Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmith, Peter & Wayne Sines'~ ~BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE~ March 14, 1978 The Board of met in regular session this 14th day of Ma Park, Chairman; E.E. and W,R. McCain. Co~mL~issioners in and for St. Lucle County! Florida, its meeting room in the Administration building, on t978, with the following members present~ John B, en~ Vice Chairman; Edward G. EnnsI George D, Price~ Also present were: Weldon B. Lewis, County Administrator; Devitt Adams, County Attorney; Gary ~ent, County Development Coordinator; Albert M. Thomas, Zoning Director; Jack J?nes, Purchasing Agent; and Kirsten B. Edgell, ~Secreta~ The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. The invocation was given by Admn. Lewis. MINUTES Moved by Comm. Price, seconded by mously carried, to approve the minutes PISTOL PEp~IT - CLIFFO~~! KRUG Comm. McCain~ and upon roll call unani of the March 7th meeting. Mr~ Krug, antique. 'un dealer, did not ~pp~ar, No action taken, PISTOL PE~4IT ~ EDMUND Mr. Radke appeared Moved by Comm, Gre~ mously carried, to appr~ ~_~_~ ~ade .22 caliber, ~6558! Petition of Peter for rezoning of proper%[ West side of U.S.#i fro] petition was heard on F, the matter of Dittmar ~ Moved by Comm. Pri, mously carried, to remo' 3tDKE and all decrements ~are in order, ~n, seconded by Comm: McCain~ and ~pon roll call unan±. )ye a pistol permit for Edmund Radke to c. arry a German , and a Browning Automaticl ~.22 caliber~ ~4982305. '?: ?~E Z ON'ING ~mith and Wayne Sines, by their Attorney Gerald S. Jaml located 3/4 mile north of Port St. Lucie Blvd. on th~ A-1 (agriculture) to B-.3 (arterial business). This .~bruary 28, 1978, and tabled to this date to determine ze. :e, seconded by Cormm. Enns, and upon roll call unani- ~e petition from the table and continue public hearing Atty. James was pr, of the city of Port St. southerly 5' of the pro! by the city. In a meet Lucie, more problems we dangers to them the cen to work to alleviate %h and economic-~questions, should not be considere~ suitable for the reques north was once determin now their attitude has ~ir. Wayne Allen, V spoke in opposition to ~sent. He stated that in a letter to the Commissioner! Lucie, he advised that the developer will convey the ~erty, thereby assuring control of Di%tmar Ave. access [ng with Gen. Dev. Corp. (GDC) and the city of Port St ~e raised concerning adjacent property owners and the net might create. The developers are ready and willin ~se problems. Mr. James further stated that political such as "is Midport a better proposal for the area"~ here. The point is whether or not this property is ~. He also pointed out that adjacent property to the ~d by GDC as best suited for this type of proposal, bu ~pparently changed. ice President and Assistant General Counsel for GDC~ the petition and offered the following written stateme ~'The purpose of this letter is to protest the subject zoning change. General Development Corporation is the owner of 50% or more of the area withi 300 feet of the bound~ of the tract sought to be rezoned and ~n additign iS the developer of the ~mediate adjacent single family area. This single fam~ area was platted and de~eloped as an estate area and the proposed zoning to B-3 we consider total[ inappropriate to have bordering these single family lots. Such zoning wi[ permit development that has the potential to become a nuisance to those res: ~nts of the area and will have an adverse affect on property values. "For ly affect age through Dittmar ~ve should be considere ing center proposed by the s because of noise, lights, nt drainage ditch, the potent other noxious and offensive a County Commission in 'this will advers ial of sew- acces Alternati One, f¢ the di o one the tract immediately adjacent to the single family resi- in a manner which would permit less intensive uses. Uses have th~ potential for creating a nuisance such as would be current plan for a large shopping center that would require de- ~ trucks at all hours of the night and heavy traffic causing ems associated with evening shopping. the County Commission take these matters into considera- uested rezoning be denied." Tschudy, President of the Port St. Lucie civic League, of- Statement of opposition which was prepared and approved by of thelLeague a% their March 9th meeting: Port St. Lucie Civic League would like to enter into the jecting to rezoning action which would permit the Smithport Shopping Center. c League is an association of 500~plus members, residents of t i Lu~ie nd of the county. One of its basic purposes is to ' s ~or ~he ordinary citizen of the community to.speak fortk · believes to be of benefit to the connnunityf and to l~ ...... ~-- ~ does not feel would be construc- opposision to p~ann~9 ~ es that it shall do this .not only in tax and fiscal and ~e City Hall level, but also' in any other circumstances .re is concerned, in the city or elsewhere. proliferation of shopping cente~ facilities in the , has proceeded to such a degree that additions in this ,. The development in question would, in the on-constructive fashion on a growing residential area , apidly developing residential area'has lovely homes an, rtly. No matter how well-screened, a shopping center presents a noisy, cluttered, dirty back to this re would not choose the rear view of a shopping center If there was some .critical need to be served by a location there might be some justification. But, ac~ hopping center at'this location would ~erely add to the ~reating an environment which would ~ake that residential ~ie much less desirable, are two other possibilities of neighborhood pollution .er of this size at this location raises the question ,f storm waters and sewage effluent. If disposal :LY adequate the only place for such liquids to seep i~ the west of the property and thence on down throu¢ ~tt° And we suspect that with only highway access pro- ;sures will build for a traffic pattern through the resi- is entirely with what we choose to call the "Qual~ where this proposed center would make contact with ti We think this center would diminish this Quality of into an area of quality homes, and it would not be asks the Commission to not permit the requested zoning." · esenting the River Park Homeowners Association~ spok ~he organization's concern over the increased traff ~eated with development~of the center. He cited resu taken by the Assoc. and further stated that the Ass¢ ~he project, or any project such as this~ be respons control signals so as to ease the hazardous traffic of the elderly population in the area. He state~ nor the state should be called on to supply this. Mayor of Port St. Lucie~ spoke in opposition~ stat~ be for current property owners in ~_he surrounding a] ~r~ as well as the value of these properties. He cit~ .fy Planner which predicted increased traffic generate, c~ by the center. residents and it current property ~ed that this will interfere with the lifestyle of ar responsibility of governmental agencies to protect Mr. Dick HarmoI it will.be less the noise and traffJ year old daughter. Mr. Larry Anson~ He further stated th~ large home, the value Mrs. Violet Coll hough shopping center 230 Morningside Blvd., stated that if the center is b 0' from his front door. His concerns revolve aroun · and he is especially concerned for the safety of his 2181 Flanders St., restated concerns raised by Mr. Ha this is an economic issue for home owners. He has a of which will depreciate if the center is built. er also opposed the petition, stating that there are in the area now. Becky Taylor, 20 6 Isabelle Rd., stated that she, tooI is concerned fo safety of her 4 child 'en. She also stated that when they built their home, felt it would be a residential area, and they are also concerned about the sale value of their h~me. Mr. Herbert Gidd~ns, who appeared at the Feb. 28th hearing· restated h objections to the p~ ~osal. Mr. Henry raised. On light fer screening, garding noise, he and he cited the developer must DOT surveys are not throughout the area, nor do they the 5' buffer, ty values, he cited residential areas, and further stated dents; they want th architect for the project, spoke relative to concer~ Mr. Rieg!er stated that with automotive lighting and ] would not affect any property outside ~he center. Re zed that a center can be designed so there is no probl. Beach mall as an example. With regard to drainage, tl for proper water and sewage disposal. Regarding tra at peak traffic hours' and trips per day vary grea- He stated that they have no access to the residentia it, as evidenced by their willingness to give the ci' feel is adequate protection. With respect to proI [amples of shopping centers built in conjunction with ~ cited protections via the Site Development ordinance~ it is not their intention %o adversely affect area people to shop at the center. Comm. Green with the develo derly population of mented that in thi people to get %o oned whether, in fact, property valUes do depreciate a center. He also questioned the-benefits to the e ing a center within walking distance, Mrs, Collier there are no sidewalks,~ and therefore, no way for nter without walking on U.S.91. Comm. McCain and its affect on lines for commercial lines recommend adjacent to a low opment would be an would be that %he handle the situa~ Jested Mr. Ament to~ elaborate on %he Plan for The Sava~ Mr. Ament stated that the Plan presents gui. residential locations, and commercial location gui. cess sites with 2 or more directions of access and n. ty residential area. A medium density residential d~ use. He further stated that a primary indic give serious consideration to whether U.S.~I c Comm. Enns stake. sion several years 9g. presented by ~. Amen that rezoning to B-3 its residents. Moved by Comm. Comm. Enns stated this area be given has made the first way. that this goes back to the commitment made by the Co~ regarding sound planning. In this case what has bee as reflected in the Plan for the Savannas, indicate s apparently not in the best interests of the county ~ns, seconded by Comm. McCain, to deny the petition. the future, he would hope that further developmen consideration. If the motion passes, the Commissi i~ment to see that the area is developed in a sensib Comm. Park affected by a vate corporation. type which will near future over will be interesting shopping centers that he places more weight on the fact that people a ange rather than on financial considerations of a pr yer, it is a concern that another proposal of the sa 2 of the people in the audience Will be made in the this Board has no control. He further stated that i see if these associations oppose the developments of by the private corporation, Upon roll call· CommPs. Enns~ McDain~ ~he motion was carried with woting as follows~ d P~ice. Nays: Commas. G~een and Pa~k Ayes. - Lentz Groves RR 2, Box 1143 Jensen Beach Florida 33457 Chairman St. Lucie C?unty Board of County Con~aissloners The Courthouse Ft. Pierce, FL 334~ Dear Sir: We have this date a change from Agri land located in of the request of Mr. Pete Smith for to Shopping Center on a tract of of our groves. We wish to feel this fearful that if a grove, that we w~ people trespassing of our opposition to this request. We remain Agriculture. We are most center is put this close to our a great deal of damage caused by our lands and picking our fruit. We sincerely urge present zoning in deny this request and keep the Sincerely, Lentz Groves March 10, 1978 Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 Gentlemen: I respectfully request the COunty ComMissioners deny the request for a zoning change from agricultural to heavy~'~cpmmercial by Messrs. Smith and Signs for the proposed Smithport shopping center to be located on US-1 adjacent to Ditmar Avenue in South Port St. Lucie. My home is Under construction on Lot 2, Block 116, Unit 4, just south of this proposed shopping center on Gidding Road. My objections are as follows: l) The intrusion of heavy commercial buildings into the midst of a areawhich is zoned single family residential violates the zoning integrity of the area. 2) The market value of my home would be depressed due to the proximity of this shopping center. 3) The noise generated by customers and traffic would ruin the residential tranquility. 4) The noise generated by the heavy trucks hauling in merchandisB after ~ours especially to Winn Dixie which is to be located adjacent to Ditmar Avenue would be intolerable. 5) The noise generated by the garbage trucks empting the dumpsters just north of Ditmar Avenue behind the shopping center would also be intolerable. ~) The proposed ten foot wide, 8 foot high, buffer zone is inadequate. Even the noise reduction capacity of a 100 foot wide buffer zone of full grown trees and shrubs would be questionable. 7) The proposed buffer zone would not exclude pedestrians, bikes and motor cycles, even if autos were excluded. 8) 9) lO) There would be an incr~ into the shopping cent~ Furthermore, this loca~ it does not abut the ii hazzards. There ms an shopping center, South I object to the odorS treatment plant. ~ase of autos in our subdivision searching for a backway ~r - to avdid the traffic hazzards of US-1. ~ion is not an acceptable site for a shopping center as ~tersection of two major roads, thus producing traffic acceptable site within 1 mile also announced as a proposed Smithport is not needed. Rich will be from time to time eminate from the sewage General Development Corporation March 14, 1978 David. A. Doheny Senior Vice President and General Counsel Commissioner John B. Park St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Room 404 Fort Pierce FL 33450 Re: Zoning Change from A-1 to B-3 Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines Dear Mr. Park: The purpose of this letter is to protest the subject zoning change. General Development Corporation is the owner of 50% or more of the area within 300 feet of the boundary of the tract sought to be rezoned and in addition is the deve- loper of the immediate adjacent single family area. This single family area was platted and developed as an estate area and the proposed zoning to B-3 we consider totally inap- propriate to have bordering these single family lots. Such zoning will permit development that has the potential to be- come a nuisance to those residents of the area and will have an adverse affect on property values. For example, the shopping center proposed by the applicants will adversely affect adjacent properties because of noise, lights, the potential of sewage run-off into the adjacent drainage ditch, the potential for traffic access through Dittmar Avenue and other noxious and offensive activities. Alternatives should be considered by the County Commission in this zoning matter. One, for example, is to zone the tract immediately adjacent to the single family residential property in a manner which would permit less intensive uses. Uses which would not haye the potential for creating a nuisance such as would be produced by the current plan for a large shopping center that would require deliveries by large trucks at all hours of the nightland heavy traffic causing noiSe and light problems associated with evening shopping. Continued ...... 1tll South Bayshore Drive, Miami. Ftorida 33131 Telephone 305 350 I261 Commissioner ~.< March 14, 1978 Page -2- We request that the County Commission take these matters into consideration and that the requested rezoning be denied. WAYNE L. ALLEN Vice President & Assistant Secretary WLA/hw C~nt!e~en~ The Port St. Lucie Civic Lepgue would l~ke to enter into the record {his statement objecting to rezoning action which would permit The building of %he PropOsed Smithpor? Shopping Center. ! The PSL Civic League is an association of 500-p!us members~ resi- dents of the city of Port St. Lucie and of the county. One of its basic purposes is to be a watchdog of sorts for the ordinary citizen of the community to speak forth in behalf of planning it believes to be of benefit to the communi%y~ and to likewise speak up in opposition to planning it does not feel -would be constructive. Its charter provide and management mattel circumstances where elsewhere. The League feels tl the south part of the ditions in this field s that it shall do this not only in tax and fiscal s at The City Hall level, but also in any other ne common welfare is concerned, in The city or proliferation of shopping center facilities in county has proceeded to such a deoree that ad- deserve close scrutiny. The development in ouestion would, in the League !. Impinge in a non-~ of Port St. Lucie lovely homes and screened~ a shoppi noisy~ cluttered, ~-ould not coose ~! opinion, )nstructive fashion on a growing residential area This rapidly-developing residential area has ill have many more shortly. No mazter how well- ng center such as Smithport proposes presents a [irty back to this residential area. Most of us e rear view of a shopping center for a front-door neighbor. If %here v~as some cr.~ca~ need to be served bv a shoppinc can- %er a~ this location there might be some j~=*~cation. But~ actually building this shopping center a+~ this location would merely add to the highway cluzzer while creating an environment which would make that resi- dential ~ of Port St Lucie m~h less desirable sec ~_~ on - - We feel there are two other possibilities of neighborhood pollution. Putting ~ shopping center of this size at this location raises the ques~ tion of holding and disposing of storm waters and sewage effluent. If disposal tecnhiques are not COMPLETELY adequate the only place for such liquids to seep is inmo the drainage ditch to the west of the property and thence on down through the residential district. ADd we suspect that with only highway access provided for traffic, pressures wilt build for a traffic pattern through the residential area. The League's concern is entirely with what we choose to call the "Quality of Living~' at the point where this proposed center would make contact with the City of Port St. Lucie. We think this center would diminish this Quality of Living, it would intrude into an area of quality homes, and it would not be desirable. The Le gu~ s=m_ the Commission to not permit the requested zoning THE ST I ~ LEAGUE Herbert O. Tschudy: preside · This s~s~m~n was ~ ~n~ ~ *~ ~ ~ approved by ~ Directors of the League at their March 9~ 1978 meeting. 305-334-0097 305-878-0097 February 21, 1978 St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 ATTN: Mr. Weldon Lewis County Administrator re: Rezoning Application by Peter C.. Smith 'and Wayne Sines Dear Mr. Lewis: Enclosed are comments prepared by our City Planner on the referenced rezoning application, for the consideration of the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing on February 28, 1978. Mr. Michael Szunyog, City Planner, will appear on behalf of the City of Port St. Lucie to present these comments. Thank you for your consideration. j.~'~'~Elmer Cox City Manager enclosures BC :MS :wr I~ CO~v]iSS!ONER 'I~ ZON!~G [~ ATTORNEY [] ~ ...... ~ ROAD DEPT~ ~ DEV. COuxg MEMORANDUM TO: F ROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Elmer Cox, City Manager Members of the Planning & Zoning Board Michael Szunyog, City Planner PROPOSED SMITHPORT SHOPPING CENTER FEBRUARY 17, 1978 BACKGROUND The City has been invited to comment upon the proposed Smithport Shopping Center to be built on the west side of U.S. 1 between Lynngate Drive and Port St. Lucie Boulevard, within the County. The center is to contain 250,000 square feet when fully developed. (Exhibit 1) The proposal received a unanimous approval by the County Planning & Zoning Commission in January and will be considered by the County Commission on February 28, 1978. COMMENT The development of the center is not objectionable in itself. However, there is the possibility that access to the center would be gained through the residential area adjoining the center on the south, within the ~ity. (Exhibit 2). In the design of the subdivision (P.L. UNIT 4), the center line of Dittmar Avenue was made to run east-west along the city limit line. This means that one-half of the right-of-way of Dittmar is within the County, and therefore, could be built and used as access. Such an access point would be desirable from the developer's point of view in that persons using this approach would not have to travel on U.S. 1 to get to the center. Custo- mers using ~his access would likely be traveling from the south agd western portions of the City on Port St. Lucie Bouleyard or on Gowin Drive. It could also be approached on Morningside Boulevard and Deming Avenue. The residen~ contains api the $60,000 activity i.n in the past The possibl to the safe' area. The only, and w~ access were larly, with a high spee~ would have condition. A shopping between 12, lng sources the base of 1,000 squar 1. Flor 2. Inst 3. Orla 4. U.S. 5. Flor While the percen through the resi figure of ten pe 1,500 cars per d the residential of traffic on lo accommodate it. Another aspect o on the value of shopping center Road; Lots 1 and 23 and 24, Block estimate of the ;iai area is zoned R-1 and currently ,roximately twelve (12) houses, in and over price range. Building this general area-.has been increasing few months. access would be highly detrimental y and welfare of the residents of the treets were designed as local streets ~uld become collector streets if any permitted. Flanders Road, particu- a long, straight stretch, would become . throughway. The many turns that :o be made also constitute an unsafe enter of the size proposed will generate ;50 and 15,675 trips per day. The follow- were used in calculating this range with calculation being trips generated per feet of floor space: da DOT Fifth Distri.ct =.~12,350 trips (49.4 per 1,000 square feet) .tute of Transportation Engineers (49.9 per 1,000 square feet) 12,475 trips Ldo Urban Area Transportation Study - 13,400 trips (53.6 per 1,000 square-~£eet) Average 15,650 trips (.62.6 per 1,000 square feet) .da DOT Trip Ends Generation Research- (62.7 per 1,000 square feet) :age of these trips that would utilize access [ential area cannot be calculated, even a · cent (10%) would generate between 1,200 and Ly, in addition to traffic generated within Lrea itself. This is an undesirable amount :al, residential streets not designed to this proposal concerns the adverse affect esidential lots directly adjoining the ite, namely, Lot 1, Block 114 on Abcor 10, Block 117 on Dittmar Avenue; and Lots 115 on Dittmar Avenue. Again, no accurate ~conomic loss to ~e-~wn~e.~s of these lots can be calculate~ at this time. However, the adverse affects could be controlled through proper site planning, including screening and buffering along the p. roperty line Of the center. Lot 1, Block 114. however, will be rendered almost en%irely useless because ~t will have almost 160 feet frontage' directly on the rear of the Shopping center. I would urge tha~ the St. Lucie County Commission seriously consider these conditions which would have such a detrimental affect on the welfare of the residents of the City of Port St. Lucie. I am sure that, in the spirit of cooperation, a solution can be found which will satisfactorily address these potential problems. attachments II I 0ol Morningside Boulevard Port St. Luc[e, Florida 33452 305-334-0097 305-878-0097 Febr'uary 23, 1978 ATTN: re: St. Lucie Connt~ 2300 Virginia Avlnue Room 104 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. Weldun Lewis, P.E. County Administrator REZONING REQUEST BY MR. PETER SMITH AND MR. WAYNE SI-NES Dear Mr. Lewis: The Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Port St. Lucie wishes to support the comments of our City Planner, Mr. Michael Szunyog, regarding the referenced rezoning appli- cation. We Wish to reemphasize our concern for the de- trimental affect that a shopping center of this size and type would have not only on the capacity of U.S. 1, but more particularly on the adjacent residential property within the City ~f Port St. Lucie. The possibility of access through the residential areas to the south of the shopping center site would pose a threat to the safety and welfare of City residents by over burdening purely local t. horou~hfares. In addition, the close proximity of such a shDpping center would create air, noise, and other forms Of pollution, as well as visual blight. We urge the zze County Commission to reconsider this requ~ en the fact that the site is surrounded on three sid either existing or proposed residential development the City. It would be far more de- sireable ar sistent for the sake of long range planning to maintain ti integrity of the existing residential de- velopment by allowing it to continue to the north into the subject property. We appreciat~ th sure the Commiss spirit of cooper are submitted. Sincerely, Vaughn LewiS~ Chairman Planning & ZOning Board City of Port St. Lucie cc: E. Cox Ho. norable File is opportunity to comment and we are ion will consider our comments in the ation and coordination in which they ! Mayor and Members of City Council General Development £orpora lion February 23, 1978 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mr. John B. Chairman Board of St. Lucie 2300 Virginia Room 404 Fort Pierce, Flor:.da 33450 Re: Zoning Chang~ Petition Iof ] Dear Mr. Park:~ ~ From A-1 to B-3 Deter Smith and Wayne Sines General property ject petition. developer of This letter ~t-Corporation is the owner of seven parcels of to the area requested to be rezoned by the sub- ~neral Development Corporation is also the [djacent area within the City of Port St. Lucie. register our objection to the proposed rezoning. The area to We understand proposed detrimental, Avenue. This through a planned and of the street ing center wo :oned borders a single family residential area. shopping center planned for the site includes a ~om Dittmar Avenue. This would be extremely ~lieve, to the single family area bordering Dittmar quiet residential street with indirect access of other residential streets in the area. It was an estate area and contains oversized lots. None designed to carry the amount of traffic a shopp- 'enerate. Additi°nally, ~ii that a landsc Dittmar to sc which is the ~rea We request that ti sideration in the: WLA/hw South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Flerida 33 31 ~ould recommend that if the rezoning is approved )uffer area be required along the north side of the shopping center from the residences in Unit 4, immediately bordering the proposed site. ~e County Commission take these concerns into con- _r deliberations on the requested zoning. Sincerely, Telephone 305 350 1231 General Development Corporation! ~'io A. Traub Senior Vice Preetdent CommeroiaJ Properties Divieion February 22, 1978 Board of Co~nt~ County of 2300 Virginia Room 104 Fort Pierce, F Gentlemen: Re: Pendin~ Z Proposed Smithpbrt It has been in the new me as to m of a shoppi In order to position, p shall be an whose size southeast c be designed clude a gro specialty s Walton Road will be inc which will an agreemen ping center of a DRI a~ center woui As to this under sepa~ Assistant Board of Commissioners ucie venue orida, 33450 ning Application by Peter Smith for hopping Center on US 1 to be called Shopping Center led to my attention by reading various accounts rs that certain statements were attributed to pany's prospective plans for the development enter in the City of Port St. Lucie. rify General Development Corporation's e be advised that within the near future, we cing the development of a shopping center, be approximately 250,000 square feet, on the r of US 1 and Walton Road. This center will meet the needs of the community and may in- store, drug store and various clothing and s. The site, which has access to US 1 and a part of other land which we own and which rated within a forthcoming DRI application ude the impact of this center. Pursuant to t~ the Division of State Planning, this shop- permitted to be constructed prior to the filing ation. We anticipate construction for the gin in early 1979. any's position in regard to a zoning application, cover, Mr. Wayne Allen, Vice President and al Counsel, shall be sending a letter to the Commissioners stating our substantive position~ Continued... 1111 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Floridai 33131 Telephone 305 350 1271 Board of Count February 22, 1 Page Two I hope this sh~ any questiOns, EAT/gmp cc: Gary Ament Commissioners ~78 ds light upon our plans, and if the Board has please feel free to call upon me. Sincerely, Eric A. Traub RESOLUTION 78 - A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE RECObR~ENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF PORT ST.-LUCIE, FLORIDA, CON- CERNING THE ZONING REQUEST OF PETER SMITH AND WAYNE SINES, FOR THE PROPOSED SMITHPORT SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED ON THE ~ST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, BETWEEN LYNNGATE DRIVE AND p~ORT ST~ LUCIE BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY CDUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA - l. That the City Council of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida recognizes the desire of St. Lucie County to maintain an orderly and attractive business growth along U. S. Highway No. 1, and further recognizes that the normal development of lands located on U. S. Highway No. 1, must be business oriented in a manner not to interfere with the orderly development of residential communities within its proximity, and that the proposal as submitted has thor- oughly been examined by the members of the Port St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Board, and its City Planner. ~TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council reaffirms the actions taken by the City of Port St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Board, as set forth by its Chairman Vaughn Lewis in its letter dated February 23, 1978 to St. Lucie County to the attention of Weldon Lewis, P.E., County Administrator, and requests that the St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners consider and honor this recommend- ation. A copy of said letter of February 23, 1978 is ~.-~attached hereto-and made a part of this Resolution. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida~ this day of , 1978. ATTEST: ~ndra C. Krause', City Clerk APPRO~;D AS T~O.v~O~M: Sper~er B. Gilbert, City At~torney APPROVED: William B. McChesney, Mayor I MEMORANDUM TO: County Admi ni strator FROM: County Development Coordinator DATE: February 16, 1978 SUBJECT: January 26, 1978, Planning and Zoning Commission Rezoning Public Hearing' Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines SITUATION: The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide a summary of events related to the above referenced subject. The rezoning petition of Peter Smith .and Wayne Sines was one of six rezoning petitions considered by the County Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of January 26, 1978. As I normally do, I reviewed all six rezoning petitions and furnished members of the Planning and Zoning Commission with written comments regarding the petitions. These comments were first rec~e~ved by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission immediately prior to the meeting. On January 23, 1978, the attorney for the petitioners, Mr. Gerald James, requested a copy of my comments regarding the rezoning petition of his clients, Mr. Smith and Mr. Sines. As a courtesy, I furnished Mr. James with a copy of my comments. For your information, a copy of these comments is attached. At the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this petition, Mr. Peter Smith presented a four page letter to the Planning and Zoning CommiSsion which contained a review of my comments. Mr. Smith proceeded, during the petitioners' presentation, to read his four page letter (copy attached). Mr. Smith's letter was not presented to me before the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Consequently, I had had no chance to review his comments. To the best of my knowledge, members of the Planning and Zonin§ Commission had also not had a chance to review Mr. Smith's written comments prior to the public hearing. Also making presentations on behalf of the petitioners were Mr. Gerald James, Archi- tect Henry Riegler~(who spoke with regard to traffic generation of a shopping center), and Mr.'James M. Carroll, a representative of Winn Dixie stores, who spoke regarding factors Winn Dixie takes into account before selecting a locatiOn for any of its retail outlets. The rezoning petition of Mr. Smith and Mr. Sines stated simply that they wished to rezone a tract totalling about 28 acres to B-3 for the purpose of Constructing a community shopping center. It should also be noted that a 200 foot strip of this 28 acres is already zoned B-3 and the remainder is z6ned A-1. As you know, I analyze rezoning petitions based solely upon the ultimate use to which the land can be put. In this case, a shopping center of approximately 300,000 square feet could be built on the site. Any site plans and other information which are presented at the time of the rezoning public hearing are not legally E~ ,?',T---ii'--v ..... / ~(6), Mr. Smith seems to indicate that, because my basic analysis is not correct in other areas (this will be addressed later), my trip generation figures are also inadequate. Without presenting any factual statements, Mr. Smith refers to the fact that U.S.1 handles much more traffic in other areas. In this case Mr. Smith is right. However, in these undefined areas, U.S.I is either operating over capacity or is not operating at its design Level of Service. I would hope that travelling on U.S.1 in St. Lucie County does not eventually become as harrowing and time consuming an experience as in Mr. Smith's other areas. Specific sources for trip generation rates are as follows: (a) Florida D.O.T. Trip Ends Generation Research (3 annual reports)- The weighted average trip generation rate for shopping centers of 130.,000-400,000 square feet GLA is 62.7 trips/1,O00 square feet GLA (b) Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation and Infor- -mational Report (1976) reflects a trip generation rate of 49.9 trips/1,O00 square feet GLA for shopping centers betWeen 200,000 and 299,000 square feet GLA. (c) Orlando Traffic Engineering Department Trip Generation Study (1975) reflects these trip generation rates for community shopping centers: (1) Orlando-53.6/1,O00 square feet GLA (2) 5th FDOT Distirct-49.4/1,O00 square feet GLA (3) U.S.-62.6/1,000 square feet GLA. (d) Barr, Dunlop'and Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering Analysis for U.S. iHome of Florida, Inc. utilizes a trip generation rate of 67.7 trips/1,O00 square feet GLA for community shopping centers. 3 Even though it islnot indicated ih ~h~ ~!nutes~ I believe Mr. Riegler based his trip generation on a rate of 40 trips/1,O00 square feet GLA and he used the D~ban Land Institute (ULI) as a source. However, it appears that thi~!figure was misinterpreted since it does not apply to community shopping centers. Even though ULI's Shopping Center Development Handbook (1977) does refer to an average trip generation rate of 40 trips/1,O00 square feet, this average figure only applies to regional shopping centers and is based upon a study by Alan M Voorhees and Associates for the Bridgewater, N.J., Regional Center. It is an accepted fact that regional shopping centers generate less trips/1,O00 square feet GLA than do community shopping centers. In other words, the application of regional shopping center trip generation rates to community shopping centers is invalid. (2) Location and Market: My comments which questionned the need for additional commercial zoning and commercial land use in this vicinity at the present time were certainly not intended to reflect negatively upon the market analysis techniques or development experience of the petitioners. If my comments were construed in such a manner, then I take this opportunity to apologize for the record. My comments were intended to present the existing situation with regard to commercial development~ Comments (1), (2), (3), and (5) in Mr. Smith's letter appear to be an attempt to refute my apparent inference that there is no existing market demand for his proposed community shopping center. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith did not think it appropriate to make public his plans for phasing and tenant mix until the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Obviously, as I stated earlier in this Memorandum, it is difficult to assess information which is not available. It should be understood that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the petitioners' intentions of building a community shopping center. However, comments (1), (3), and (5) refer several times to a supermarket and drugstore which I assume will constitute Phase I development. These phasing plans and tenant arrangemen'ts have no legal standing with regard to rezoning consideration. They may be helpful however in understanding the petitioners' intentions. It was unfortunate, from my point of view, that this information was not made available to me earlier. In any event, Mr. Smith seems to rely upon his Phase I plans to refute my comments regarding "support population." This basis is invalid since I utilized potential total GLA as a basis for comments and not a Phase I plan of 130,000 square feet GLA. I would be extremely shortsighted if I did not consider total impact based upon completion of the enLire-facility. Mr. Smith stated, as reflected in the minutes, that a primary market of some 30,000-50,000 people would be needed for the entire center. This statement seems to support, rather than refute, my comment of a required support population of 45,000-55,000 persons. In fact, if you apply my support population ratio to 250,000 square feet GLA rather than the potential 300,000 square feet GLA, my estimate is 41,000 people. For comparison purposes, the Urban Land Institute (Shopping Center Development HandbOok) estimates a minimum required support population of 40,000-150,000 for community shopping centers of 100,000-300,000 square feet GLA. Obviously then, I was not considering how many people Winn-Dixie requires before it will locate a retail outlet, but I was attempting t~ raise the question: Is such a large scale rezoning justified by existing or near future population? If the petitioners~ are convinced that the rezoning is warranted and that a community ~hopping center is economically feasible, then I would certainly a~ree that it is not within the accepted role of government to "legislate" ec~homic feasibility. However, I do object to the misleading conclusions and statements directed at me in Comments (1), (3), and (5). (3) Strip Commercial Zoning: In Comment (4), Mr. Smith has included a brief discussion of the existing shallow strip commercial zoning situation adjacent to U.S.1. The Board is familiar with this problem, not only along U.S,1, but adjacent to most major highways in the county. The Board is. also familiar with this department's continuing objection to continuing shallow strip commercial development. Mr. Smith somehow draws the conclusion that I am in favor of strip commercial development within the exi§ting 200 foot strip adjacent to U.S.1. I cannot understand what line of reasoning Mr. Smith followed to reach this conclusion. COMMENTS: Within the Savannas Planning Area, there are currently 901.8 acres of land. zoned for commercial purposes. By comparison, only 296.5 acres of land in the Savannas Planning Area are actually used for commercial purposes. In essence, this means that the Savannas Planning Area is either greatly "overzoned" for commercial uses or the commercial zoning is not adequate, e.g., size, location, etc., for commercial development. Evidently, the latter conclusion applies in the case of this rezoning. Perhaps, we should consider eliminating equivalent amounts of shallow strip commercial zoning when more realistic zoning configurations of shape and size are granted. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with planning poli~ies reflected in The Plan for the Savannas. I am uncertain as to the intention of Comment (7) in Mr. Smith's letter. The proposed rezoning is also premature in view of existing commercial facilities, programmed commercial facilities, large amounts of vacant commercially zoned land already available along U.S.1, and previously documented access problems along U.S.1. This statement is based upon analysis of the total rezoning, not plans for phasing or specific uses'. Commercial location guidelines would dictate that a facility with the potential size which could be located on this property should be located with direct access to at least two (2) major arterial or collector roadways. The proposed large area of commercial zoning also appears to be potentially incompatible with low density residential development adjacent to the project on two sides. CONCLUSION: Hopefully, this Memorandum will resolve questions and what I consider to be the undesira,ble situation which developed at the January, 1978, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. If my comments to the Commission were misinterpreted then it is extremely 6nfortunate that this occurred. If my comments to ithe Commission were not misinterpreted and the events at the meeting were an attempt to create an adversary proceeding situation, then this is eve~ ~more unfortunate than simple misinterpretation. Rational progress cannot ~e made through confrontation. Instead, progress in this ' county is dependenit-~ upon fairness and competency in'both ~he public and private sectors. This Memorandum should be considered in place of comments which I usually make to thle Board at the time of the rezoning public hearing. JGA/ja Attachments 3222 C TER: $222 sOuTH U.S. 1 · P.O. BOX 4373 (305) 465-1440 · FORT PIERCE, FLA. 33450 ,~ January 26, Plannin~ & Zoning Commission St. Lucre County Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Gentlemen: RE: Rezoning Application 27.7 Acre Tract On The. West Side Of U. S. # 1 South Of Lyngate Drive We reviewed Mr. J. Gary Ament's report (Section 7 of his January 26, 1978 Memorandum) on the above-referenced applica- tion, and have the following comments: (1) We assume the regional shopping mall in Martin County wh$ch Mr. Ament referred to in his report was the one prgposed by the De Bartolo interests. If this is the ca~e, it should be pointed out that De Bartolo has apparently shelved his plans for the project, as con- fi~med by the f~ct that all or part of the land in question is currently on the market for sale. There- fore, De Bartolo's proposed mall should not be con- si~ered vis-a-vis our application. (2) fac tel Dex E. fo~ Ph~ un~ 15( als an~ drt ter 19[ on De~ fr¢ :ewise, we assume that the "250,000 S.F. shopping ~ility immediately East of U. S. # 1" which Mr. Ament 'ers to in his report is the one proposed by General ~elopment Corporation. Recent discussions with Mr. A. Traub, Vice President of Commercial Development 'General Development Corporation, indicate that .se I of their proposed mall will not be completed :il 1981-82, and initially, it will contain only ~000 to 180,000 S.F. General Development Corporation .o indicated that they are planning a "specialty" mall, · as such, it may not contain a major supermarket or .g chain, which will be two of the so-called "anchor!~ · ants in our shopping center. Therefore, due to the 1-82 completion date time factor, and their emphasis "specialty" type tenants, we do not feel that General · elopment Corporation's project will conflict with ours ~m a marketing standpoint as suggested by Mr. Ament. Planning & Zonin~ January 26, 1978 Page No. 2 (3) Mr. Ament's assume that development market dema actual succ national ch following a space in ou is secured: commission ,statement "It would appear reasonable to existing and already underway commercial isatisfies the existing and near future nd." does not'seem consistent with our ~iss in securing lease commitments from ~ins. To date, we have lined-up the nchor tenants Who are willing to lease r shopping center as soon as the rezoning (a) (b) (c) (d) Winn-Dixie - 25,600 SF supermarket Eckerd Drugs -- 0 SF 10,8 0 drug store Cobb Theatres -- 10,000 twin theatre At least two fast food restaurant chains. Further, we are currently negotiating with two depart- 'ment store chains, a national shoe chain, and other major tenants who desire to establish stores in our shopping center -- all scheduled for early 1979 store openings. (4) (5) The total a amounts to acres alrea the frontag U;S.#lr ever, that the typical be construc For example require a p consisting walk in fro feet, and a rear of the Obviously, kind of dev mercial dep favor along In light of this level of pre-leasing activity, it is apparent that Mr. Ament has not accurately researched the actual market demand for an additional community shopping center in the Port St. Lucie area. rea that we are requesting rezoning for 27.73 acres, of which approximately 5.4 dy has a commercial zoning designation, i.e. e having a depth of 200 feet along the ight-of-way. Sound planning dictates, how- a much greater depth is required to avoid "strip" commercial development that can ted on land having a depth of only 200 feet. , a 25,600 SF Winn-Dixie supermarket will ~rcel having a minimum depth of 570 feet, ~f a 300 foot parking lot, a 15 foot side- nt of the store, a building depth of 160 minimum of a 75 foot service area to the store, plus appropriate landscaping. it would be impossible to accommodate this ~=lopment within the existing 200 foot com- th of the property, as Mr. Ament seems to u. s. ~l. Likewise, Mr. Ament is suggesting that our site of approximately 28 acres will "permit a shopping facility containing ~pproximately 300,000 square feet of gross leaseable area." Our preliminary site plan, which has been approved by our major tenants and their architects, Planning & ZoDing~ommission January 26, 1978 Page No. 3 shows an which as Phase our shop] populati~ accurate pleted b which in( of the their ad( shopping (6)~Inasmuch ~ gross le~ kate not traffic per day. center m time in existing amount center, greater hundreds coast of shopping should bc traffic residents drive as shopping (7) And last, request i reflected by Mr. Am Developme East of o of the fa to the We ~pproximate build-out of 250,000 SF, of Ly 130,000 SF will be constructed initially I. Therefore, Mr. Ament's statement that )ing center would "require a minimum support )n of 45,000 to 55,000 persons" is not as confirmed by the market studies com- such firms as Winn-Dixie and Eckerd Drug licate that the existing 15,000 population Jrt St. Lucie area is sufficient to justify itional store location in our proposed center. as Mr. Ament's figures for our project's .seable area and minimum support population ~Ccurate, the same can be said for his ~rojections of approximately 15,000 vehicles Allowing for future growth, our shopping .y generate 15,000 vehicles per day at some .he future, and there is no reason why the four-laned U. S. # 1 can not handle this traffic in front of our proposed shopping s the Highway is currently handling much 'olumes of traffic in front' of literally of shopping centers up and down the East Florida. Further, by having another major center in the Port St. Lucie area, there a proportionate reduction in the total articularly along U. S. ~ 1 because the of the South Port area will not have to far as they presently do to reach a major center. we are unclear as to why our rezoning s "inconsistent with planning policies in The Plan for The Savannas" as suggested ent, especially in light of General nt's extensive land development activities ur proposed shopping center, to say nothing ct that our site is located several miles st of the Savannas. Planning & Z~ing~..Dm~i~si6~ January 26, 78 Page No. 4 In conclusion, we feel that the subject 27.7 acres will make an excel%ent site for a community shopping center, the need for ~hich presently exists as confirmed by the fact that var~aus major retail chains desire to lease space therein_! Accordingly, we respectfully request your favorable consideration of our rezoning application in order that this Important project may move ahead on a timely basis. Respectfully submitted, PE'~~._~C. sMITH & ASSOCIATES Peter C. Smith President jap cc: Mr. J. Ga .~y Ament MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: County DATE: January SUBJECT: January (2) DONNELLY (A Planningland Zoning Commission }evelopment Coordinator 20, 1978 26, 1978, Rezoning Public Hearings -! to B-3) Existing Land Use Future Land Use: COMMENTS: (3) Existing Land Use: FutUre Land Use: COMMENTS- (4) MCNEILL (B-2 Existing Land Use: Future Land Use: This site is vacant as is land to the east and north. Immediately to the south is a funeral home with personal and business services and low density residential to the west across U. S. 1. Highway commercial use is adjacent to U. S. 1 with low/medlum density residential to the east of the proposed rezoning. Medium density residential and neighborhood/general commercial. The prc osed rezoning to B-3 will deepen existing shallow strip commer( al zoning to permit development of a small shopping center. The sil plan for this shopping center will be considered by the Board ~ County Commissioners in the near future. MEENAN (R-lC to A-l) The proposed rezoning is currently vacant with scattered highway commercial adjacent'to U. S. 1 to the east and widely scattered low density residential surrounding the pffoposed rezoning. Low/medium density residential development. The pro)osed rezoning is not inconsistent With future land use plans f)F the area. As in all cases where agricultural zoning is sought in a developing area, opinions of residents of the area should e the prime determining factor. to B-4) The proposed rezoning is currently occupied by a single family dwelling and neighbor.hood commercial establishment adjacent to Virginia Avenue. The remainder of the area on both the north and south sides of Virginia Avenue is developed in low density residential development with personal and business services immediately to the west of the proposed rezoning adjacent to Virginia Avenue. Low/medium density residential development. ~11~ ~U I ~IIU~[- ~¥~llU~. II1~ IlldJUl I g~ Ul glll~" IOIIU Wlllgll 1~ currently zoned B-I is either vacant or used primarily for resi- dential u~s. ~r~~j ~~ THE Published Dail Fort Pier~ STATE OF FLORI DA COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE Before the undersi~ Marvin DeBolt or Kathl. he/she is Publishen F Tribune, a daily newsp~ Lucie County, Florida vertisement, being a . .~. in the matter of... ?.e.t:e.z was published in said nc 2/] Affiant further says that th Fort Pierce. in said St. Lucie C heretofore been continuously p day except Saturday and has post office in Fort Pierce, in se year next preceding the first pr a nd affiant further says that he or_ c0_r~po~ti0n any discount, r, · securing this advertisement for sworn to and SU~bscribed before This ~-:..-.Z. ~3.t~..._~ .... day of.. ~ ......... A.D ...... . ........ (SEAIc,) ~ Notary Public I TRIBUNE and Sunday-- Except Saturday .~St. Lucie County, Florida [ned authorit.v personally appeared ~en K. LeClair, who on oath says that Ublisher's Secretary of The News ~per published at Fort Pierce in St. that the attached copy of ad- in the .....................Court, ~spaper in the issues of ............. 3/78 ; said News Tribune is a newspaper published at )flnty, Florida, and that the said newspaper has ]blished in said St. Lucie County, Florida, eaeh een entered as second class mail matter at the it] St. Lucie County, Florida, for a period of one blication of the attached copy of advertisement; ?as neither paid nor promised any person, firm .~bate, commission or refund for the purpose of publication~ in the said newspaper. me NOTAP. Y PUBLIC STA~ OF FLOriDA AT LA~G~ MY COMMISSION ~XPI?~S . DEC. 1 3 19 79 ~OND~ ~U GENE~L INS .UNDE~W[I~t Board of County~Commissioners 2-28-78 Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines by their Atty. Gerald James from A-1 (agricult approximately 3/4 to enable the deve The Plannin¢ Memo from Ar ment is incompatib sides; that it doe U. S. ~1 cannot ha tent with plannin¢ Atty. Gerald 27 acre area, with 250,000 sq. ft. sh ute) to B-3 (arterial business) for property located mile N. oh Port St. Lucie Blvd. on west side of U.S. ~opment of a large, 250,000 sq. ft., shopping center. & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the petition. ea Development Coordinator indicated the proposed develop- ~e with low density residential development adjacent on tw, not have access from two major arterial roadways; that nidle the traffic to be generated and that it is inconsis- policies reflected in the Plan for the Savannas. James represented the petitioners and said this was a 5.5a~ady zoned B-3 and they are proposing a 228,000- pping center to be completed in two phases. Access will be from U. S. ~1 On the west side and 30' on the oth adequate for good and Eckerd. Hank Rieglez will actually reli other stores. He Mr. Michael although the deve! a d that they would remove Dittmar Ave. as a south access. t ere is a 100' buffer with 10' .vegetated buffer on one sid r. He said the present strip zoning on U. S. ~1 was not .evelopment. This center will house stores like Winn Dixi addressed himself to the traffic problem say~g that it ye traffic by keeping lochl residents from traveling to oted they were planning well over the parking requirement zunyog, Port St. Lucie Planner was present and said that pets claim they will not use Dittmar Ave, there could be .pressure to bear c~rned about or the use'of'Dittmar Ave. in the future and he was con- rty values. It was note. that the center line of Dittmar Ave. is in the corporate limits of the Cit' of Port St. Lucie but it was not clear about the other h Herb Giddin's who is building a house in Block 2 said he and some neighbors wish th~ zoning to stay as it is. Bob Seeley, perties; whether the developers wo Com. Park a look ah site deve Don I~ite, concerned about t in permitting tra centers in the ar GDC Manager, said he was concerned ~bout adjoining pro- iDC had platted only half the road (Dittma~ Ave.) and whet ~!ld adhere strictly to a site development plan. ~sured him that the Board was going to emphasize a closer [0pment plans in the future. POrt St. Lucie-River Park Homeowners Assoc, said he was %e traffic impact on U. S. ~1 - that the DOT is very slow [ific signals, and thought there were suffificent shopping ~ ~OW. Raymond Par} roads in Country objecting. Mr. Harry Dc on U.S. ~1 and Mr. shopping center h( Mr. Tony Trz sq. ft. sh~p~i._ngc~ of Walton Road on without a DRI. alt] Mr. Richard one shopping cent( plans and a good Com. Park s prise and would h~ buffer zones, etc ~s, lot 3, Block 115, said he would object to any access %oad Estates, and said there were others in the area also ~we, River Park resident added his concern about traffic Sorenson said that although he had no objection to the would object to Dittmar beinq used as an access road. ub, Sr. Vice Pres. GDC, spoke of their plans for a 250,00C ~nter on 53 acres to be presented in 1979 at the SE corner U.S. #! and that they had permission to do this developme~ ~ough they must acknowledge the impact. Swerling, Vice President, GDC said the area will support ~r of this size, but not two, and they do have e~ten~ive ~rack record. ~id the Board could not be partial to any one private ente~ we to base their decision on access roads, storage lanes, W: ~mond ParKs, lot 3, Block 115, said he would object to any access .n Country ~oad Estates, and said there were others in the area also ir. Harry Dowe, River Park resident added his concern about traffic ~1 and Mr. Sorenson said that although he had no objection to the Lg center he would object to Dittmar being, used as an access road. aub, Sr. Vice Pres. GDC, spoke of their plans for a 250,00C enter on 53 acres to be presented in 1979 at the SE corner .on Road ox U.S. ~1 and that they had permission to do this developme~ a DRI. alt.hough they mus~ acknowledge the impact. [ Swerling, Vice President, GDC said the area will support ~er of this size, but not two, and they do have extenpive track record. aid the Board could not be partial to any one private ente~ ave to base their decision on access roads, storage lanes, Mr. Tony Tm shpp~-_ng¢ 'Mr. Richar~ hopping cen~ and a good Com. Par]< and would zones, et Ransom Til _n the area ~he shoppin [t which he fine reco not oppos Com. Park sidential gler said area. on referred to the only two roads the County has managed over the years: they being Cane Slough and Whlton Road and ~ center planned by GDC will be at the corner of Walton and felt was better since it would be on a corner and pointed rd of achievement of GDC, although except for these points ed to the other proposal. looking at the proposal said he didn't think 10' buffer on side was enough and asked if it could be increased to 40' they can eliminate the rear parking or make it into a gras~ Com. ~Cai~. asked if the City of Port St,. Lucie would accept a 5' stri ttmar and tr. See!ey said he didn't know. Moved by Com. Price to table for two weeks to settle the matter of ar Road primarily, was seconded by Com. Enns, and upon roll call, i. mously carried. General l]evelopment Corporation Eric A. Traub Senior Vice Prea[dent Corn merciai Properties February 22, 1978 Board of Cou ty Commissioners County of St Lucie 2300 Virgini Avenue Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida, 33450 Gentlemen: Re: Pending Zoning Application by Peter Smith for Proposed Shopping Center on US 1 to be called Smithpo~t Shopping Center It has been ~alled to my attention by reading various accounts in the newspqpers that certain statements were attributed to me as to my dompany's prospective plans for the development of a shoppin In order to position, pl shall be ann whose size ~ southeast cc be designed clude a groc specialty s Walton Road will be inc which will an agreemen ping center of a DRI ap~ center would As to this c under separa Assistant Ge Board of Cot center in the City of Port St. Lucie. larify General Development Corporation's ase be advised that within the near future, we uncing the development of a shopping center, 11 be approximately 250,000 square feet, on the · ner of US 1 and Walton Road. This center will Co meet the needs of the community and may in- ry store, drug store and various clothing and res. The site, which has access to US 1 and is a part of other land which we own and which · porated within a forthcoming DRI application Lclude the impact of this center. Pursuant to with the Division of State Planning, this shop- .s permitted to be constructed prior to the filing .ication. We anticipate construction for the begin in early 1979. ~mpany's position in regard to a zoning application, .~e cover, Mr. Wayne Allen, Vice President and ~eral Counsel, shall be sending a letter to the nty Commissioners stating our substantive position. Continued.., 1111 South Bayshore Drive. Miami, Florida 3313'1 Telephone 305 350 1271 Board of County Commissioners February 22, 1978 Page-Two I hope this sheds light upon our plans, and if the Board has any questions, please feel free to call upon me. Sincerely, Eric A. Traub EAT/gmp cc: Gary Ament 6eneral Development £orporat on February 23, 1978 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mr. John B. Park, Chairman Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Room 404 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Re: Zoning Change From A-1 to B-3 Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines Dear Mr. Park: General Development Corporation is the owner of seven parcels of property adjacent to the area requested to be rezoned by the sub- ject petition. General Development Corporation is also the developer of the adjacent area within the City of Port St. Lucie. This letter is to register our objection to the proposed rezoning. The area to be rezoned borders a single family residential area. We understand the shopping center planned for the site includes a proposed access from Dittmar Avenue. This would be extremely detrimental, we believe, to the single family area bordering Dittmar Avenue. This is a quiet residential street with indirect access through a network of other residential streets in the area. It was planned and sold as an estate area and contains oversized lots. None of the streets are designed to carry the amount of traffic a shopp- ing center would generate. Additionally, we would recommend that if the rezoning is approved that a landscape buffer area be required along the north side of Dittmar to screen the shopping center from the residences in Unit 4, which is the area immediately bordering the proposed site. We request that the County Commission take these concerns into con- sideration in their deliberations on the requested zoning. Sincerely, WLA/hw 1111 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone 305 350 1231 Morningside Boulevard Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 305-334-0097 305-878-0097 February 23, lg28 St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Room 104 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 ATTN: Mr. Weldon Lewis, P.E. County Administrator re: REZONING REQUEST BY MR. PETER SMITH AND MR. WAYNE SI-NES Dear Mr. Lewis: The Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Port St. Lucie wishes to support the comments of our City Planner, Mr. Michael Szunyog, regarding the referenced rezoning appli- cation. We wish to reemphasize our concern for the de- trimental affect that a shopping center of this size and type would have not only on the capacity of U.S. 1, but more particularly on the adjacent residential property within the City of Port St. Lucie. The possibility of access through the residential areas to the south of the shopping center site would pose a threat to the safety and welfare of City residents by over burdening purely local thoroughfares. In addition, the close proximity of such a shopping center would create air, noise, and other forms of pollution, as well as visual blight. We urge the St. Lucie County Commission to reconsider this request given the fact that the site is surrounded on three sides by either existing or proposed residential development within the City. It would be far more de- sireable and consistent for the sake of long range planning to maintain the integrity of the existing residential de- velopment by allowing it to continue to the north into the subject property. Vaughn Lewis, Chairman Planning & Zoning Board City of Port St. Lucie We appreciate this opportunity to comment and we are sure the Commission will consider our comments in the spirit of cooperation and coordination in which they are submitted. Sincerely, ?t~ ~~~_~ / CC.' E. Cox Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council File Morningside Boulevard Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 305-334-0097 305-878-0097 February 21, 1978 St. Lucie County' 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 ATTN: Mr. WeldOn Lewis County Administrator re: Rezoning Application by Peter C. Smith and Wayne Sines Dear Mr. Lewis: Enclosed are comments prepared by our City Planner on the referenced rezoning application, for the consideration of .the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing on February-28, 1978. Mr. Michael Szunyog, City Planner, will appear on behalf of the City of Port St. Lucie to present these comments. Thank you for your consideration. e 1 Elmer Cox City Manager enclosures EC: MS :wr ~.. ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Elmer Cox, City Manager Members of the Planning & Zoning Board Michael Szunyog, City Planner PROPOSED SMITHPORT SHOPPING CENTER FEBRUARY 17, 1978 BACKGROUND The City has been invited to comment upon the proposed Smithport Shopping Center to be built on the west side of U.S. 1 between Lynngate Drive and Port St. Lucie Boulevard, within the County. The center is to contain 250,000 square feet when fully developed. (Exhibit 1) The proposal received a unanimous approval by the County Planning & Zoning Commission in January and will be considered by the County Commission on February 28, 1978. COMMENT The development of the center is not objectionable in itself. However, there is the possibility that access to the center would be gained through the resident'iai area adjoining the center on the south, within the City. (Exhibit 2). In the design of the subdivision (P.L. UNIT 4), the center line of Dittmar Avenue was made to run east-west along the city limit line. This means that one-half of the right-of-way of Dittmar is within the County, and therefore, could be built and used as access. Such an access point would he desirable from the developer's point of view in that persons using this approach would not have to travel on U.S. 1 to get to the center. Custo- mers using this access would likely be traveling from the south and western portions of the City on Port St. Lucie Boulevard or on Gowin Drive. It could also be approached on Morningside Boulevard and Deming Avenue. The residential area is zoned R-1 and currently contains approximately twelve (.12) houses, in the $60,000 and over price range. Building activity in this general area. has been increasing in the past few months. The possible access would be highly detrimental to the safety and welfare of the residents of the area. The streets were designed as local streets only, and would become collector streets if any access were permitted· Flanders Road, particu- larly, with a long, straight stretch, would become a high speed throughway.. The many turns that would have to be made also constitute an unsafe condition. A shopping center of the size proposed will generate between 12,350 and 15,675 trips per day. The follow- ing sources were used in calculating this range with the base of calculation being trips generated per 1,000 square feet of floor space: Florida DOT Fifth District - 12,350 trips (49.4 per'l,000 square feet) Institute of Transportation Engineers 12,475 trips (49.9 per 1,000 square feet) Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (53.6 per 1,000 square feet) 13,400 trips 4. U.S. Average - 15,650 trips (62.6 per 1,000 square feet) Florida DOT Trip Ends Generation Research [62.7 per 1,000 square feet) While the percentage of these trips that would utilize access through~the residential area cannot be calculated, even a figure of ten per cent (10%) would generate between 1,200 and 1,500 cars per day, in addition to traffic generated within the residential area itself. This is an undesirable amount of traffic on local, residential streets not designed to accommodate it. Another aspect of this proposal concerns the adverse affect on the value of residential lots directly adjoining the shopping center site, namely, Lot 1, Block 114 on Abcor Road; Lots 1 and 10, Block 117 on Dittmar Avenue; and Lots 23 and 24, Block 115 on Dittmar Avenue. Again, no accurate est~imate of the economic loss to the owners of these lots can be calculated at this time. However, the adverse affects could be controlled through proper site planning, including screening and buffering along the property line of the center. Lot 1, Block 114, however, will be rendered almost entirely useless because it will have almost 160 feet frontage directly on the rear of the shopping center. I would urge that the St. Lucie County Commission seriously consider these conditions which would have such a detrimental affect on the welfare of the residents of the City of Port St. Lucie. I am sure that, in the spirit of cooperation, a solution can be found which will-satisfactorily address these potential problems. attachments !1 il II I /50 ' O0 ,I £dST /-/,{/£ ~: I I ! -1 t I I--' k-' ,,..' - : AGENDA- BOARD OF ~OUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUE S DAY FEBRUARY 28~ 1978 9:00 A.M. Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James~ for a change in zoning classifi- cation from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following described property: lots 13, 14, all ~_~at part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Hwy. #1, ar~ all of lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. #1, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat ~hereof recorded in ~Plat Bc6k 1, page 35 ~of the public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla. Less all rights-of-way for public roads. (LOcated approximately 3/4 mile N of Port St. Lucie Blvd. on the W side of U.S.#l) Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners. NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, will at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, February 28, 1978, in Room 101, County Administration building., 2300 Virginia Ave.~ Ft. Pierce~ Florida, hold a public hearing on: Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James, for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following des- cribed property: lots 13, 14, all ~_hat part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. ~wy. #1, ar~ all of lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. #1, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat thereof recorded in 'Plat Bc6k 1, page 35 of the public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla. Less all rights-of-way for public roads. (Located apprx. 3/4 mile N of Port St. Lucie Blvd, on the W side of U.S.#i) Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at this time. Dated this 8th day of February, 1978. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY John B. Park John B. Park, Chairman Publish: February 13, 1978 W. R. McCAIN, District No. I · E. E. GREEN, District No. 2 · JOHN B. PARK, District NO. 3 · EDWARD G. ENNS, District No. 4 - GEORGE D. PRICE, District No. 5 February 8, 1978 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following described property: Lots 13, 14, all t_hat part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S, Rwy. #1, a~ all of Lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. #1, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat thereof recorded in 'Plat Bo~k 1, page 35 of %he public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla.__ Less all rights-of-way for public roads. (Located apprx. 3/4 mile N. of Port St. Lucie Blvd., on the W side of U.S.#I) The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on this petition on Tuesday, February 28, 1978, at 9:00 A.M. in Room 10!, County Administration building, 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce~ Florida. Ail interested persons will be given an opport~nity to be heard at this time. This notice is being sent to all adjacent property owners. Very truly yours~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCI~ CO~. FLORIDA ~.M. Thomas, Director f~' Building g Zoning Department Brd. of Co. Comm. 2/28/78 Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James, for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 ~(amteria! business) for the following described property: Lots t3~ !4~ all that part of the N 376' of Lot 15 lying W of U.S.#I, and all of Lot 16 lying W of U.S.#!, Block St,~LUcie Gardens~ 1-37-40, as per plat thereof recorded in P~at Book 1~ page 35 of the public records of St. Lucie Co., ~la.~ Less all rights-of-way for public roads. (Located ~prx. 3/4 mile N of Port St. Lucie Blvd. ~ on the ~ s~de of U.S.#I) The Planning ~ Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this petition on January 26, 1978. Attorney Gerald James was present for petitioners. He introduced Messrs. Smith and Sines~ gave general background information on them, and stated that they have very serious intent with this project, which will be a shopping center of 250~000 square feet. Mr. Henry Riegler spoke concerning the traffic situation and cited D.0.T. serveys with regard to traffic ]generation of a shopping center. He also stated that 5.4 to 5.7 acres of the property is already zoned B-3. They are requesting rezoning of the whole piece so as to avoid a small rectangularly designed cen- ter. He added that they feel the area can support this center. Mr. Peter Smith then spoke with regard to Mr. Ament's comments on the pe- tition, and he made the following points: 1) the regional mall project in Martin Co. propoeed by the De Bartolo interests has' apparently been shelved; 2) the 250,000 SF shopping center proposed by Gen. Dev. Corp. immediately east of U.S.#1 has a completion date of 1981-82 and is planned as a "specialty" mall; therefore, it may not contain a major supermarket or drug chain; 3) the se- curing of lease commitments from major national chains, such as Winn-Dixie and Eckerd Drugs, is ~ot consistent with Mr. Ament's assumption that existing and already underway commercial development satis~fies the existing and near future market demand in the area; 4) the rezoning request for the entire tract is made so as to avoid the typical "st~ip" commercial development that can be con- structed on land with a depth of 200 ft.; 5) market studies confirmed by Winn- Dixie and Eckerd indicate that the present population is sufficient to justify their additional stores in this center; 6) Mr. Ament's traffic projections are inaccurate. I~ the event of further growth, which may generate this amount of traffic, U.S.#1 could handle this situation; and 7) petitioners are unclear as to why this rezoning request is inconsistent with planning p$Iicies reflected in The Plan for The Savannas. Upon a question from Mr. Ament~ Mr. Smith stated that Phase II of the cen- ter would begin when a lease commitment from a department store had been secured and the projected square footage for this would be 75~000 to 80,000. He fur- t~em stated that a support population of 30,000 to 50,000 would be nee~d, e~er, they do not expect this to eom strictly from Port St. Lucie~. Mr. Davis stated that there seemed to be alot of inaccuracies. He asked if Mr. Ament wou~ld be checking these figures. Mr. Ament replied that he would fur- ~-ish Co--remission members with a copy of his comments fo~ the Board of Couh~y' Commission hearing on this petition. Moved by Mr. Tiernan, Seconded by Mr. Ebner~ to recommend approval of the petition to the Board of County Commissioners. The vote was polled and the motion carried unanimously. COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR'S COMMENTS (7) SMIT:H AND SINES (A-1 to B-3) -Existing Land Use: The proposed rezoning is vacant with single family low density residential development now occurring to the west and south of the proposed rezoning. Across U. S. 1 to the east is scattered personal and business services, general commercial, vacant, and citrus. Future Land Use: Medium density residential.- COMMENTS: Within four (4) miles of the proposed rezoning, there are four (4) neighborhood type shopping centers and one (1) larger (community) shopping center existing. In addition, two (2) additional small shopping centers are proposed, along with a regional shopping mall two (2) miles to the south in Martin County and a 250,000 square foot shopping facility immediately east of U. S. 1. In addition, there is scattered strip commercial development north and south of the proposed rezoning. It would appear reasonable to assume that existing and already underway commercial development satisfies the existing and near future market demand. The total area to be zoned B-3, if this request is granted, would total approximately twenty-eight (28) acres. This would permit a shopping facility containing approximately 300,000 square feet of gross leasable area which would require a minimum support popula- tion of 45,000 to 55,000 persons. Trip generation per day from a shopping facility this size would be approximately 15,000 vehicles; this traffic could not be handled on U. S~ 1 alone. By comparison, medium density residential development (eleven (11) dwelling units per acre) would generateonly about 2,150 trips per day. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with planning policies re- flected in The Plan for The Savannas. The proposed rezoning is also premature in view of exiSting commercial facilities, programmed commercial facilties,'large amounts of vacant commercially zoned land already available along U. S. l, and already documented access problems along U, S. 1. Commercial location guidelines would dic- tate that a facility with a potential size which could be accommo- dated on this parcel should be located with direct access to two (2) major arterial or collector roadways. For example, the proposed Sembler regional shopping mall has access from three (3) potential major roadways. Again, U. S. 1 alone could not handle the traffic from a potential shopping facility which could be built on this site and the proposed large area of commercial zoning is incompat- ible with low density residential development adjacent to the pro- ject on two sides. Co 8mi t;s Sgg CENTER 32~2 SOUTH U.S. 1 * (305) 465-1440 P.O. BOX 4375 · FORT PIERCE, FLA. 33450 January 26, 1978 Planning & Zoning Commission St. Lucie County Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Gentlemen: RE: Rezoning Application 27.7 Acre Tract On The West Side Of U. S. 9 t S_outh Of Lyngate Drive We reviewed Mr. J. Gary Ament's report (Section 7 of his January 26, 1978 Memorandum) on the above-referenced applica- tion, and have the following comments: (t) We assume the regional shopping mall in Martin County which Mr. Ament referred to in his report was the one proposed by the De Bartolo interests. If this is the case, it should be pointed out that. De Bartolo has apparently shelVed his plans for the project, as con- firmed by the fact that all or part of the land in question is currently on the market for sale. There- fore, De Bartolo's proposed mall should not be con- sidered vis-a-vis our application. (2) Likewise, we assume that the "250,000 S.F. shopping facility immediately East of U. S. ~ 1" which Mr. Ament refers to in his report is the one proposed by General Development Corporation. Recent discussions with Mr. E. A. Traub, Vice President of Commercial Development for General Development Corporation, indicate that Phase I of their proposed mall will not be completed until 1981-82, and initially, it will contain only 150,000 to 180,000 S.F. 'General Development Corporation also indicated that they are planning a "specialty" mall, and as such, it may not contain a major supermarket or drug chain, which will be two of the so-called "anchor" tenants in our shopping center. Therefore, due to the 1981-82 cOmpletion date time factor, and their emphasis on "specialty" type tenants, we do not feel that General Development Corporation's project will conflict with ours from. a marketing standpoint as suggested by Mr. Ament. Planning & Zoning CommissiOn January 26, 1978 Page No. 2 (3) (4) (5) Mr. Ament~s statement ,'It would appear reasonable to assume that existing and already underway commercial development satiSfies the existing and near future market demand." does not seem consistent with our actual success in securing lease commitments from national chains. To date, we have lined-up the following anchor tenants who are willing to lease space in our shopping center as soon as the rezoning is secured: (a) (b) (c) (d) Winn-Dixie - 25,600 SF supermarket Eckerd Drugs -- 10,800 SF drug store Cobb Theatres -- 10,000 twin theatre At least two fast food restaurant chains. Further, we are currently negotiating with two depart- ment store chains, a national shoe chain, and other major tenants who desire to establish stores in our shopping center -- all scheduled for early 1979 store openings. In light of this level of pre-leasing activity, it is apparent that Mr. Ament has not accurately researched the actual markgt demand for an additional community shopping center in the Port St. Lucie area. The total area that we are requesting rezoning for amounts to 27.73 acres, of which approximately 5.4 acres already has a commercial zoning designation, i.e. the frontage having a depth of 200 feet along the U. S. % 1 right-of-way. Sound planning dictates, how- ever, that a much greater depth is required to avoid the typical "strip" commercial development that can be constructed on land having a depth of only 200 feet. For example, a 25,600 SF Winn-Dixie supermarket will require a parcel having a minimum depth of 570 feet, consisting of a 300 foot parking lot, a 15 foot side- walk in front of the store, a building depth of 160 feet, and a minimum of a 75 foot service area to the rear of the store, plus appropriate landscaping. Obviously, it would be impossible to accommodate this kind of development within the existing 200 foot com- mercial depth of the property, as Mr. Ament seems to favor along U. S. % 1. Likewise, Mr. Ament is suggesting that our site of approximately 28 acres will "permit a shopping facility containing approximately 300,000 square feet of gross leaseable area." Our preliminary site plan, which has been approved by our major tenants and their architects, Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 197 $ Page No. 3 shows an approximate build-out of 250,000 SF, of which only 130,000 SF will be constructed initially as Phase I. Therefore, Mr. Ament's statement that our shopping center would "require a minimum support population of 45,000 to 55,000 persons" is not accurate, as confirmed by the market studies com- pleted by such firms as Winn-Dixie and Eckerd Drug which indicate that the existing 15,000 population of the Port St. Lucie area is sufficient to justify their additional store location in our proposed shopping center. (6) Inasmuch as Mr. A~ent's figures for our project's gross leaseable area and minimum support population are not accurate, the same can be said for his traffic projections of approximately 15,000 vehicles per day. Allowing for future growth, our shopping center may generate 15,000 vehicles per day at some time in the future, and there is no reason why the existing four-laned U. S. % 1 can not handle this amount of traffic in front of our proposed shopping center, as the Highway is currently handling much greater volumes of traffic in front'of literally hundreds of shopping centers up and down the East coast of Florida. Further, by having another major shopping center in the Port St. Lucie area, there should be a proportionate reduction in the total traffic particularly along U. S. % 1 because the residehts of the South Port area will not have to drive as far as they presently do to reach a major shopping center. (7) And last, we are unclear as to why our rezoning request is "inconsistent with planning policies reflected in The Plan for The Savannas" as suggested by Mr. Ament, especially in light of General Development's extensive land development activities East of our proposed shopping center, to say nothing of the fact that our site is located several miles to the West of the Savannas. Planning & Zoning Co~mission January 26, 1978 Page No. 4 In conclusion, we feel that the subject 27..7 .acres will make an excellent site for a community shopping center, the need for which presently exists as confirmed by the fact that various major retail chains desire to lease space therein. Accordingly, we resPectfully request your favorable consideration of our rezoning application in order that this important project may move ahead on a timely basis. Respectfully submitted, PE~~~C. SMITH & ASSOCIATES Peter C. Smith President jap cc: Mr. J. Gary Ament $222 CENTER 465-1440 3222 SOUTH U.S. 1 * P.O. BOX 457~ · FORT PIERCE, FLA. 3~1450 January 26, 1978 Planning & Zoning Commission St. Lucie County Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Gentlemen: Rezoning Application 27.7 Acre Tract On The West Side Of U. S. ~ 1 South Of Lyngate Drive We reviewed Mr. J. Gary Ament's report (Section 7 of his January 26, 1978 Memorandum) on the above-referenced applica- tion, and have the following comments: (1) We assume the regional shopping mall in Martin County which ~ir. Ament referred to in his report was the one proposed by the De Bartolo interests. If this is the case, it should be pointed out that. De Bartolo has apparently shelved his plans for the project, as con- firmed by the fact that all or part of the land in question is currently on the market for sale. There- fore, De Bartolo's proposed mall should not be con- sidered vis-a-vis our application. (2) Likewise, we assume that the "250,000 S.F. shopping facility immediately East of U. S. ~ 1" which Mr. Ament refers to in his report is the one proposed by General Development Corporation. Recent discussions with Mr. E. A. Traub, Vice President of Commercial Development for General Development Corporation, indicate that Phase I of their proposed mall will not be completed until 1981-82, and initially, it will contain only 150,000 to 180,000 S.F. General Development Corporation also indicated that they are planning a "specialty" mall, and as such, it may not contain a major supermarket or drug chain, which will be two of the so-called "anchor" tenants in our shopping center. Therefore, due to the 1981-82 completion date time factor, and their emphasis on "specialty" type tenants, we do not feel that General Development Corporation's project will conflict with ours from a marketing standpoint as suggested by Mr. Ament. Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 1978 Page No. 2 (3) (4) (5) Mr. Ament's statement "It would appear reasonable to assume that existing and already underway commercial development satisfies the existing and near future market demand." does not seem consistent with our actual success in securing lease commitments from national chains. To date, we have lined-up the following anchor tenants who are willing to lease space in our shopping center as soon as the rezoning is secured: (a) Winn-Dixie - 25,600 SF supermarket (b) Eckerd Drugs -- 10,800 SF drug store (c) Cobb Theatres -- 10,000 twin theatre (d) At least two fast food restaurant chains. Further, we are currently negotiating with two depart- ment store chains, a national shoe chain, and other major tenants who desire to establish stores in our shopping center -- all scheduled for early 1979 store openings. In light of this level of pre-leasing activity, it is apparent that Mr. Ament has not accSrately researched the actual market demand for an additional community shopping center in the Port St. Lucie area. The total area that we are requesting rezoning for amounts to 27.73 acres, of which approximately 5.4 acres already has a commercial zoning designation, i.e. the frontage having a depth of 200 feet along the U. S. ~ 1 right-of-way. Sound planning dictates, how- ever, that a much greater depth is required to avoid the typical "strip" commercial development that can be constructed on land having a depth of only 200 feet. For example, a 25,600 SF Winn-Dixie supermarket will require a parcel having a minimum depth of 570 feet, consisting of a 300 foot parking lot, a 15 foot side- walk in front of the store, a building depth of 160 feet, and a minimum of a 75 foot service area to the rear of the store, plus appropriate landscaping. Obviously, it would be impossible to accommodate this kind of development within the existing 200 foot com- ~mercial depth of the property, as Mr. Ament seems to favor along U. S. ~ 1. LikeWise, Mr. Ament is suggesting that our site of approximately 28 acres will "permit a shopping facility containing approximately 300,000 square feet of gross leaseable area." Our preliminary site plan, which has been approved by our major tenants and their architects, Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 1978 Page No. 3 (6) (7) shows an approximate build-out of 250,000 SF, of which only 130,000 SF will be constructed initially as Phase I. Thereforer Mr. Ament's statement that our shopping center would "require a minimum support population of 45,000 to 55,000 persons" is not accurate, as confirmed by the market studies com- pleted by such firms as Winn-Dixie and Eckerd Drug which indicate that the existing 15,000 population of the Port St. Lucie area is sufficient to justify their additional store location in our proposed shopping center. Inasmuch as Mr. Ament's figures for our project's gross leaseable area and minimum support population are not accurate, the same can be said for his traffic projections of approximately 15,000 vehicles per day. Allowing for future growth, our shopping center may generate 15,000 vehicles per day at some time in the future, and there is no reason why the existing four-laned U. S. ~ 1 can not handle this amount of traffic in front of our proposed shopping center, as the Highway is currently handling much greater volumes of traffic in front'of literally hundreds of shopping centers up and down the East coast of Florida. Further, by having another major shopping center in the Port St. Lucie area, there should be a proportionate reduction in the total traffic particularly along U. S. # 1 because the residents of the South Port area will not have to drive as far as they presently do to reach a major shopping center. And last, we are unclear as to why our rezoning request is "inconsistent with planning policies reflected in The Plan for The Savannas" as suggested by Mr. Ament, especially in light of General Development's extensive land development activities East of our proposed shopping center, to say nothing of the fact that our site is located several miles to the West of the Savannas. Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 1978 Page No. 4 In conclusion, we feel that the subject 27.7 .acres will make an excellent site for a community shopping center, the need for which presently exists as confirmed by the fact that various major retail chains desire to lease space therein. Accordingly, we respectfully request your favorable consideration of our rezoning application in order that this important project may move ahead on a timely basis. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATES Peter C. Smith President jap cc: Mr. J. Gary Ament THENEV~ .... TRIBUNE Published Daily and Sunday-- Except Saturday Fort Pierce~'S?. Lucie County, Florida STATE OF .FLOR IDA COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE Before the undersigned authorit.v personally appeared Marvin DeBolt or Kathleen K. LeClair, who on oath says that he/she is Publisher, Publisher's Secretary of The News Tribune, a daffy newspaper pubhshed at I~ ort Pierce in St. Lucie County, Florida; that the attached copy of ad- vertisement, being a .... .~. t:i.t, ip.n. ~.e.~. '.~ ................ in the matter of Smith & Sines ..................... in the .....................Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of ............. 1/11/78 Affiant further says that the said News Tribune is a newspaper published at Fort Pierce, in said St. Lucie County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said St. Lucie County, Florida~ each day except Saturday and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Fort Pierce. in said St. Lucie County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of -.securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swarm tO a,nd subscribed before me This llt,h day of JAN A..~-,. .... .]_.9.77. ~. ................. (SEAL) Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Ot: FLORIDA AT LAkGE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY · 25 1981 IC)ND~:D TH~J GENF..LkL ibis. UNDEKWklTEI~ CHECK LIST PLANNING ~ ZO'~,.~.G BOARD Date of Meeting- 4th Thumsday Time of Mee~m ~ Place of ~Meetin~ P. M. _ p~m. 203 courthouse AGENDA - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY JANUARY 26, 1978 7:30 ~P.M. Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James, for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (Agriculture) ~o B-3 (arterial business) for the following des- cribed property: Lots 13, 14, all that part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Hwy. #1, and all of Lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. #1, Block 3, St. Lucie ~ens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat thereof recorded in Plat Bo~k 1, page 35 .of the public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla. Le~s all rights-of-way forpL%blic roads. (Located apprx. 3/~ mile North of Port St. Lucie Blvd., on the West side of U.S.#i) Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to al% adjacent property owners. AGENDA- PLANNING AND~-ZON!NG COMMISSION TH U R S DAY JANUARY 26, 1978 7:.30 P.M. Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James, for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following described p~op~rty: Lots 13, 14, all t_hat part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Hwy. ~1, and all of Lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. ~1, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat t~hereof recorded in 'Plat Bo6k 1, page 35-of the public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla. Less all rights-of-way for ?~blic roads. (Located on the West side of U.S.#l, between the Martin Co. line and Port St. Lueie Blvd.) Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners. N 0 T I CE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning & Zoning Commission for St. Lucie Count~y~ Plorida, will at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, January 26, 1978, in Room 203~ Courthouse, Ft. Pierce~ Florida, hold a public hearing on: Petition of Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James ~ for a change in zoning classification from A-1 ~agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following described property: Lots 13, 14, all ~_hat part.of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Hwy. ~1, and all of LOt 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. ~1, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat t~hereof recorded in Plat Bo6k 1, page 35 of the public records of St. Lucie Co., Fla. ~Less all rights-of-way for public roads.- (Located on the West side of U.S.#l, between the Martin Co. line and St. Lueie Blvd. ) Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at this time. Dated this 9th day of January~%~ 1978. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Larry McIver Larry McIver, Chairman Publish: January 11, 1978 W.R. McCAIN, District No. 1 · E. E, GREEN, District No. 2 e JOHN B. PARK, District No. 3 o EDWARD G. ENNS, District No. 4 · GEORGE D. PRICE, District No. 5 January 9, 1978 In compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucia County, Florida, you are hereby advised that Peter Smith and Wayne Sines, by their attorney Gerald S. James ~ have petitioned the Planning & Zoning Commission for a change in zoning classification from A-1 (agriculture) to B-3 (arterial business) for the following described property: Lots 13, 14, all t_hat part.of the No. 376' of lot 15 ly~ West of u.S..~ Hwy. ~1, and all of LOt 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. 91, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 So., Range 40 East, as per Plat t=hereof recorded in~latBo6k 1, page 35 of the public records of St. LucieCo., Fla. Less all rights-of-way for _public roads. (located on the west si~'e---6-f-U.S.#l, between the Martin Co. line and Port St. Lucia Blvd.) A public hearing on this petition will be held on Thursday~ January 26, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in Room 203, Courthouse at Ft. Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be gzven an opportunity to be heard at this time. This notice is being sent to all adjacent property owners. For your information~ we are sending you a copy of the B-3 (arterial busi- ness) district regulations. Very truly yours, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION L~m~r~ ~ver, Ch ai m / Eric. , \ ¸i8 t'--'- T I"o c o ck p o cz. z,. T E--T / .: - ./ 333.3 + l.l& -® z4. r'r 9 ~ 2z IFZ.4,~"X PETER SMITH and WAYNE SINES, by-their Attorney Gerald S. James, P.O. BOX 3089, FORT PIERCE, FL 33450 A P. Smith $ W. Sines~ by Atty. G.S. James, P.O. Box 3089, Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Gardens: Block :2: Par 1: Block 3: Par ! " 4 " 5 " 6 " 6A General Development Comp. ~ 1111 S. Bayshore Dr. ~ Miami, FL 33131 .General Dev. Corp. 44108 WillS. am, Cesa~ Arlene Steuer~ 12325 Lakeshore Blvd.~ Cleveland, OH Sunsite Realty Co., Znc., c/o Eli Pihe, CTA, 31 S. BroadwaY~ Yonkers~ · NY 10701 George Summer (Tr)~ P:O.. Box 2210, Stuart, FL 33494 Geor.ge Williams, Rt..-~, Box 1180, Jensen Beach, FL 33457 PROPERTY 0WMERS (cont~.): Block 4: lot 10 St. Lueie Dev. Corp. ~ 1440 Brickell Ave. ~ Miami, FL 33131 So. Port St. Lueie~, Unit 15: Tract E General Development Corp. Unit 4: Block 114: 1 Weldon Allison~ 1135 SE St. Lucie Blvd. , Stuart, FL 2 Marie Dipetrillo~ 686 Lincoln Ave. ~, Pompton Lakes~ NJ 07442 3 Karl Rusistein~ Etzelstrasse, CH 8840~ Einstiedeln, Switzerland Block 115: 20 Daniel Ly~ns~ 9100 Wilshire Blvd. ~ Bever.!~ Hills, CA 90212 21 Paul Kroen~ 1002 E. Imperia~ Ave.~6~ E1 Segunda, CA 90245 22~23 Claude Deleuze, 27 Rue Gallieni~ Fort de Fr~nce~ Martinique~ French West Indies 24 General Development Corp. Block 117: 1~9,10 General Development Corp. 2 Richard Clark~ 23201 Port St. Clair~ St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 Block 118: 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gen. Dev. Corp. Joseph Esper~ Cury Esperhda~ Av Senador Querioz 605 17A-CJI712, Sao PaUlo~ Brazil Joseph Chreim~ Rue du Blvd Im Georges Nehne, Zahle, Lebanon Gen. Dev. Corp. Hoyt C. Murphy, Inc. ~ 411 M. U.S.#1~ Ft. Pierce~ FL Howard Cumler, 11604 Lipsey Rd. ~ Tampa, FL 33618 Alexander Avlon, 2060 Attache Ct.~ Clearwater~ FL 33516 Juan DeSanctis, 108-52 67 Rd.~ Forest Hills, NY 11375 ,/,,2-3 22 E ,to ,5 4- 9 10 t6, o' z4 "20 x \ 1:50' ~ s '~ .5' 4. 8 " 2.86 Ac. PETITION FO'~-CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT ~%LASSIFICATION 00.00 DATE: December 2R: ]q77 PHONE: 461-2500 I (We) PE~C.R SMITH and WAYNE SI~S through their attorne_v-in-fack: Mailing Addres~OSt Office Box 3089, Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 do hereby petition the St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, to change the zoning classification of the following property: Legal Description: (PRINT OR TYPE ONLY) lots 13, 14, all that part of the No. 376' of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Hwy. 91, and all of Lot 16 lying West U.S. Hwy. 91, Block 3, St. Lucie Gardens, Section 1, Township 37 SO., Range 40 .East, as per Plat thereof recorded in -Plat Book 1, page 35 of the public records of St, Lucie Co. ~ Fla. ' Less all rights-of-way for public roads. SEE ATIACHED SKETCH TAX ID #' 3414-501-0566-0003 From A'i to B-3 My (Our) reason for making this request is: To permit shopping center development upon subject lands. The above described property has 1,171 frontage on lesH U.S. Highway ~1 Road and has a total area of 27 acres more orsq.~t.. X I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change in zoning of said property. Fee title ownersconsent. 'to contract vendee ~re-zoning~ I (We) do hereby .certify that I (we) own in fee simple that portion of the above described property for which a change in zoning is requested~ described as: - The remainder of the property described in Paragraph ~1 above for which a change in zoning is requested-is owned by: I (~Te) do hereby certify the owner(s) of the property described in Paragraph ~! to be: and that I (we) certify that the above legal description subr~itted by me (us) represents the property I (wa~ wl.s.h to have rezoned. I (We) 1.7'iLL BE PRESEi~T 7, T TEIS i-~EETII~G OF, WiLL BE BY I.{Y (OUR).AGENT. (Petit'ion ~0 ZS.&7 ~,¢. i S I "1 hAu D - Z.$5 Ac. r~ ~° 15Z.4,S' 15o' ,.% ATTDRNEY AT LAW F~D~T ['IFFiEE R[3X 7~. LAKELAND, F'LDRII:3A 3-4~1;3 December 29, 1977 Gerald James, Esquire Attorney at Law P. O. Box 3087 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Re: Murray et al to Peter C. Smith and Associates My File 15-275 Dear Mr. 'James: In behalf of my clients, Rollie Murray, Jr., Robert P. Legg and James L. Legg, you are hereby authorized and empowered to institute proceedings for the rezoning of the following described property for the purpose of obtaining a zoning permit to construct a shopping center on said property, which I understand would require B-3 zoning: Lots 13, 14, that portion of the North 376 feet of Lot 15 lying West of U.S. Highway No. 1 and that portion of Lot 16 lying West of U. S. Highway No. 1, all in Block 3 of St. Lucie Gardens in Section 1, Township 37 South, Range 40 East. Very truly yours, BJL/mln Bernard ~. Langston BOARD D~-~OUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUILDING & ZONING DEPT. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA No 39193 FORT PIERCE, FLA. RECEIVED OF DOLLARS By BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /0 2 P t! To T ~'x L -7-3I \ SMITH an~WAYNE SINES, by-their Attorney Gerald S. F~RT PIERCE, FL 33450 ' ~. Smith & W. SineS, bY Atty. G.S. James', P.O. 2 ~ens: ~neral DevelOpment Corp. ~ 1111 S. Bayshore Dr. ~ 3: A James, P.O. BOX 3089~ Box 3089, Ft. Pierce Miami, FL 33131 Dev, co= ." 44io8 ~il~am Cesa, Arlene Steuer, 12325 Lakeshore Blvd., Cleveland, OH' .S~-te Realty Co., Inc. ~ c/o Eli Elbe, CTA, B1 S. Broadway~ Yonkers~ v// ~ · NY 10701 ~rge SU~er (Tr)~ P~-O. Box 2210, Stuart~ FL 33494 ~orge Williams, Rt:~, Box 1180~ jensen Beach, FL 33457 PROPERTY OWNERS (c.._. · t. ): Block 4: / lot 10~. Lucie Dev. Corp. ~ 1440 Brickelt Ave., Miami, FL 33131 So. Port St. Lucie~ Unit 15: Tract E Genera~ Development Corp. Unit 4: // Block 114~//.~ · 1 ~~l!ison, 1135 SE St. mucie $1vd.~ Stuart, FL 2 ~~ DiPetri!to, 686 Lincoln Ave.~ Pompton L~es, NJ 07442 3 ~r!~istein, Etzetstrasse, CH 8840~ Einstiedeln, Switzerl~d Block 115: // ' 20 - ~~~yons~ 9100 Wilshire Blvd., Beverl~. Hills, CA 90212 21 ~~roens 1002 E. Imperial Ave.~6:E1 Seg~da, CA 90245 22~23 ~ude Del~uze~ 27 Rue Gallieni: ~omt de F~anee, Martinique~ French West Indies 24 General Development Co~. Block 117: / 1,9~10 Ge~ral Development Corp. 2 . ~c~~'lark~ 23201 Port St. Clair~ St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 Block 118: ~ ~ - ~. ~. Corp. 4 ~os~ Espem~. Cumy Espe~hda: Ay Senador Quemioz 605 17A-CJI712 / Sao Paulo, Brazil '~ 5 ~os~p~ Ch~im~ Rue du Blvd Im Georges Nehne., Z~te, Leb~on 6 G~'~v. corp.~ ~ ..~~ Murphy, Inc.~ 4!1 N. U.S.~i~ Ft. Piemce~ FL 8 ~~d Cumler, 11604 Li[sey Rd.~ T~pa, FL 33618 9 ~xandem Avlons 2060 Actache Ct., Clea~ater, FL 33516 10 ~ DeSanctis, 108-52 67 Rd.: Forest Hills, NY 11375 Z-.L. _I.Z.~ Ac ~0' LAu o Z. 85 Ac. 5-¸ 1.1[_. ~L~. Z z &_ To TZXL \ ETER SMITH A St. Lueie Block 2: Par 1: Block 3: Par 1 " 6 " 6A WAYNE SINES~ by their Attorney Gerald S. James, P.O. BOX 3089~ PIERCE, FL 33450 Smith & W. Sines, by Atty. G.S. James, P.O. Box 3089~ Ft. Pierce ardens: Development Corp., 1111 S. Bayshore Dr. ~ Miami~ FL 33131 · .neral Dev. Corp. 44108 illS.am Cesa, Arlene S,teuer, 12325 Lakeshore Blvd. ~ Cleveland~ OH Realty Co., Inc., c/o Eli Fine, CTA, 31 S. Broadway, Yonkers~ ' NY 10701 eorge Summer (Tr)~ P:O. Box 2210, Stuart~ FL 33494 Williams, Rt~, Box 1180, Jensen Beach, FL 33457 PROPERTY 0WNER~/~(cont ..,':. / .... ~ Blocklot t04: ~/t. Lucie Dev. So. Port St. Lucie~ Unit 15: Tract E Development Corp. Unit 4: Block 114: ! 2 3 Block 115: 20 21 22,23 24 Block 1,9,10 Corp.~ 1440 Brickell Ave., Miami, FL 33131 Allison, 1135 SE St. Lucie Blvd., Stuart, FL e Dipetrillo, 686 Lincoln Ave. ~ Pompton Lakes, NJ 07442 istein, Etzeistrasse, CH 8840~ Einstiedeln, Switzerland , 9100 Wilshire Blvd. ~ Beverly. Hills, CA 90212 Kroen, 1002 E. Imperial Ave.~6, E1 Segunda, CA 90245 Deleuze, 27 Rue Galtieni, Fort de France, Martinique., French West Indies Gene~l Development Corp. !17~eral Development Corp. ~Richard 2 Clark~ 23201 Port St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 Block 118: 3 G~/De v. Corp. 4 ~go/s~eph Esper~ Cury Esperhda~ Av Senador Querioz 605 17A-CJI712,, 5 6 7 8 9 !0 .o/jSao Paulo, Brazil _~.~-- h C reim, ~ G~,v~ Dev.-~ Corp. --- - }h Chreim, Rue du Blvd Im Georges Nehne, Zahle, Lebanon C. Murphy, Inc., 411 N. U.S.#I~ Ft. Pierce, FL ard Cumler, 11604 Lipsey Rd., Tampa, FL 33618 exander Avlon, 2060 Attache Ct., Clearwater, FL 33516 uan DeSanctis, !08-52 67 Rd.: Forest Hills, NY 11375