Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11.04.2015 - Joint Meeting7NTY O R[ D A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ST LUCIE COUNTY Joint Meeting Wednesday, November, 4, 2015 2:00 PM City of Fort Pierce 100 N. Us 1 City Hall Fort Pierce, FL 34954 COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS District No. 3, Chair PAULA A. LEWIS District No. 5, Vice -Chair KIM JOHNSON District No. 1 CHRIS DZADOVSKY District No. 2 TOD MOWERY District No. 4 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON CITY COMMISSION MEMBERS Mayor LINDA HUDSON District No. 1 RUFUSALEXANDER District No. 1 REGINALD SESSIONS District No. 2 EDWARD BECHT District No. 2 THOMAS PERONA County Mission Statement To provide service, infrastructure and leadership necessary to advance a safe and sustainable community, maintain a high quality of life, and protect the natural environment for all our citizens Generated 1012912015 3:06 PM Joint Meeting Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:00 PM iIa%Z9l:4114.1 2. PORT OF FORT PIERCE 1. Interlocal Agreement (Cooperation - Development of the Port of Fort Pierce) 2. Fisherman's Wharf Land Acquisition (Phase 1) Project Agreement 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION STRATEGIES 4. ADJOURMENT NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Safety & Risk Manager at (772) 462-1783 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. 2 1 P a g e 2.1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE) w THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of v w 2015, by and between the CITY OF FORT PIERCE, a Florida municipal corporation (the "City') and ST. W O LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County"). U- u_ O WITNESSETH ~ O a WHEREAS, the County and the City will potentially realize substantial economic benefit from the _ development of the Port of Fort Pierce in the form of new jobs, new maritime industry, expanded commerce and an enhanced tax base; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes provides for the execution of an interlocal agreement as a means for enabling local governments to cooperate and make the most efficient use of their powers; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have the power to expend funds for the purpose of port improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to impose and enforce land development regulations covering property within the Port of Fort Pierce; and and WHEREAS, the County is currently designated as the Port Authority for the Port of Fort Pierce; WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement may provide for the parties to cooperate in the development of the Port of Fort Pierce and allocate responsibilities among themselves and designate one or more parties to the agreement to administer or execute the agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and undertaking contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 S:/ATTY/AGRRMNT/INTERLOC/Development of the Port of Fort Pierce Packet Pg. 3 2.1 1. GENERAL This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, Florida Interlocal w Cooperation Act. v W w_ 2. COOPERATION —GENERAL a t— O A. The Parties agree to: U- U- O • Cooperate in the acquisition of property that is necessary for the development of O a the Port of Fort Pierce; and • Cooperate in the development of master plans for the Port of Fort Pierce; and • Cooperate in the implementation of the approved Port master plan; and • Schedule joint meetings between the governing bodies as needed but not less than annually to discuss items of interest related to the Port of Fort Pierce 3. SPECIFIC PORT PROJECTS The parties contemplate cooperating on specific projects concerning the future development of the Port of Fort Pierce. An example of this cooperation is the North Second Street Improvement Project which predated this Agreement. For future specific port projects the parties may amend the agreement and attach a project agreement to this agreement or, at the parties option, the parties may choose to enter into a separate project agreement. The initial specific port project agreement is the Fisherman's Wharf Property Acquisition project agreement which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1. 4. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not operate to terminate any specific port project agreement. 2 S:/ATTY/AGRRMNT/INTERLOC/Development of the Port of Fort Pierce Packet Pg. 4 2.1 S. WHOLE AGREEMENT This Agreement embodies the whole understanding of the parties. There are no promises, w terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein; and this Agreement shall supersede v W w_ all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the a t— W O parties hereto. U- U- O 6. AMENDMENTS ~ O a The Agreement may only be amended by a written document signed by all parties and filed _ with the Clerk of Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida. 7. NOTICES All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid) return receipt requested, addressed to: As to City: Fort Pierce City Manager 100 North U.S. One/P.O. Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 As to County: St. Lucie County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue Administration Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 8. FILING With a Copy to: Fort Pierce City Attorney 100 North U.S. One/P.O. Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 With a Copy to: St. Lucie County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Administration Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 This Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, prior to its effectiveness. 3 S:/ATTY/AGRRMNT/INTERLOC/Development of the Port of Fort Pierce Packet Pg. 5 2.1 written. ATTEST: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA BY: Clerk Mayor 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: City Attorney Date: S:/ATTY/AGRRMNT/INTERLOC/Development of the Port of Fort Pierce Packet Pg. 6 2.1 ATTEST: Deputy Clerk 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY BY: Chair Lu U APPROVED AS TO FORM AND w a CORRECTNESS: t— O BY: LL County Attorney LL p t— Date: O a S:/ATTY/AGRRMNT/INTERLOC/Development of the Port of Fort Pierce Packet Pg. 7 A -Jul I 1 -47 21, 2.2 FISHERMANS WHARF DEVELOPMENT STUDY PORT OF FT PIERCE, FLORIDA Florida Department of Transportation I District 4 Centennial -r Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation FDsi District 4 ,.g;;._ �r 2015 May 2015 ,00o 791 S Prepared by: ® 7@@s TranSystems C1 Fishermans Wharf Development j Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 Packet Pg. 9 2.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER PHASE ONE - PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES 1 SECTION I - PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 2 a SECTION II - DESIGN EFFORT DESCRIPTION 4 0 u- SECTION III - OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT FOR OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 5 0 APPENDIX A - AERIAL OF FISHERMANS WHARF STUDY AREA 6 a APPENDIX B - PROPERTY CONFIGURATIONS FOR OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 8 E APPENDIX C - LOCATIONS OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS AND AREA PAVING AND SITE DRAINAGE PRELIMINARY DESIGNS FOR OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 12 a APPENDIX D - NEW BULKHEAD DESIGN 16 0 L - -- APPENDIX E - OPINION OF PROBABLE DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 - 20 a PHASE TWO - EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 23 SECTION I - METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION 24 SECTION II - EVALUATION CRITERIA 25 SECTION III - CHANNEL AND BERTH DREDGING 27 SECTION IV - PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS 28 SECTION V- INTENDED LAND USES 29 SECTION VI - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 30 APPENDIX A - EVALUATION MATRICES FOR OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 32 APPENDIX B - MARINE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES 39 APPENDIX C - INFORMATION ON PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTIES IN THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF AREA 46 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 Packet Pg. 10 2.2 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 w U W d H d' O LL LL O H w O a r C d E a� a� L Q f+ :i d O L CL t CL C O :.i Q J IC Cu t N C R E L M N LL C O r R v 3 E E O U Packet Pg. 11 2.2 Background ound The subject site for this study is in St Lucie County within the Operating Area of the Port of Fort Pierce in an area of the Port known as Fishermans Wharf. The site is generally bounded on the south by Florida A1A, to the west by Indian River Drive and to the north by Fishermans Wharf Road. To the east are the Indian River and the Intra Coastal Waterway. Currently, the site is comprised of multiple underutilized parcels as follows and as shown in the Fishermans Wharf Area aerial at Appendix A: Owner Size of Parcel River Marina Incorporated .31 acres River Marina Incorporated .13 acres Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency .82 acres Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency .79 acres Fishmonger Investors LLC .46 acres Carol J. Jenkins .46 acres St. Lucie County .47 acres St. Lucie County .77 acres City of Fort Pierce (boat ramp & parking)* 1.5 acres " The City of Fort Pierce boat ramp parcel shows on the City aerial maps as being 12.6 acres; however, that includes property to the west of Indian River Road and outside the study area. Prooertv Options TranSystems has reviewed three options or property configurations, Option 1, 2 and 3 as shown in Appendix B. Option 1 is the smallest in terms of acreage and totals approximately 3.11 acres. Option 2, the midsized property configuration, totals approximately 4 acres and includes approximately .44 acres at the eastern end of Fishermans Wharf Road. Finally Option 3, the largest in terms of acreage totals 6.15 acres. Purpose This feasibility analysis and comparative evaluation has been divided into two phases. The first phase is submitted herewith and was completed to provide preliminary design for paving and draining the site and providing new bulkhead from the northernmost boat ramp extending north and then turning east to the southeastern corner of the easternmost River Marina Inc. property. At that point the bulkhead turns over 90 degrees to the north northwest. This new section of bulkhead would be placed along the Indian River (ICW) and run north to the north side of Fishermans Wharf Road, providing approximately 184' of potentially rail -served berth space on the ICW. Interviews with various stakeholders from the City and County were performed and potential use data collected, two comprehensive field investigations were performed and geotechnical information from several borings was collected to provide design data. Consideration was given to existing businesses in the area in order to maximize the feasibility and constructability of the site paving and drainage design. The most practicable and feasible uses of the bulkhead were taken into account in determining the performance specifications and the design of the bulkhead sections. The preliminary civil and structural designs for the three property options Fishermans wharf Development I Port of fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 2 Packet Pg. 12 2.2 are presented in this report. The preliminary design for each property option was then used to prepare opinions of probable development cost for each property configuration or option, and those estimates of cost are w presented in this report as well. The overall, two -fold purpose of the first phase of this study is W to prepare preliminary designs of what we considered to provide the most universally useful a site surfacing, drainage and bulkhead and prepare development cost estimates for each of the three property options. o U_ The second phase of this study is to perform a comparative evaluation of the three options 0 to determine relative usefulness in terms of meeting stakeholders' expectations and the o goals of the Port, City and County. A number of aspects will be evaluated to include: cost a of development, market demand, potential revenue production and local employment opportunities, growth potential, permit -ability, and environmental and community impacts. E The product of the second phase will be the recommendation for selection of a course of i action that will develop the Fishermans Wharf area of the Port of Fort Pierce in the highest a and best manner for the region. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 3 Packet Pg. 13 2.2 The design of the Fishermans Wharfarea, though preliminary in nature, envisions the continued use of the boat ramps and parking for cars and boat trailers in the vicinity of the existing ramps on City property in order to provide adequate parking for ramp users. Other areas within each property configuration option were selected for paving in order to accommodate a majority of w the proposed uses such as the permanent berthing of a historic Coast Guard cutter that would be a maritime museum, retail stores that would sell boating and fishing supplies, restaurants w and potential cargo operations using a berth on the ICW, and possibly an industrial spur extended out to the eastern end of Fishermans Wharf Road from the FEC mainline several p blocks to the west. Option 3 demonstrates the extension of the FEC rail spur from the King U_ Marine Group property out to the eastern end of Fishermans Wharf Road for potential rail to 0 barge or ship cargo operations. W a While the final design of the area will be driven by the highest and best uses of the property, market demand and stakeholder expectations, the preliminary paving and drainage design E has a significant range of applicability and flexibility to accommodate future area use. The preliminary design of the paved areas, site drainage and new bulkhead have allowed for the a estimation of probable development costs for comparison among the property configurations and the property uses that each configuration would accommodate. The bulkhead design from the northernmost boat ramp to the point at which it turns approximately 30 degrees to the northeast is envisioned to accommodate the berthing of smaller pleasure craft and the base of a "T" dock for slipping smaller pleasure craft. In Options 2 and 3, the bulkhead from the northwest corner of the basin east to the southeastern corner of the easternmost River Marina Inc. parcel is designed to berth the historic Coast Guard cutter and provide wharf space for cargo operations with island "box boats" or along -side berthing for larger pleasure craft. The bulkhead section that borders on the Indian River (ICW) was designed to provide a 184 foot berth for small ship and barge operations, which might include cargo, ferry and casino boat operations. In Option 1 the bulkhead along the north side of the basin extends approximately 297' only to the eastern boundary of the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency property (82 acres). In option 1 there is no bulkhead or berth on the Indian River (ICW). The design of the pavement and site drainage for property configurations 1, 2 and 3 are at Appendix C. The preliminary design of the new bulkhead is at Appendix D. Fishermans Wharf Development i Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 4 Packet Pg. 14 2.2 Three separate cost estimates were developed for the three property configurations —Options 1, 2 and 3. As expected the development cost for the significantly smaller Option 1 (3.11 acres) is approximately $2,841,000, including a 15% contingency. The development cost estimate for Option 2 is approximately $5,835,000, including a 15% contingency. The development a cost estimate for the largest property configuration of 6.15 acres in Option 3 is approximately W $10,792,000, including a 15% contingency. a The difference in the estimated cost of Option 2 versus the estimated cost of Option 1 is 0 predominantly due to the additional bulkhead construction past the eastern boundary of the o FORT Pierce Redevelopment Agency property (end point for the bulkhead in Option 1) to 0 the southeastern corner of the River Marina Inc. property — a distance of approximately 230'. o Also Option 2 differs from Option 1 in that it includes 184' of bulkhead to provide a serviceable a barge and small ship berth on the Indian River (ICW). Option 3 has considerably more site work, approximately $2,250,000 more than in Options 1 and 2. Additionally, the industrial rail spur extension form the FEC mainline to the end of Fisherman's Wharf Road adds approximately $1,895,000. A more detailed breakdown of the estimated costs of development are found in synopsis form at Appendix E. Additionally the report provides even greater detail in a spreadsheet that supports the Opinion of Probable Costs. Fisherman s Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 5 Packet Pg. 15 2.2 APPENDIX A w U w W d H Q' O LL LL O H w O a AERIAL OF FISHERMANS WHARF STUDY AREA Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 s Packet Pg. 16 2.2 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I MOT District 4 7 Packet Pg. 17 2.2 APPENDIX B PROPERTY CONFIGURATIONS (OPTIONS) 1, 2 AND 3 w U w W d t- Q' O LL LL O H w O a Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 8 Packet Pg. 18 2.2 It ,A. k. r -�3'A -�lL i I` •` sR 3f 3 o,F 41, nA �` y � ' '� p ! f,m �,, Mom. �• Iii I r.<in I- 1� I -3.A rbil- fl 40. �I 2 'tD io f : z I I 1 a 7i �yr- �'�' �� "INV a r S�iS;ems ' »2 IM a0 ROq o O D m OTA.. Z p b z rh i m m aemnHs, FISHHRMAN'S WHARF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA �.e oiwneF. owon ux e� wwxelsa.v.usna cox rewwusln W k,5a3 3 m '"$ _ Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I MOT District 4 9 Packet Pg. 19 W U w W_ d O LL LL O F— w O a 2.2 Alum gEr { it Tr' i.1t5 3V 4 1 J k x� i '� REN910x4: ' - � FISHERMAN'S WHARF _ p ➢ = FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA o Z A Z.4 aswaai.ise�Rr RnM.suln: a.o J4GK69HJIsiE. RWDx szeic N N � U! PFouE:flMIz.55fib FA%: (IMIReS45,o dh oE5cPo>nou dt+!M Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDDT District 4 10 Packet Pg. 20 W U fY W d F— O LL LL O F— w O a W ti W a F- w O LL LL O H w O a 20 q -i '�" '09M Oq;0 IMI�Iq YN R 4: FISHERMAN'S WHARF FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA e t sarvvsu �nru assie u�Ktsmttz+us o� mEM$ 8� E ESE KiT Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 t T Packet Pg. 21 2.2 APPENDIX ( w U w W d H Q' O LL LL O t- w O a LOCATIONS OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS AND AREA PAVING AND SITE DRAINAGE PRELIMINARY DESIGNS FOR OPTIONS 1,2AND3 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 12 Packet Pg. 22 y 9•y muo kzkt �m� X o x. O Y=~ vim AD p ° ri W`a{# <S R FISHERMAN'S WHARF FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA ' i anre ocscwanox Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 13 Packet Pg. 23 W U w W d F- 0 LL LL 0 O a 2.2 'i t � �— iAL n � g FISHERMAN'S WHARF FORT P ERU. FLORIDA Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 'ix�sounB W Y npNO. S101E vaq LE. FLMph JRiiS eea#ausro u nso9 1eb Packet Pg. 24 W ti W a t— w O LL LL O t— w O a g s H O oar" Z�f�m1 vim+ �1 a e g 4 as �, $ Rcvwwus, FISHERMAN'S WHARF FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA _ - .008nuBRY,6UI,E�O u.CM9dMLLE ttORIOA ]3i16 dnwl paSE �ESCRIP,�J� Fisherman s Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 15 Packet Pg. 25 2.2 APPENDIX D NEW BULKHEAD DESIGN w U w W d t- Q' O LL LL O I— w O a Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 16 Packet Pg. 26 1 2.2 1 lJ 8 FISHERMAN'S WHARF m Sysms U) z0 G y g � � _ E � FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA T O Z 0 m m " .sro sw RY aow.6 ITEuo y �wwsouV¢�E aauw snis o ENE �Izas� F.v realz�s+a u n;ro Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 17 Packet Pg. 27 W W a t— O LL LL O O (L n � ; w§ ( ) w U ■ w a � 0 U. 0 � 0 a §J EE(7k»§ ()(kq k ` .h |� !||r \ } �$° » i �r)@7�§\\\ >/ :gapes FISHERMAN'S WHARF m,_r_a 2 +w»»,Wharf Development Im\a Fort Pierce Imo District 18 Packet Pg. 28 5: [m§ �§\ w U ■ w a w 0 LL LL 0 w 0 a TZ--i9��!|�4y ! s - a ■ - §k� ® |■ §r\Ka|§J(!■§|/ q §} 2�|] \(E■ ®� ® . ! !b©G , ,r, , M mam+®WHARF _ maw « f/q«/> 1 % her mans A6rfDevelopment ImryFort Pierce IFDOT District 4 19 Packet Pg. 29 2.2 APPENDIX E w U w W d H Q' O LL LL O H w O a OPINION OF PROBABLE DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDO7 District 4 20 Packet Pg. 30 2.2 FORT PIERCE FISHERMANS WHARF OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS tSPlllfi DESCRIPTON COSTS CONSTRUCTION COST Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 1- General Requirements $ 95,016 $ 195,150 $ 360,923 2 - Erosion Control $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 21,700 3 - Site Work $ 854,935 $ 977,595 $ 3,224,206 4 - Track $ - $ - $ 1,895,000 5 - Marine $ I,501,468 $ 3,882,167 $ 3,882,167 Project Subtotal $ 2,470,420 $ 5,073,912 $ 9,383,996 Contingencies 15% $ 370,560 $ 761,090 $ 1,407,600 Project Total $ 2,840,980 $ 5,835,002 $ 10,791,596 Note: Costs do not include: Dredging; Engineering, Survey & Environmental Design and Permitting; CEI By: TranSystems Date: 3/11 /2015 Fishermans Wharf Development! Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 21 Packet Pg. 31 w c� w a F- w O LL LL O t— O a 2.2 N �w�■��w■�w.w.�w■w■��r� w wmwuw ��w■w■�r�w,rww.mDwfwom m� ■�w.w.�■w.w■�w■w■w■rr� w ��m,�mn.�.wl■r.■wow■wom ��mrr■��m•�■w©�wom �wt���w�w■ii��wl i ���■rrrwww��m■wom �����rw�■�wlmD© e�w.■■��®�o■rw■w■r�r�m r m ��w�w��w■�w■w■w.m w �wo��w■wwo��wo�wom �. imDm<�wom�w■mmD�wom �; ■w�m���mam•�mDm■wom - �rmA�■w�m���m.wom �mQr:���www■�wo�wo® w �mD�w■��w,r���■■��w■wo0 w■�t�m•�wow■�wowfwom �[�o�■wow■�wow■�o ��m�■rr■■rr��■©w•��w�w■wo© �mom•�wow■wr��aw�rwQ�■ taro®�©�©w■w■w�m w ��w■wrm���ww�w■�m w �mDw■�mDw■w•■■�o�m - ■wo��o�■�wow■� w �r���w���w■�m w ��w��w�w■�w���wl w Iwo®wr�e�m■�mD�wo® �mowl�c�mwr��m■m�m mmw��wlr�o�w■w�w■■� w �m■w��lw��wrrw.�»wm w �m�w■r��ww�■s�moo�® �woo�wr�o�rw.��iwwo® ��ww■��om�d�ow■� w �m�w!■wwlyw�ow■�womw®® ��w■��o��o�o w �wiw�w■�woo�mDo�® w �m�o��moo�mDo�® _ ��a��a�w■r�w�� w www��■aw■�wow■�r�drw��m w �m•�mom■���wom ��m■�m��m,rwiw�®wom wow■�w■�w■r�w����m w �mD�r■�wwwoo�woo�o �woo��m�ww�ww•m�w■�o ww�■�wnw■��w■■rw.�w■�m w �■■r�m•��rwv��moo®© ��oww�w■�0wom EMIm ®��r■w•r�m�a■�m ■w•■m�w•�u■t�� lm ��o��r���w■ow■r� w �mDw��mD©■■■rmmow■woo w �wwe���©�mDm•���© w t�r■�o��w.��ow■m m w�wimDw.��owrn��omtA w '�c�ww��mwo�ow�ow■® w m3 ucpunilsuno icioejluc3 SISO0 37SVSO ]d 90 NOINIdO AdVNIWI'73Sd ANVHM SNWOUHSI3.30i13Id l'IOd P w c� W IL w 0 LL LL 0 w 0 IL c as L a n m 'o a a� N t a c V a c J z �n c E as z ii 0 r c� E 0 0 Packet Pg. 32 2.2 w U W d t— d' O LL LL O I— w O a r C d E a� a� L Q f+ :i d O L CL t CL C O :.i Q J IC Cu t N C R E L M N LL C O r R v 3 E E O U Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 23 Packet Pg. 33 2.2 The evaluation methodology is the comparison of the three development options presented in the Phase 1 Report of the Port of Ft. Pierce development study. Three property configurations were identified and a preliminary design forsurfacing, draining and bulkheading wasdeveloped for each option or property configuration. Also submitted with the Phase 1 Report, were the a opinions of probable development cost for each option (not including probable dredging and w property acquisition costs). a In this second phase of the study, TranSystems, in collaboration with FDOT's District 4, the o Port of Ft Pierce, St. Lucie County and the City of Ft. Pierce, finalized and prioritized the o evaluation factors or criteria to be applied to and analyzed for each option in order to compare among the three and recommend a most viable or optimal development plan. The following W section describes eight (8) evaluation criteria that have been derived from the project goals a and objectives, the Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Update, and extensive interviews with c various project stakeholders. In collaboration with the District and the Port Director, the County and the City, the evaluation criteria have been weighted according to importance. The TranSystems team has evaluated each of the three options using the eight criteria and scored each on a scale of 1 to 9. A score of 1-3 corresponds to a poor evaluation, 4-6 indicates a midrange evaluation, and a score of 7-9 indicates a favorable evaluation. That score has been multiplied by the weight assigned to the criterion and a total score has been compiled for each option. The option with the highest overall score has been determined to be the optimal development plan. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 24 Packet Pg. 34 2.2 1. Development Cost Weight: 9 This criterion is the estimated cost of development for each option as detailed in the Phase 1 Report. TranSystems has added the probable cost of dredging an entrance — exit channel and berth for the historical USCG cutter, a ferry or small cruise ship operation or a casino boat. In the configuration options that would involve the acquisition of privately held properties in the Fishermans Wharf Area, we have researched probable acquisition costs and added them to the Development Cost. 2. Marketability Weight: 6 The evaluation of this criterion is a measure of how well the option's development responds to market conditions and demands that were researched and identified during the preliminary project information gathering and from reference to the master plan update. An overriding aspect of this criterion is the importance of providing a site developed so that it is attractive to potential business operators, terminal operators of various types and private sector investors while being responsive to present and near -term market conditions and demand. 3. Revenue Potential Weight: 5 This criterion is an evaluation of the ability to generate the greatest amount of revenue for stakeholders. It will be based upon identification of most probable and existing business uses of each option and estimated revenues form leases and applicable taxes. 4. Employment Weight: 6 This criterion provide an evaluation of the estimation of the total number of direct employment jobs created by each option and the indirect and induced jobs supported by each development option. 5. Expandability Weight: 5 This criterion evaluates the ability to respond to growth opportunities. Specifically, it is the ability of each development option to accommodate market growth, given the constraints of the property's size, zoning and availability of surrounding developable properties. 6. Permitting Weight: 2 This criterion will measure and evaluate the probable cost to acquire construction and environmental permits to develop each alternative option. The cost, time and level of effort required to permit the development of the site is measurable and should be considered as an essential development factor for each option. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 25 w U w a 0 U- U- 0 0 a Packet Pg. 35 2.2 7. Environmental Impact Weight: 4 This criterion will identify and measure the degree to which each development option impacts the area's environment. The spectrum or specific aspects of environmental impact will be identified prior to evaluation in collaboration with District 4 and the Port of Ft. Pierce. 8. Community Impact Weight: 6 This criterion will provide a measurement of the impact on surrounding facilities, infrastructure and land uses. Minimizing negative impacts while maximizing positive impacts on existing land uses on the periphery of the Port's Fishermans Wharf Area is an important consideration in determination of the best development option. Compatible uses will be identified to prevent unacceptable interference among potential operations on the site and those on adjacent sites. Sharing of key infrastructure will be considered as well. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 26 w U w a 0 U- U- 0 0 a Packet Pg. 36 2.2 Given the operating draft of the historical USCG cutter, an island ferry, a smaller coastal or island cruise ship or a casino boat, TranSystems estimated that an appropriate channel and berth depth would be 15 feet at MLW. Our interviews and research indicated that the average basin depth at MLW is approximately -4 feet. Therefore, the volume of dredge material is based upon an excavation of 11 feet of material below the current basin bottom. We have W estimated the dimension of the channel and berth to be 75 feet in width and the length of a the channel from the Indian River to the western boundary of the bulkhead is approximately 550 feet. Therefore, the total estimated volume of dredge material for the berth and channel o is approximately 17,000 cubic yards and appropriate transition zone from the new channel o and berth to the existing level of the basin bottom is approximately an additional 2,000 cubic yards. W a Disposal of the dredge material is envisioned to be placed in an upland disposal site located on County Airport property adjacent to Ridge Haven Road west of US Hwy 1. The spoil site is designed to handle 300,000 cubic yard capacity with hydraulic dredging methods and thus has adequate capacity. Assuming an average removal and disposal cost of $35 per cubic yard, $200,000 for the dredging contractor's mobilization and demobilization and $50,000 for sediment testing, the total estimate for the berth and channel dredging is $915,000. Fishermans Wharf Development � Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 27 Packet Pg. 37 2.2 The acquisition of privately held properties is not necessary in Option 1 as all development would be confined to County and Ft. Pierce Redevelopment Agency properties. Option 2 would include the acquisition of two small parcels belonging to River Marina INC and the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road. Option 3 would include the acquisition of the two small River Marina INC properties, the easternmost 250 feet of Fisherman's Wharf Road, the Fishmonger Investors LLC property and the Carol J. Jenkins property. The probable, successful acquisition costs of those properties have been estimated as follows. The estimated, probable successful acquisition cost is based upon comparable sales in the area, the sale history of the properties, current assessed value, a recent appraisal of the Fishmonger property for the County by Fuller-Armfield-Wagner, current use of the parcels, existence of potential buyers for the properties and the inclusion of Just Value Pricing. We have defined successful acquisition as the voluntary sale of the properties not requiring the exercise of eminent domain and condemnation by City and County government. Parcel River Marina INC (.31 acres): River Marina INC (.13 acres): Fishmonger Investors LLC (.46 acres): Carol J. Jenkins (.46 acres): Cost of Successful A uisition $355,750 $154,000 $405,000 $370,000 These estimated costs of acquisition have been added appropriately to the estimated development costs for Options 2 and 3. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 28 w U w a 0 U- U- 0 0 a Packet Pg. 38 2.2 TranSystems has researched the port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan and conducted interviews with various stakeholders to include the City of Ft. Pierce, the Port and St. Lucie County to ascertain the most probable and desirable uses for the Fishermans Wharf Area. Consideration was given to the most viable uses that would provide the greatest positive economic impact to the region and serve as a transition zone from the heavy industrial nature of the properties in W the Port's Operations Area to the north and the historical, commercial and residential area to a the south of Seaway Drive. The Port of Fort Pierce Consensus Land Use Plan indicated the following potential uses for the Fishermans Wharf Area: o • Marina U_ o • Maritime Academy • Hotel a • Restaurant r • Retail • Water Taxi • Boat Work c, • Small Ferry (Passenger/Cargo) a Recent interviews with stakeholders revealed that the most probable and desirable uses included: • The maintenance and improvement of the existing boat ramps and parking for cars/ trucks and trailers east of Indian River Drive • Improvement and extension of the existing "T" dock for berthing pleasure craft • Development of a fueling facility on the T dock • Along -side berthing for larger yachts • Development of a permanent berth at the western end of the basin's north bulkhead for the historical USCG cutter, a ferry or small cruise ship service or casino boat with proximate parking for visitors or passengers • Sport fishing and boat supply retail • Trailered boat storage • Restaurant(s) • Rail -served cargo operations for barges or smaller "island" cargo carriers Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 29 Packet Pg. 39 2.2 Conclusions In collaboration with the Port, the County and the City of Fort Pierce, the most important of the evaluation factors was determined to be the cost of development. In addition to the cost LU of facility construction, we have added the estimated cost of dredging an access channel and L) berth for the historic USCG cutter, a ferry, a smaller island cruise vessel or a casino boat. We w have also researched and added what we consider to be the costs for successful, voluntary a acquisition of various privately held properties in the Fishermans Wharf Area. o U_ The next -most important evaluation factors are: marketability, generation of local employment p and community impact. Each of the three options or property configurations has varying relationships to or impacts upon marketability, employment and community impact based a upon the area available and the businesses those configurations could accommodate. Further, r we realize that community impacts are not limited to employment opportunities and revenue generation. Quality of life considerations need inclusion as do the intents and desires of the E Port, County, City and community residents for the role the area will play in the fabric of the Port and as a transition zone between the more commercial and residential land uses to the a south and heavy industrial uses to the north. The most heavily weighted evaluation factor is the estimated cost of development which varies from $3,385,420 for Option 1, $7,259,752 for Option 2 and $12,991,346 for Option 3. While Option 1 is less than half the cost for Option 2 and only one third the cost for Option 3, the marketability, immediate expandability, revenue potential and employment development capabilities of Option 1 are quite limited. Option 2 is made more expensive due to additional coast of infrastructure development and the acquisition of the two River Marina INC parcels. Nevertheless, Option 2 allows for the development of more business opportunities, thus increasing marketability, revenue potential and local employment. Expandability would be conditioned upon the availability of the Fishmonger Investors and Carol J. Jenkins parcels. The County made an effort in 2013 to acquire the Fishmonger parcel, appraised at $310,000. This offer was countered at $500,000 and not acted upon by the County. While we believe this property is acquirable, its successful acquisition price would exceed the appraised value. The acquisition of the Carol J. Jenkins parcel is complicated by the existing and apparently successful operation of a restaurant on the property. The currently assessed value of the property is $225,300. No appraisal of market value is available, and we believe that the successful acquisition value would be significantly greater than the assessed value. Should market demand be sufficient to consider the acquisition of the Fishmonger Investors and/or the Carol J. Jenkins parcels, the specific market demand could be translated into an expected or even guaranteed revenue stream. This revenue stream could then be used to set the acceptable acquisition price, and if the ROI were sufficient, the Port could move forward with acquisition. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 30 Packet Pg. 40 2.2 The estimated development cost of Option 3 is considerably greater than the estimated development cost for Option 2, primarily due to the development of freight rail capability for the cargo operation proposed at the eastern end of the Fishermans Wharf Area and the estimated cost of successfully acquiring the Fishmonger Investors and Carol J. Jenkins parcels. Our research has led us to the conclusion that current market demand and interest w would not immediately fill these properties with business operations that would cover the a acquisition expenses. While ownership and control of these two parcels might enhance immediate expandability and marketability, the cost of successful parcel acquisition versus o the timing of an expected revenue stream that would produce an acceptable ROI from those o parcels is a serious consideration and thus reduces the viability of Option 3. w 0 Recommendation a Our analysis and evaluation of the three development options support a recommendation for Option 2 as the most prudent, yet flexible, development option. Its estimated cost of development at $7,259,752 is reasonable given the analysis and evaluation of the remaining seven evaluative factors. Option 2 provides good marketability, revenue potential, local employment and strong expandability. Additionally, its community impact is positive. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 31 Packet Pg. 41 2.2 APPENDIX A EVALUATION MATRICES FOR OPTIONS 1, 21 AND 3 w U w W d H Q' O LL LL O H w O a Fishermans Wharf Development 1 Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 32 Packet Pg. 42 2.2 Development Option Weighted Evaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw SCOre Score The development cost for Option 1 includes all associated infrastructure development costs and 1 Development Cost 9 the costs for for dredging a new access channel and berth. Since no private or non -City / County $ 72 owned properties would be required, there are no costs for successful private property acquisition. The total estimate of probable development costs for Option 1 is $3,385,420. While the least expensive development option, the smaller property configuration of Option 1 is restrictive in terms of potential business development and thus has the least marketability of the three options. A significant portion of the property in Option 1 would remain for boat launching at the existing ramps and parking far cars, trucks and boat trailers. The Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency parcels would provide space for retail activity, marina parking, and 2 Marketability 6 parking for visitors for the historic USCG vessel or passengers for a ferry, small cruise vessel or a 3 18 casino boat that would use the newly constructed berthing facility {bulkhead) at the NW end of the basin. Option 1 would allow for the extension of the "T" dock with additional slips and a fueling operation at the end of the "T" dock. Finally, there might be the opportunity to build a multistory restaurant at the eastern end of the easternmost Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency parcel; however, required parking might have priority depending on the use of the newly constructed north bulkhead. Revenue potential for this evaluation is not provided in empirical format as calculating private cash flow generation, payroll taxes, ridership estimates, operating expenses, proprty taxes and other economic impact data at this level of analysis is not feasible. The rating of each alternative for revenue potential is based on the number of businesses that can be created and assumed reasonable profitability of each and the taxes that are assumed to be generated with each type of business. Based on the marketability research findings associated with this option there is potential for one new business supported by the construction of a new vessel berth and one new business created by the development of a multistory restaurant. The revenue generation 3 Revenue Potential 5 potential associated with this option may vary dependent on resulting use of the improved 4 20 bulkhead. Ridership numbers associated with the ferry or casino vessel concepts, and the revenue potential associated with said operations generate modest revenue forthe land owner through parking fees, while the more significant revenue potential is generated through wharfage and dockage (berth lease) charged to the vessel operator, There is also potential for taxes collected through food and beverage sales and other business related taxes. The USCG Cutter alternative may provide revenue through taxes on retail and admission sales. However, long-term lease of the bulkhead to accomodate the USCG vessel should be considered as a revenue stream also. This option also includes the potential for tax revenues through food and Employment estimates for Option 1 were calculated using industry standards for number of full- time employees per square foot of building space by industry type. Sources for this information were the Institute ofTranportation Engineers, U.S. Department of Energy, and San Diego Association of Governements. For estimating the usable square footage for the use of the improved bulkhead, a range of employment creation is provided to capture the varying employment calaculations anticpated by the three different alternatives uses (Ferry versus Casino vessel versus USCG vessel). For the Casino vessel alternative assumed usable space of 4 Employment 6 25,0005F and 1 employee per 1405F provides 178 employees. Casino vessel operations are highly 6 36 customer service oriented businesses, and include gaming table employees, food and beverage, vessel operations and management. A ferry vessel service would employ less people than a casino vessel operation. Assuming the same usable space of 25,000SF for the ferry vessel and 1 employee per 7005F provides 35 employees. The assumed usable space of the USCG vessel is 5,0005F and 1 employee per 550SF provides 9 employees. For the mulitstory restaurant concept assumed usable space of 3,00OSF and 1 employee per 124SF proivdes 22 employees. The The immediate expandability in response to business demand of Option 1 is negligible as all of the option's footprint would be in use. However, if demand for additional property for business expansion were in evidence and not simply speculative, the Port could move to acquire some or 5 Expandability 5 all of the private properties in the Fishermans Wharf Area in response to demand. Therefore, 7 35 while not immediately expandable, the presence of potentially available and acquireable private propoerties that would support uses with quantifiable ROls constitutes considerable expansion potential for prudent and appropriate uses. Fi5hermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 33 W U W IL H w O LL LL 0 t- 0 IL C O E O N L Q t) O O L d N to z a C O :r .N is t� a C J O t N C O E L d t to LL C O r cv V 7 E E O V Packet Pg. 43 2.2 Weighted Evaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw Score Score The Fishermans Wharf Area is designated as a Marine Commercial District, C-6. The permitted uses for zoning district C6 include: vertical mixed -use buildings, government safety service facilities, parks and open space, bus shelters, above ground utility cabinets, a broad spectrum of eating and drinking establishments, bars and nightclubs, theaters, boat and equipment sales, offices, hotels and motels, educational establishments, research service and some marine -related industrial. Conditional uses include rail/bus terminals for passengers, marinas and boat livery, 6 Permitting 2 self-service storage, boat rentals and sales, vehicle storage, and processing of food and related a 16 products. The envisioned uses ofthe property in Option 1 do not appear to fall outside the permitted or conditional uses prescribed in Sec. 22-22, so long as vessel retail fueling operation is considered part of "marinas and boat livery" operations. All planned facilities that would be constructed were Option 1 to be implemented would require City permits for compliance with all applicable codes and requirements. The dredging of a new access channel and berth at the far north western end of the basin would require US Army Corps of Engineers permitting and review ofthe waterside construction plans and design (replacement ofthe deteriorated bulkheading). The most significant environmental impacts associated with Option 1 would be associated with the dredging of a new access channel from the Indian River into the basin and the dredging of a berth for the historical USCG cutter, a ferry, a small cruise ship or a casino boat that would use the newly constructed bulkhead for berthing at the western end ofthe basin's north bulkhead. The designed bulkhead line replicates the existing line and would require no filling of submerged lands. It does not appear that the dredging will impact seagrass beds or valuable habitat in the 7 Environmental Impact 4 basin. All environmental impacts will be identified in the process of obtaining a dredging permit a 32 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Section. A lesser impact might be increased vehicle emissions and noise as a result ofm the increased vehicular traffic of visitors, passengers and additional marina facility users. While the nunber of slips at "T" dock will be increased, they will only replicate those slips lost to berthing the historical USCG cutter, a ferry, a small cruise ship or casino boat. Therefore, the number of pleasure craft slipped in the basin will not increase. At this point in the planning process, it is anticipated that environmental impacts will not be significant. The impact of Option 1 on the surrounding community would be the least ofthe three options. While potential environmental impacts would be smaller with the development envisioned in a Community Impact 6 Option 1, the positive economic impacts would be on a smaller scale than those expected from 3 is Options 2 and 3. Option 1 does not develop the ability to perform a small cargo operation and development of an attraction like a new multistory restaurant is doubtful given the paucity of Space without the addition of new properties. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 34 Packet Pg. 44 2.2 Development Option Weighted Evaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw Score Score The development cost for Option 2 includes the costs of infrastructure development as reflected in the opinion of probable development costs, the costs for dredging a new access channel and 1 Development Cost 9 berth and the estimated costs for successful acquisition for the additional private properties 5 45 required for Option 2. The total estimated development cost for Option 2 is $7,259,752. Option 2 does increase the size of the property configuration, adding the two River Marina INC parcels at the eastern end of the Fishermans Wharf Area and the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road. The additional area for business development, gained by these property additions, does enhance marketability. The development of a multistory restaurant on the River 2 Marketability 6 Marina INC parcels is feasible as is the development of along -side yacht berthing along the 6 36 additional 225 feet of newly constructed bulkheading on the southern boundaries of the River Marina INC parels. The addition of the River Marina INC parcels and the eastern end of Fisherman Wharf Road to access a newly constructed 185 foot bulkhead along the Indian River provides viability to a small cargo opertaion. Revenue potential forthis evaluation is not provided in empirical format as calculating private cash flow generation, payroll taxes, ridership estimates, operating expenses, property taxes and other economic impact data at this level of analysis is not feasible. The rating of each alternative for revenue potential is based on the number of businesses that can be created and assumed reasonable profitability of each and the taxes that are assumed to be generated with each type of business. Based on the marketability research findings associated with this option there is potential for one new business supported by the construction of a new vessel berth, one new business created by the development of a multistory restaurant, and one additonal business associated with the additonal bulkhead construction for accomodating potential cargo operations. The suggested use for accomodating ferry or casino vessel serevice or for 3 Revenue Potential 5 accomodating USCG vessel forthe main improved bulkhead remains unchaged from Option 1. 6 30 The feasibility of having sufficient footprint to accomodate a multistory restuarant is enhanced in this option. And the potential for revenue generation from cargo operations at the eastern end o Fishermans Wharf Road include wharage and dockage (berth lease) and related business and payroll taxes. The potential for tax revenue associated with implementing cargo operations is assumed to be relatively high for this aiternaive. This option does not consider the ability to accomodate along -side yacht berthing as additional new business as this operation would likey be an extension of the existing marina operations. However, this expansion of the marina operations would generate revenue through taxes on lease revenues. This option is scored medium -high under these assumptions. In additon to the emploment estimates identified for Option 1, Option 2 also includes employment creation from the establishment of cargo operations and expanded Yacht berthing. For the establishment of cargo operations employment estimates were calculated only considering local shoreside job creation in the form of stevedoring, line and cargo handling and management. Local job creation estimates also includes potential to employ local truckers and warehouse workers. Job creation further along the supply -chain at cargo transfer locations of 4 Employment 6 final destinations are not considered here. Also, employment estimates for cargo operations are 6 36 based on longshore labor (union) requirements typical for Florida ports. The resulting estimated employment potential to facilitate cargo operations is 16 employees. Additonal employees anticipated through the expanded Yacht berthing is associated with existing marina operatons and assume the additon of 1 employee. The resulting estimated employment potential for Option 2 is a range of 48-217 total employees depending on future use alterantive of the improved bulkhead.This option is scored high -moderate underthese assumptions. Option 2 includes the addition of the two River Marina INC parcels and the eastermost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road. These parcels would allow for the development of a multistory restaurant, along -side yacht berthing and the potential for development of a small cargo operation. The Part's ownership and control of these parcels would be a positive influence in attracting a restaurant operator and a cargo operator and thus enhance both marketability and S Expandability 5 expandability. However, given the cost of development, a more prudent strategy forsuch 8 40 development would be to develop and execute a development and operating agreement with a restaurant operator and a terminal operator in advance of facility development. Should additional market demand be positively identified at an adequate ROI to support acquisition and facility development, either by the Port or as a 3P, the Port could pursue the successful acquisition of the Carol J. Jenkins and Fishmonger Investors properties as needed to address the demand. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 35 Packet Pg. 45 2.2 Weighted Fvaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw Score Score The Fishermans Wharf Area is designated as a Marine Commercial District, C-6 and the waterside is designated A2. The permitted uses for zoning district C6 include: vertical mixed -use buildings, government safety service facilities, parks and open space, bus shelters, above ground utility cabinets, a broad spectrum of eating and drinking establishments, bars and nightclubs, theaters, boat and equipment sales, offices, hotels and motels, educational establishments, research service and some marine -related industrial. Conditional uses include rail/bus terminals for passengers, marinas and boat livery, self-service storage, boat rentals and sales, vehicle storage, and processing of food and related products. The property uses envisioned for development Option 2 appear to fall within either permitted or conditional uses contained in Sec. 22-22. The 6 Permitting 7 only potential exception that would probably require a conditional use but might conceivably 6 12 require rezoning is the proposed light cargo operation at the easten end of Fishermans Wharf across a newly constructed berth on the Indian River. The addition of the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road might prove problematic requireing the division ofthe road in order to preserve access to the easternmost access point to the River Marina INC parcel to the north of the road. All planned facilities that would be constructed were Option 2 to be implemented would require City permits for compliance with all applicable codes and requirements, The dredging of a new access channel and berth at the far north western end of the basin would require US Army Corps of Engineers permitting and review of the waterside construction plans and design (replacement of the deteriorated bulkheading). The environmental impact of Option 2 would be similar to the impacts associated with Option 1, most notably the dredging of an access channel and new berth, and add the potentially significant impacts of a small cargo operation at the far eastern end of the Fishermans Wharf Area. The addition of the two River Marina INC parcels and the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road would provide capability to perform cargo operations across the newly 7 Environmental Impact 4 constructed berth (bulkhead) on the Indian River, provide along -side berthing for several larger 5 20 pleasure orsport fishing craft, and development of a multistory restaurant. These business enterprises would certainly increase the volume of passenger vehicle and trucktraffic. The increased vehicular and truck traffic would create increased vehicular emissions, noise and some congestion. Additionally there would be some impacts from the vessels performing cargo operations at the east end of the area along the Indian River. Option 2 would provide greater positive community impact than Option 1 in that it would provide greater employment and revenue generation potential for the Port. The addition of the 8 Community Impact 6 River Marina INC parcels and the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road would provide 6 36 the additional opportunities for restaurant development, berthing for larger pleasure and sport fishing boats and the Dotential for cargo operations. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 3S Packet Pg. 46 2.2 Development Option Weighted Evaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw Score Score The development costs for Option 3 include the costs of all infrastructure development as reflected in the Opinion of Probable Development Cost, the cost of dredging an access channel 1 Development Cost 9 and berth, and the estimated cost of successfully acquiruing the additional private properties 2 18 that would constitute the proposed configuration of Option 3. The total estimated development cost for Option 3 is $12,991,346. Option 3 includes the largest property configutration and thus is marketable for all of the most desireable uses. Even given the use of the northwestern corner of the property configuration for the planned stormwater retention pond, there is sufficient area for the full waterside development of renovated and improved boat launching facilities, an extended "T" dock with a fueling station at its end, a 300 foot berth for the historic USCG cutter, a ferry service , a small cruise ship or a casino boat, approximately 200 feet of along -side berthing along the new bulkhead on the southern border of the River Marina INC parcels and a small cargo operation at the bulkhead at the eastern end of Fisherman Wharf Road along the Indian River. The potential 2 Marketability 6 cargo operation has been enhanced by the inclusion of rail capability from the FEC mainline 8 48 which would make a barge -rail operation feasible. There is adequate area for more than one boating and sport fishing retail establishment and two restaurants. Additionally, there is sufficient area for storage of trailerized boats and possibly, more profitable, dry boat storage, if the demand is not fully satisfied by similar facilities farther north in the Port's Operating Area. An aspect of marketability that is positively impacted by the Port's control of all of the properties within the Fishermans Wharf Area is the removal of potential for future incompatable uses that might result if portions of the area remain as privately held properties. Revenue potential for this evaluation is not provided in empirical format as calculating private cash flow generation, payroll taxes, ridership estimates, operating expenses, property taxes and other economic impact data at this level of analysis is not feasible. The rating of each alternative for revenue potential is based on the number of businesses that can be created and assumed reasonable profitability of each and the taxes that are assumed to be generated with each type of business. Based on the marketability research findings associated with this option there is potential for one new business supported by the construction of a new vessel berth, one new business created by the development of a multistory restaurant, and one additonal business associated with the additonal bulkhead construction for accomodating potential cargo operations. The suggested use for accomodating ferry or casino vessel serevice or for accomodating USCG vessel for the main improved bulkhead remains unchaged from Option 1 & 3 Revenue Potential 5 2. The feasibility of having sufficient footprint to accomodate one or more multistory restaurants 7 35 is enhanced in Option 3. The inclusion of the St. Lucie County property adjacent to Indian River Blvd., as well as the Fishmonger Investors and Carol J.Jenkins parcels provides space and the potential for a second boating -sportfishing retail opportunity and either surface trailered boat storage of possibly a "dry stack" for boat storage. The potential for revenue generation from cargo operations at the eastern end of Fishermans Wharf Road include wharage and dockage (berth lease) and related business taxes, is further enhanced by providing rail access to diversify the ability to accomodate various cargoes and emerging rail -barge services. This option does not consider the ability to accomodate along -side yacht berthing as additional new business as this operation would likey be an extension of the existing marina operations. However, this expansion of the marina operations would generate revenue through taxes on lease revenues.This option is scored high -moderate under these assumptions. In additon to the emploment estimates identified for Option 1 and Option 2, Option 3 also includes employment creation from expanded cargo operations through the introduction of rail service. Employment estimates for the introduction of rail service is based on service from an existing local freight railroad as part of a manifest train that serves multiple customers. Additonal 4 Employment 6 employees anticipated through the expanded cargo operations and introduction of rail service is 7 42 assumed to be 5 employees. The resulting estimated employment potential for Option 2 is a range of 53-222 total employees depending on future use alterantive of the improved bulkhead. This option is scored low -high under these assumptions. Option 3 includes the acquisition of the River Marina INC parcels, the eastermost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road, the Fishmonger Investors property and the Carol J. Jenkins property as well as the ST Lucie County properties along Indian River Drive. Ownership and control of these properties would enhance the immediate marketability of the area and provide for more rapid expansion should market demand for those parcels not be imminent but follow as more 5 Expandability 5 immediate demands for other portions of the area are satisfied. While this option provides 7 35 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 37 Packet Pg. 47 2.2 Weighted Evaluation Factor Weight Evaluation Raw Score Score The Fishermans WharfArea is designated as a Marine Commercial District, C-6 and Aquatic Zone A2. The permitted uses for zoning district C6 include: vertical mixed -use buildings, government safety service facilities, parks and open space, bus shelters, above ground utility cabinets, a broad spectrum of eating and drinking establishments, bars and nightclubs, theaters, boat and equipment sales, offices, hotels and motels, educational establishments, research service and some marine -related industrial. Conditional uses include rail/bus terminals for passengers, marinas and boat livery, self-service storage, boat rentals and sales, vehicle storage, and processing of food and related products. As with Options 1 and 2, it appears that all of the envisioned uses for the property under Option 3 would fall within the land uses permitted or classified as conditional for a Marine Commercial District. The only potential exception that would probably require a conditional use but might conceivably require rezoning is the proposed light cargo operation at the easten end of Fishermans Wharf across a newly constructed berth on 6 Permitting 2 the Indian River. The addition of the easternmost 250 feet of Fishermans Wharf Road might 3 6 prove problematic requireing the division of the road in orderto preserve access to the easternmost access point to the River Marina INC parcel to the north of the road. Option 3 also envisions a freight rail extension from the FEC mainline to the berth at the eastern end of Fishermans Wharf Road. The rail -served cargo operation does not appear to be a permitted or conditional use underthe designation of Marine Commercial District, C2, and would require consideration of rezoning or an added conditional use. All planned facilities that would be constructed were Option 3 to be implemented would require City permits for compliance with all applicable codes and requirements. The dredging of a new access channel and berth at the far north western end of the basin would require US Army Corps of Engineers permitting and review of the waterside construction plans and design (replacement of the deteriorated bulkheading). Option 3 presents the greatest potential environmental Impact. Option 3 would include all of the potential environmental impacts of Options 1 and 2. option 3 differs from Option 2 in that it incorporates the acquisition and development of the Fishmonger Investors and the Carol J. Jenkins parcels as well as the St. Lucie County parcels adjacent to Indian River Drive. These additions provide for the ability to develop additional boating and sport fishing retail, one or more additional restaurants and eithersurface boat -on -trailer or dry boat storage. As noted in the enviromental impact evaluation for Option 2, these activities would increase vehicular traffic 7 Environmental Impact 4 and some truck traffic with the associated impacts of increased emissions, noise and congestion. Option 3 includes the development of a rail connection from the berth on the Indian River to the 3 12 FEC mainline, a shortdistance away. Assuming the ability to position the rail alignment along the northern side of the existing Fishermans Wharf Road and slightly extending the south side of the road into adjacent properties, the interference created by at -grade crossings can be minimized. Nevertheless, the impacts of a rail service to provide cargo transport, while reducing truck traffic, will create localized environmental impacts to include noise, emissions (probably not as significant as truck emissions) and traffic interruption. Option 3 would ultimately provide the greatest positive community impact. Option 3 envisions the immediate acquisition of the River Marina INC parcels, the Fishmonger Investors parcel, the Carol J. Jenkins parcel and the inclusion of the St. Lucie County properties adjacent to Indian River Drive. While the immediate use of all of the property included in Option 3 is highly speculative, its ownership and control by the Port would enhance marketability and expansion in 8 Community Impact 6 the longer term. Thus when occupied and developed, the businesses leasing and operating on 7 42 the properties would generate greater local employment and revenue than Options 1 or 2. This greater community impact should be qualified by the associated environmental impacts and the greater cost of development which includes the cost of successfully acquiring the properties, several of which may not develop either employment or revenue in the short term. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 38 Packet Pg. 48 2.2 APPENDIX B w U w W d H Q' O LL LL O H w O a MARINE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 39 Packet Pg. 49 2.2 Sec. 22-22. - Allowed Uses. (a Uses listed. Uses listed are allowed in each zoning district in accordance with the Use Table. b Perruitted uses. Uses identified with a "P" in the Use Table are permitted in the subject zoning district provided that the uses will not violate basic use standards Specified in each zoning district, other applicable use standards, additional zoning ordinance provisions and other city laws. c Conditional uses. Uses identified with a "C" in the Use Table are Rermitted in the subject 7oning district, if the city commission, after a public hearing, detennines that the location and dev" anent 121ans comply with a licable standards and will not violate basic use standards specified in each zoning district other aUnficable use standards additional zoning ordinance provisions and other city laws. d Prohibited uses. Uses identified with a "-" in the Use Table are expressly prohibited. (e} Use table. ZONING DISTRICT El i&2IE3 RI R2IR3 R41R4AIR5 CiI�C2� +410, _6 C II1I2 13 OSIJOS2 flA2 f Household Living —Niached House P P P P PIP I P P ]C IC C - - C- - C - -Du lex C P P C C C C —Townhouse -- C P P P C C- C - —MuiG-DwellingBuilding - C P P - C C C C C - -Mobi lc or Manufactured flume C C - - _ —Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision _ _ - C C - - - - - - —Mobile Home Park - - - C _ —Vertical Mixed -Use Building - C C P P P P P P P--- - Home Occupations (per P P P P P P P P P - - P- - - ' rcquirements of section 22-63) Group Living (except as noted below - _ C C C C C C- C C C- " —Community Residential Home, i' e I 1-6 residents) P P P P P P P 1' P - - ' -Community Residential Home. 't 2 7-14 residents _- C - C C- C C —Dormitories, Fraternity and SororityHouses C C C C - - Community/Cultural (except a5 noted below - C C C C C C C P P C C C- - C _ - --community Center - C C C C C- C P P C- C- - C _—Fraternal Organizationli.odgc - . C C C C C- C P P C- C- - C -- -L!hM or Cultural Exhibit _ - C C C C- C P P C- C- - C Ainviroumcutol Rescarch and C _C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Education Facilities Bay Cars - - C C C C C G GHC - C- - - w v w a O LL LL O O a C O E O L Q v O O d N to O z a C O :r c� a C m J t to C M E L w t rn U- M V 7 E E O V Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 40 Packet Pg. 50 2.2 ZONING Di5"rR1C'r Adult Day Care Center----- E1 E2 E3 RI - IR2jR3 C +++++ ICIC R4 114A C �RS C C1 C C2 C C3�C4 {' - CS C- CP 11 12 1i13 OSi 052 Al - -Dq Care Center C C C C C- C-Child care Facilit MC C C C C C C -gamily Bay Care Home P P P P P -- - - Educational Facilities -Culls a or univershy. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C. C C C C - - -Elementary, Middle or High School - Public C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C-- - - -Elementary, Middle or High School - Private _ C C C C C C C C-- C- - - -Marine Research/Education Facilities - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - C Government Facillties (except as noted bclowy) - _ C C P P C- C- - - C C -Post Office - - C C P P C - - - _ -Sarcly Service C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P_ P i' C G Medical Facilities (except as noted below) C C C C C C C - -hiss ilal C C C C C- C C- -Nursing !tome - C C C - C C C C - - Park and Open Space (except notebelow as d -Cemetery/Columbarium/ Mausoleum P C P C P C P C P C P C- P P p C P C p C p C- P P p p p p -- p P C C - C- - --Count Club/GolfCourse C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C- C - --Game and Wildlife Mann ement Preserves P P P -Water Dependent Recreation Facilities _ _ C - C C Passenger Terminal -Ai rWHcli ri - - - C C C. -Rail/Bus Terminal _ C C C C _ C C C C C -Bus Shelter C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P I, - -Taxi Terminal - - - - - C C C C- C C C C C - - Religious Institution C C C C C C C C ic C C P P C- C- - Social Service Institution lcxcc st as noted below)_ _ C _ C C - - C C - - -1�alfs�ay Hairses C C- C C C- C C- - C- Utilities -Minor, other C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C P C C C C -m6or - - - C C C C C C C P C C C C -Utility Cabinets, Above Ground P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C Ealing and Drinking Establishments -Brew Pub C I P C P I P I P P C C C -- - --Coffee Shop C C C P P I P I P P C C C - -Neighborhood Bistro - - C C C P P I P P C C C-- Nei hborhood Cafe C C C P P P P C C C-- -licsiaurWils Fast Food - - C P P P P C C C - --Restaurant and Bar C C C P P P P C C C C - C -Wine/Cigar Bar C C C P P P P C C C Entertainment, Indoor (except as noted below) -Adult Establishment - - P - - - Arcade Amusement Center C - -Bar or Ni htclub P P P - -'Theater P P P - Enterlaiumcnt, Outdoor cxcc 1 as noted below _ _ _ - C - P - C - -Batting Cages, Driving Rango es - - Y P P - - Stables or Equestrian Facilities C C C - P P - --Stadium or Arena C- C C C C Marine -Related Commercial exec 1 as noted below C- P P C P - C- C C -Boat and Marine Equipment Sales P C C P C - - -Marina/Boat LiveEy C C C C C P G C Office --Administrative, Professional, General, Medical Office II C C C I P P P P P P P C C - - Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 41 Packet Pg. 51 2.2 2'O3NING DISTIUCT Overnight Accommodations IJl IRZIE3 R111+13 R4j R4A R5 I k Cl 0101C4105 C6 P If 12 �13 OSI OS2 AI A2! -Bed & Breakfast 1C C C P P P P -Dwelling Rental C C - - - - - - - - - -hlotel/Moicl - P P P P C Recreational Vehicle Park - C C -Resort Hotel . - - P P P P - - - - - -Oarkina, Commercial C_ - C - P C C - C - C - - - Retail Sales & Service, Sales - Oriented (except as noted below - - . P P P - C - - - -Art Gallca C C P P P C - --Farmers Market or Farm Stand P _ P P P C C - - -Groccry or Liquor Store - C C - P P P C - C - -Neighborhood Commercial Sale .- C C P P P- P P P C- C- - - -Office Supplies & Electronics - - - P P P - C - -Pet Stores - - P P P C Retail Sales & Service, Personal -Service Oriented (except as noted below - - P P P C - - --Art Studio _ - P P P C -Animal Care Facilities & Service - C P C _ - -Animal Grooming Services - - - P P P C F- - _ -Check CashinglLoan Service Y - - -Educational Service Establishments _ C C C P P C P P P C C - -Laundry -Laundry & Dty Cleaners I'ick-1 f� _ C C C C P P P P- C- - -i.aundromat - - - C C C C P P P j C- C. - -Mortuaries or Funeral Romes - - P P C - - Neighborhood Commercial Services C C P P P C 1' P P P C - - Pawn Shop - - P P C C - - _ PersonalImprovement Service C C C C P P P C -Veterinary (Without Outdoor Runs) _ Y Y P C _ Retail Sales & Service, Repair- Oriented p C P P P P - - Self -Service. storage___ Vehicle Sales & Service _ - - - - C - C C - P - P - - -Automobile Rentals - - - P C C C C P- P -Automobile Sales - - - - - - - - P P C C C C C P P Rost Rentals --- -- -- . C C C P P C P -Boat Sales P C C C C P P P Fueling Station - - C C i P C C C P - _- Travel Plaza - Truck Stop P C - - -.Vehicle Repair, General C C C - - Vehicle Repair, Limited P C 1' - - -Vehicle Storage - - - - - - - - - - - C - - C - P C P - - - - IMIXILEMERK'sm Artisan - C C- P P w P - No - -Cabinet Shops, Woodworking - - - C C C P P P - Light Industrial Service exec t as noted below C - P P P --Catering Facilll . Large -Scale - - - C - P P P - - -Crematorium --Building Maintenance - Facilities And Services - - _ —_ C C C - _ -Contractors/Others Performing Scrvices Off-Site - _ C - P P - P - - -Microbrc% c - C C C C C C 11C - - -Research Service - - - C P P P P - Marine -Related Industrial - C P C P P _ P Warehouse & Freight (except as noted below) - C P P C P -Parcel Service - P P P P C P - Waste -Related Use (except as noted heiuw) - C C C - W <.i W a H O IL W O O IL C O E O L Q V O O t N N tts z IL C .N t� a C O J LA C M E L w t to U_ C O r M v .O 7 E E O 0 Fishermans Wharf Development `Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 42 Packet Pg. 52 2.2 'ZONING Da CT Ell E2 E3 R1 IRU2 �R4i R4A RS Cl iCz C3 C4 C1 CP 11 12 13 OR OS2 Y1 A2 - I- - G [ P I C P- - Wholesale Trade I Heavy Industrial (except as _ _ j P noted below) —Heavy Equipment Sales & PIC P Rentals _ _ _ _ - - Processing of Food & Related - - - - - C - C P P - Products A uaculture Facilities - - I - - - - - - - - - I - i - - I C 1C C Community Gardens C C I C C C C Ci C C C C I C I C I C C C C C C C I C DocklMoorage Facility (except I i c ! C as noted below) - - - - - - - - - - —Docks for Single Family P I P Homes - - - - - - — Docks for Single Family Homes on canals within - - - - - - - - C Surfside or Jennin Cove I i— NavlLyonal Aids - - P Telecommunication Facility Antenna Support Structure C C i C C C C CI C C C i C C C C C C C C G C --Antenna (on existing PIP P P P P J { P P P P P P P P P P P P "PILI P structure} Fish ermans Wharf Development I Pott of Fort Pierce I FDOT District4 43 W U w a H Q' O U- U- O H O a c d N N L- A) O L- a. r M M t_ O N v Q J r- R L to C E L N U- C O r R v 7 E E O U Packet Pg. 53 2.2 Fort Pierce, FL Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 2 Sec, 22.33.1. - Marine Commercial Zone lC-6). (a) Purpose. The intent of this district is primarily to provide suitable locations for compatible marine commercial and tourist -related fadlitles. In part, this means that areas In the zone should be in dose proximity, to an arterial or collector street and should also be located In close proximity to the waterfront. The requirements in this tone recognize that certain marli,e oriented commerc€l activities can be compatible with activities that are more tourist -related and when combined can create a sperlal environment. The uses laid out In this zone are not meant to he as Inclusive as those found in a general commercial zone, but rather should be reserved for uses that are dependemon or benefit from proximity to the water. (b) Basic use standards. Uses In a C-6 zone must meet the requirements of this section. More restrictive requirements, set forth in accordance with other provisions of this )J,J chapter, must be satisfied by some conditional uses. (,) {1) Lotsfze. a. The minimum lot area shall be ter thousand (10,98(?) square feet. W b. The minimum lot width shah be seventy (10) feet. f1 c, The minimum lot depth shall be ninaly (90) feet (2) Yards. 0 Otill a, The minimum depth of the front yard will be twenfeet. LL b. The minimum yard depth (if not the front yard) for portions of the property abutting the public right-of-way or residential district shall be fifteen (15) feet LL (3) Lot coverage. Building shall not cover more than sixty (60) percent of the lot area. O (4) BuiMing height No building shall exceed live height of slxry-rive (65) feet above grade, except that multifamily housing developments in accordance with the � requlretnents of the R-5 zone maybe approved. a/ (e) other applicable use standards. O (1) Site plan review shall be required for uses which have buildings with more than four thousand {4,000) square feet d (2) Accessory buildings shall comply with all yard, lot coverage and building requirements of this chapter. .... (3) livery lot shall abut a street other than an alley for at least fifty (50) Feet. (4) Materials or objects which would detract from the open space character of an uncovered or unandosed area will not be permltted in such an area. (5) All uses will comply with applicable access, parking and loading standards In sections 22-G0 and22-u. E (6) Conditional uses will meet the requirements of sectrans 7a74 through 27H7. y (7) Signs will comply with standards referred to insgcr ,ion 72.5s. L i� (8) All other applicable ordinance requirements will also be satisfied. Q (Ord, No. 1404,9 2. 12-3-90; Ord. No K-24, § 13, 8.21.2m0; Ord, No. L-295, 1116, 11.4-t3) +± Sec. 22-34, - Light Industrial Zone (1-1). (a) Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide for industrial and related uses with limited objectionable external effects In areas that are suitable for such operations due to the desirability of site ciraracledstics, adequacy of utilities, appropriateness of transportation facilities and other factors. Acceptable manufacturing, warehousing, heavy commercial and similar uses are encouragad. Uses in the d#svlct may perform a support role for uses in other Industrial areas. (b) Bask use standards. Uses in an 1.1 zone must meet the requirements of this section, More restrictive requirements, set forth In accordance with other provisions of this chapter, must be satisfied by some conditional uses. {71 Lotsile, a. The minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) reel. b. The i ninirnuln lot depth shali be one hundred (100) feet. (21 Yards. The minimum yard depth for portions of the property abutting a public right-of-way or nonindustrial district will be fifteen 0S) feet, (c) Other appicable use standards. (1) Site plan review shall be required for uses which have buildings with more than four thousand (4,000) square feet of floor area. (2) Accessory buildings shall comply with all yard, lot coverage and building height requiremems of this chapter. (3) Every lot shall abut a street other than an alley for at least fifty {50) feet. (4) Materials or objects which would detract from the open space character oll uncovered or urenclosed area will not be permitted in such an area. (5) Ail uses will complywith appl{cable access, parking and loading standards In settlonsl2d&and 22-61. (6) Conditional uses will meet the requirements In secdons 22-74 through72-86, (7) Signs will comply with standards referred to in Section 22.55, (8) AN other applicable ordinance requirements will also be satisfied. (Ord. No. H-186, 3 30-36, 6-15-81; Ord. No. H-245, 5 1, 12-20.84 Ord. No, 1-26. 5 4, 8-15-83; Ord, No. K-24, § 14, 8-21-00; Ord. No. Ill § 1, 3-3-08; Ord. No. L-97, 5 4, 11-16• 09; Ord. No, L-267, § 2, 11-5-12; Ord. No_ L-295.517, 11.4.131 Sec. 22-35.. Marine Industrial Zone(I-2). (a) Purpose, This zone is intended primarily to provide a location for port activities, marine Industry and supporting uses. In addition, rattail nonindustrial water-arlented uses and uses associated with them may be permitted. The district is designed to exclude uses which can be located equally well elsewhere and are inconsistent with the character of the district Large areas with adequate waterfront, street and railroad access are appropriate for this type of zoning, (b) Basic use standards. Uses In an 1-2 zone must meet the requirements of this section. More restrictive requirements, set forth in accordance with other provisions of this chapter, must be satisfied by some conditional uses. IS} Lotsize. a. The minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) feet. b. The minimum lot depth shall be one hundred (100) feet, (2) Yards. The minimum yard depth for portions of the property abutting a public right-of-way or nonindustrial district wit) be fifteen (15) feet. (c) Special conditional use criteria. No conditional use will be allowed In an 1.2 zone unless It meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) The use is a water -dependent use, which means that it can only be carried out on, In or adjacent to water and the location or access Is needed for: a. Waterburne transportation (such as navigation; moorage, Fueling and servicing of ships or boats; terminal and transfer facilities; fish or other resource and material receiving and shipping), or U. Recreation (active recreation such as swimming, boating or 8l passive recreation such as viewing or walkingj; or t. A source of water (such as energy production, cooling of Industrial equipment or wastewater or other industrial processes); or d. Marine research or educatfon (such as viewing, sampling, recording Information, conducting experiments or teaching). (2) The use is a water -related use, which means that: a. It provides goods arWor services that are dlrectlyassotiated with water -dependent uses {supplying materials to, using products of or offering commercial or about:blank 4/28/2015 Fishermans Wharf Development i Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 44 Packet Pg. 54 2.2 Fort Pierce, FL Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 2 personal services to water -dependent uses); or b. If it were not located near the water, it would experience a public loss of quality in the goods and services offered (evaluation of public loss of quality will include a subjective consideration of economic, social and environmental consequences of the use). (3) The use which is notthe primary use or the structure, shares an existing structure with a water -dependent use or water -related use and the combination results In a multiple use radtity. (4) The project provides signifixant public access or recreation uses through the provision of waterfront seating, walkways, piers, street furniture or similarfacilities. W (5) The use Is an accessory use Important to the operations of the principal use. M) The use Is a temporary use which meets the requirements of section 22-65. ♦� (d) other apprfcubm use standards, LL,I (1) Site plan review shall be required for uses which have buildings with more than four thousand (4,000) square feet of floor area, f1 fly Accessory buildings shall comply with all yard, lot coverage and building requirements of 015 chapter. � (3) Every lot shall abut a street other than an alley for at least fifty (50) feeL O (4) Materials or objects which would detract from the open space character or an uncovered or unenclosed area will not be permitted in such an area. LL 15) All uses will comply with applicable access, parking and loading standards in sectioni and12:GL LL 16) Conditional uses will meet the requirements In sections22-74 arid 22.86. O 17) Signs will comply with standards referred to in section 22-5s, 18y All other applicable ordinance requirements will also be satisfied. (Ord. No. H-186, § 30-35, 6-15-81; Ord. No, H-228, 4 1, 10-4-87:Ord, No, 1-26. § 3, B-1"3; Ord, No. 1-377. 4 2, 5-1-90; Ord. No. K-24, § 15, 6-21-00; Ord. No. L-795, a to. 1 -4- O 13) IL Sec. 22.39. - Aquatic Development Zone (A-2). r+ (a) Purpose. Thks district Is Intended for aquatic areas which should be managed primarily for navigation and other water -oriented uses, consrstent with the need to mfnimfze damage to the ecosystem of the area. Water -dependent, water -related and other uses are allowed which are conslstent with the character of nearby shoreland areas. Aquatic development areas may include areas suitable far navigation (Including shipping and access channels and turning basins), areas adjacentlo developed or developable shorelands which may need to be altered to provide navigational access or create new land for water -oriented uses atd other appropriate (D i areas, (b) Building hrights. No building will exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet above the mean high tide line in tidal areas and the ordinary high water line in nantidel areas. a (c) Speciof condifionnf use criteria. No conditional use will he allowed in an A-2 zone unless it meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) The use is a water -dependent use, which means that it can only be carried out on, in or adjacent to water and the location or access Is needed for; a. Waterborhetransportation (such asnavigation;moorage, fueling and servicing of ships or boats; terminal and transfer facilities or fish or other resource and •O Material receiving and shipping$ or i It. Recreation (active recreation such as swimming, boating or fishing; passive recreation such as viewing or walking); at ♦2 c. A source of water (such as energy production, cooling of industrial equipment or wastewater or other industrial processes); or d. Marine research or education (such as viewing, sampling, recording information, conducting experiments or teaching), (2) The use 1s a water -related use, which means that a. It provides goods and/or services that are directly associated with water -dependent uses (supplying materials to, or using products of or offering commercial or personal services to water -dependent uses); or FZ b. If it were not located near the water, it would experience a public loss of quality in the goods and services offered (evaluation of public loss of quality will Include a subjective consideration of economic, social and environmental consequences of the use). O (3) The use which Is not the primary use of the structure, shares an existing structure with a roarer -dependent use or water -related use and the combination results in , a multiple use facility. 'y (4) The project provides significant public access or recreation uses through the provision of waterfront seating, walkways. piers, sheet furniture or similar facilities. '3 IS) The use is an accessory use important to the operations of the prlhdpal use. (6) The use is a temporary use which meets the regafremehts of sectloh 22.65. Q (d) Other appficableuse standards. •a (1) Uses identified as a permitted use within the Use Table are onfy permitted if no dredging or filling is necessary and piers or similar fadkties are not required In hew locations, if dredging and/or filling or new piers or similar facilities are required, said uses shall be allowed as a Conditional Use. [2) Uses IdenUried as a permitted use within the Use Table are only permitted when access to the facilities are provided from a property In an I Z C-3, C-4 or C-5 zone J by piers or similar means, r_ 13) Commercial or Industrial uses situated on floating structures shall be located so they will be protected from currents and wave action and so (heywill not rest on M t she bottom at low water. [4) Accessory buildings shall comply with all building height requirements of this chapter. M (5) Materials or objects which would detract from the open space character of an uncovered or unenclosed area will not be permitted in such an area. (6) All uses will comply with applicable access, parking and loading standards In sections 22.60 ani (7) Conditional uses will meet the requirements In sectioni through-22A, E (0) Signs will comply with standards referred to In section 22-55, a) d (9) All other applicable ordinance requirements will also be saUstled. N (e) Unregulated activides. The provisions of this district will rot be interpreted to prohibit or regulate the following activities, unless the prohlbitloh or regulation is specifically stated as a condition of approval of a conditional use: LL (1) Filling. E [2) Dredging. O (3) Dredged material disposal. t4 14) tianklinelstrearn alteration. V [5) Construction and repair of shoreline stabilization structures, mosquito control structures and dikes, C [6) Installing types of navigational structures not previously listed in this subsection. 3c [Ord, No, H-186, § 30-99, 6-15-81; Ord. No. K-24, § 20. 8-21-2000; Ord_ No. L-295, 5 24,11-4-13) C about:blank 4/28/2015 Fisher mans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 45 Packet Pg. 55 2.2 APPENDIX C w U w W d t- Q' O LL LL O I— w O a INFORMATION ON PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTIES IN THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF AREA Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 46 Packet Pg. 56 2.2 Site Address: 219 FISHERRMANS WHARF Sec/Town/Range: 03/36SA013 Map OD: 24/03S Zoning: C6 Ownership Property Identification Parcel ID:2403-432-0005-000-5 Account #: 16970 Use Type: 1000 Jurisdiction: Fort Pierce River Marina Inc PO Box 466 Palm City, FL 34991-0000 Legal Description 3 36 40 FROM CONC MON AT SE COR N 2 ST AND FISHERMAN'S WHARF RUN SELY ON S R/W FISHERMAN' S WHARF 1013A FT FOR P013, TH S 1 DEG 14 MIN 30 SEC W 105.96 FT TO FT ON CONC BULKHEAD. TH ELY AND NELY ON BULKHEAD 62.7 F1'. TH N 1 DEG 14 MIN 30 SEC 9 88.33 FT TO S R/W FISHERMAN' S WHARF. T1i NWLY ON R/W 60 FT TO POB (OR 1665-2462) Current Values JusU/Market Value: $104,900 Assessed Value. $104,900 Exemptions: so Taxable Value: $104,900 Taxes for this parcel: SLC Tax Collector's Office m Total Areas Land Size (acres): 0.13 Land Size (SF): 5,828 Laud Information TofalAree: 5,828 SF10.13 acres Sequence Number Numbert](We Depth for Front Feet of Unite 1 8828 0 SgFeetRate 2 Special Features and Yard Items Type Qty Units Year Bit Permits Number Date Description Amount Fee P93-000197 Feb 12, 1993 Roof 5,800 $1 B00 DM2005135 Apr 7, 20M Demolition .600 130 0800000366 Sep 3, 20M Demolition $0 130 Notice: This does not necessarily represent ell the permits for this property. Click the following link to check for additional permit data in Fort Pierce Sale History Date Book/Paga Feb 5, 2003 1665 / 2462 Jan 1, 1900 Current Values Breakdown Sale Deed Grantor Price Code 02 WD Marina At Ft Pierce Inc, $980,000 Current Year Values Current Yew Exemption Value Breakdown Fisherman s Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District4 47 Packet Pg. 57 W U fY W d H O Lt_ LL O F- fY O a 2.2 Building: $0 Tax Grant Code Description Amount Year Year Land-' $104,900 Just/Market: $1041900 Ag Credit: $0 Mkt/Asnmt $0 Differential: Assessed: $104.900 R3tetnpti0n(6): $0 Taxable: $104,900 Current Year Special Assessment Breakdown Start Year AasessCode Units Description Amount 1999 0041 2.7 Fort Fierce Stormwater Charge $145.80 This does not necessarily represent the total Special Assessements thal could be charged against this property, The total amount charged for special assessments is reflected on the most current tax statement and information is available with the SLC Tax Collector's Office 12. Historical Values Year Juat/Market Assessed Exemptions Taxable 2014 $104,900 $104,900 0 104,900 2013 104,900 104,900 0 1104,900 1104,900 104,900 2012 0 104,900 This information is be&ved to be correct at this time but ft is subject to change and is not warranted. 0 Copyright 2014 Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser, Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 48 Packet Pg. 58 2.2 Property Identifleation Site Address: Z21 FISHERMANS WHARF Ser/ Town/Range: 43/35S/40E Map ID: 24103S Zoning: C6 Ownership River Marine Inc PO Box 466 Paba City, FL 34991-OOW Legal Description 3 35 40 FROM CONIC MONU AT SE COR OF N 2 ST AND FISHERMAN'S WHARF RUN S 88 DEG 45.5 MIN E ON S R/W FISHERMAN'S WHARF 1073.4 FT FOR P08, TH CONT ELY ON S Ll OF FISHERMAN'S WHARF 10 FT TO A PT, TH S 88 CONNT ON RN/4WSN 770 A G 19 MM E 59 1 Fr TO FT TO W END OF S H BRIDGE ACROSS IND RIV AND A PT ON N LI OF AN OLD sEc EDABLGU ULKOHSap RUINS ff M//L TO SECDRMIN 45 BULKHEAD. TH N 88 DEG 39 MIN 4S SEC W ALG LI OF OLD E AND W BULKHEAD NOW IN RUINS 152.6 FT M/L TO SE COR LANDS DESC IN DBK 105-356 TO C T LOWE, TH S 72 DEG 08.5 MN W 26.23 FT TO A PT, TH N 1 DEG 14 MIN 30 SEC W 88.33 FT TO POB (OR 1655-2462) Current Values Just/Market Value: $242,600 Assessed Value: $242,500 Exemptions. $0 Taxable Value: $242,S00 Taxes for this parcel: SLC Tax Collector's Office G Parcel ID: 2403-431-0002-ODD-1 Account AI: 16866 Use Type: 10D0 Jurisdiction: Fort Pierce a � Total Areas Land Size (acres): 0.31 Land Size (SF): 13,474 Land Information I'ofal Area: I3,4y4 SF/Q31 aces Sequence Number Number/Type Depth for Front Feet of Units 1 0 Sq Feet 0 1 13474 0 SgFeetRate 2 Special Features and Yard Items Type Qty Units Year Bit Permits Number Date Description Amount Fee DMZW439 Dec 14, 2004 Demolition $10,000 $1Q0 RF2D04376 Dec 14. 2004 Ruof $8 D00 K DM2006136 Apr 7. 2006 Demolition $7,500 $130 Notice: This does not necessarily represent all the permits for this property. Click the following link to check for additional permit data in Fort Pierce Sale History Date Book/Page Sale Deed Grantor Price Code Feb 5, 2003 1666 / 2462 02 WI) Marina At Ft Pierce Inc, $980,OQ0 Jan 1.1900 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 49 Packet Pg. 59 2.2 Current Year Values Current Values Breakdown Current Year Exemption Value Breakdown Tax Grant Code Description Amount Building: $0 Year Year Land: $242,500 Just/Market: $242,500 As Credit: $0 MkVAsmnt $0 Differential: Assessed: $242,500 Exemption(a): $0 Taxable: $242,500 Current Year Special Assessment Breakdown Start Year AssessCode Units Description Amount 1999 0041 7.7 Fort Pierce Stormwater Charge $416.80 This does not necessarily represent the total Special Assessmments that could be charged against this property. The total amount charged for special assessments Is reflectod on the most curl ent tax statement and information is available with the Sir - Tax Collector's Office 12. Histerleal Values Year Just/Market Assessed Exemptions Taxable 2 12442.500 1242,60000 2012 0 $242,500 This information is believed to be correct at this time but it is subject to change and is not warranted. 0 Copyright 201$ Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 50 W U W W_ d H 0 ILL ILL 0 F- IX 0 a Packet Pg. 60 2.2 Property Identification Site Address: 21 FIStiLRMANS WHARF Sec/Toww7iange: 03/36S/40E Map ID: 24103S Zoning: C6 Ovmership Fishmonger Investors LLC 4076 Virginia Ave Fort Pierce, FL 34981-6557 Legal Description 3 35 40 FROM SE CDR OF N 2 ST AND FISHERMAN'S WHARF RUN S 88 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC E AND // TO S RD R/W LI OF FISHERMAN'S WHARF 403.4 FT FOR POB: TH CONT S 88 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC 2 ALG S R(W LA OF FISHERMAN'S WHARF 125 FT, TH S 18 DEG 00 MIN 30 SEC E 157.01 FT TH S 82 DEG 07 MIN 46 SEC W 119.84 FT, TH N 18 DEG 03 UIN 30 SEC W 177.12 FT TO POB- (OR 2066-2857) Current Values Just/Market Value: $276,100 Assessed Value: $276,100 Exemptions: $0 Taxable VHIue: $276,100 Taxes for this parcel: SLC Tax Collector's Office Parcel ID.2403-341-0010-000-4 Account #: 15862 Use Type: 1000 Jurisdiction: Fort Pierce Total Areas Land Size (acres): 0.47 Land Size (SF): 20,452 Land Information TWal Arm 20,457 SF/0.47acres Sequence Plumber Nutnbertrme Depth for Front Feet of Units 1 20462 Sq Feet 0 Special Features and Yard Items Type Qty Units Year Bit Permita Number Date Description Amount F92-001299 Oct 27, 1992 Roof Fence $2 400 429 F95-000791 DM2005120 Jul 31, 1996 Feb 6, 2006 Demciition $5,000 BP09-1574 Sep 16, 2010 Alterations/Remodeling BP09-1732 Oct 13, 2010 Alteratioas/Remodehng $2 0 Notice: This does not necessarily represent all the permits for this property. Click the following link to check for additional permit data in Fort Pierce Date Book/Page Sale Code Sep 16, 2004 2056 / 2857 002 F99 29.12 780/ D1 007 8 1eb Aug 31, 1990 0707 / 2729 01 Jun 28, 1990 0699 / 1205 01 Oct1t.1935 b1 004480101541 Sale History Deed Grantor WD Smigiel Partners X LTD, SP Rnbf Cortrt.��ppa�a WD 21 F151iL*RlVl11'S WHARF INC WD TCITMENS FED S AND ASSN CT Edward I. Scarlett CV Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 Fee $2 442030 $130 $1550 Price 660.000 285,000 449,200 $42S,000 $6,000 67,4V 51 W L) W W d H O LL tL O F- W O a Packet Pg. 61 2.2 Current Year Values Current Values Breakdown Current Year Exemption Value Breakdown Code Description Amount Buildittlt: $0 Tax rant Land: $276.100 Just/Market; $276,100 Aa Credit: $0 Mkt/Asmot $0 Differential: Assessed. $276,100 Exemption(a): $0 Taxable: $276,100 Current Year Special Assessment Breakdown Start Year AssessCode Units Description Amount 1999 0041 8.2 Fort Pierce 5tormwater Charge $442.80 This does not necessarily represent the total Special Assessernents that could be charged against this property. The total amount charged for special assessments is reflected on the most current tax statement and information is available with the SLC Tax Collector's Office 12. Historical Values Year Just/Market Assessed Exemptions Taxable 2012 1276.1100 , 0 276.100 This Information Is believed to be correct at this time but If Is subject to change and is nor warrerrtod ® Copyright 2014 Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 52 W U W d 1— O LL LL O H f1' O a Packet Pg. 62 2.2 Property ldentiCeation Site Address: 22 FISHRRMANS WHARF SeclrownlRange:0313GS140B Map W-* 24/03S Zoning-, C6 (K nershlp Carol J Jenkins (TR) 5255 Palmetto Ave Fort Pierce, FL 34982-7268 Legal Description 3 35 40 FROM A CONCRETE MON AT SE COR OF N 2 ST AND FISHERMAN'S SIDE OF NFISH RMA1t S WHARFF 88 628 45 FT, TH T30 iS 1188 DETID G 05 MIN 30 SEC E 157.01 FT FOR POB, TH CONT S 18 DEG 06 MIN 30 SEC E 20.89 IFT TO NE COR "TRACT BOF IND RIVER MEMORIAL PARK SID, TH CONT S 18 DEG 05 MIN 30 SEC R ALG E Li SD TRACT B 135.8 Fr. TH S 72 DEG 31 MIN 30 SEC W ALG S LI SD TRACT B 117.60 FT TOSW COR SD TRACT, TH N 18 DEG 05 MIN 30 SEC W 180.29 FT, TH N 82 DEG 07 MIN 46 SEC E 119.84 FT TOPOB (OR 699-334: 2873- 1121) Parcel ID;2403-341-0011-000-1 Account #: 16863 Use Type: 2100 Jurisdiction: Fort Fierce Total Areas Current Values Finished/Under Air (SF): Just/Market Value: $226.300 Gross Area (SF): Assessed Value: $225,300 Land Size (acres): Exemptions: $0 Land Size (SF): Taxable Value: $225,3W Taxes for this parcel: SLC Tax Collector's Office 12 Building information (1 of 1) Finished Area: 2,144 SF Gross Total Area: 3,788 SF Exterior Data View: Roof Cover: Dim Shingle Building Type: REST Year Built: 1976 Grade: Y-D- Effective Year: 1976 Story Height: i Story No. Units: i Interior Date Bedrooms: 0 Electric: MAXIMUM Full Baths. 0 Heat Type: FrcdHoUUr Half Baths: 0 Heat Fuel: BLEC A/C %; 60% Heated %: 60% Sketch Area Legend 2,144 3,788 0,45 19,814 Roof Structure: Gable Frame: Primary Wall: Conc Biock Secondary WaII: Primary Int Wall: Avg HgtfFloor: 0 Primary Floors: Tile -Ceramic Sprinkled %: 0% Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 53 Packet Pg. 63 2.2 Sub Area Description Area Fin. Area Perimeter BAS BASE AREA 2144 2144 232 CN2 CANOPY 294 0 219 W X WOOD DECK 1360 0 238 Land Information Tofal Area. 19,814 SF/0.4S acres Sequence Number NmnberflWe Depth for Front Feet of Units 1 19814 Sq Feet 0 Special Features and Yard Items Type Qty Units Year sit CONCRETE LAW 1 8000 1976 CEMENT CURB 1 96 1978 CHAINUNK 6' 1 157 1976 BARB WIRE 1 167 1976 ASP2 LOW 1 7000 1976 WOOD FEN 6' 1 36 1976 Permits Number Date Description Amount F91-001388 Nov 18, 1991 Heat and Air $2,960 Conditionin8 F96-OD0900 Ju] 24, 1996 Roof 2,300 P97-001227 Nov 5 1997 F02-307 Jun 1r1, 2DO2 Roof Alterations/Remodelinit 12,480 1AD0 F02-0380 Aug 20, 2002 Alteratfon0temodeling $500 RPM05414 May 10, 2D05 Roof 600 WOO BP12-1369 Aug 27. 2012 Air Conditioning BP12-1446 Sep 12, 2012 BElectric $1,250 BP13-0024 Feb 7, 2013 Electric $2300 BP13-2906 Oct 23, 2013 BP13-2974 Oct 28, 2013 Electric Demolition $5,0DD00 SP13-3064 Nov 13, 2013 Alterations/Remodelios $76,000 SP13-310D Nov 13,2013 Roof $8860 BP13-3142 Nov 14, 2013 Electric 1700 Notice: This does not necessarily represent all the permits for this property. Click the following link to check for additional permit data in Fort Pierce Sale History Date Book/Page 5B1C Deed Grantor Code Aug 28, 2007 2873 / 1121 01 WD Jenkins,Carul J May 16, 190 0699 / 0334 02 WD R 8 Jenkins Dec 1, 1986 0527 / 0618 01 CV Oct 1, 1983 0413/ Z593 02 CV Current Values Breakdown Building: $11,300 Land: $214.000 Just/Market: $226,300 Ag Credit: $0 Mkt/Asmnt $0 Differential: Assessed: $226,300 Fee $2,950 $2,300 52,r05 6 1161 155 156 162 Zb7 168 162 Price $100 $412 100 $$3360,000 Current Year Values Current Year Exemption Value Breakdown Tax Grant Code Description Amount Year Year Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 54 Packet Pg. 64 W U W LU d H O LL LL O F- W O a 2.2 F M"vion(s): $0 Taxable' $225,300 L Current Year Special Assessment Breakdown Start Year AssessCode Units Description Amount 1999 0041 6.4 Fort Pierce Stormwater Charge $291.60 This does not necessarily represent the total Special Assessmments that could be charged against this property. The total amount charged for special assessments is reflected on the most current tax statement and information is available with the SLC Tax Collector's Office o. W U W W d Historical Values Year JusWaarrpket Assessed Exemptions Taxable O 2012 225,600 1225,600 0 225;600 O This information is believed to be correct at this tlme but It Is subject to change and is not warranted. H Copyright 2014 Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser. W a Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 55 Packet Pg. 65 2.2 w U w W d H Q' O U_ U_ O H AN APPRAISAL OF A a 0.47+ ACRE MARINE COMMERCIAL ZONED SITE c LOCATED AT E 21 FISHERMAN'S WHARF (120± ft. EAST OF SE CORNER FISHERMAN'S WHARF a & N. INDIAN RIVER DR.) +, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA Appraisal No. 19658 PREPARED FOR Ms. Janet LiCausi, Acquisition Agent St. Lucie Co. Board of Co. Commissioners 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 DATE OF APPRAISAL: November 25, 2013 Prepared by. Daniel D. Fuller, MAI State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567 FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Appraisal & Research, Inc. 200 S. Indian River Dr., Suite 300 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 56 Packet Pg. 66 2.2 FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Appraisal & Research Inc. Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SRA 200 S. Indian River Dr., Suite 300 (772) 468-0787 State -Certified General Fort Pierce, FL 34950 1400-273-7364 Real Estate Appraiser RZ567 FAW_app@bellsouth.net Fax (772) 44WI103 December 3, 2013 w U Ms. Janet LiCausi, Acquisition Agent W Lu St. Lucie Co. Board of Co. Commissioners a- 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 W U_ Re: 0.47+ acre vacant tract of land with marine commercial zoning, located at 21 U_ 0 Fisherman's Wharf (120+ feet east of the SE corner Fisherman's Wharf & N. Indian River Dr.), Fort Pierce, FL O Dear Ms, LiCausi: av Per our appraisal services contract, I have inspected the referenced property, and I have made an analysis of the available data and market influences affecting the subject property to provide an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest in the property, as of November 25, 2013, my final date of inspection. The appraisal adheres to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the St. Lucie County Supplemental Appraisal Guidelines, presented to in "Summary" report format • The Intended Use of this appraisal is for purchase negotiations and the appraisal is not intended for another use. • The Intended User of this report is the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners and their representatives and the report is not intended for another user. • The appraisal and report are subject to the Ordinary Limiting Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, and Certification included within this report. Based upon the available data and my analyses presented in this report, the following is my opinion of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the subject of this appraisal, "as is", as of November 25, 2013, is: THREE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS - $310,000- I believe you will find my appraisal and report complete, but if there are questions please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Daniel D. Fuller, MAI State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567 DDFIaSf 19656 Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 57 Packet Pg. 67 2.2 MAR 10 2014 W U March 7, 20I4 PROPERTY ACQUIi, I IONS LU a JoAun Miley Property Acquisition Manager U- St. Lucie County UO 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 O a Regarding Lot 21 Fisherman's Wharf and the respective appraisals prepared for that property, I would like to bring to your attention a significant purchase of property at 1004,1006, and 1010 Seaway Drive, Ft. Pierce, Florida. This purchase took place on December 19, 2013, after the independent lot 21 appraisals were prepared and submitted to your department. As mentioned in both appraisals the general real estate market conditions within the vicinity of Lot 21 Fisherman's Wharf have been marginal since 2011. At best since that time property purchases have been more buyer oriented and not market driven by any unique property demand factors. However, the 3 lot package purchased on Seaway Drive mentioned above represents a significant shift toward property Demand and reflects the beginning of Just Value Pricing that should become an example for key demand parcels. Whether Fisherman's Wharf, or in this case Seaway Drive, these properties are unique to Ft. Pierce and the entire state of Florida as well. Two Million Four Hundred Tbousand Dollars was paid for three properties of which the St. Lucie County 2013 Property Tax Assessment totaled $1,804,100.00. This closing representing a 33% ($595,900.00 ) Just Value Increase based upon the recorded Selling Price. By this sale, should a comparable property near this Seaway Drive property sell soon that new price paid will likely reflect a fair market demand base equal to, or in excess of the. above 33%. Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 4 58 Packet Pg. 68 2.2 W W IL t¢ne➢ended in this package are pages addressing the Property Record IX Cxrds far this sale. In addition the last 4 pages are a summary of the p ` overlappimg similarities" of the Seaway Drive Zoning (G5) U. and the Fisherman's Wharf Zoning (C-6). Though the lot 21 location p is water view and the Seaway Dirive ns waterfront the actualIX i— Commercial Zoning uses do overlap as shown in the City of lit. Pierce p Chart » ORP NANCE NO. L-295. a ]a summary the Seaway ][give purchase specifically addimses a free market demend ancrease of 33%. WhHe representing t➢ne owners of Lot 21 YisDnermsan°s Wharf, aund expressed as my opinion, it appears future pu7chases in this loeal markel will reflect puretnsse demand) cDgnal to and greeter than 33% abode current appraised property Wk. The Fisherman's Wharf and the Seaway Drive read estate reflect demand property that can not be reproduced. Tle lot 2ll Fisherman's Wharf pricing at $50U,000-60 should be clearly irevnsntedi hased upom the $2.4 Malll on Seilnmg Price of the Seaway Didve property. Respectfully, Gary E. Webb Realtor Associate ChoBce Properties Fishermans Wharf Development I Port of Fort Pierce I FDOT District 59 Packet Pg. 69 2.2 FISHERMAN'S WHARF LAND ACQUISITION (PHASE 1) PROJECT AGREEMENT THIS PROJECT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2015, by and between the CITY OF FORT PIERCE, a Florida municipal corporation (the "City") and ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County). STATEMENTS OF INTENT WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into an interlocal agreement on , 2015 providing for cooperation between the parties in the development of the Port of Fort Pierce; and WHEREAS, the , 2015 Interlocal Agreement provides that the parties may enter in an agreement for a specific project and attach the project agreement as an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") hired a consultant, TranSystems to develop a conceptual plan for the development of Fisherman's Wharf at the Port of Fort Pierce; and WHEREAS, TranSystems presented the Conceptual Plan including three options to the governing bodies of the City and the County on May 15, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to enter into a Project Agreement to attempt to acquire parcels needed to implement those portions of the Conceptual Plan that are feasible NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City and the County agrees as follows: 1. The City and the County shall coordinate their efforts through their respective Project Managers. The County's Project Manager is Public Works Director Don West, P.E. at (772) 462-2178. The City's Project Manager is 2. ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF CONCENTUAL PLAN: The parties agree to investigate the feasibility of the voluntary acquisition of private property needed to implement the Fisherman's Wharf conceptual plan as follows: a. The County will send out "willing seller" letters to private property owners within the Fisherman's Wharf conceptual plan area. Copies of any letters received will be provided to the City. b. The County will obtain quotes from certified appraisers to appraise the parcels whose owners are willing sellers. The County will provide copies of the quotes to the City for review and comment. The County will contract to have the appraisals completed. The City, at its option, may pay for one half of the appraisal costs. Copies of the appraisals shall S:/ATTY/AGREEMNT/Fisherman's Wharf Land Acquisition (Phase 1) w U W W d H O LL u_ O H W O a Packet Pg. 70 2.2 be provided to the City upon receipt. c. Based on the appraisal amounts and subject to confirmation that sufficient funds are available to fund the purchase of the parcels the County shall make fair market value offers to private property owners. Copies of the offers shall be provided to the City prior to transmittal to the owners. d. Upon receipt of signed contracts from the owners the County shall provide copies of the w contracts to the City. The City may, at its options, pay for a portion of the purchase price. The County shall be the contracting entity and shall perform all required due diligence. w a e. At closing, title to the property shall be conveyed to the County, if the County is the entity funding the purchase of the parcels. The City, at its option, may fund a portion of the p purchase amount not to exceed fifty (50%) percent of the purchase price. If the City U- determines to fund a portion of the purchase price, title to the property shall be conveyed 0 to the County and the City as tenants in common as a percentage of each entity W participation in the funding of the property acquisition. a 3. SUBSEQUENT PHASES —IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN: Depending on the success of the acquisition (Phase 1), the parties agree to cooperate in implementing subsequent phases of the Conceptual Plan. 4. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not operate to nullify any conveyance made prior to termination. S. WHOLE AGREEMENT This Agreement embodies the whole understanding of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein; and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. 6. AMENDMENTS The Agreement may only be amended by a written document signed by all parties and filed with the Clerk of Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida. 7. NOTICES All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid) return receipt requested, addressed to: As to City: With a Copy to: Fort Pierce City Manager Fort Pierce City Attorney 100 North U.S. One/P.O. Box 1480 100 North U.S. One/P.O. Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 2 S:/ATTY/AGREEMNT/Fisherman's Wharf Land Acquisition (Phase 1) Packet Pg. 71 2.2 ATTEST: As to County: St. Lucie County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue Administration Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 With a Copy to: St. Lucie County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Administration Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA BY: Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: City Attorney Date: S:/ATTY/AGREEMNT/Fisherman's Wharf Land Acquisition (Phase 1) w U w W d H O u_ u_ O H O a Packet Pg. 72 2.2 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY BY: Deputy Clerk Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney Date: S:/ATTY/AGREEMNT/Fisherman's Wharf Land Acquisition (Phase 1) Packet Pg. 73 Ek pe AVENUE H Co II Z AVENUE F c 2 D FISHERMANS WHARF Willing Sellers River Marina N.ti King Maritime Egan W Lj u O a ri ndian - IC _ t t _ t 0 125 250 375 500 Fee Packet Pg. 74 2.2 Willing Sellers River Marina King Maritime Egan N Cxt . e O - N )3 VIM n� a ,VENUE I ors::. _. ' ♦ =yy .h �,.. S: :' �.• II] AVENUE H-- \ate r , AVENUE G N 2 � 1Z�AVENUEF' E4 j�RM\NPR OR s ' �Rai, F FISHERMANS WHARF' 3 i ��jj 2 S �`�►�. S�p�NP _ Z %lok f- Za ill i1i ro . 0 125 250 375 500 Fee Packet Pg. 75 w c� w IL w O LL LL O w O IL