HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment of Community ... (2)
DEPARTMENT
2740 C E NTERVIEW DRIVE
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
STATE OF FLORIDA
OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
° TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Secretary
November 23, 1992
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear C.ommissioner Culpepper:
The Department has completed its review of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie-County (DCA No. 92-2),
and determined that Ordinance No. 92-029 does not meet the
requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for
compliance and that Ordinance No. 92-028 do meet the requirements
of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance. The
Department is issuing a Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent
to find the comprehensive plan amendment Not In Compliance for
Ordinance No. 92-029 and In Compliance for Ordinance No. 92-028.
The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Port St. Lucie News
publication on November 24, 1992. '
Please note that a copy of the adopted St. Lucie County
Amendments, the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report dated July 21, 1992, the Notice of Intent and
the Department's Statement of Intent to Find the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Not in Compliance must be available for public
inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays,
during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie County Admini-
stration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203 Ft. Pierce,
Florida 34982. '
In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of
Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative
Hearings of the Department of Administration for the scheduling
of an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120 57 Florida
Statutes. ' '
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ° HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
November 23, 1992
Page Two
I am interested in meeting with you at your convenience for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement that will bring your plan
amendment into compliance. My staff and I are available to
discuss your plan amendment with you.
If you have any questions, or are interested in discussing
a compliance agreement, please contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, or Dale Eacker, Community Program
Administrator, at (9~4) 487~4545.
CGP/j hw
Sincerely, ~
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Enclosure:
Notice of Intent
Statement of Intent
cc:
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council '
Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator
'IN RE:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
AMENDMENT 92- 2 )
ADOPTED BY ) DOCKET NO. 92-2-NOI-5601- (A) (N)
ORDINANCE NO. 92-029 ) -
ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
STATEMENT,OF INTENT TO FIND
COMPR~-~NSIYE PLAN AM~NDM~NT
NOT ~N COMPLIANC~
The Florida Department,of, . Community Affairs hereby issues its
Statement of Intent to find.'.the Comprehensive Plan Amendment of St.
Lucie County, adopted by Ordinance No. 92-029 on September 22,
1992, Not In Compliance based upon the Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report (ORC Report) issued by the Department on July
21, 1992, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and changes
made to the plan amendment, as adopted, which were not previously
reviewed by the Department. The Department finds that the plan
amendment is not "in compliance,,, as defined in Section
163.3184(1) (b), Florida Sta=utes (F.S.), because it is not
consistent 'with Sections ~63.3171 and 163.3177, F.S., the State
Comprehensive Plan, the Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
I'. FUTURE LAND USE
A. I~nconsistent provisioh. The inconsistent provision of
the plan amendment under this subject heading is as follows:
1. Amendment PA-92-002, Which changes approximately 164
acres from Agriculture to Residential Estate, is not supported by
adequate data and analysis. The County did not provide data and
analysis which demonstrated the need for additional lands at the
increased density. Rul~ ~J-5. 006 (2) (c), F.A.C., and Section
163.3177(6)(a), F.S. The amendment also encourages the
proliferation of urban sprawl.
Rule 9J-5.006(3) (b) 7., F.A.C. and
Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.· The process for the conversion of
lands designated Agriculture is described in Future Land Use
Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. This process was not followed
in regards to the amendme~t,s subject land. Accordingly, the
amendment is internally inc6nsistent with Future Land Use Objective
1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. Rule 9J-5.005(5), F.A.C.
B. Recommended remedial actior~. This inconsistency may be
remedied by taking the following action:
1. Include an analysis, of the need for the land use change
as related to the projections of the land needed to accommodate the
projected population, which is contained in the adopted
comprehensive plan. Include an analysis addressing how the
amendmentis consistent with discouraging urban sprawl. Include an
analysis demonstrating 'how the amendment is consistent with the
process for the conversion of land designated Agricultural as
described in Future Land Use Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with the
analyses and objective and policy identified above.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent pro¥ision~i. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment under this subject heading are as follows:
2
1. The adopted comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent
with the State Comprehensive Plan, including the following
provisions (Rule 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Goal 16 (Land Us~),..and Policy (b) l., which addresses the
separation of urban and rural land uses, because adequate data and
analysis has not been included to support the need for the
increased density and .these,,uses are incompatible.
B. Recommended'remedial action~.. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the a~tions described above in Section I B
III. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
A. ~nconsistent provision~. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The adopted comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the
Treasure Coas~ Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, including the
following provisions (Rule'9~-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Regional Policy 16.1.2.2, which indicates that Future
Land Use Maps of local governments should be based on the amount of
land required to accommodate future growth and the projected
population, because adequate data and analysis supporting the need
for the increase density of land use has not been included.
B. Recommended remedial action~.. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the acEions described above in Section I.B.
3
.CQNCLUSIONS
1. The plan amendment is not consistent with the Treasure
Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
2. The plan amendment is not consistent with the-State
Comprehensive Plan.
F.A.C.
The plan amendment is not
consistent with Chapter 9J-5,
4. The plan amendment is not consistent with
requirements of Section 163.3177, F.S.
Section
6.
the
The plan amendment is not "in compliance,,, as defined in
163.3184(1) (b), F.S.
In order to brin~ the plan amendment into compliance, the
County may complete the recommended remedial actions described
above or adopt other remedial actions that eliminate the
inconsistencies.
~-~ dayQ- of November, 1992, at Tallahassee,
Executed
this
Florida.
Charles Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
c:\wp51\fi les\sol \st [ucie.922
DEPARTMENT
2740 C E N T E R V I E W D R I V'E
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
STATE OF FLORIDA
OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
· TAL LAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Secretary
November 23, 1992
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Commissioner Culpepper:
The Department has completed its review of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2),
and determined that Ordinance No. 92-029 does not meet the
requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for
compliance and that Ordinance No. 92-028 do meet the requirements
of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance. The
Department is issuing a Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent
to find the comprehensive plan amendment Not In Compliance for
Ordinance No. 92-029 and In Compliance for Ordinance No. 92-028.
The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Por~ St. Lucie News
publication on November 24, 1992.
Please note that a copy of the adopted St. Lucie County
Amendments, the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report dated July 21, 1992, the Notice of Intent and
the Department's Statement of Intent to Find the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Not in Compliance must be available for public
inspection Monday through Friday ,
, except for legal holidays
during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie County Admini-
stration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203, Ft. Pierce,
Florida 34982.
In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of
Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative
Hearings of the Department of Administration for the scheduling
of an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120..57, Florida
Statutes.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
November 23, 1992
Page Two
I am interested in meeting with you at your convenience for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement that will bring your plan
amendment into compliance. My staff and I are available to
discuss your plan amendment with you.
If you have any questions, or are interested in discussing
a compliance agreement, please contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, or Dale Eacker, Community Program
Administrator, at (904) 487-4545.
CGP/jhw
Since. rely, ~
arles G. Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Enclosure:
Notice of Intent
Statement of Intent
cc:
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council
Terry Virta, Community DeVelopment Administrator
~ STATE OF FLORIDA ~.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND
AMENDMENT(S) TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO(S). 92
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
AND AMENDMENT(S) ADOPTED BY NO(S). 92-028
IN COMPLIANCE
DOCKET NO. 92-2-NOI-5601-(A)-(N)
The Department gives notice of its intent to find Amend-
ment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s). 92-029 on September 22, 1992,
NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s).
92-028 on September 22, 1992 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections
163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S.
The adopted St. Lucie CoUnty Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s),
the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Re-
port, (if any), and the Department's Statement of Intent to find
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) Not In Compliance will be
available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for
legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie
County Administration~Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203,
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S.,
has a right to petition for:an administrative hearing to chal-
lenge the proposed agency d~termination that the Amendment(s) to
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as de-
fined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed
within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, a
copy must be mailed or delivered to the local government and must
include all of the information and contents described in Rule
9J-11.012(8), F.A.C. The petition shall be filed with the Agency
Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2740 Centerview Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. Failure to timely file a peti-
tion shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an admin-
istrative proceeding as a petitioner under Section 120.57, F.S.
If a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing
will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recom-
mended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this
Notice of Intent shall become final agency action.
This Notice of Intent and the Statement of Intent for the
amendment(s) found Not In Compliance will be forwarded by peti-
tion to the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department
of Administration for the scheduling of an Administrative hearing
pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. The purpose of the administra-
tive hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and for-
ward a recommended order to the Administration Commission.
Affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the
proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least
five (5) days before the final hearing and must include all of
the information and contents described in Rule 22I-6.010, F.A.C.
A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division
of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), Department of Administration,
1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, and a
copy mailed or delivered to the local government. All issues of
noncompliance other than those contained in the Statement of
Ln~Dt ~ust be stated in the petition and filed with DOAH within
21 days of the~dat---~'-°f ~hi~ notice.F~u~"~ to petit~ion to
intervene or to raise a new issue within the allowed time frame
constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a
hearing, or a hearing on that issue, under Section 120.57, F.S.,
or to participate in the administrative hearing.
Ch~le~ G. Pattison, Director
November 20, 1992
regional
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Subject:
Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Under the Council's contract with the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), Council is to make an overall
finding of consistency or inconsistency of local plan
amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan
(RCPP). This finding is to be made following the local
government,s adoption of the amendments, and by formal
action of Council. When possible, Council will make such a
finding by the 30th day of the 45-day compliance review
period. It is Council's understanding that the DCA will
consider the recommendation of Council prior to issuing a
notice of intent regarding local plan amendment compliance.
On October 8, 1992, Council received a copy of the formally
adopted comprehensive plan amendments for St. Lucie County.
A review of those amendments was done, with a focus on the
County's response to the comments made by the Council as a
result of a review of the County's draft comprehensive plan
amendments.
Attached is a copy of the complete agenda item as approved
by Council at a regular meeting held on November 20, 1992.
Please note that Council was unable to reach a majority
decision of the recommendation on Amendment PA92-002. A
motion to approve the staff recommendation was deadlocked
7-7. A motion to transport the report and analysis with a
clear indication to you that no recommendation on
consistency is being made due to the tie vote was approved
8-6.
3228 s.w. martin downs blvd.
suite 205 · p.o. box 1529
palm city, florida 34990
phone (407) 221-4060
sc 269-4060 fax [407) 221-4067
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
November 20, 1992 '
Page Two
If you need additional information
please do not hesitate to call.
Daniel M. Cary,
Executive Dir~tor
DMC:lb
Attachment
or have
any
questions,
cc: Terry L. Virta, AICP
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To: Council Members
From: Staff
AGENDA ITEM 6] 3
Date:
November 20, 1992 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Ad°PtedAmendments to the St, Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
Introduction
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
contract with the State Department of Communityl Affairs
(DCA), the Council must review Comprehensive Plan Amendments
after their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted
adopted amendments to the DCA, which in turn is seeking
Council's comments.
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is
to focus on the Consistency of the adopted amendments with
the Regional ComPrehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written
a determination of consistency with the
to be provided to the DCA within 30
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or
amendments.
DRAFT amendments to the County's
its meeting of May 15, 1992 (see
attachment). The DRAFT amendments consisted of two
amendments to the County's Future Land Use Map. Council had
one objection and two comments on the DRAFT amendments.
Evaluation
On July 21, 1992, the DCA issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on the DRAFT
amendments. The .ORC report cSntained a total of eight
objections to the proposed amendments. The County has
adopted the amendments with no changes, but has prepared a
response report to the ORC regarding Amendment PA-92-002.
In the transmittal letter which accompanied the materials
pertaining to PA-92-002, the County suggests that the DCA
of almost three million cubic yards and is anticipated
to serve the County until the year 2002. In 1996,
another phase will add significantly more capacity to
the landfill. The impact of 98 additional residential
units will be negligible.
4. DCA CONCERN - The .amendment is inconsistent with several
f the County comprehensive plan
land use outside the urban service area,
the conversi lands to .nonagricultural
uses, and the
'PlannedUrban Service Boundary.
COUNTY RESPONSE - While the property lies outside the
County service boundary,
at one unit per acre is inconsiStent with
uses in the , nor does it
integrity of the compreh~nsiive plan.
Primary land uses outside the urban service boundary
remain agricultural.
Lands surrounding PA-92-002, while used for agricultural
purposes, generally carry land use designations which
would residential development at one or two
dwelling ~er acre. Existing subdivisions lie to
the west and the northwest. The subject property itself
contains
RE
transiti
no '
area.
on the
non-conforming subdivision. The
for this property fits in with the
from higher density residential to
Density at one dwelling unit per acre is
existing active citrus production in the
place no additional pressure
'on of agricultural lands inthe area.
SJ
one dwel
services,
Use Policies.
not an issue, since no urban services are
there is no identified decrease in the
.ce on roadways in the area. According to
densities of greater than two dwelling
to be within the urban service, area.
amendment is limited to a maximum of
per acre and requires no urban
inconsistent with County Future Land
5. DC~.
The amendment is inconsistent with State
Plan Goals 16 (Land Use) and 20
COUNTY RESPONSE - Existing subdivisions to the north and
west of the site have set the pattern for development in
this The County comprehensive plan provides
for a and logical transition in land use from
east to west as follows: 1) urban densities and
services; 2) transitional from urban to rural densities;
3) Relative to the failure to address the potential
impacts of development, the County indicates that
land use amendments are considered preliminary
development orders and, as such, consistent with
policies contained in the County Capital Improvements
Element, concurrency or capacity determinations are
not made.
tural.
Relative to the potential of conflicts with
and County policy which calls for
to be the primary use outside the
designated urban service area, the County argues that
the primary land uses in the area will remain
agricultural, and that due to some old subdivisions
area, low density residential use on the
is compatible. The County also argues
gnation fits in with the transition
the County from east to west which is
, Suburban Estate
finally,
~dvanced by the
)reviously, do
concerns. The
With! Regional Policy 16.1.1.2
since the County will postpone
until the site plan
per acre development
the most costly,
type of development,
with Regional
: at one dwelling unit
similar
address
consistent
concurrency,
all concurrency
Since one
clustered)
and
is not
16.1.1.4.
acre is too
for a reasonable range
but
to be very expensive to the public in
The proposal is not consistent with
16.1.2.2, since already
designated for low
which remain vacant,
urban service area,.
use in this area is
~es (including an
with Regiona
location of a
lot subdivis
that these low
built out is--all the
land for such
but redesi¢
make previously
subdivisions less
iai
inside and
density
with
crop
16.1.2.3,
sparcely
area.
not to
t only is
subject
(or non-
y to be
5
surrounding farm land. Such strategies only produce
sprawl, particularly when taken to extremes.
County ~already has The
adequate lands designated for
those who seek a more rural lifestyle.
Conclusion
Adopted amendment PA-92-001 appears to be CONSISTENT with
the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Council was
unable to! reach a consistency determination on PA-92-002,
since a ~mOtion to adopt staff comments was deadlocked 7-7.
Council voted to transmit the evaluation and analysis, with
no final recommendation of consistency.
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments and recommendations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1991-92 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs.
Attachments
ST
DRAFT · LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENsivE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Current Proposed
Amend. Approx. Land Use Land Use
No. ~ Desire=ion Designation
PA-92-001 9.6 Residential Commercial
Urban
Agricultural
- 2.5
PA-92-002 164.0
Residential Urban (RU)
Residential Estate (RE)
Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5)
Evaluation
Residential
Estate
APproximate.Location
Northwest of the inter-
section of 25th Street
and Edwards Road.
West side of Gentile Road
one-half mile north of
Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70)
- Allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Allows up to 1 dwelling unit per acre.
Allows up to i dwellin~ unit per 2.5
acres.
~ca~_P}ann~g Perspective _ Am _
an a~itional t~- _T_ : endment No. 9~ -
· ~,, ~cres to the ' --uu~ woul~ add
~ commercial purposes at, o~n~%natr°rY of {a~d, designated
zsth Street and Edwards Roe= __ _ , .t~e ln=ersection
all quadrants ~ ~ :_~' '~e.county has now
--~-, une onl . . 1 n for comm -
store in the Y ex~st~ng commercial use is erc~al use,
a convenience
southeastern quadrant. West of 25th Street,
existing lands are Drimarily vacant, agricultural,
low density residential.
9~S~ ~Of
25th
or very
ls low/medium density resident
_u~der construction- ~ ~__~ ~1.. A new middle sc ooi ·
~treet E . ~,u~-~ ~lstance s h__ is
-~=,,~~' .... ~/ ~wa~dsl Road Intersected.__... '=-~'ne ~uth.. of. the 25th
... an~ for. rut .... re~es~gnat~o .o
1-~pPropriate .. :_ u~. Commercial use ~--- n ~f thio
~rea~ ~k~ _~t ~n conzl~ct with ~-,,~.- a ~Y=~ not seem
lc. - -~=~ oz land now ~--~ ..... --T"u~ policies. W't
unls area_ ~ .... ~=~=~na=e~ for c m~-_:_~ l_h a
~mm~u flare · .~ ---~u care · --.
____ P . zoning desl~nati.~_ ._ ru~y consider t
-o=~ zor residents of this=~;~= a gooa mix of
Amendment No. 92-002 would change the land use
· .__
a
~uua=e~ ~approximately 1-1 2 m' (RE). The propert
of the Flor' .. / ~les west o · Y s
7"' h ida Turnpike and _ f the ~ntersection
u;.. mresent ac~o~ ~- =~ Okeechobee Road
o ~u =ne r · (State Route
~npaved Count 1 ! - p °Pe.l.~.y ls via Gent'
,~ .... Y ocal stree~ ~,~-= . . lle Road. an
--~u-=us=ern boundary ~ ~_ ~__.--~u~ uea~-ends near
-= -~ u-= sum]eot property, the
9
Council,s
the
enc
co
2015.
need
acc(
reasonabl? range of service with a
The area · s, such as
is outside Pla ed utilit se water.
In Y rv~= =reas.
summary, the staff and LPA conclusion is that the
proposed would extend urban development into
fails to meet the' burden of proof
for'achange in its land use designation.
of theleadgoalsto andthePOlicies of the County
is internally conclusion that the
plan. The with the
of
Used for agricultural purposes. This
has led to the gradual migration
to the west, as higher value previously Used for
Uses
to the east, lands occur in
exclusively ~ for
ture in St. Lucie Given
be avoided. In
designated
lands future
the County pl ke
of
a high growth year
occupied by
per three
000 acres of Would
projected to
71,000 acres des'
· the potential res
uses on
To
is¸
ac1
are
tel
The
Use
lands
that
in
Drawl and prevent the encroachment
o agricultural land~, the County has
service area. The i~ : of this a
"restrict the ne~ati, v. ~ _ rea
development ~ ~ ~mpacts of a
pattern puts on a
are lands designate
AG-5). These
'for agricultural and
they retai
the fiscal
Beyond
agricultural
are for
sidential
ished a set of criteri
which are to gui dec/s/on-
conversion of exist agricultural
land uses.
It does not appear
meets the criteria as called for
it appear to meet the fundamental
11
provisions of, necessary infrastructure and services. While
Policy
that it
residentia!
Se~
Us. ' 16.1.2.2 indicates
of
individual parcel
would preclude efficient of
at a reasonable cost. It is recognized
to provide services to low density
in isolated areas.
Land
with
Even
of
only
deve
the County has
ds in order to meet
estimate of the
one acre per
provides at least
· the
This caL
residential purposes,
uses on
effect of
No. 92-002 would
present urban
contain urban
~in urban areas.
be
d, serv: ' from
to
Third, Regional Policy 16.1.2 3 calls for new development to
be compatible with; and compiementary, to sUrrounding land
in
be
plenty of land available to
on in area · _ _. accommodate
· : s desl nat~ .
Important a,r~..~._ .d for u~ban use,
~ ~uraz areas should not
13
flexible in the determination of concurrency for
roadways. Under a concurrency man
~?velo~ment is allowe~ ~i _ _ agement s s em
financing to b,.~ L~~ uo proceed as lo-- ~ t~e~,
place or ~- ~u =ne necessary im~ .... ~--~ ~ =ne
ca ' . ~ programmed as a ~emen=s is in
Pltal improvements Program. P rt of a multi-year
St. ~'Lucie
not
program.
any
at a
No apparent response
Amendment No. 92'-002
County,s concurrency management strategy
the authorization to approve certain
(comprehensive plan
etc.), even in areas
capacity may not exist or may
.of the current capital improvements
COuncil
there are
1&nd use amendments which
vision for a certain area, even if
at could not
Council densities
fully discloses that St.
such preliminary
. to sign and legally record a
affidavit whic~ puts the' c .
Owners on not~ ~ urrent and
capacity
may preclude the Sideratio~
deVel°pment Owners.
future land
range
is
encourages
of this
Plans, on-
suggest that
be available
from the County
A. Objection
me
Proposed Amendment No.
i
the St. Luc~3--002 . is internally
Plan inconsistent with a number of policies in
~= uoun=y Comprehensive
the ~egional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
to be no need for the land use change,
St. Lucia County has Furthermore,
for residential large vacant areas
an
provid:
resi
land
of
to res
uses within the urban
The proposed amendment would represent
an the potential of conflict
rS ~ agricultural us~ .... s between
agricultu ~ __~, m~ en~ourage other
~i ~ - ~a~. ~=as to see~ conversion
__ of the designated u~
~1 use, and represents ~-~" ~erVlce area
example of the
15
Recommendat/on_
Council sh
their the comments outlined above and approve
Affairs in to the State Department of Community
· 11ment of the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes.
Attachments
17
LAND USE
S~OTT SCOTT
IS
':,R
SU
CROOKS
PRESBYTER:
CHURCH
RM
REEVES
OM
25TH ST~ET ASSOC
ETHEL" HAYES
19
November 13, 1992
Pcolanni .n.c
until
Terry L. Virta, AICP
Community Development Administrator
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-1
Dear Mr./Vir~a:
Council staff has completed its review of the Sto Lucie
County adopted amendments in accordance with Council's
contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) .and
has prepared a report for Council consideration. This
report will be presented to Council at its next regular
meeting on November 20~1992· You are invited to attend the
meeting and address the Council if you wish. Enclosed are
staff's report and the agenda for the meeting.
Following the meeting, the report as finally approved by
Council will be forwarded to the DCA. If you would like to
discuss the staff report or Council procedures for plan
review, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Hess, AICP
Plan~i~g Coordinator
TLH:lb
Enclosure
3228 s.w. mar~in downs blvd.
suite 205 · p.o. box t529
palm city, florida 34990
phone (407) :22t-4060
sc 269-4060 fax [407) 22t-4067
TP~ASURE
MEMORANDUM
To:
Council Members
AGENDA ITEM 6B3
From: Staff
Date:
November 20, 1992 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference 992-2
Introduction
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
contract with the State Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), the Council must review Comprehensive Plan Amendments
after their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted
adopted amendments to the DCA, which in turn is seeking
Council's comments.
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written
a determination of consistency with the
Regional .Plan is to be provided to the DCA within 30
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or
amendments.
Bac~ound
Council reviewed _~he DRAFT amendments to the County's
Comprehensive plan at its meeting of May 15, 1992 (see
attachment). The DRAFT amendments consisted of two
amendments to the County's Future Land Use' Map. Council had
one objection and two comments on the DRAFT amendments.
Evaluation
On July 21, 1992, the DCA issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on the DRAFT
amendments. The ORe report c6ntained a total of eight
objections to the proposed amendments. The County has
a~opted the amendments with no changes, but has prepared a
response report to the ORC regarding Amendment PA-92-002.
In the transmittal letter which accompanied the materials
pertaining to PA-92-002, the County suggests that the DCA
of almost three milli0n cubic yards andis anticipated
to serve the County until the year 2002. In 1996,
another phase will add significantly more capacity to
the landfill. The impact of 98 additional residential
units will be negligible.
4. DCA CONCERN -~The amendment is inconsistent with several
objectivesand policies of the County plan
which deal with land use outside the urban service area,
the conversion of~agricultural lands to nonagricultural
uses,~concurrency, and land use densities outside the
PlannedUrban Service Boundary.
COUNTY RESPONSE - While the property lies outside the
County urban service boundary, residential development
at one dwelling unit per acre is not inconsistent with
land uses in the area, nor does it
integrity of the comprehensive plan.
Primary land uses outside the urban service boundary
remain agricultural.
Lands surrounding PA-92-002, while used for agricultural
purposes, generally carry land use designations which
allow residential development at one or two
kits per acre. Existing subdivisions lie to
the west l the northwest. The subject property itself
contains unrecorded non-conforming subdivision. The
· RE designation for this property fits in ~with the
of lands from higher density residential to
Density at one dwelling unit per acre is
no to existing active citrus production in the
area. development will place no additional pressure
on the conversion of agricultural lands inthe area.
is not an issue, since no urban services are
there is no identified decrease in the
on roadways in the area. According to
the plan, densities of greater than two dwelling
Lore are to be within the urban service area.
ect amendment is limited to a maximum of
one unit per acre and requires no urban
servlc~ is not inconsistent with County Future Land
Use ~Policies.
5. DCA CONCERN- The amendment is inconsistent with State
Plan Goals 16 (Land Use) and 20
COUNTY RESPONSE - Existing subdivisions to the north and
west of the site have set the pattern for development in
this vicinity. The County comprehensive plan provides
for a gradual and logical transition in land use from
east to west as follows: 1) urban densities and
services~ 2) transitional from urban to rural densities~
3) Relative to the. failure to address the potential
impacts of development, the County indicates that
land use amendments are considered preliminary
development orders and, as such, consistent with
policies contained in the County Capital Improvements
Element, concurrency or capacity determinations are
not made.
4)
the potential of conflicts with
lands and County policy.whiCh calls for
~ to be the primary use outside the
urban service a~ea,~ee County ~rgues that
in area will remain
the primary land uses
agricultural, and thatdue to some old subdivisions
in the area, low density
subject parcel is compatible. The
that~this redesignation fits in
by the County from e~
, Suburban
Agricultural-Residential
on the
also argues
transition
is
Estate
finally,
to
since
sadvanced by the County, which are similar
tated prey .oui].y, do no~ a~eguately a~dress
concerns. The amendment ii~ot consist~n~
~nal Policy 16.1.1.2 regarding concurrency, I
the County will postpone all cOncurre~
ions until the site plan Since ~
tper acre development clustered)
the most costly, land consuming, and
type of development, is not
with Regional
at one dwelling unit
a reasonable range of
to be very expensive
The proposal is
16.1.2.2, since
designated for low
which remain
urban service
use in this area is n
uses (including an airst
with Regional
location of a
large lot subdi'
fact that these low
built out is~all the
more land for such
lacking, but
make previously
subdivisions less
is too
area.
not to
only is
subject
(or non-
to be
surrounding farm land. Such strat__t~qies onl]~tP~l~e
sprawl, articularly when take~ tq extreme_9~s The
C~Y~ lands designated for
those who seek a more rural lifestyle.
Conclusion
Adopted amendment PA-92-001 appears to be CONSISTENT with
the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Adopted
amendment PA-92-002 appears to be INCONSISTENT with the
goals and policies contained in the RCPP.
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments and recommendations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1991-92 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs.
Attachments
7
~nnend. Approx.
No. Acreage
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
DRAFT' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FUTURE LAND USE E?JRMENT
~Current
Use
PA-92-001 9.6 Residential
Urban
PA-92-002 164.0 Agri~ltural
-2.5
Proposed
Land Use
Designation
Approximate Location
Commercial
Northwest of the inter-
section of 25th Street
and Edwards Road.
Residential
Estate
West side of Gentile Road
one-half mile north of
Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70)
Residential Urban (RU) - Allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Residential Estate (RE) - Allows up to i dwelling unit per acre.
Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5) - Allows up to i dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
Evaluation
Local Planning Perspective - Amendment No. 92-001 would add
an additional ~ten acres to the inventory of lands designated
for commercial purposes at, or near, the intersection of
25th Street and Edwards Road. The County has now designated
all quadrants of the intersection for commercial use,
although the only existing commercial use is a convenience
store in the southeastern quadrant. West of 25th Street,
existing lands are primarily vacant, agricultural, or very
iow density residential. East of 25th Street, the land use
is low/medium density residential. A new middle school is
under constructioN: a short distance south of the 25th
Street/Edwards Road intersection. The redesignation of this
vacant land for future commercial use does not seem
inappropriate or in conflict with County policies. With a
great deal of land now designated for commercial uses in
this area, the County should carefully consider the
appropriate zoning designations to provide a good mix of
commercial uses for residents of thisarea.
Amendment No. 92-002 would change the land use on a 164-
acre parcel from its present d~signation as agricultural
(AG-2.5) to a residential designation (RE). The property is
located approXimately 1-1/2 miles west of the intersection
of the Florida Turnpike and Okeechobee Road (State Route
70). :Present access to the property is via Gentile Road, an
unpaved County local street which dead-ends near the
northeastern boundary of the subject property.
9
5} It is not clear how the area could be provided with a
reasonable range of services, such as sewer and water.
The area is outside planned utility service areas.
In summary, the staff and LPA conclusion is that the
proposed change would extend urban development into
it fails to meet the burden of proof
of the need for achange in its land use designation.
Council's assessment of the goals and policies of the County
the
previously used
encroachment has
agricultural uses to the west, as higher
Lands previously used
agricultural uses
to the east, lands now
lie exclusively west of
~lture in St.
is to be avoided. In
County designated
including lands in
an example, the County plan
in the unincorporated area of
is~based on a high growth
lands occupied by
~ acre per three
35,000 acres of
ac year 2015 projected
y 71,000 acres
use~ the potential residential
also lead to the conclusion the
is internally the
plan. The expresses
encroachment of into areas
for agricultural purposes. This
led to the gradual migration of
in
for
Given
this
a future
the year
on
would
to
uses on
~To
~rban sprawl and prevent the encroachment
into agricultural lands, the County has
service area. The intent of this area
or "restrict the negative impacts of a
density development the fiscal
a pattern puts on a .Beyond
~ area are lands desi¢ ttural
.5 and AG-5). These de~ are for
for agricultural and~ tural-
although they retain some-residential
established a set of criteria in County Land
licy 1.1.2.4 which are to guide the decision-
the conversion of existing agricultural
~al land uses. does not appear
land use meets the as called for
nor does it appear to the fundamental
11
development shall take place concurrent with ~/after the
provisions of, necessary infrastructure and services. While
the proposed change in land use designation to a maximum of
one dwelling unit per acre does not qualify as urban
development according to the Regional or County plan,
services wili stillbe required in this presently isolated
area. Road improvements will be necessary, at least to
the intersection of Gentile Road and S.R.
70 .11 be significant costs to bus school childre--~5~
school sites which are presently many miles
wil th~ are~ by the ~riff's~ '-~'
costs of patrolling
None ofthese costs anticipated by the County
AG-2 was assigned. Regional
development should not be
to
of
OCCUr
necessary services at a
idential
in isolated areas.
of
de
la]
Policy 16.1,2.2
estimate
one acre
be based on
Land
amount
Under
has
to meet Even
amount of residential
the
.ethe of
proposed be
der
infill
residential
L1 uses on
the effect
No. 92-002
the present urban
to contain urban
in urban areas.
~y
the
on
from
and to
promote
Third, Regional Policy 16.1.2.3 calls for new development to
be compatible with, and complementary, to surrounding land
uses and should not negatively affect existing approved
activities. When residential development encroaches into
agricultural areas, conflicts occur. The conflict may be
immediate here, given the location of the private airstrip
used for crop Furthermore, St. Lucie County is
among the agricuItural areas of the State,
recently prominence as the largest citrus producer
in theState, of land available to accommodate
the ation in areas designated for urban use,
~n: the important agricultural areas, should not
encroachment
be permltted.
13
flexible in the determination of concurrency for
roadways. Under a concurrency management system,
development is allowed to proceed as long as the
financing to build the necessary improvements is in
place or is programmed as part of a multi-year
capital improvements program.
St. County's concurrency management strategy
the authorization to approve certain
'development orders (comprehensive plan
zoning amendments, etc.), even in areas
where capacity may not exist or may
not be part of the current capital improvements
program. Council recognizes that there are
in considering iand use amendments which
the vision for a certain area, even if
infrastructure ,capacities could not
opment at the permissible densities
Council also recognizes that St.
any
at a
fully discloses the
such preliminary
land owner to sign
affidavit which puts
owners on notice that
may preclude the
development owners.
to grant future land
when long range infrast
, development trends, etc.
infrastructure is likely to be
date.
capacity
by
record a
and
capacity
encourages
this
on-
that
No apparent response from the County
Amendment No. ,92-002
A. Objection
sed Amendment No. 92-002 is internally
with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan and is inconsistent with a number of policies in
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Furthermore,
an
providi
residential and agricultural use, may encourage other
to be no need for the land use change,
Lucie County has large vacant areas
for residential uses within the urban
.area. The proposed amendment would represent
on agricultural areas of the County,
for the potential of conflicts between
land owners i~ agricultural areas to seek conversion
of lands outside of the designated urban service area
to residential use, and represents an example of the
15
Recommendation
adopt the comments outlined above and approve
to the State Department of Community
Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes.
Attachments
17
LAND USE
SCO]'r SE}Tf
I$
CROOKS
CANAL ~cj
~-,~c:lment: 92-001
CHURCH
REEVES
25'TH STREET ASS0C
SU
ETHEL"
HAYES
19
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE o TALI'AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
LAWTON CHILES LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Governor
July-21, 1992
The Honorable Jim Minix
Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Commissioner Minix:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2),
which was submitted on April 13, 1992. Copies of the proposed
amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional
and local agencies for their review and their comments are
enclosed.
I am enclosing t~e Department,s
and Comments Re~ort ........ Objections. ~ ....
Administrati..~ ~_~ ' ~ueu pursuant to ~1 - --e~mm~nd~uions
County his ~=~e: ~pon receipt of th~~e 9Ji~l'~0, Florida
determine that t~ .... to adopt, adopt ...~= -- LUcle
· ~= ~oun~ ' = --~un cnan es
The process f~ _~ .... Y will not adopt ~ ...... g , or
· . . ~ =uUpclon of = ~-.= mropose~ am
~ o~tllned in s local comprehens' _ e~dment.
~ . . . -163.3184 F1 ' ~ve plan amen
±or,da Administrative o~ orlda Statutes, and R~,~ o~ ~ents
Among the issues identified in the Report are the lack of
data and analysis to support the increased density of land use as
proposed by Amendment PA-92-002 and inadequate analyses of
traffic and infrastructure facilities.
It is very important that the adopted plan amendment address
th~se issues, and all the objections in the Department,s CRC
Report. Please contact me if any staff can be of assistance as
you formulate your responses to this Report.
Within ten Working days of the date of adoption, St. Lucie
County must submit the following to the Department:
Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;-.
A copy of-the adoption ordinance;
EMERGENCY MANAGF_MENT . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING ,AND MANAGEMENT
The Honorable Jim Minix
July 21, 1992
Page Two
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any,
which were not included in the ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional
changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the
Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance
determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
As a deviation from the current rule requirement above, you
are requested to provide one of the five copies of the adopted
amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council to be consistent with recent
legislation. The regional planning councils have been asked to
review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan
consistency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Your
cooperation in this matter is appreciated. (The Department will
be promulgating a rule revision in the near future to implement
the new legislation.)
If you have any questions, please contact Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, Dale Eacker, Community Program Administrator,
or John Healey, Planner IV, at (904) 487-4545.
RP/j hw
Sincerely,
Robert Pennock, Chief
Bureau of Local Planning
Enclosur. es:
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc:
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council
Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Amendment 92-2
July 21, 1992
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments
are based upon the Department's review of the St. Lucie County
proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to
s.163.3184, F.S.
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant
portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and
Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommend-
ation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited
objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific
situations. Some of these objections may have initially been
raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is
a difference between the Department's objection and the external
agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection
would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local
government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for
our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may
result in a determination that the amendment is not in compli-
ance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding
missing data and analysis items which the local government
considers not applicable to its amendment.' If that is the case,
a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-
5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if
the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered
addressed.
The comments which follow the objections and recommendatiOns
section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of
a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be
substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or
logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the
comment letters from the other state review agencies and other
agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental
objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in
this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
St. Lucie County
Amendment 92-2
Introduction
The objections raised in this report concern Amendment PA-92-002.
One of the primary issues related to the amendment are associated
with urban sprawl. When the County's comprehensive plan was
found "Not-in-Compliance" on March 21, 1990, one of the two major
issues was the failure of the plan to adequately discourage urban
sprawl. Based on the ratio of lands occupied by current
residents (approximately 1 acre per 3 persons) approximately
35,000 acres of residential land would be needed to accommodate
the year 2015 population (the planning timeframe). However, the
County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates 70,989 acres for
residential development. Although the planwas brought into
compliance through the amendment process, the allocation of
residential land uses as shown on the FLUM was not changed from
that which was originally adopted. Therefore, the Department is
concerned with the proposal to allocate additional lands for
residential uses and the coRsistency of the proposed amendments
with plan policies established to address urban sprawl issues.
The Department therefore concurs with the objections raised by
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to this amendment.
The County should be aware of the difficulties resulting from
large over allocations of residential (and other) land uses. As
Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requires that the allocation of land
uses be based upon the projected population and discourage urban
spraWl, amendments to the Future Land Use Map which seek to add
to an already large inventory of non-rural or'non-agricultural
lands are difficult to support. Further difficulties arise where
the character of specific areas may be changing and land uses
should be re-visited. However, without a comprehensive
consideration of the adequacy of the current distribution of land
uses (and subsequent reconfiguration), plan amendments either
exacerbate, or create, development patterns characteristic of
urban sprawl. In instances where comprehensive plans provide for
a more than adequate supply of urban lands for future development
(as does St. Lucie County's plan), it may be appropriate to
reconsider the current distribution of higher intensity land
uses. This could be accomplished on a County-wide basis or, by
establishing specific planning areas for evaluation.
Objections to Amendment PA-92-002
As noted above, the issue of urban sprawl is of concern
to the Department with respect to this amendment. Rule
9J-5.006(2)(c) requires that an analysis of the amount
of land needed to accommodate the County's projected
population. The Future Land UseMap adopted by the
t
County currently provides for twice the amount of
residential land needed to accommodate the year 2015
population. However, although the amendment proposes
to add to this supply of residential land, an analysis
which supports the need for additional residential
land, above that which is currently provided for, has
not been included. Also, please see the comments of
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding
this amendment and the issue of urban sprawl.
Recommendation
In order for the proposed amendment to be supported by
adequate data and analysis, include an. analysis
demonstrating that the current inventory and/or
distribution of residential land uses are inadequate to
accommodate the County's projected population.
Relevant factors would include unanticipated increases
in the projected population, changing development
patterns and housing demands. Also, if the County
determines that the existing supply of residential land
is adequate but that the current distribution should be
changed to achieve its planning goals, it may be
appropriate to redistribute residential uses without
increasing the supply of such uses.
An analysis of the impact of the increased densities as
proposed by the amendment on the Florida Turnpike
interChange (and interchange area) with SR 70 has not
been included. Please see the enclosed comments of the
Florida Department of Transportation which address this
objection, Additionally, while data submitted by the
applicant (T. Torres letter of March 19, 1992 to the
County Planning Director, p. 7) appears to indicate
that adequate capacity exists on the roadway system to
maintain adopted level of service standards given the
increased density, it is not clear that this estimate
considers the adopted peak hour level of service
standard. Rules 9J-5.007(2)(b); 9J-11.006(1)(b)4; and,
9J-11.006(4).
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the impact of the increased
densities as proposed by the amendment on the Florida
Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70.
Revise the facility capacity analysis and the analysis
of the impact of the proposed amendment to be based
upon and assessed against the adopted peak hour level
of service standard.
Although information has been submitted by the
applicant that development of the subject site is
anticipated to be served by central water and sanitary
sewer facilities (see page 5 of Mr. Torres letter to
the Planning Director dated March 19, 1992) facility
capacity analyses for these facilities and the impact
of the increased density on these facilities has not
been included. Additionally, while the generation rate
for solid waste has been estimated, an analysis
identifying existing solid waste facility capacity and
the effect of the increased generation rate on the
adopted level of solid waste service standard has not
been included. Also, an analysis of the availability
and demand 6n and, capacity of drainage facilities has
.nOt been inclUded. Rules 9J-5.011(1)(f); 9J-
_11.006(1) (b)2.; 9J-11.006(1) (b)4..; and, 9J-11.006(3).
Recommendation
Include data and analysis for sanitary sewer, potable
water and drainage facilities addressing existing
facility capacity (i.e., surpluses or deficiencies),
identification of the demand generated by the level of
developmentallowable under the proposed land use
category and, an assessment of the ~mpact on the
County's adopted level of service standards.
For example, on page 7 of the "Application for Change in
Future Land Use Classification," dated December 26,
1991, the response to question #6 calculates the amount
of solid waste that could be expected if the subject
property was developed as 160 unit subdivision.
The analysis should be expanded by identifying the
existing capacity of solid waste facilities and the
impact of the estimated generation rate on the County's
level of service standard (i.e., can'standards be
maintained or, would facility improvements or
expansions be required). This type of analysis should
be included for all facilities which would serve the
subject site.
Amendment PA-92-002 is inconsistent with the following
goals objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan:
(a) Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.2, which
"...establishes agriculture as the primary use outside
the urban service boundary and promote[s] retention of
agricultural activities...," because the subject site
lies outside the urban service boundary and is proposed
for development at a density which is inconsistent with
agricultural activities;
(b) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4.f., which
provides that when converting existing or designated
agricultural land uses to non-agricultural uses that
the site will have available the necessary
infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands
for development, because adequate facility capacity
analyses needed to supPort the amendment hav~Qt been
included;
(c) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.2, which
requires that new development be designed so as not to
place unanticipated economic burdens upon the services
and facilities of the County, because facility capacity
analyses for solid waste and traffic circulation are
.inadequate and do not support the proposed amendment;
and,
(d) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.12.1, which
provides for restricting higher densities and
intensities of development to urban service areas,
because the amendment proposes to establish higher
intensity uses outside the Planned Urban Service
Boundary.
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment and include additional
data and analysis as recommended in the above cited
objections.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Goal 16 (Land Use), Policy (b)l., of
the State Comprehensive Plan, which addresses the
separation of urban and rural land uses, because
adequate data and analysis has not been included to
support the need for the increased density. Rules 9J-
5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1).
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Goal 20 (Transportation), policies'
(b)2. and (b) 3., of the State Comprehensive Plan
because an analysis of the impact of the proposed
increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange
(and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been
included. Rules 9J-5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1).
4
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting
additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended
for the objections raised above.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Regional Policy 16.1.2.2 of the
Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan which indicates
that Future Land Use Maps of local governments should
be based on_the amount of land required to accommodate
future growth and the projected population, because
adequate data and analysis supporting the need for the
~increased density of land use has not been included.
Rules 9J-5.002(2) and, 9J-5.021(1).
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Regional Policy i9.2;1.3, addressing
acceptable level of service standards for roadways,
because an analysis of the impact of the proposed
increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange
(and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been
included.
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting
additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended
for the objections raised above.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FLORIDA·
L~W'rON CmLES ~k TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OFFICE - DISTRICT 4 BE,~ fo. WA'FrS
GOVeRnOR ~ ~
%_~ .l~ Location: 4101 Rav~n~'ood Rd.. Bldg. #3. Y't. Laudcrdalc.
._.~._~ l~l~t~,~ Telephone: (305) 797-8510; Fax: (305) 797-8339
Mailing Addr~: 780 SW 24~ Street. Ft. Laudcrdal¢. FL 33315-2696
June 5, 1992
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
BURFL%U .... '"
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
RE:
Department of Transportation Review
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
St. Lucie County - Ref.~ 92-2
As requested in your memorandum of April 17, 1992, the Department
has reviewed the documents for the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments for St. Lucie County.
Our objections regarding the proposed amendments are enclosed.
JMY:av
enclo
CC:
B. Romig
G. Schmidt
A. Vandervalk
Sincerely,
jOSeph M. Yesbeck, P.E.
District Director
Planning and Programs
DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMENTS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU:
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM DCA:
REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS:
Planninq
St. Lucie County
04/22/92
06/06/92
ELEMENT:
Traffic Circulation
Traffic Analysis for Amendment Number
PA-92-001
RULE DEFICIENCY:
9J-5. 007 (3) (c) l.
9J-5.'0055
9J-11. 006 (1)
OBJECTION - The report states that there is insufficient roadway
capacity to support the proposed amendment. Further, it is stated
that this is a preliminary Development Order and can be approved
provided that no right to develop is granted until such a time as
adequate capacity is available. However, the documents do not
address the availability of traffic circulation system nor discuss
how adequate roadway capacity could be made available. There is no
indication that the public facilities necessary to support such a
land use amendment will be in place concurrent with the
development.
RECOMMENDATION - Revise the analysis of the transportation impacts
of the proposed amendment to include a complete analysis of
available services and the transportation system required to-
support the additional development which would result f~om this
land use amendment.
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Anita Vandervalk
Scott Seeburqer
Gus Schmidt
PHONE: 305-797-8510
PHONE: 305-797-8510
PHONE: 305-797-8510
DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMENTS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~MENDMENTS
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU:
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM DCA:
REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS:
Planninq
St. Lucie County
04/22/92
06/06/92
ELEMENT:
Traffic Circulation
Traffic Analysis for Amendment Number
PA-92-002
RULE DEFICIENCY:
9J-5. 007 (2)
9J-11.006(1) (b) 4.
OBJECTION - This amendment will have a significant impact on the
surrounding transportation system. The impacts on the facility
located directly adjacent to the proposed amendment site have been
analyzed. However, the impacts on the Level of Service of the
Turnpike Interchange with Okeechobee Road (SR 70) located just 2
miles from the site have not been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION - Revise the application to include an analysis of
the existing LOS of~ the interchange and other affected
transportation system aspects in order to determine the present and
future impacts of the proposed land use amendment.
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Anita Vandervalk
Scott Seeburqer
Gus Schmidt
PHONE: 305-797-8510
PHONE: 305-797-8510
PHONE: 305-797-8510
Mr. Robert Arredondo (904)48~14~
Dept. of Comm. Affrs.
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Dr.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
(904) 488-3353
BUREAU OF LOCAL
PLANNING
April 23, 1992
Re: Historic Preservation Review of St. Lucie County's
(92-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
According to this agency's responsibilities under section
267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections
163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced
documents to decide if data regarding historic resources have
been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9.57
acre tract (File No. PA-92-001) from Residential to Commercial
should have no adverse affect on historic resources in the
county, since this tract appears to be in a low probability area
for archaeological sites and lacks any historic buildings. On the
other hand, changing the land use designation from Agricultural
to Residential Suburban on the 163.92 acre tract (File No. 92-
002) may affect significant resources in the county. An area this
large generally needs to be systematically surveyed to discover
its potential for producing significant archaeological sites. As
we stated in our review of the 92-1 amendment to the St. Lucie
Comprehensive Plan, the county needs to sponsor a systematic,
professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporated
county that is designed to: (1) revisit known sites to find out
their present condition, (2) prepare predictive models for the
location of sites, and sample selected areas to verify the
validity of these models, and (3) delimit archaeological
sensitivity areas within the county based on the study results.
Finally, the county should consider adopting a policy to require
Archaeological Research
(904) 487-2299
Hofida lFolklife Programs
(904) 397-2192
Historic Preservation
(c~04 ~ 487-233g
Museum of Florida History
Page Two
Mr. Robert Arredondo
April 23, 1992
that any proposed developments scheduled within archaeological
sensitivity areas undergo investigation (such as the tract noted
above) to find out ifsignificant archaeological sites are
present. On the other hand, areas outside the sensitivity areas
would be free to proceed--barring no chance archaeological finds-
as scheduled. The county also should locate and evaluate all its
pre-1945 structures to ensure that they are considered before
allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some
matching grant funds for historic resource surveys may be
available from the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of
Historic Preservation at (904) 487-2333.
In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan
meets the concerns of the Division of Historical Resources and
the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections
163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding
the identification of known historical resources within their
specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of
policies, goals and objectives for addressing historical and
.potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel
free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the
Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333.
L,~ George W. Percy, Director
Div. of Historical Resources
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Dept. of Comm. Affrs.
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Dr.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R.A. Gray Building
,500 South Bronough
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
(904) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353
BUREAU OF LOCAL
PLANNING I PLAN REVIEW
April 23, 1992
Re: Historic Preservation Review of St. Lucie County's
(92-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
According to this agency's responsibilities under section
267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections
163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced
documents to decide if data regarding historic resources have
been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9.57
acre tract (File No. PA-92-O01) from Residential to Commercial
should.have no adverse affect on historic resources in the
county, since this tract appears to be in a low probability area
for archaeological sites and lacks any historic buildings. On the
other hand, changing the land use designation from Agricultural
to Residential Suburban on the 163.92 acre tract (File No. 92-
002) may affect significant resources in the county. An area this
large generally needs to be systematically surveyed to discover
its potential for producing significant archaeological sites. As
we stated in our review of the 92-1 amendment to the St. Lucie
Comprehensive Plan, the county needs to sponsor a systematic,'
professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporated
county that is designed to: (1) revisit known sites to find out
their present condition, (2) prepare predictive models for the
location of sites, and sample selected areas to verify the
validity of these models, and (3) delimit archaeological
sensitivity areas within the county based on the study results.
Finally, the county should consider adopting a policy to require
Archaeological Research
(904) 487-2299
Florida Folklife Programs Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History
(904) 397-2192
Page Two
Mr. Robert Arredondo
April 23, 1992
that any proposed developments scheduledwithin archaeological
sensitivity areas undergo investigation (such as the tract noted
above) to find out if significant archaeological sites are
present.'Onthe other hand, areas outside the sensitivity areas
would be free to proceed--barring no chance archaeological finds-
as scheduled. The county also should locate and evaluate all its
pre-1945~structures to ensure that they are considered bef6re
allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some
matching grant funds for historic resource surveys may .be
available from the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of
Historic Preservation at (904) 487-2333.
In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan
meets the concerns of the Division of Historical Resources and
the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections
163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding
the identification of known historical resources within their
specified area of 'jurisdiction, and for the establishment of
policieS, goals and objectives for addressing historical and
potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please-feel
free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the
Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333.
George W. Percy, Director
Div. of Historical Resources
BOB CRAWFORD
COMMISSIONER
Florida Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee
32399-0810
June 17, 1992
PLEASE RESPOND To:
BUREEAL! OF'LO,.,.'"'~.L
PLAN.t,,~G
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
We have reviewed the St. lucie County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 92-2 as requested.
No inconsistencies have been noted during the course of our
review process. Other comments may be forthcoming later as we
continue to review the above proposed plan amendment.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at
488-3201
Sincerely,
BOB CRAWFORD
COMMISSIOI{ER OF AGRICULTURE
Fr~a n~~r~~;:i~' ~~re c t or
Bureau of Planning and Budgeting
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
488-3201
FB/jh
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE · TAL LAH ASS EE, FLORIDA 3239'9-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
LAWTON CHILES
Governor Secretary
June 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robert Arredo~do
Division of ~esource Planning and Management
Rod Westall '.
Division of~mergency Management
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
The Division of Emergency Management has completed its
review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for St. Lucie
County (Reference Number 92-2). We have no objections,
recommendations or comments related to 9J-5.012: Coastal
Management.
If you should have any further questions, please call Dan
Evans at 487-4915.
RW:dem
cp3/stluc
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING'AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
May 4, 1992
Lawton Chiles
Governor
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
Bob Butter~orth
Attorney 6ene~
6e~d Le~i~
State Cemptroller
Ton f~lb~her
St~t~ Tre~urer
Bob C~wford
Commissioner of Agriculture
Be~ Castor
Commissioner of F, duc~tion
Mr. Robert Ar.redondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Staff of the Department of Natural Resources have reviewed
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, reference number 92-2,
for St. Lucie County and have no comments.
Sincerely,
Assistant Executive Director
DED/mpp
AdminL~tration Beaches and Shores Law Enforcement Marine Resources Recreation ~nd Parks Resource Management State Lands
BOB CRAWFORD
COMMISSIONER
Florida Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee
32399-0810
June 17, 1992
PLEASE RESPOND To:
~../~.~,-~.. ~'-~ ~-~,,~-.~
BUREAU OF LO,,..;' ""/-,.L
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
We have reviewed the St. lucie County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 92-2 as requested.
No inconsistencies have been noted during the course of our
review process. Other comments may be forthcoming later as we
continue to review the above proposed plan amendment.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at
488-3201
Sincerely,
BOB CRAW-FORD
COMMISSIONER OF i~IC'[~]R~
Frank Browning, Budget Director
Bureau of Planning and Budgeting
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
488-3201
FB/jh
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CEN TERVI EW DRIVE · TALLA H ASSEE, FLORIDA 3239'9-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
LAWTON CHILES V~d~t~ ~.X~5~~
Governor Secretary
June 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robert Arredo~do
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Rod Westall~
Division of'Emergency Management
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
The Division of Emergency Management has completed its
review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for St. Lucie
County (Reference Number 92-2). We have no objections,
recommendations or comments related to 9J-5.012: Coastal
Management.
If you should have any further questions, please call Dan
Evans at 487-4915.
RW:dem
cp3/stluc
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ,, HOUSING'AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
May 4, 1992
La~on Chiles
Governor
Jim Smith
Secretary of Slate
BOb Bu~rworth
Atlorney 6eneral
6~rald Le~s
State Comptroller
Tom 6allagher
Bob Cr~wford
finumissioner of Agriculture
Betty ~astor
f~numissioner of Education
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of'Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Staff of the Department of Natural Resources have reviewed
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, reference number 92-2,
for St. Lucie County and have no comments.
Sincerely,
Assistant Executive Director
DED/mpp
Administration Beaches and Shores Law Enforcement Marine Resources Recreation and Parks
Resource Management
State Lands
DEPARTMENT
STATIC.. OF FLORIDA
O/F
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE o TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
LAWTON CHILES
Gow~nor Secretary
July-21, 1992
The Honorable Jim Minix
Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Commissioner Minix:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2),
which was submitted on April 13, 1992. Copies of the proposed
amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional
and local agencies for their review and their comments are
enclosed.
I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ii.010, Florida
Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this letter, St. Lucie
County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or
determine that the County will not adopt the proposed amendment.
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments
is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.0tl,
Florida Administrative Code.
Among the issues identified in the Report are the lack of
data and analysis to support the increased density of land use as
proposed by Amendment PA-92-002 and inadequate analyses of
traffic and infrastructure facilities.
It is very important that the adopted plan amendment address
th~se issues, and all the objections in the Department's ORC
Report. Please contact me if any staff can be of assistance as
you formulate your responses to this Report.
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, St. Lucie
County must submit the following to the Department:
Five copie~ of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;'-
A copy of-the adoption ordinance;
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT o HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o RESOURCE PLANNING AND ~NAGEMENT
The Honorable Jim Minix
July 21, 1992
Page Two
A listing of additional-'changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing bgdy, if any,
which were not included in the ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional
changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the
Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance
determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
As a deviation from the current rule requirement above, you
are requested to provide one of the five copies of the'adopted
amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council to be consistent with recent
legislation. The regional planning councils have been asked to
review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan
consistency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Your
cooperation in this matter is appreciated. (The Department will
be promulgating a rule revision in the near future to implement
the new legislation.) ~
If you have any q~_estions, please contact Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, Dale Eacker, Community Program Administrator,
or John Healey, Planner IV, at (904) 487-4545.
RP/jhw
Sincerely,
Robert Pennock, Chief
Bureau of Local Planning
Enclosur. es:
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc:
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council
Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Amendment 92-2
July 21, 1992
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments
are based upon the Department's review of the St. Lucie County
proposed amendment to their ~omprehensive plan pursuant to
s.163.3184, F.S.
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant
portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and
Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommend-
ation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited
objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific
situations. Some or-these objections may have initially been
raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is
a difference between the Department's objection and the external
agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection
would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local
government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for
our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may
result in a determination that the amendment is not in compli-
ance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding
missing data and analysis items which the local government
considers not applicable to its amendment.' If that is the case,
a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-
5.002(4), F~A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if
the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered
addressed.
which follow the objections and recommendatiOns
advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of
a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be
substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or
logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the
comment letters from the other state review agencies and other
agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments' are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental
objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in
this report.
better
present
a(
or
Lucie
when
any
of
the
type
going
flexible in th ' · ..
~velo~ment · -uuurrenc m
is allowed t° ,,_~__=anage~ent system,
lnancing~to build the ~--~==u as long as th~
necessary improvements is in
place or is programmed as part of a multi-year
capital improvements program.
St. Lucie County,s COncurrency management strategy
includes the authorization to approve certain
(comprehensive plan
where zoning amendments, etc,), even in areas
capacity may not exist or may
not be- part 'of the current capital improvements
program, Council recognizes that there are
use amendments which
the for a certain area, even if
strUcture capacities could not
at 'the
Council also ies
.zes that St.
fully discloses the lack of capacity
owner to orders by
affidavit, whick record a
owners on and
preclude the
to grant future
long range
development
at a future date.
No apparent response from the Count~
Amendment No. 92-002
land use
ges
this
on-
that
able
A. Objection
Proposed Amendment No. 92-002 is internally
inconsistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan and is inconsistent with a number of policies in
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Furthermore,
there appears to be no need for the land .use change,
since St. Lucie County has large vacant areas
designated for residential uses within the urban
service area. The proposed amendment Would represent
an infringement on agricuItural areas of the County,
providing for the potential of conflicts between
residential and agricultural use, may encourage other
land owners in agricultural areas to seek conversion
of lands outside of the designated urban service area
to residential use, and represents an example .of the
15
Recommendation
Council
th ~ . should adOPt the comments outlined above and approve
ear transmittal to the State Department of Community
Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 1~3,
Floridastatutes.
Attachments
17
LAND USE
~t 9-~-OOz
SCOTT SCOTr
CROOKS
CANAL
O-IURO. t
RM
REEVEs
OM
2b-TH STREET ASSOC
SU
ETHEL" HAYES
19
N°ve~ber 13, 1992
Terry L. Virta, AICP '
CommUnity Development Administrator
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to-the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference
~ #92-1
Dear Mr.~r~a:
Council staff has completed its review of the St. Lucie
County adopted amendments in accordance with Council,s
contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and
has .prepared a report for Council consideration. This
report will be presented to Council at its next regular
meeting on November 20,'1992. You are invited to attend the
meeting and address the Council if 'you Wish. Enclosed are
staff,s report and the agenda for the meeting.
Following the meeting, the report as finally approved by
Council will be forwarded to the DCA. If you would like to
discuss ~the staff report or Council procedures for plan
review, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Hess, AICP
Planning coordinator
TL~:lb
Enclosure
3228 s.w. rnarfin downs blvd.
suife 205 - p.o. box '1.529
palm city, florida 34990
phone (407) 22'1-4060
sc 269-4060 i~ax (407} 22'1-4067
~URE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
~[EMORAN DU~
To=
From:
Council Members
Staff
AGENDA ITEM 6i33
Date:
Subject:
Introduction
_N°Vember 20, .1992 Council Meeting
~ P=~u-~ments to the St. ~---:- Review -
comprehensive Plan- ~ ..... .~._~e County-
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional P1
?~2~a%% with the Stat -~- ..... arming Counc~,,
~;, =ne Council must ~..~_rumen~. or Communit Af ~? s
after ~-:- _ .. ~w~w ~om~reno-~ .... ~ Y f 1rs
~=xr ~option. St. -= ..... ~*= m~an Amendments
Lucie County has submitted
adopted amendments to the DCA, which in turn is seeking
Council,s comments.
Council,s review of the information re '
to focus
the ~ . on the consisten~ ,~ ~=_ ~ yl~ed by the DCA is
u aegxonal Comprehensi~i %%1~ a_a~p=ea amendments with
p rsuant t? Section 186.507, Flo~fdam~%~(~CPP) developed
report containing a determination of ~=~=~s. A written
Regional m~an is to b ...... onslstenc wi
calendar days of = provl~e~ to the DCAy th the
within 30
amendments, receipt of .the plan, elements or
Council reviewed .:~he DRAFT amendments to the County,s
comprehensive plan at its meeting of May 15, 1992 (see
attachment). The DRAFT amendments consisted of two
amendments to the County,s Future Land Use~ Map. Council had
one objection and two comments on the DRAFT amendments.
Evaluation
On July 21, 1992, the DCA issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC). report on the DRAFT
amendments. The ORC report: c6ntained a total of eight
Objections to the proposed amendments. The County has
adopted the amendments with no changes, but has prepared a
response report to the ORC regarding Am~ndmont PA-92-002.
In the transmittal letter which accompanied the materials
pertaining to PA-92-002, the County suggests that the DCA
ano =Y un=a/ the anticipated
ther ~hase= - . year 2002.
P . will add ' · . In 1996,
the landfil~ .~_ ; s. ignlflcantly mot capacity to
· . *- -z'~e ~m act . . e
units will be neglig~e~. of 98 additional residential
DCA CONCERN- The
obj,
amendment is inconsistent with several
the County comprehensive plan
the outside the urban service area,
lands to nonagricultural
densities outside the
COUNTY RESPONSE
county ,urban seJ.--W -i,le t _e property lies
--~ =~s~unslsl:ent with
in the area, nor does it
compromise the integrity of the comprehensive plan.
Primary ~land uses outside the urban service boundary
remain agricultural. .
Lands surrOunding PA-92-002
purPoses, generally.- .... ~ _le used for agricul~,~=~
ould allow resi~en~?~y use d signatiOns
~wellin~ un~ ~-- ~- ueve~opment a~
the wes~ ~o ~=r acre. Existing - u~= or two
Subdivisions lie to
and the northwest. The subject property itself
contains an unrecorded
RE designation non-conforming subdivision.
for this "ro-e ..... The
transition of lands from ~ F- ~ ~-%~ ~lts in with the
agricultural. . nigher aenslty ~esidential to
Density at One dwelling un'it per acre is
no threat to .' -..
area The existing active cltrus production in. the
· development will place no additional pressure
on the conversion of agricultural lands ~n the area.
Concurrency is not an issue, since no urb
required
_ , and there is no ~ ....... an services are
tievel of service oin ~oa~wa .... s ~uen=l=le~in decrease in' the
he County plan, densitiesYo~ ___t~_~ areg. According to
~its per acre are to be wit[~r~e~er .th~an' two.dwellin
ulnce the subject amendme_~ ~ ,.un~ .~:b~n service area~
'~u x~ ~lmt=ed to a maximum
one dwelling unit per acre and requires no of
services, it is not urban
Use Policies. inconsistent with County Future Land
DCA CONCERN -- The amendment is inconsistent with State
Comprehensive Plan Goals 16
(Transportation). _- (Land Use) and 20
COUNTY RESPONSE - Existing subdivisions
west of the site have
t ' · · set the to the north and
~ur. a gradual and ~--~--~ ~ P ehenslve plan
east e~ ..... ~ --~u~x .=ransi ~ ~-
-- w=~u as fol - t_~ xn lan~ use
_. lows. 1~ u~ . . from-
services; 2) transitional ; Dan densities and
from urban to rural densities;
3
development ~orders. and· as such ·
P°11cies contai..~--~-~nune-~- u- -' ~_~' consXstent w'thl_.
E ounty~
lement- c . p tal I roy ·
__~ ,,., · oncurrency or'c ~,~...~ ..... m~.. ements
non maae. ap__.~ ue=er~lnatiolls ~re
4) Relative
to.. the~ potential._.., of conflicts with
and ' County:? poliCy which;' calls for
to be: r~.the-':primary ,~: use
ar .........outside the
the land; uses . e area will remain
· and that ':due to some~ old subdivisions
in , low density residential
- · use on the
17 compatible.
~ignati0n fits i~ ~-.~'~~.y a.lso argues
the County from e~-~- ~- _ !nsltmon
: "Residential, an Residential,
suBU~
Residential Estate
· Agricultural-Residential and, finally·
agricultural.
~ohe~: -
::°s~a~d~v~a_nc~e__d_.by ~the C_ounty, which are sim'
Council,- -~ =u. Pr--vlously, ~0 not ade~,=~-~ ..... zlar
7-'-~ ~ concerns. ~e .... ~ .... ' ~=~ uuar~s
wi~ RegiOnal Policy 16.1~7~'~%~= ~ not consistent
slnoe the Oount-- ..~-. - . garbing oon~rren
. .x w~l , o~ o ~'
dwellln--uti- pl~ stage. Sinc- ~
. ~ = 'per acre development (unless Clus%~
}s ~erhaps the most cos~.. ~ _~ - red)
lnefficient t,_e ~, .... ~r,. lanu cons~in a
. ' zm. ~ uevel, o merit g/ nd
~onslstent. with R' ' p - , ~e .Pr°p°sal zs not
ueveloDmene ~ .... ~l~nal Poll~ ~ ~ ~~
sparce for a rea .... =~- --= --~ ~er acre is too
' ~~ r~ e · · --
dense enough to R ....... g of urban se~zces but
~e lot- te~ -=_ ~r ~ nszve to the ~1' '
- . ~ ' - · ~-ne r · P lc
Regional o icy xs 97t consistent
ueve xow ~e~'
. }~pment which .. remain ,, .... , ~ l~y residential
outside the urban se~]~-i~''~' ~ ~o~ inside a~
. ~ ~ . . -,~u~ .area% ~w dens~
residential use ~n ~s area ~s not compatible wi~
~sting uses (including an airstrip used for crop~
dusting~ consistent wit~ Regional ~olicy 16.t. 2.3
despite the lo~tion of a couple ~
developed . of sparc
large lot
s~divisio~ ~n ~e area=~Y.
Perhaps the fact ~at ~ese low d~sity s~divis~ons
are far from built out is=all ~e more reason not to
designate more land for such P~oses. Not only is
the need lacking, but redesignation of the s~ject
parcel will make previously approved (or non-
confo~ing) s~divisions less likely
successful, to be
5
£ a · onl o
, r~cular ce
hose who seek a more rural lifestyle, lgnated for
Conclusio~
Adopted amendment PA-92-001 appears to be CONSISTENT with
the goals .a~d policies contained in the RCPp. Adopted
amendment-.PA-92-002 appears to be INCONSISTENT with the
g°als~iand;p°licies~ . contained in the RCPP.
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments and recomm~_endations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Departmen~ of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1991-92 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs.
Attachments
7
ST. LUCRE COUNTY
DRAFT-COMPREHENSIVE PLaN AMENDMENTS
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Current Proposed
Amend. Approx. Land Use Land Use
No. c~ Desl~tion Designation
PA-92-001 9,6
PA-92-002 164.0
Residential
Urban
Agricultural
- 2.5
Commercial
Residential
Estate
Approximate Location
Northwest'of the inter-
section of 25th Street
and~Edwards. Road~·
West~side of Gentile Road
one-half mile north of
Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70)
Residential Urban (RU)
ReSidential Estate (RE)
Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5)
- Allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Allows up to i dwelling unit per acre.
Allows up to I dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
Evaluation
an additional ten a~res to the i - - add
Local Plan~ing PerspeCtive - Amendment No. 92 001 would
for commercial purposes at, o n~%~?ry of ~ands designated
25th Stre~tand Edwards Road. ~he ~r, _the intersection of
all quadrants of ~e inters;-~.u°un~y nas now designated
. . ==lon for ~ommercial use,
although the only existing commerci
st~r~, in the southeastern m,~_~ al ~se. is a convenience
exls=~g lands are primarily vacant,
low d~'/s~ ~%a%~ .~a~. 0f. 25 ~thagricultural/street, the land°r verYuse
is ' re~l~e =-~-a,,~. ~es~ of 25th Street,
low/med~um density residential. A new middle
under construction~ a' ~ ~= ..... school is
. . sh~ ux~=ance south
Street/Edwards Road intersection. --
The redesignation of this
vacant land for future commercial use does not seem
inappropriate or in conflict with County policies. With a
great deal of land now designated for commercial uses in
this area, the County should
appropriate zonin- desi -~' . carefully consider the
c~ · ~ gnatlons to r '
mmerclal uses for residents of thisP~de a good mix of
~en27~an;ce~°'frff ~ ~nJh~sg~Jite~nd use on a 164-
- ) to a residential des~-~ ~. _ ~s agricultural
gnan~on (RE). The proper~cy is
located approximately 1-1/2 miles
~, the Florida T~rnpike and ~_wu~t_o%th_e lntersection
· ~==~no~e~ ~oa~ (State Route
~u;.. Present access t° the property is via
Gentile Road, an
unpaved County local street which dead-ends near the
northeastern boundarY of the subject property.
~-u~ drea ~s oucslae --l~---= --~--~-- .. er and water.
~ ~u,~u u~l~y service areas.
In s ~ummary, tb.e staff and -LPA conclusion is that the
proposed change would extend Urban development ihto
a '
gr.lc~ltural areas and it fails ~to .meet the burd.en of proof
of C~e need for a change in its ~ana use designation.
cC~Tcil's ~aSsessment of the goals and 1icrc
~rehe ~ ..... po s of the
ro Osed i - ao %0_ the co-=.lusion that
ty
conc.ern~.~, about .the. encroachment of ..... ~lan expresses
agricultural u~es to ~- i_L_~ e ~g_.ra. dual _migration- of
~= w~sc, as higher value urban uses
have'-oCcupie.d, lands previously used
.purposes. While so . _ __ for agricultur
_ · . . me agrlcult . al
isolated areas to the eastUra~l_~us._es contln_ue.to occur in
agricultural ~u~Ose_ ~ .... ~: .~unu~ .now designated fo
· ~= i~ °. ''= ~x=~uslvely wes= of I-~bS. Givenr
the lmportanc~ of agriculture ~
encroachment is ~ . n St. Lucle County, cont'nn~
, to be avol , 1
encroachment, the C .... ~_ = _d. ed.. In_order to avoid th'
urban devel~P~mn%, ~"~ ueslgnated large areas for fu~es
including lands in the 1-95/Turnpike
corridor. As an example, the County plan projects a future
population in the unincorporated area of 93,000 by' the year
2015. This is based on a high growth scenario. Based on
the ratio of lands occupied by current residents
(approximately one acre per three persons) .the County would
ne~d approximately 35,000 acres of residential land to
accommodate the year 2015 projected population. The County
currently has nearly 71,000 acres designated for residential
use, excluding the potential residential
agricultural lands, uses on
To. further contain ~urban sprawl and prevent the encroachment
of urban uses into agricultural lands,
designated an urban
the County has
is to contain service area. The i~tent of this area
. ~r "restrict the negative impacts ~f a
~prawling, ~ow ~ensity development pattern and the fiscal
impacts that such a Pattern puts o~ a community.,, BeyOnd
the urban service are~ are lands designated for agricultura1
activities (AG-2.5 and AG-5).
These designations are for
areas most suitable for agricultural a~d agricultural-
related activities, although they retain some residential
development rights. ~
The County has established a set of criteria in County Land
Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4 which are to guide the decision-
making process for the conversion of existing agricultural
lands to non-agricultural land uses. It does not appear
that .the proposed land use meets the criteria, as called for
in this policy, nor does it appear to meet the fundamental
11
the pro Sed ~h ._~'~.'~'E znrr__asr, ructure and services,
po ange ~n land us- ~--'-----. - . Whale
~ ~=~n~on 1:o a maximu~ of
will
Off
occur
as urban
County. plan,
'isolated
least to
and S.R.
which
designation
development
$
the County
be
would preclude efficient to
at a reasOnable cost. It
to provide services to low density
in isolated areas.
Second '' · , .
~sof 19c~1 governments should be b~-A~ .... .
of luna required to =o=u un =ne amoun
the accommodate future growth, the projecte~
population, · availability of' public services, etc. Under
the current plan, the County has made very generous
designations of. lands in order to meet future needs. Even
with a very liberal estimate of the amount of residential
needed
County,s one acre per 'every three persons)
land neces ...... provides at least double th ...... !~th~
· ~ ~0 accommo ~ ~m~tAA~ O~
populatiOn in ~he v~ ~= d_a~? t~e County,s Dro~ec ~
permitted purposes, excluding the
uses on agriculturally designated
lands, the effect of residential development on
proposed Amendment No. 92-002 would be to detract from
development within the present urban service area and to
detract from efforts to contain urban sprawl and to promote
infill development in urban areas.
Third, Regional Policy 16.1.2.3 calls for new development to
be compatible with, and complementary, to
surrounding land
uses and should not negatively affect existing approved
activities. When residential development encroaches into
agricultural areas, conflicts occur.
immediate
The conflict may be
here, given, the location, of the private airstrip
· p r~un= agrlcul=ural areas ~f the' State,
recently reaching~ prominence as the 1ar es
in the'State, w~t~ ~le_~ ...... ? t c~trus producer
future population in a~- ~-. _~ ~e _to accommodate
encroachment on the ~~-~° j=~aat~a for urban use
~--~-~.t agricultural areas '
be Permitted. should not
13
flexible in the determination of con
r_oadways. Under a ------£- currency for
finanCin" to b,,-''~ -'~ =o .procee~ as ion a~ th&
~ . -~u ~ne necessa im g ·
place or , ry provements - -
is pr . __ is in
capital ~mprovements program, p rt of a au/t~-year
St.
Lucie
lza=ion to approve
pre! .development-.. orders certain
(comprehensive plan
zoning:.amendments,.etc.), even in areas
may not'.exist or may
not be part of ..the current capital improvements
program. Council recognizes, that there are
betterdefinethe visio- ~ . amendments which
' ~ rot a cer~ '
present ~ infrastzl/ctur~ - ....... aln area, even if
or intensities ~-.~l-i~ . wermlss.lDle'densities
· . - ~=la also recognizes that S
~cae County fully disclos~_ ,j_ ~ i i t;
reWnenqu iriiSSuin"ngthe~ s"~lan'~" prezlmlna---'~i'. ~°ry_. uev~ elo_-laCKpment°f ordersCapacity
; ~ d owner to si by
~onconcurrency affidavit wh..?n_~ %?gally record a
any future o,---=~- i_ ~-.~uus r~le current, and
shortcomings may ----~..~_ -~ ~=lce that capacity
of any final d _ d~ate consldera ·
evelo men . txon
the County to ~ran~p ~,,~._o_w~,ers. Cou~_c~l encoura es
type onl~ whe- ~--- - a_nd ~se cnan es o
. z - ~un ran · g f this
golng stu'' : ' ~_ ge in=restructure D
add P , t trends e
_~ xt~oga1 infrastructUre ~, ~:,_f, t~., .suggest that
. . ~ ~e~y to De available
u= a ru=ure date
No apparent response from the County
Amendment No. 9~-00~
A. Objection
1. ~roposed .Amendment No. 92-002 is inte---
· nconsisten= with the ~t '- · '- . rnully
Plan and is in~ons' - hucle co.%tn=y Comprehensiv
the RegionaI ~ .... ~en~ with a number of Doli-~--
~'~= =ppears to be no ne-~ ~--=~J~" ~ur~nermore,.
~ln?e St. Lucie Coun~..~t~ .une land use change
ueslgnated for res~-214_."~s large vacant are~
serv{-~ ..... ~=-uzul uses wi~w~ ....
_ .~= =rea. The promosed =-~-= .... ~n_=ne urban
an Infringement o~ __L% .~. ~--~-umen= WoulO reDresen+
- ~grzcuItural areas of the ~oUnty,
providing 'for the potential of
conflicts between
residential and agricultural use, may encourage other
land- owners in agricultural areas to seek conversion
of.lands outside of the designated urban service area
to residential use, and represents an example of the
15
__. t" .-~.~men~ or the re~ire~-~- _~ _i . unity
Florida Statutes. = .... ,,~ uz unapter 163,
Attachments
17
LAND USE
13
so)Tr SCOTT
!
CROOKS
SU-
CANAL
REEVES
STREET
ASSOC
ETHEL
HAYES
19
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
St. Lucie County
Amendment 92-2
IntroduCtion
The objections raised in this report concern Amendment PA-92-002.
One of the primary issues related.to the amendment are associated
with urban sprawl. When the County's comprehensive plan was
found "Not-in-Compliance,, on March 21, 1990, one of the two major
issues was the failure ofthe plan to adequately discourage urban
sprawl. Based on the ratio of lands occupied by current
residents (approximately 1 acre per 3 persons) approximately
35,000 acres .of residential land would be needed to accommodate
o ~
the year 2015 ppulatlon (the planning timeframe). However, the
County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates 70,989 acres for
residential development. Although the plan was brought into
compliance through the amendment process, the allocation of
residential land uses as shown on the FLUMwas not changed from
thatwhich was originally adopted. Therefore, the Department is
concerned withthe proposal to allocate additional lands for
residential uses and the consistency of the proposed amendments
with plan policies established to address urban sprawl iSsues.
The Departmenttherefore concurs with the objections raised by
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to this amendment.
The County should be aware of the difficulties resulting from
large over allOcations of residential (and other) land ~ses. As
Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requires that the allocation of land
uses be based upon the projected population and discourage urban
sprawl, amendments to the Future Land Use Map which seek to add
to an already large inventory of non-rural or'non-agricultural
lands are difficuit to support. Further difficulties arise where
the character of specific areas may be changing and land uses
should be re-visited. However, without a comprehensiv?
consideration of the adequacy of the current distribution of land
uses (and subsequent reconfiguration), plan amendments either
exacerbate, or create, development patterns characteristic of
urban sprawl. In instances where comprehensive plans provide for
a more than adequate supply of urban landS' for future development
(as dOes St. Lucie County's plan), it may be appropriate to
reconsider the current distribution of higher intensity land
uses, This could be accomplished on a County-wide basis or~ by
establishing specific planning areas for evaluation.
Objections toAmendment PA-92-002
As noted above, the issue of urban sprawl is of concern
to the Department with respect to this amendment. Rule
9J-5.006(2)(c) requires that an analysis of the amount
of land needed to accommodate the County's projected
population. The Future Land Use Map adopted by the
County currently provides for twice the amount of
residential land needed to accommodate the year 20t5
population. However, although the amendment proposes
to add to this supply of residential land, an analysis
which supports the need for additional residential
land, above that which is currently provided for, has
not been included~' Also,~-please ~ee the comments of
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding
this amendment and the iSsue of urban sprawl.
Recommendation
In orderfor the proposed amendment to be supported by
adequate d~ta and analysis, include an analysis
demonstrating that the current inventory and/or
distribution of residential land uses are inadequate to
accommodate the County's projected population.
Relevant factors would include unanticipated increases
-in the projected population, changing development
patterns and housing demands. Also, if the County
determines that the existing supply of residential land
is adequate but that the current distribution should be
changed to achieve its planning goals, it may be
appropriate to redistribute residential uses without
increasing the supply of such uses.
An analysis of the impact of the increased densities as
proposed by the amendment on the Florida Turnpike
interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70 has not
been included. Please see the enclosed comments of the
Florida Department of Transportation which address this
objection. Additionally, while data submitted by the
applicant ~(T. Torres letter of March 19, 1992 to the
County Planning Director, p. 7) appears to indicate
that adequate capacity exists on the roadway system to
maintain adopted level of service standards given the
increased density, it is not clear that this estimate
considers the adopted peak hour level of service
standard. Rules 9J-5.007(2) (b); 9J-11.006(1) (b)4; and,
9J-Il. 006 (4).
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the impact of the increased
densities as proposed by the amendment on the Florida
Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70.
Revise the facility capacity analysis and the analysis
of the impact of the proposed amendment to be based
upon and assessed against the adopted peak hour level
of service standard.
2
3 e
Although information has been submitted by the
applicant that development of the subject site is
anticipated to be served by central water and sanitary
sewer facilities (see page 5 of Mr. Torres letter to
the Planning Director dated March 19, 1992) facility
capacit~ analyses ~or these facilities .an.d the impact
of th? increased d~nsity on thes? facilities has not
been included. Addition~ily, while the generation rate
for solid waste has been-estimated, an analysis
identifying existing solid waste facility capacity and
the effect of the i~creased generation rate on the
adopted level of solid waste service standard has not
been included. Also, an analysis of the availability
and deman~6h and, capacity of drainage facilities has
-not been included. Rules 9J-5.011(1)(f); 9J-
~11.006(1) (b) 2.; 9J-11.006(1) (b) 4.; and, 9J-11.006(3).
Recommendation
Include data and analysis for sanitary sewer, potable
water and drainage facilities addressing existing
facility capacity (i.e., surpluses or deficiencies),
identification of the demand generated by the level of
development allowable under the proposed land use
categoryand, an assessment of the impact on the
County's adopted level of service standards.
For example, on page 7 of the "Application for Change in
Future Land Use Classification,,, dated December 26,
1991, the response to question #6 calculates the amount
of solid waste that could be expected if the subject
property was developed as 160 unit subdivision.
The analysis should be expanded by identifying the
existing capacity of solid waste facilities and the
impact of the estimated generation rate on the County's
level of service standard (i.e., can standards be
maintained or, would facility improvements or
expansions be required). This type of analysis should
be included for all facilities which would serve the
subject site.
Amendment PA-92-002 is inconsistent with the following
goals objectives and policies of theSt. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan:
(a) Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.2, which
"...establishes agriculture as the primary use outside
the urban service boundary and promote[s] retention of
agricultural activities...," because the subject site
lies outside the urban service boundary and is proposed
for development at a density which is inconsistent with
agricultural activities;
(b) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4.f., which
provides that when converting existing or designated
agricultural land uses to non-agricultural uses that
the site will have available the necessary
infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands
for development, ~ecause~adequate facility capacity
analyses needed to support the amendment have ~Qt been
included;
(c) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.2, which
requires that .new development be designed so as not to
place unanticipated economic burdens upon the services
and facili%~es of the County, because facility capacity
analyses for solid waste and traffic circulation are
~inadequate_and do not support the proposed amendment;
and,
(d) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.12.1, which
provides for restricting higher densities and
intensities of development to urban service areas,
because the amendment proposes to establish higher
intensity uses outside the Planned Urban Service
Boundary.
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment and include additional
data and analysis as recommended in the above cited
objections. .-'~
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Goal 16 (Land Use), Policy (b)l., of
the State Comprehensive Plan, which addresses the
separation of urban and rural land uses, because
adequate data and analysis has not been in61uded to
support the need for the increased density· Rules 9J-
5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1). ~ .....
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Goal 20 (Transportation), policies-
(b)2. and (b)3., of the State Comprehensive Plan
because an analysis of the impact of the proposed
increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange
(and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been
included. Rules 9J-5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1).
4
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting
additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended
for the objections raised above.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICy PLAN
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Regional Policy 16.1.2.2 of the
Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan which indicates
that Future Land Use Maps of local governments should
be based on_the amount of land required to accommodate
future gr6~r~h and the projected population-, because
adequate data and analysis supporting the need for the
~increased .density of land use has not been included.
Rules 9J-5.002(2) and, 9J-5.021(1).
Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and
does not further Regional Policy 19.2~1.3, addressing
acceptable level of service standards for roadways,
because an analysis of the impact of the proposed
increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange
(and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been
included.
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting
additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended
for the objections raised above.
5
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R..~. Gray Building
500 South Br. onoifgh
Taltahassee. Florida 32399-0250
Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
Mr. Robert Arredondo (~) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353
Dept. of Comm. Affrs.
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Dr. '~
Tallahassee, FL 32399
BUREAU OF LOCAL
April 23, 1992
Re: Historic Preservation Review of St. Lucie County's
(92-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
According to this agency's responsibilities under section
267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections
163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced
documents to decide if data regarding historic resources have
been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Changing the Future Land'Use designation and rezoning the 9.57
acre tract (File No. PA-92-001) from Residential to Commercial
should have no adverse affect on historic resources in the
county, since this tract appears to be in a low probability area
for archaeological sites and lacks any historic buildings. On the
other hand, changing the land use designation from Agricultural
to Residential Suburban on the 163.92 acre tract (File No. 92-
002) may affect significant resources in the co~ty. An area this
large generally needs to be systematically surveyed to discover
its potential for producing significant archaeological sites. As
we stated in our review of the 92-1 amendment to the St. Lucie
Comprehensive Plan, the county needs to sponsor a systematic,
professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporated
county that is designed to: (1) revisit known sites to find out
their present condition, (2) prepare predictive models for the
location of sites, and sample selected areas to verify'the
validity of these models, and (3) delimit archaeological
sensitivity areas within the county based on the study results.
Finally, the county should consider adopting a policy to require
Archaeological Research
(9041 487-2299
Florida Folklife Programs
(904) 397-2192
Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History
(O04~ 487-2333% ~'O~d~ dgc~_laga
~~age Two .
Mr. Rober~ Arredondo
April 23, 1992
above)
present.
H
If
developments scheduled within archaeological
areas undergo investigation (such as the tract noted
~find out if significant archaeological sites are
the other hand, areas outside the sensitivity areas
to proceed--barring no chance archaeological finds-
The county als~,'sh°uld locate and evaluate all its
to ensur~ thattheY are considered before
development or redevelopment to take place. SDme
funds for historic resource surveys ~ay be
the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of
at (904) 487-2333-
is our op'.~nion that the amended comprehensive plan
of the Division of Historical Resources and
Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections
163.3178~ F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding
of knoWn historical resources within their
area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of
goals an~ objectives for addressing historical and
iysignificant historical resources in St. Lucie county.
~ any questions regarding our comments, please feel
Michael wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the
compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333.
~George W. Percy, Director
Div. of Historical Resources
> ,:,, z ~ ~ ,'", o -,- ~
z~_o~o~ ~~
Z.o ,--1 r,:oO ~'~ ~
~ 8 .m. ~ >,..,. =.,~
< -fl rO.l-~ 0 ~ '~ 0
~F,'~- mo~' <
.,~ 0 0 Od:)
~. "'0 2. :~ ::::r "'0 0
~- ::='o .on- ,-.-~ ~'
t~. 0
~oo=-~
2 -
STATE OF FLORIDA ~ ,-~: -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 C ENTERVI EW DRIVE
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
o T A L ! A H A S S E E, F L O R ! D A 32399 - 21'00
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Secretary
November 23, 1992
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of CountyCommissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Commissioner Cu'lpepper:
The Department has completed its rev_~f the adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2),
and determined that Ordinance No. 92-029 does not meet the
requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for
compliance and that Ordinance No. 92-028 do meet the requirements
of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance. The
Department is issuing a Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent
to find the comprehensive plan amendment Not In Compliance for
Ordinance No. 92-029 and In Compliance for Ordinance No. 92-028.
The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Port St. Lucie News
publication on November 24, 1992.
Please note that a copy of the adopted St. Lucie County
Amendments, the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report dated July 21, 1992, the Notice of Intent and
the Department's Statement of Intent to Find the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Not in Compliance must be available for public
inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays,
during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie County Admini-
stration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203, Ft. Pierce,
Florida 34982.
In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of
Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative
Hearings. of the Department of Administration for the scheduling
of an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida
Statutes.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT o HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
November 23, 1992
Page Two
I am interested in meeting with you at'your convenience for
the Purpose of negotiating an agreement'that will bring your Plan
amendment into compliance. My staff and I are available to
discuss your plan amendment with you.
If you have any questions, or are interested in discussing
a compliance agreement, pl~se contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, or Dale Eacker, Community Program
Administrator, at (9'04) 487--4545.
Sincerely, ~ ~
C~i~e s~" G~p a t t is c~n~,~e c~t o~r
Division of Resource Planning
and Managem. ent
CGP/j hw
Enclosure:
Notice of Intent
Statement 'of Intent
cc:
Daniel M. CarM.,~ Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council
Terry Virta, Community DeveloPment Administrator
IN RE:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
AMENDMENT 92-2 )
ADOPTED BY ) DOCKET NO. 92-2-NOI-5601-(A)~(N)
ORDINANCE NO.-92-029 )
ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
)
STATEMENT.,OF INTENT. TO FIND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
NO~ ~N COMPLIANCE
The Florida Departmen~of, Community Affairs hereby issues its
Statement of Intent to findthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment of St.
Lucie County, adOpted by Ordinance No.. 92-029 on September 22,
1992, Not In ComPliance based upon the Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report (ORC Report) issued by the Department on July
21, 1992, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and changes
mad~ to-t~e plan amendment, as adopted, ~hich were not previously
reviewed by the Department. The Department finds that the plan
amendment is not "in~ compliance," .as d~'fined in Section
163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (F.S.), because it is not
consistent with Sections 163.3171 and 163.3177, F.S., the State
Comprehensive- Plan, the Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
I-. FUTURE LANDUSE
A. Inconsistent provision. The inconsistent provision of
the plan amendment under this subject heading is as follows:
~. Amendment PA-92-002, which changes approximately 164
acres from Agriculture to Residential Estate, is not supported by
adequate-data and analysis. The County did not provide data and
analysis which demonstrated the need for additional lands at the
increased density. Rul~ 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.~, and Section
163.3177(6) (a) , F.S. The
proliferation of urban sPrawl.
Section 163.3177(6) (a) , F.S.
amendment also encourages the
Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)7., F.A.C. and
The process for the conversion of
lands designated Agriculture is described in Future Land Use
Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. This process was not followed
in regards to the amendmeht's subject land. Accordingly, the
amendment is internally i~c6nsistent with Future Land Use Objective
1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. Rule 9J-5.005(5), F.A.C.
B. Recommended remedial action. This inconsistency may be
remedied by taking the following action:
1. Include an analysis of the need for the land use change
as related to the projections of the land needed to accommodate the
projected population, Which is contained in the adopted
comprehensive plan. Include an analysis addressing how the
amendment is consistent with discouraging urban sprawl. Include an
analysis demonstrating how the amendment is consistent with the
process for the conversion of land designated Agricultural as
described in Future Land Use Objective 1.1.2 and POlicy 1.1.2.4.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be- consistent with the
analyses and objective and policy identified above.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent prowisions. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment under this subject heading are as follows:
2
1. The adopted comprehensiVe plan amendment is inconsistent
with the State Comprehensive Plan, including the following
provisions (Ru~e 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Goal 16 (Land Us~),. and Policy ~b%l which addresses the
separation of urban and rural land uses, becauSe adequate data and
analysis has not been included to support the need for the
increased density and these uses are incompatible.
B. -Recommendedremedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the ~ctions described above in Section I.B.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH REGi0NAL POLICY PLAN
A. Inconsistent provisions. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment under this subject heading axe as follows:
1. The adopted comprehensive'plan is inconsistent with the
Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, i~cluding the
following provisions (Rule' 9~-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Regional .Policy 16.1.2.2, which indicates that Future
Land Use Maps of local governments should be based on the amount-of
land required to accommodate future growth and the projected
population, because adequate data and analysis supporting the need
for the increase density of land use has not been included.
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the actions described above in Section I.B.
o
F.A.C.
4. The plan amendmen~ is not
requirements of Section 163.3177 F.S
. CONCLUSIONS
1. The plan amendment is not consistent with the Treasure
Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
2. The plan amendment is not consistent with the S~ate
Comprehensiwe Plan~
The plan amendment is not consistent with Chapter 9J-5,
consistent with the
5. The plan amendmem~ is not "in compliance,,, as defined in
Section 163.3184(1) (b), F.S.
6. In order to bring the plan amendment into compliance the
County may complete the recommended remedial actions described
above or adopt other remedial actions that 91iminate the
inconsistencies.
Executed this day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee,
Florida.
Charles Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
c: \wp51 \f ~ ~ es\so~ \st {uc ~ e. 922 _ - '
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND
AMENDMENT(S) TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO(S). 92
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
AND AMENDMENT(S) ADOPTED BY NO(S). 92-028
IN COMPLIANCE
DOCKET NO. 92-2-NOI-5601-(A)-(N)
The Department gives notice of its intent to find Amend-
ment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s). 92-029 on September 22, 1992,
NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s).
92-028 on September 22, 1992 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections
163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S.
The adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s),
the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Re-
port, (if any), and the Department's Statement of Intent to find
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) Not In Compliance will be
available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for
legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie
County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203,
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S.,
has a right to petition for.an administrative hearing to chal-
lenge the proposed agendY'.d~termination that the Amendment(s) to
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as de-
fined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed
within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, a
copy must be mailed or delivered to the local government and must
include all of the information and contents described in Rule
9J-11.012(8), F.A.C. The petition shall be filed with the Agency
Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2740 Centerview Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. Failure to timely file a peti-
tion shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an admin-
istrative proceeding as a petitioner under Section 120.57, F.S.
If a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing
will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recom-
mended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this
Notice of Intent shall become final agency action.
This Notice of 'Intent and the Statement of Intent for the
amendment(s) found Not In ~ompliance will be forwarded by peti-
tion to the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department
of Administration for the scheduling of an Administrative hearing
pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. The purpose of the administra-
tive hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and for-
ward a recommended order to the Administration Commission.
Affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the
proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least
five (5) days before the final hearing and must include all of
the information and contents described in Rule 22I-6.010, F.A.C.
A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division
of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), Department of Administration,
1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, and a
copy mailed or delivered to the local government. All issues of
noncompliance other than those contained in the Statement of
Intent must be stated in the petition and filed with DOAH within
21 days of the date of this notice~. Failure to. petition to
intervene or to raise a new issue within the allowed time frame
constitutes a' waiver of any right such a person has to request a
hearing, or a hearing on that issue, under Section 120.57, F.S.,
or to participate in the administrative hearing.
Charles G; Pattison, Director
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource P~l~anning
and Management ,
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 C ENTER¥1EW DRIVE
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
T A L L A H A S S E E, F L O R I D A 3 2 3-9 9- 2 ! 0 0
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Secretary
November 23, 1992
The Honorable Judy Culpepper
.Chairman, St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Commissioner Culpepper:
The Department has completed its review of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2),
and determined that Ordinance No. 92-029 does not meet the
requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for
compliance and that Ordinance No. 92-028 do meet the requirements
of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance.~ The
Department is issuing a Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent
to find the comprehensive plan amendment Not In Compliance for
Ordinance No. 92-029 and In ComplianCe for Ordinance No. 92-028.
The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Port St. Lucie News
publication on November 24, 1992. - -
Please note that a .copy of the adopted St. Lucie County
Amendments, the Department,s Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report dated July 21, 1992, the Notice of Intent and
the Department's Statement of Intent t0 Find the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Not in Compliance must be available for public
inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays,
during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie County Admini-
stration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue Room 203 Ft Pierce,
Florida 34982. ' · -
In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of
Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative
0fHearingSan administ~ati~e°f the Departmenth~aringOf Administration for the scheduling
Statu~es~ pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida
EMER(:ENCY MANAC;EA4 ENT - HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DI~VELOPM£NT . RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANA(:EML--NT
The ~onorable Judy Culpepper
November 23, 1992
Page Two
I am interested in meeting with you at'your convenience for
the' purpose ofnegotiatingan agreement~that
amendment into m~l~ ..... · . will brina
discuss your plan amendment with you.
..... ~ x ~re avallable~to
If you have any questions, or are i
~ c?mpllance~agreement, pl~se c~-~ _~t%~ested in dlscussin
Administrator, at (904) 48734545. - C°~uy ~rogram
CGP/j hw
Enclosure:
cc:
Notice of Intent
Statement 'of Intent
Sincerely, ~
- ttison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Daniel M. Cary~ Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Coun~l .
Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator
IN RE '
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ST. LUCIE COUNTy )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
AMENDMENT 92- 2
ADOPTED BY ) DOCKET NO. 92-2_NOi_5601_(A)._iN)
ORDINANCE NO.. 92-029 )
ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
_)
STATEMENT,, OF INTENT. TO.
COMPR~.NSiyE PLAN A~-N~ME~T
~ANC_E
The Florida Department:of..~ Community Affairs hereby issues its
Statement of Intent to find-~he Comprehensive Plan~endment of St.
Lucie County, adopted by Ordinance No. 92-029 on Septem~.er 22,
1992, Not In Compliance based upon the Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Repor~ (ORC Report) issued by the Department on July
21,.1992'. .._ which is hereby incorporated by reference, and changes
made to the plan amendment, as adopted, which were not previously
reviewed by the Department. The 'Department finds that the plan
amendment is not "in compliance,.,, as d~fined in Section
163.3184(1)(b),. Florida Statutes (F.S.), because it is not
consistent 'with Sections ~6~.3171 and 163.3177, F.S., the State
Comprehensive Plan, the Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
FUTURE LAND USE
A. Inconsistent_ provision. The inconsistent provision of
the plan amendment under this subject heading is as follows:
3. Amendment PA-92-002, which changes approximately 164
acres from Agriculture to Residential Estate, is not supported by
adequate ~data and analysis. The County did not provide data and
analysis which demonstrated the need for additional~ lands at the
increased density. Rul~ ~J-5. 006 (2) (c), F.A.C.., and Section
163. 3177 (6) (a) , F~S. The . amendment also encourages the
proliferation of urban sprawl. Rule 9J-5~006(3)(b)7.,. F.A.C. and
Section 163.3177(6) (a), F.S. The process for the conversion of
lands designated Agriculture~. is described in Future Land Use
Objective 1.1.2 and policy 1.1.2.4. This process was not 'followed
in regards to the amendmeht,s~ subject land. Accordingly,~ the
amendment is internally nc6nslstent with Future Land Use Objective
1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. Rule 9J-5.005(5), F.A.C.
B. Recommended remedial action. This inconsistency may be
remedied by taking ~he following action:
1. Include an analysis, of the need for the land use change
as related to the projections of the land needed to accommodate the
projected population, which is contained in ~the adopted
comprehensive plan. Include an analysis addressing how the
amendment is consistent with discouraging urban sprawl. Include an
analysis demonstrating how-the amendment is consistent with the
process for the conversion of land designated Agricultural as
described in Future Land Use Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be-~onsistent, with the-
analyses and objective and policy identified above.
II. ~ONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent pro¥isions. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The adopted comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent
with the State Comprohensive Plan, including the following
provisions {Ru~e 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Goal 16 (Land· --~.Us~)" and Policy (b)l., %'hich addresses the
separation of urban and rural land uses, because adequate data and
analysis has not been included to support the need for the
increased density and th0se~.uses are incOmpatible.
B. . 'Rec°mmended"remedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the·., ~tions described above in Section I.B.
III. coNSISTENCy WITH REG~0NAL POLICY PI~IN
A. Inc°nsiste~ns. The inconsistent provis~ons of
the plan amendment Under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The ~dopted comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the
Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional Pot&cy Plan, i~cluding the
following provisions. (Rule'9~-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Regional Policy 16.1.2.2, which indicates that Future
Land Use Maps of local governments should be based on the amount.of
land required to accommodate future growth and the projected
populatSon, because_adequate data and analysis supporting the need
for the ~ncrease density of land use has not been included.
B. ROcOmmended remed±al actions. These-inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the actions described above in Section t.B.
.CONCLUSIONS
1. The plan amendment is not consistent with the Treasure
Coast Comprehensive Regional'Policy Plan.
2. ~ The plan amendment is not consistent with the S~a~e
Comprehensiwe Plan.
3. The plan amendment is not consistent with Chapter 9J-5,
F.A~C. ~.
4. The plan amendment is not consistent with the
requirements of Section 163.3177 F.S
5. The plan-amendmen~ is not "in compliance,,, as defined in
Section 163.3184(1) (b), F.S.
6. In order to bring the plan amendment into compliance the
County may complete the recommended remedial actions described
above or adopt other remedial actions that eliminate the
inconsistencies.
;~ day of November, 199~, at Tallahassee,
Executed
this
Florida.
Charles Patt~son, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
c: \wp51 \fi [es\so~ \st {Uc~e.922 ' '
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND
AMENDMENT(S) TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED BY'ORDINANCE'NO(S).
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
AND AMENDMENT(S) ADOPTED BY NO(S). 92-028
IN COMPLIANCE
DOCKET NO. 92-2-NOI-5601-(A)-(N)
The Department gives notice of its intent to find Amend-
ment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s). 92-029 on September 22, 1992,
NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No(s).
92-028 on September 22, 1992 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections
163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S.
The adopted St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan Amendment(s),
the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Re-
port, (if any), and the Department's Statement of Intent to find
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) Not In Compliance will be
available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for
legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie
county Administration.Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203,
Ft. Pier:ce, Florida 3~982.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S.,
has a right to petition for. an administrative hearing to chal-
lenge the proposed agendy: d'etermination that the Amendment(s) to
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as de-
fined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed
within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, a
copy must be mailed or delivered to the local government and must
include all of the information and contents described in Rule
9J-11.012(8), F.A.C. The petition shall.'be filed With the Agency
Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2740 Centerview Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. Failure to timelY file a peti-
tion shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an admin-
istrative proceeding as a petitioner under SeCtion 120.57, F.S.
If a petition is filed, the purpose of the:'administrative hearing
will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recom-
mended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this
Notice of Intent shall become final agency action.
This Notice of 'Intent and the Statement of Intent. for the
amendment(s) found Not In ~ompliance will be forwarded by peti-
tion to the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department
of Administration for the scheduling of. an Administrative.hearing
pu. rSuant ,to Se.ction 120.57, F.S. The purpose~'~of::~the administra-
tive hearing will be to present evi.dence'and.testimonY and fOr-
ward a recommended order to the Administration.Commission.
Affected persons may petition for leave to'interVene in the
proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least
five (5) days before the final hearing and 'must include all of
the information and contents described in Rule 22I-6.010, F.A.C.
A petition for leave to intervene shall be' filed-at the Division
of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), Department of Administration,
1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, and a
copy mailed or delivered to the local government. All issues of
noncompliance other than those contained in the Statement of
Intent must be stated in the petition and 'filed with DOAH within
21 days of the date of this notice. Failure to.. petition to
intervene or to raise a new issue within the allowed time frame
constitutes a' waiver of any right such a person has to request a
hearing, or a hearing on that issUe, under Section 120.57, F.S.,
or to participate in the administrative hearing.
Churls Pattison, Director
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning
and Management ,,
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399~2100
November 20, 1992
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
Dear Mr. Arredpndo:
Under the council,s contract with the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), Council is to make an overall
finding of consistency or inconsistency of local plan
amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan
(RCPP). This finding is to be made following the local
government,s adoption of the amendments, and by formal
action of Council. When possible, Council will make such a
finding by the 30th day of the 45-day compliance review
period. It is Council's understanding that the DCA will
consider the recommendation of Council prior to issuing a
notice of intent regarding local plan amendment compliance.
On October 8, 1992, Council received a copy of the formally
adopted comprehensive plan amendments for St. Lucie County.
A review of those amendments was done, with a focus on the
County,s response to the comments made by the Council as a
result of a review of the County's draft comprehensive plan
amendments. -
Attached is a copy of the complete agenda item as approved
by Council at a regular meeting held on November 20, 1992.
Please note that Council was unable to reach a' majority
decision of the recommendation on Amendment PA92-002. A
motion to approve the staff reOommendation was deadlocked
7-7. A motion to transport the report and analysis with a
clear indication to you that no recommendation on
8'6.consistency is being made due to the tie vote was approved
3228 s.w. martin downs blvd.
suite 205 - po. box '/529
palm city, florida 34990
phone (4~7) 221-4060
sc 269-4060 fax (407) 22t-4067
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Comm__unity Affairs
NB~ur. ea_u of State Planning
oven~er 20, 1992
Page Two
If you need additional information or have any questions
please do not hesitate to call. -,
Cary,
Executive Dir~tor
DMC: lb
Attachment
cc: Terry L. Virta, AICP
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To: _~-~ Council Members
From: Staff
Date: :~ November '20, '1992 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
~ Ad°pted::~'Amendments tothe St. Lucie-County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
IntroductiOn.
AGENDA ITF3) 6t)3
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Plannin ,.
contract with the stat .... ' · _ _ g Council s
(DCA), the ~o~=il m~st ~_.~a_rtment_ of. Community Affairs
after ~v~ew uomprenenslve Plan Amendments
their .gdoption. St Lucie County has submitted
Council,sad°pted amendm~entScomments, to the ~CA, which in turn is seeking
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written
report containing a determination of consistency with. the
Regional Plan is to be provided to the DCA within 30
calendar days of receipt of 'the plan,
amendments, elements or
Council reviewed --the DRAFT amendments to the County,s
comprehensive plan at its meeting of May 15, 1992 (see
attachment)i. The DRAFT amendments consisted of two
amendments to the County,s Future Land Use Map. Council had
one objection and two comments on the DRAFT amendments.
Evaluation
On July 21, 19'92, the DCA issued- an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on the DRAFT
-amendments. The ORC report cSntained a total of eight
objections to .the proposed amendments. The County has
adopted the amendments with no changes, but has prepared a
response report to the ORC regarding Amendment PA-92-002.
In the transmittal letter which accompanied the 'materials.
pertaining to PA-92-002, the County suggests that the DCA
of almost three m' '' ·
~ . ' 1111on .c~b. lc yards and is
~erve.the C~_u~_ty unt~l .t~_? year 2002. anticipatedin. 1996,
uno=ner ~ase w111 ~dd significantl~ more capacity to
unltsth? 1an~ki11.wi11 be negligible.The .'.l~_act of 98 additional residential
which d~l. ~i~7tf¥~7~ ox ??.county comprehensive plan
~e o~anu~se ~UtSlde the urban service area,
= agr~cu£=ural lands to
nonagricultural
uses,. · and land use densities outside the
Planned Urban'Service ~oundary~' ·
COUNTY RESPONSE
_ _ . - While the property lies outsid
county urban-serv'~ ~ .... ~--- .... e the
surr-,,-~--- ~i_- - = .... a= ~s no= Inconsistent w'
compromise the integrit --~f.~= =rea, nor does it
Y the comprehensive plan.
Primary land uses outside the urban service boundary
remain agricUltural.
Lands surrq_unding PA-92-002, while used for agricultural
purposes, generally carry land use designations which
would allow residential development -at one or two
dwelling units per acre. Existing subdivisions lie to
the west and the northwest. The subject property itself
contains an unrecorded non-conforming subdivision. The
RE designation for this property fits in with the
transition of lands from higher density residential to
agricultural. Density at one dwelling unit per acre is
no threat to existing active citrus-production in the
area. The development will place no additional pressure
on the conversion of agricultural lands in the area.
Concurrency is not an issue, since no urban services are
required, and there is no identified decrease in the
level of service on roadways in the area. According to
the County plan, densities of greater than two dwelling
units per acre are to be within the urban service area.
Since the subject amendment is limited to a maximum of
one dwelling unit per acre and requires no urban
services, it 'is not inconsistent with County Future Land
Use Policies.
5. DCA CONCERN - The amendment is inconsistent with State
Comprehensive Plan Goals 16 (Land Use)
(Transportation). _- and 20
COUNTY RESPONSE - Existing subdivisions to the north and
west of the site have set the pattern for development in
this vicinity. The County comprehensive plan provides
for a gradual and logical transition in land use from
east to west as follows: ' 1) urban densities and
services; 2) transitional from urban to rural densities;
3
l~elative to the.· failure to address ~ the
that
are. ~ preliminary
development orders and,- as such, consistent with
policies contained in~ the County Capital Improvements
not made. or capacity determinations are
4) Relative to the
potential of conflicts with
p°licy~which' calls for
....... outside the
, ~ . ~rea~'~r~e'countv. a
, . and ~. that Uue ~-t-~ar~al wil~. remain
?area, low.'densxtv ---~ .... J ubdmv~s~ons
~arcel is ' ~ A-=sAuen=laA use on the
-compatible. The County 'also ..
~-.redesi -a: .' . . argues
. gn t~on f~ts 1 .... ~= ~ -' · .
by the County.~from east-to west which is
:ia1, Suburban Residential, Estate
agricultural. Agricultural-Residential and, finally,
The reasons-advanced by the County, which are similar
to those stated previously,
do not adequately a~dress
Council,s concerns. The amendment is not consistent
with Regional Policy 16;1.1.2
since regarding concu
~ T: the County will post~o~ --~ rrency,
ue=erminat~ons until t= .... ~ = ~A con?urrenC
- ~ sl=e plan stage. Since o'~n~
dwelling unit Per acre development (un~ss clustered)
is perhaps t~e most costly, land consuming, and
inefficient type of development, the proposal-is-not
consistent with
Regional Policy 16.1.1.4.
Development at one dwelling unit per acre is too
sparce for a reasonable range of urban
· services, but
dense enough to be very expensive to the public in
the long term. The proposal is not consistent with
Regi!°nal P°ticy 16.1.2.2, since the County already
has vast areas designated for low density residential
development which remain vacant, both inside and
outside the urban service area-. Low density
residential use in this area is not compatible with
existing uses (including an airstrip used for crop
dusting) consistent with Regional Policy 16.1.2.3,
despite the location of a couple of sparcely
developed large lot subdivisions in the area.
Perhaps the fact that these low density subdivisions
are far from built out is--all the more reason not to
designate more land for such purposes. Not only is
the need lacking, but redesignation of the subject
parcel will make previously approved (or non-
conforming) subdivisions less likely
successful, to be
5
surrounding farm land.
sprawl, particularly
County already has
those who seek a more
Conclusion
Adopted amendment. PA-92-001 appears to b
the.':goals~ and policies cont ~x~ :-~- o_e_ CONSISTENT with
unable~to .re~. _ , ..... a~,,=~_ ~n =ne RCPP. Council
. '. :~ , -~ -~o-s~s=ency uetermination on
sxnce ~'~a'~.~ motion .. to.: adopt
. staff comments was deadlocked 7-7.
no final transmit the e. va. luation and analysis, with
recommendation of consis=ency.
Recommendation
Such strategies only produce.
when taken-to extremes. The
adequate lands designated for
rural lifestyle.
Council should adopt the comments and recommendations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Department. of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1991-92 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs.
Attachments
7
DR ST, LUCIE COUNTY
'aAFT COMPREHENSIVEPLAN~AMEND~s
FUTURELANDUSEELEMENT
Current
Amend. Approx. Land Use
No. ~ Designation
PA-92-001 9.6
Residential
Urban
Agricultural
- 2.5
PA-92-002 164.0
Proposed
Land Use
Designation
Commercial~
Residential
Estate
ADDrox~mate~?~cation
Northwestiof the-inter-
section of 25th Street
andEdwards Road~
West side of Gentile Road
one-half mile~north of
Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70)
Residential Urban (RU) - Allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Residential Estate (RE) - Allows up to I dwelling unit per acre.
Agricultural-2.5 (AG-Z. 5) - Allows up to 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
Evaluation
Looal Planning Perspective - Amendment No. 92-001 would add
an additional ten acres
to the inventory of ~ands designated
for commercial, purposes at, or near, the intersection of
~1th ~t ~and E~wa~s R~ad. The. County has now designated
quuuran~s o~ the intersection for commerc -- .
although the onl--.'~-~: ..... . . ial use.
. . z =~u~ng commerclai use is a convenience
; ~ are prlmarlly vacant, agricultural, or ve~
low density residential. East of 25th Street, the land us
is low/med~um density resi~--~ - . e
under 'construction- ~ -~_~_~"~ai a new middle school is
Street/EdWard. ~_~ ~ =~or~. ~ls=ance south.:of the 25th
vacant' land ~f~=u xn=ersectlon. The redesignation of this
future commercial use does not seem
inappropriate or 'in conflict with County policies. With a
great:deal of land now designated for commercial uses in
this area, the County should carefully consider the
appropriate zoning designations to provide a good mix of
commercial uses for residents of this area.
Amendment No. 92-002 would change
_ the land use on a 164-
acre parcel from its present d~signation as agricultural
(AG-2.5) to a residential designation (RE). The property is
located approximately 1-1/2 miles west of the intersection
of the FlOrida Turnpike and Okeechobee Road (State Route
70). Present access to the property is via Gentile Road, an
unpaved County local street which dead-endS near the
northeastern boundary of the subject property.
9
5) It is not clear how the area could be provided with a
of, serVices, such as sewer and water.
planned utility service areas.
In summary, the staff and LPA conclusion is that the
would extend urban development into
agricultu~al~.areas..and it fails to meet the~.burd~n of proof
of the need,.;.fora change in its land use designation.
~he goals and policies of the County
-to the conclusion that-'the
internallyinconsistent' with the
? Lan, ~ The
concern-~.about _ Co.unty plan expresses
_rev='_.-ti_ -~ _ _ . oz urban: uses into areas
~__~v~zy _~ ~eu for agricultural
agrlcul~ 'al uses to ~e .... -- _. =_.gr_a~dual .mlgratzon of
- ~ ~ea £anas, .- ~reviousTM ...... ~ ~ . s
~ 7 z -u~a ~°me~.ggr~cul=ural .uses continue.to~.occur
· so£a=ea areas ~o the east, lands now designated for
agricultUral purposes lie exclusively west of 1-95. Given
the agricultUre in St. Lucie County, continued
be avoided. In order to avoid this
County designated large areas for futUre
urban including lands in the 1-95/Turnpike
corridor. ,As an example, the County plan projects a future
population2015. This in is the based unincorporated high area of 93,000 by the year
the, ratio of ~__~n a . ~roWth scenario. Based on
., . ~a~u~ occ~pled by current
residents
~approx~ma=ely one acre per ~ee persons) the County would
ne~ 35,000 acres of residential land to
accommodate the,Year 2015 projected population. The County
71,000 acres designated for residential
use, the potential residential
agricultural lands, uses on
To further contain _urban sprawl and prevent the encroachment
of urban uses into agricultural lands, the County has
designated an Urban service area. The intent of this area
is to contain or "restrict the negative impacts of a
~prawling, low density development pattern and the fiscal
· mpacts that such a pattern puts on a community.- Beyond
the urban service area are lands designated for agricultural
activities (AG-2.5 and AG-5). These designations are for
areas most suitable 'for agricultural and agricultural-
related activities, although they retain some residential
development rights. :
The County has ~established a set of criteria in County Land
Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4 which are to guide the decision-
making process for the conversion of existing agricultural
lands to non-agricultural land uses. It does not appear
that the proposed land use meets the criteria as called for
in this policy, nor does it appear to meet the fundamental
11
Gentile
70.
to
will
development shall take place
provisions of, , . concurrent with or after the
the Infrastructure and services.-~.While
one dwelling ~mit ~er ___~se~desi~G~a~ion ~ a maximum of
~ ~re uOesr2not qualify.-as urban
. ~ encs will be
necessary, at least~ to
Road. and the intersection of Gentile Road and~.~.R.
significant_costs to bus school children
many miles.away. There
ling the area by~.the Sheriff's-
.costs were anticipated, by.the ~C0unty
individual be
necessary cost. It ! of
provide services to low ,
in isolated areas.
Second, Regional Policy 16.1.2,2 indicates that Future Land
Useof land Maps governments should be based on the amount
accommodate future growth, the projected
population, the availability of public services, etc. Under.
the current plan, the County has made very .generous
designations of lands in order to meet future needs. Even
with a very i estimate of the amount of residential
needed
, one acre per every three persons), the
County,s current provides at least double the amount of
land necessary to accommodate the County,s projected
populatiOnland in the year 2015. This calculation includes only
permitted residential purposes, excluding the
uses on agriculturally designated
lands. Therefore, the effect of residential development on
developmentPr°p°sed Amendmentw. . No. 92-002 would be to detract from
· th~n the present urban service area and to
detract from efforts to contain urban sprawl and to' promote
infill development in urban areas.
Third, Regional Policy 16.1.2.3 calls for new'development to
be compatible with, and complementary, to surrounding land
uses and should not negatively affect existing approved
activities. When residential development encroaches into
agricultural areas, conflicts occur. The conflict may be
immediate here, given the location Of the private airstrip
used for crop dusting. Furthermore,
among the most important a--~---- .... St. Lucie County is
~uu~cura~ areas of the State,
recently reaching prominence as the lare '
inthe State. Wit n _ .g st c~trus producer
the f ..... ~ ~ =lenty of land available t
u~ure o ula '~ · _ o accommodate
p p clon an area~ ·
encroachment designated for urban use,
be permitted.°n the important agricultural areas should not
13
flexible in the determination of concurrency for
roadways. Under... a concurr~cy~ management system,
development is a11°wed~t°' proceed' as
financing to build -~ ..... long as the
. ~,~ necessary ~mprovements is in
pla~e' or is prOgrammed as p~rt ~f a ---~'_ -~
capita/ improvements progr~. -~ ye~
st. Lucie County,s concurrency management strategy
to approve certain
(comprehensive plan
amendments,~ zoning.,.~.amendments,.,.etc.), even in areas
may not exist or may
not be ~part of .~the'current~ capital improvements
program. Council rec°gnizes~ that there are
advantages~,~in considering~Iand use amendments which
better~define~the~vision.~for~.a certain'area, even if
present
capacities could not
oraCC°mm°datedevel°pment~attheintensities. Council permissible densities
. also recognizes that St.
Lucie County fully discloses the l~ck of capacit
when issuing such preliminary development orders ~
requiring the land owner to sign and legally record a
nonconcurrency affidavit which puts the current and
any future owners On notice that capacity
shortcomings may preclude the /mmediate
~onsideration
of any' final development owners. C°unCil encourages
the County to gran~ future land use changes of t~is
type Onlly when long
range infrastructure plans, on-
going istudies, development trends, etc., suggest that
additional infrastru6ture is likely to be available
at a fUtUre date.
No apparent response from the Count~
Amendment No. 92-002
A. Objection
Proposed Amendment No. 92-002 is internally
inconsistent with the St. LuCie Co,~nty Comprehensive
Plan and is inconsistent with a number of policies in
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Furthermore,
there appears to be no need for the land use change,
since St. Lucie County has large vacant areas
designated for residential uses within the urban
service area. The proposed amendment would represent
an infringement on agricul~tural areas of the County,
providing for the potential of conflicts between
residential and agricultural use, may encourage other
land owners in agriCUltural areas to seek conversion
of lands outside of the designated urban service area
to residential use, and represents an example of the
15
Recommendation
adopt the comments outlined above and approve
to the State Department of Community
Affairs in f~1fillment of the requirements of Chapter 163
Florida statutes. ,
Attachments
17
LAND USE~ ...
,----L_Z_U_ :___ RM
CANAL ~
CROOKS
[~ REEVES
C
ZSTH STREET ASSOC
SU ETHEL
HAYES
19
November 20, 1992
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Subject:
Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Under the Council's contract with the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), Council is to make an overall
finding of consistency or inconsistency of local plan
amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan
(RCPP). This finding is to be made following the local
government,s adoption of the amendments, and by formal
action of Council. When possible, Council will make such a
finding by the 30th day of the 45-day compliance review
period. It is Council's understanding that the DCA will
consider the recommendation of Council prior to issuing a
notice of intent regarding local plan amendment compliance'
On October 8, 1992, Council received a copy of the formally
adopted comprehensive plan amendments for St. Lucie County.
A review of those amendments was done, with a focus On the
County's response to the comments made by the Council as a
result of a review of the County's draft comprehensive plan
amendments.
Attached is a copy of the complete agenda item as approved
by Council at a regular meeting held on November 20, 19.92.
Please note that Council was unable to reach a majority
decision of the recommendation on Amendment PA92-002. ' A
motion to approve the staff recommendation was deadlocked
7-7. A motion to transport the report and analysis with a
clear indication to you that no recommendation on
consistency is being made due to the tie vote was approved
8-6.
3228 s.w. martin downs blvd.
suite 205 · p.o~ box 1529
palm city, florida 34990
phone [40:7) 22t-4.060
sc 269-4060 fax [407J 221-4067
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
November 20, 19'92
Page Two
If you need additional information or have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call.
Executive Dir~tor
DMC: lb
Attachment
cc: Terry L. Virta, AICP
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUi?
To: Council Members
From: Staff
AGENDA ITEM 6] 3'
Date: November 20, 1992 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan. Review -
Adopted Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2
Introduction ....
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,s
contract- with the State Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), the Council must review Comprehensive Plan Amendments
after their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted
Council,sad°pted amendmentScomments, to the DCA,~ which in turn is seeking
Council,s review of the information provided bY the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written
report containing a determination of consistency with the
~Regional Plan is to be provided to the DCA within 30
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or
amendments.
Council reviewed .-the DRAFT amendments to the County,s
comprehensive plan at its meeting of May 15, 1992 (see
attachment). The DRAFT amendments consisted of two
amendments to the County,s FUture Land Use Map. Council had
one. objection and two comments on the DRAFT amendments.
Evaluation
On July 21, 1992, the DCA' issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on the DRAFT
amendments. The ORC report; c~ntained a total of eight
objections to the proposed amendments. The County has
adopted the amendments with no changes, but has prepared a
response report to the ORC regarding Amendment PA-92-002.
In the transmittal letter which accompanied the materials
pertaining to PA-92-002, the County suggests that the DCA
of almost three million cubic
to s ........ · yards and is anticipated
un= untl
Y i the ear
another base ' · · - y 2002. tn 1996
P w111 add si · ·
t ' . gnlflcantly more ca ac'
he landfill. The imD~--~ --~ .... ~ p ,lty. to
- ~ u~ ~ aaal~lonal residential
units.will be negiigible.
is inconsistent with several
°bjectivesand th-County comprehensive plan
which deal outside the urban service area,
the conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural
uses, land use densities outside the
PI~ ice Boundary.
COUNTY RESPONSE - While the property lies outside the
County urban service boundary, residential development
at one dwelling unit
peracre is not inconsistent with
surrounding land uses in the area. nor: does it
compromise the integrity of the comprehensive plan.
Primary land uses outside the urban service bOundary
remain agricultural.
Lands surrounding PA-92-002, while used for a r'
purposes, aenera.1 _ _ g lcultural
wou~d ail~ r~t~Y~-~ry la~ use .~es~gnations which
..... ~=~,~a~ develoDme-~ ~ ....
uwel£1ng units n.r ~ ...... = =~ un. or two
the west and ~th~.-~*~ ..... ~ _. =lng ~Ubdlvlslons l~e to
contains an subject property itself
transition of la.~ ~=~.uper~_y f}ts 1. with the
n& threa~ t° e~[i~ ~?ne d~?lllng unit ~er acre is
: ~ ~=xve cl~rus production in th
area. The development .~ _~___ ~ %_ . e
~, w~ ~e no ' ·
on the cony i~: . ~ _ aa~l=lonal tess
erslon of agricultural lands in the a-P~a.re ute
Concurrency is not an issue, since no urban services are
required, and there is no. identified decrease in the
level of service on roadways in the area. According to
the County plan, densities of greater than two dwelling
units per acre are to be within the urban service area.
Since the subject amendment is limited to a maximum of
one dwelling unit per acre and requires no urban
services, it is not inconsistent with County Future Land
Use Policies.
5. DCA CONCERN - The amendment is inconsistent with State
Comprehensive Plan Goals 16 (Land Use)
(Transportation). _.- and 20
COUNTY RESPONSE - Existing subdivisions to the north and
west of the site have set the pattern for development in
this vicinity. The County comprehensive plan provides
for a gradual and logical transition in land use from
east to west as follows: 1) urban densities and
services; 2) transitional from urban to rural densities;
3
3)
allure to address the potential
, the County indicates that
amendments are considered prel iminary
devel.opment orders and, as such, consistent with
policies contained in
County Capital ~.Improvements
determinations ~re
4) Relative to
in
that
area·
the potential of conflicts with
lands and County policy.which calls for
to be the primary use outside the
service area, the County argues that
land uses in the area will remain
· and that due to some
low density
is compatible. The
ignation fits in
by County from
· Suburban
ions
on the
argues
ion
is
Estate
, finally,
The
sin
is
re~
ex
az
the
advanced by the County, which are similar
previously, do not adequately a~dress
concerns.- The amendment is not Conslstent
Policy 16.1.1.2 regarding concurrency,
County will postpone all
until 'the site plan stage.
per acre
the most costly, land
of development, the
with Regional Polj
at one dwelling unit
F a reasonable range of
to be very expensive to.~ the public in
The proposa{ is not Consis%ent with
-16.1.2.2, since the 'County already
designated for low residential
which remain vacant, _.
urban service area..
use in this area is not
(including an
concurrency
Since one
clustered)
and
is not
16.1.1.4.
acre is too
but
ant with Regional 16.1.2.3,
location of a couple Of sparcely
lot t subdivisions in the area.
the fact that hese low density subdivisions
from built out is-'-all the more reason not to
land for such purposes. Not only is
l~cking, but redesigna~ion of the subject
will make previously approved (or non-
subdivisions less likely to be
inside and
Low density
with
for crop
surrounding farm land. Such strategies only produce
sprawl, particularly when taken to extremes. The
County already has adequate lands designated for
those who seek a more rural lifestyle.
coDClusion.
Adopted amendment PA-92-001 appears to be CONSISTENT with
the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Council was
unable to reach a consistency determination on PA-92-002,
since a motion to adopt staff comments was deadlocked 7'7.
Council voted to transmit the evaluation and analysis, with
no final recommendation of consistency.
~ecommendation
Council should adopt the comments and recomm~endations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Department. of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1991-92 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs.
Attachments
~end.
No.
PA-92-001
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
DRAFT'COMPREHENSi~ PLAN AMENDMENTS
FUTURELAND USE ELEMENT
Current Proposed
Approx. Land Use Land Use
~ Designation ,Designation
9'.6 Residential Commercial
~ Urban
PA-92-002 164.0
AgricUltural Residential
- 2.5 Estate
..APproximate Location
Northwest of the inter-
section of 25th Street
and Edwards Road.
West side of Gentile Road
one-half mile north of
Okeechobee ROad (S.R. 70)
Residential Urban (RU) - Allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Residential Estate (RE) - Allows up to 1 dwelling unit per acre.
Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5) - Allows up to 1 dwelling-unit per 2.5 .acres~
Evaluation
Looal Planning Perspeotive - Amendment No. 92-D01 would add
an additional ten acres to the inventory of lands designated
for commercial-purposes at, or near, the intersection of
25th Street and Edwards Road. The County has now designated
all quadrants of the intersection for commercial use,
although the only existing commercial use is a convenience
store in the southeastern quadrant. West of 25th Street,
existing lands are primarily vacant, agricultural, or very
iow density residential. East of 25th Street, the land use
is iow/medium density residential. A new middle school is
under construction- a short distance south of the 25th
Street/Edwards Road intersection. The redesignation of this
vacant land for' future commercial use does not seem
inappropriate or in conflict with County policies. With a
great deal of land now designated fOr commercial uses in
this area, the County should carefully consider the
appropriate zoning designations to provide a good mix of
commercial uses for residents of this area.
Amendment No. 92-002 would change the land use on a 164-
acre parcel from its present d~signation as agricultural
(AG-2.5) to a residential designation (RE). The property is
located approximately 1-1/2 miles west of the-intersection
of the Florida Turnpike and Okeechobee Road (State Route
70). Present access to the property is via Gentile Road, an
unpaved County local street which dead-ends near the
northeastern boundary of the subject property.
9
5)
r how the area could be provided with a
range of services, such 'as sewer and water.
The area is outside planned utility service areas.
In summary, the staff and LPA 'conclusion is that the
proposed change would extend urban development i~to
it fails to meet the burden of proof
of the need for a change in its land use designation.
Council,S-
of the goals and policies of the County
lead to the. conclusion that the
is internally inconsistent with the
COunty plan. The County plan expresses
encroachment of urban uses into: areas
previously used for agricultural purposes. This
encroachment has led to the gradual migration of
agricuitural uses to the west, as higher value urban uses
lands previously used for agricultural
some agricultural uses continue to occur in
areas to the east, lands now designated for
lie exclusively west ofi-95. Given
in St. Lucie County, continued
to be avoided° In order to avoid this
County designated large for .future
including lands in 1-95/Turnpike
the County plan projects a future
in the unincorporated area of 93 the year
iS~
the
urban
popUlation
2015.
Based on
residents
need would
land to
currently has The County
use, for residential
agr] res uses on
on a high growth s.
occupied by
per three persons)
35,000 acres of res
2015 projected population.
71,000 acres des
potential
To further contain_urban sprawl and prevent the encroachment
of urban uses into agricultural lands, the County has
designated an urban service area. The intent of this area
is to contain .or "restrict the negative impacts of a
sprawling, low density development pattern and the fiscal
impacts that such a pattern puts
on a communit - ~
~ . Y. Beyon_
the urban.service area are lands ~eslgnatedfor agricUltural
activities (AG-2~5 and AG-5). These designatiohs are for
areas most -'for agricultural and agricultural-
related although they. retain some residential
development tic ~
The County has established a set of criteria in County Land
Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4 which are to guide the decision-
making process for the conversion of existing agricultural
lands
to non-agricultural land uses. It does not appear
that the proposed land use meets the criteria as called for
in this policy, nor does it appear to meet the fundamental
11
development shall take place-concurrent with or after the
provisionsof, necessaryinfrastrUcture and services. While
the use designation to a maximum of
one acre does not qualify as urban
development according to the Regional or County plan,
e t
services will stillbe r qulred in this presently isolated
area. Road 11 be necessary, at least to
Gentile of Gentile ROad and S,R.
70.- There [cant costs to bus school children
to school ~ There
will patrolling the -area by
Office. Noneofthese costs
when the~ Regional
should not. be
that to
a cost.. It
areas.
of land
16.1.2.2 indicates that Future Land
the
des~ in
with a estimate of the~
plan
t°
year 201!
for
the
uses on
lands, the effect of re on
proposed No. 92-002 would to detract from
the present area and to
f .rts to contain urban sprawl and to promote
infiI1 development in !urban areas.
amount-
projected
etc. Under
very generous
needs. Even
residential
the
'amount of
Third, Regional Policy 16.1.2.3 calls for new development to
be compatible with, and complementary, to surrounding land
uses and should not negatively affect existing approved
activities. When residential development encroaches into
agricultural areas, conflicts occur. The conflict may be
immediate here, given the location of the private airstrip
used for crop d~sting.~ Furthermore, St. Lucie County is
among the most agricuItural areas of the State,
recently as the largest~ citrus producer
of land available to accommodate
areas designated for urban use,
encroachment on the important agricultural areas should not
beipermitted?
13