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