 foot separation requirement, and that a monopole was no more obtrusive than a light pole. He stated that. he. had no problem indemnifying the County if he had a lease agreement with the County. He also commented that with regard to "monitoring", a standard is maintained by the FCC. Ms. Wesloski asked about tower camouflage, Mr. Sluggett stated that a monopole is better than a stealth tower or an artificial pine tree.. Mr. Coward asked about 'a discrepancy in what Mr. Sluggett.stated, that he was in opposition to the 1 mile separation reqUirement, but. did not see tower farms as a pOssibility. Mr. Sluggett stated that it was not prObable to see more than 2 monopoles in an area. He stated that cluste~ng works better for industries that use higher towers that cover greater distances. He stated that more towers may be needed to cover gaps in service due to no room for co- location on existing towers. Chairwoman Calabrese noted for the record that a letter was received from JoAnn Allen Real Estate ur~g the Board to be flexible in any restrictions theY 'may put .in the Ordinance. Hearing no further arguments in favor of'or in opposition to the Ordinance, Chairwoman Calabrese closed the Public Portion of the Hearing. Mr. Whifley asked-about a letter of credit for tower removal instead of a surety bond. Mr. Wazny stated that it was not included in the language in the Ordinance. ~Mr. Coward noted that Mr. Sluggett indicated that there was language already in the Ordinance with regard to removal of the towers. Mr. Wazny stated that Mr. Sluggett was correct, that if the structure was not' repaired or was damaged, the County'would be allowed to remove the tower, and woUld be responsible for collecting the. funds. Mr. Minix stated that additional consideration should be given to distance' between towers in permitted areas. He also stated that the security fund may prohibit companies from doing business by establishing extra cost for the companies, and could cause legal problems in the future. Ms. Wesloski suggested one bond for several towers within a company. Mr. Mink stated that for private 'landowners, the County has no indemnification rights. ~Mr. Matthes suggesting raising the. maximum height to allow co-location. There was general discussion as to height requirement, and separation requirements. Mr. Whitley .stated that there were several subdivisions located next to Agriculturally zoned land, and towers next ~to such subdivisions could cause problems aesthetically. Mr. Merritt asked if there was language present in the Code referring to fall radius. Mr. Wazny stated that there was not. Mr. Whitley indicated that he felt a 1,000 foot separation was in order. Mr. Minix stated that he felt that the separation should be no more than 500 feet, and that the Board would decide on each individual case. The Board voted 5 in 'support of 500 feet .and 2 in support of 700 up to 1,000 foot separation between a tower and a residence. The. Board was unanimously.against the indemnification on private lands. There was general discussion on' the effectiveness of Security Bonds and their detrimental effect on and cost for the industry. Mr. Matthes stated that he felt the surety bond should remain. Mr. Merritt felt that the bond issue would :cause legal problems in the future because it has not .been required for Other utility companies in the past. The Board reached a consensus that some sort of bond was needed. Mr. Matthes suggested the-industry suggest a definition for a search area. There was general discussion about search area. Mr. Whitley suggested that in addition to the owners name on the warning sign, the property manager's name should be there also. Mr. Coward stated that the County should .have a say in the location of those towers, and not leave it to the industry. Ms. Wesloski asked how many towers designate a "farm". 10 Mr. Wazny stated that the establishment of a farm would take the permission of.several land owners or one large parcel, and would be directed by the industry as needed. Mr. Coward' stated that the farms should be located on public property. Chairwoman Calabrese went over the list of concerns stated by the Hearns. She stated with regard on Page 20, number 3, to have the words "to the extent possible" removed, was generally agreed among the Board members. She' stated that Page 23, visual impact was discussed. Mr. Wazny stated 'that it was addressed with the industry, ~and the wording within the Ordinance would be corrected. Mr..Coward asked if the visual impact issue only applies to1523Xresid~iat or recreational components also. Ms. Shewchuk stated that it applies, to 500 feet of all properties, residential, or recreational. Chairwoman :'Calabrese stated' that the issue of setback was discussed. She stated that the Hearns wanted the IX (Industrial 'Extraction) zoning district removed from the permitted use areas. Mr. Minix suggested the zoning be changed back after the extraction is finished. Mr. Wazny stated that that would not address the situation' the Hearns were concerned with if the tower went up during the extraction phase, and it should be a conditional use instead of a permitted use. Mr. Minix clarified .that the Board agreed to delete the 1 mile separation requirement, and that the security fUnd would only be required in .permitted areas. He stated that the indemffification on private lands was being deleted also. Mr. Coward was interested in getting the maximum height issue clarified, since-this issue includes television towers. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, Mr. Matthes .moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners with the suggestions and recommendations made. Mr. Merritt suggested an annuity instead of a bond. 11 Mr. Coward seconded the motion, and .upon roll call the Board voted 6 in favor with Mr. Whitley vot~g in .opPosition to the motion, .and Mr. Klein abstaining. 12 OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned 10:30 PM. 13 P ~G: ~ ZON~G COMMISSION REVIEW: 08/21/97 File Number RZ-97-009 M E M,0, RA,N D UM DEPARTME~' OF COMMUNI~TY DEVELOP~~ TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and ZOffing Commission Planning .Manager August 14, 1997 S~jECT: .of ,. for ~om LO ON: . on the north side of Di~eland Drive, feet east of Somh U.S. ~ghway No. 1. E~S~G 'ZONING: PROPOSED ZO~G: ~'11 '(Residential, Multiple-Family-il du/acre) I (Institutional) FU~ :USE: (Residential High) PARCEL SIZE: 1.05 acres PROPOSED USE: ~stimtional Residential. Home for Seffior Citizens. S~O~~G 'ZO~G: the General) Zoning and the west and -The Future I~nd Use Classffications of the area su~ounding .the subject property, are RH (Residential ~gh) to the south, north, and west and COM (Commercial) to the west and. south. The City of Ft. Pierce limits are located to the north and east of the subject property. FIRFJEMS ' PRO~CTION: StatiOn #6 (350 East Midway Road) is approximately 2 miles to 'the south of the property. located subject UTILHN SERVICE: Utility service will be provided by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority. August ~ 14, 1997 Petition: Page 2 Phillip & Sonia.~ Hofer File No:' RZ-97-009 SC~DULED .~R~ME.~NTS., ~ ,: ,~ ,~- ~ · ~,,.~ ,,. The fight-of-way ~dth for D~eland D~ve is 60 feet. NOne. ST~ $ In t~s 1. ~ether 'the the 'St. 0 e , SEC ~TION 11.06'03, CODE ~r and -make the Planffing and Zoning 'rezoffing is in cOnflict with any applicable portions of DeVelopment Code; ~e D~ ..zo~g district is consistent with the St. Lucie County -Land ~de. r the proposed amendment.is consistent with all elements of the St. LU¢ie County ComprehenSive Plan; The.' in'.'zoning is consistent ~th all elements of the St. Lucie Plan. The I (Institufional~ :-District is compatible ~th the ~ (Residential FUrore ~d Use ' ~Whether and the extent to which the propoSed zoning is inconsistent'with the existing .and 'proposed land uses; The propOsed-Zoning is consistent with e~st~g residential and institutional land' uses ~ the area. A community residential home is currently operating on the western High Pointe, an age restricted condominium located to the north-and east of the subject property. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment. August 14' 1997 page 3 Petition: Phillip & Sonia Hofer File No: RZ-97-009 and the extent to w~ch the proposed amendment would result in on~ facilities, whether or to :the extent to which the " ' ' i of such pub.li~ -facilit es, ~nspo~fion ~s' s fac~ties, Water dmmag, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency ~e :~ten.ded use for t~s additional demands on any , ~s.e~ee is .not expected to create signJficaxtt ~ t~s area. Without cemral water of t~s Ft. Pierce ~11 need the. area to ,supp°rt ~ether and the extent to which th proposed amendment would result in significant adverse'impacts On the natural environment; e ¸8. and~, this' site ~ be requked to comply Mth all stme en~ronmental regulations. Whether.and the extent to which the proposed amendment ~would result ~ an orderly-and specifica' y :identifying any negative Patterns; An orderly and logical development protein will occur with ~his ~proposed ' ~t of multiple- proposed Use. The U.S. 1 , located to the east, is commercial in nature. Whether the Proposed amendment woUld be in conflict with the public interest, ~and is in harmony with the pu~ose and intent of this Code; The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with .the purpose and intent of the ,St. Lucie County Land Development COde. ~0 ~MMENTS The RM-1I acres of and Sonia Hofer, have requested this change in zoning from to I (InstitutiOnal) zoning of 1'05 north side of five, approximately 1,200 feet east of ghway NO. 1 in order to develop an institUtional residential home for senior August 14, 1997 Page 4 .Petition: Phillip &'Sonia Hofer File No: RZ-97-009 cit~ens. Instimti0nal residential homes, licensed for more than fourteen residents, 'are pe ted .uses in the i~ 'Zon~g District. :The applicant' currently operates ~a and Staff has the U.S. corridor. area. and dete~ed that it-conforms with ~e st~dards the St.. of the St. petition to the Board of Please contact t~s :office ff you have any questions on this .matter. Attachments tm cc: P~llip &-Sonia HOfer File Suggested motion to reeo~end ~approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. ~OTION TO APPROVE;- AFTER coNSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET 'FORTH , IN SECTIO 11.06,03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ~ND DEVELOPMENT CODE i HEREBY MOVE THAT~THE P~NNiNG ANDrZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST' LUOiE COU'N~ BOARD OF.COUN~ COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLiCATION-:OF-PHILLIP & SONIA HOFER .FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE RM-11 (RESIDENTIAL, "MULTIPLE'FAMILY-II DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE I ZONING DISTRICT. BECAtJSE ... [CITE REASON WHY , PLEASE BE SPECIFIC], AFTER CONSIDERING THE~TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING"TH'E PUBLIC H~RING, INCLUDING, STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF R~IEW AS SET-FORTH -IN' SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUOiE CO'UN~ ~ND DEVELOPMENT CODE, i HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ~P~NNING AND iZONING COMMISS!ON RECOMMEND THAT THE ST.' LUOIE COUN~ BOARD OF COUN~'COMMiSSIONERS .DENY THE APPLICATION OF PHI-LLIP & SONIA HOFER FOR CHANG'E iN ZONING 'FROM THE RM-111 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE'FAMILY-II DU/AORE) ZONING DISTRICTTO THE I (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT. BECAIJSE ... [CITE REASON'WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. , N 0 o m 0 i - ] [ i S I~£ S SE ,LINNO0 33~]OHO33NO S l£ Ph.illip & '$onia Hofer (4~~ (801-0117- '00~) I0 4 11 3 :12 1'3. Dixieland C¸G (432-0001- 2 000/1) , ~ I 5 I 18I 17 I i 13 14 15 1-0 RZ 97-009 Community Development GeograPhic Information Systems Map revised May 30.1997 ,, .p & $Ornia Hofer Land Us.e 1'0 11 12 13 Dixieland Drive , (432~001- 2. 00~) I (4~001~0~) ! I I 18 I 17 I I 6 16 (801-011~ 000~) 14 15 RZ Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map revised May 30, 1997 N AGENDA ' PLANN~G & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAE AUG UST 2'1, 1997 7:00 P.M. Phillip and Sont~'Hofer~'have petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning pom the RM~H (R ~al,, Multiple-Family- ,Il du/acre) Zoning DiStriCt .to the I (institutiOnaO Zoning D~ttict for the establ~hment of an Adult Congregate Living Facility. for the following described property: SEE ATTA LEG~ DESCRIPTION (LocaaOn: North side~of land Drive, approximately 1,200feet east:of South U.S. Highway No. 1) Please note. that all proceedings before the Local Planning ~Igen~ are electronically ' e .i. . . · · ' . recorded. Ifa Person d, ~ ':to appeal any decision made by.the Local Planning AgenCY 'with ~respect to any matter cons at such meeting or .'heating he will need a recOrd of the' proCeedings, and thag for such pu~ose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record .of'the proceedings is made, which ,record in the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal ~ to be based..Upon therequest.of any party to the ~proceeding indiWUtuals testifYing duringa heating will be.sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity ~to cross- a · e'- e. : . · ~e ~i , examine, ny mdividUal testt~tng.during a heating upon request. WnYten comments received in advance of the publtc' heating will also be considered. Prior to' this pUblic heating; notice ,of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners August 8,~ 1997.. Legal nott~e was published in the Port,St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of generalcirculation.-in St. Lucie Count, on August 11, 1997. File No. RZ-97-009