Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Charboneau, Brian & Kath... (2)
H. Michael' Madsen, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparel lo, French & Madsen 1st Florida Bank Bld., Suite 70 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 904-222-0720 FAX-904-224-4359 I ~TiFX. that a true and COrrect copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U~S. Mail to the party listed' -;~below this ¢1 day of Janua~, 1993.'~ Ka - · ~._ Assistant General Counsel :- Daniei:"s: . Mc .... Fort Pierce., FL 34982 H.-'Michael Madsen :-~hlin T. WaldoCh '~-- ........... - .... Messer; Vickers, Caparello, .Madsen, Lewis, GOl~an & Metz, P.A Post Office Box 1876 ' Tallahassee, _ FL 32302 David Theria~e .A~ & Theria~ue ~ . ~.:?:C~-~51~.fi~es~st tucie _.. ~ -: . .. 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, VS. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, Respondent, CASE NO.92-7438GM TO: NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION Terry Virta Community Development Director 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Bill Miller Planning Director. 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Dennis Murphy Planning Department 2300 Virginia Ave,. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Kathy Charboneau 2789 Gentile Road Fort Pierce, FL 34945 Please take notice that pursuant to Rule 1.310, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned attorney will take depositions upon oral examination of the following persons at the stated dates and time. April 8, 1993 1:00 p.m., Dennis Murphy April 8,__~93 -3:00 p.m., Bill Miller April 9, 1993 April 9, 1993 9:00 a.m., Kathy Charboneau 10:00 a.m., Terry virta The depositioh~ wilI be conducted befor~Ja certified court reporter of Associated Court Reporters, Inc. of West Palm Beach. The oral examination will continue form day to day until completed. The depositions are being taken for purposes of discovery, for use at administrative hearing, and /or such other purposes as are Permitted under the rules of the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Please bring with you to the deposition the documents described in Exhibit A. ~ERTIFICATE OF SERFICP I HEREBY CERTIFY that'a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the party listed below this 1st day of April, 1993. en Brodeen Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 David A. Theriaque 820 East Park Avenue Bldg. F, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Dan McIntyre 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Michael Madsen P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 EXHIBIT A Please bring with you to the deposition: 1. Ail studies, maps, plans, books, papers, publications, notes, memoranda, documents, video recordings, and other tangible things upon which you base you opinions that the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan AJnendment pertaining to Brian and Kathleon Charboneau,s land use redesignation request is in compliance(DCA Docket # 92-2-N01-5601 (A) - (N) and County Ordinance No. 92-029) 2. Ail drafts and final work products generated by St. Lucie County staff (or its agents) of calculations, estimates, figures, and projections relating to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan's estimated needed acreage for residential land uses during the plan's long-term planning period. 3. Ail documents indicating, population estimates for St. Lucie County,s Traffic Analysis Zones. (For existing Traffic -~malysis Zones and the currently ongoing revised Traffic Analysis Zones). 4. Certificate of Occupancy information which indicates the number of certificates of occupancy issued by St. Lucie County in the last three years and the portions of the County the buildings were located in. REDI Maps depicting St. Lucie County e Maps depicting existing sewer lines within St. Lucie County; maps depicting proposed sewer lines within St. Lucie County; maps depicting existing central water service lines within St. Lucie County; and maps depicting proposed central water service lines within St. Lucie County. /l_~ STATE OF FLORIDA ~ DIVl~./ON OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEAk .~GS DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITYAFFAIRS, Petitioners, vs. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, Respondent, and BRIAN CHARBONEAU and KATHY CHARBONEAU, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ). ) ) ) ) ) -) CASE NO. 92-7438GM3402C SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Terry Virta St. Lucie County COmmunity Development Director 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 3498'2-5652 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED t° appear at the Law Library~County.~4~r~z~ ~'Sit~ ' OFfice, 2300 Virginia Av~. Ft. Pierce~'] to testify at a ~final hearing (strike one) at ]0 o'clock a .m., on the 9th .. day of APril , 19 93 YOU ARE FURTHER COMF~M~DED to have with you at said time and place the following (use additional pages if necessary): See Attached Exhibit A YOU SHALL RESPOND to this subpoena as directed unless excused by the party who requested issuance of the subpoena or by order of the Division of Administrative Hearings. ISSUED this 4th day Florida. THIS SUBPOENA HAS BEEN ISSUED UPON THE REQUEST OF: NAME: Karen Brodeen, Esq. Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-0410 Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS COMMUNITY D£v6LOPM£NT; ADMINISTRATOR TERRY L. VlRTA, AICP March 8, 1993 Charles G. Pattison, Division Director Department of Community Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Management 2740 Centerview Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Charboneau Appeal Dear Charles: Wanted to again thank you and your staff for taking the time that you did to meet with me last week. Knowing that your schedules are full and that I.gave you very little notice, it made me even more appreciative of the time you allotted. It appeared to me that, as a result of our discussion, the only area still needing some closure on the Charboneau land use concern is the issue of over allocation. That is the concern that you have of increasing the amount of land designated for greater densities outside of the Urban Services Boundary when there remains landsinside capable of accommodating additional residential usage. The indication I received from the comments made were that you and your staff- had received more than sufficient information on the other issues you had previously raised in this matter. During our meeting I suggested that, as a means of balancing the equation, we might consider the RidgehaVen Neighborhood as an offset. This is an area located near the St. Lucie County Airport which is being acquired as a result of noise impacts. The County has purchased approximately 80 houses in its first phase and will purchase about 90 additional homes in the second. The intent is to acquire and then clear this entire area with the land to be converted into industrial uses. HAVERT L. FENN. District No, 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. ;3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINtX. District No. 5 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO, (407) 878-4898 Charles G. Pattison, Division Director March 8, 1993 Page Two The conversion to industrial from residential will necessitate both a Comprehensive Plan change as well as a rezoning. This acquisition program and land use change was not envisioned when the Comp Plan was originally being prepared. Therefore, when these changes have been comPleted they will result in an overall reduction of residential area which exceeds the impact of the area currently under discussion between us. I offer this again as a potential for closing on the one apparent issue still outstanding in this matter. The increase in density ia the area being discussed, 98 units is less than the area to be reduced residentially as a result of the airport program. If you could give this matter some additional thought and attention, it could be seen as the way to resolve this final issue. Thank you again for the time you gave me last week and I look forward to hearing from you further. TLV/mse cc: Board County Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Michael Madsen David Theriaque TZr ~Y~~irt/a '~ r Development Administrato 'COMMUNITY BOARD' OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS DtEVCLOPMCNT ADMINISTRATOR TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP October 19, 1992 Brian and Kathleen Charboneau 2.789 Gentile Road Ft. Pierce, FL 34945-9518 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Charboneau: This letter is to confirm that on September 22, 1992 the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, .approved an Ordinance changing t~he Future Land Use Designation of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan for your property in St. Lucie County from AG- 2.5zoning. (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban) Ainformation.COpy of the recorded Ordinance No. 92-029 is enclosed for your Sincerely, BOARD OF cOUNTy COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Ji~ Minix, Chairman ~ JM:cb Enclosure cc: Terry T. TOrres Lee D. Einsweiler, AICP County Attorney County Administrator Community Develapment Administrator Planning Director FENN, District No. 1 · JUDY CULP£PPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELN£R. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No..5 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468- 1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCtE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Clerk of the Circuit Court _ St. Lucie~County re-r: l~ ~8880 OR BOOK O8~O PAGE 2965 ' 10-12- 1!:45 A.M. ORDINANCE NO. 92 - 029 FILE NO: PA-92-002 · S L6C[E CO. (L __ AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCiE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY; AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; · PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3B 3~ 35 ' 36 :....~ :37 38 39 ~0 42 43 45 46 47 45 49 5O 52 Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau presented a petition for a change in Future Land Use Classification from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban); On March 12, 1992, the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the .Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Future Land Use Classification from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A; On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, at which hearing the petitioner amended thief request for change in Future Land Use Classification from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) to now be from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RE (Residential Estate) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A; OR BOOK O8~ O PAGE 2966 .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 5O On March 24, 1992, this Board, through Resolution 92-057, authorized the transmittal of this petition, as amended, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency review in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163 Florida Statutes; and ' On September 22, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News on September 1, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION The future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan for the property described as follows: 'SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A owned by Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, be and the same is hereby changed from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RE (Residential Estate). B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY This Board specifically determines that the approved change in the Future Land Use Element is internally consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policies 11.2.3.6 and 11.1.3.7 of the Capital Improvements Element, which identify this approval as a Preliminary Development Order and provide for the recognition that impacts of this approval on the public facilities of St. Lucie County will not occur until such time as a Final Development Order is issued. CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAPS The St. Lucie County C©mmunity Development Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to cause the changes to be made 2 OR BO0~ O810 PAGE 29 67 1 2~ 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O in the Future Land Use Maps of the Future Land Use Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this Ordinance. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ordinance to the extent of such conflict. SEVERABILITY If any port, on of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this Ordinances. If this Ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. F. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified' copy of this Ordinance to the Bur.eau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS The Community Development Administrator shall send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee Florida, 32399. , EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect upon the issuance by the State Land Planning Agency of a Notice of Intent to find the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section OR BOOK O810 PAGE 2968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, or until the Administration Commission issues a final order finding the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(10). J. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this Ordinance was as follows: Chairman Jim Minix AYE Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger AYE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 1992. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA .... CHAIRMAN \ ;o APPROVED AS TO ~ORM ND - ~OUNTY~ ' 0RD92-29 (k) 4 ~EGULAR MI NUTES Date: September 22, 1992 Tape: 1, 2, 3' convened: 9:18 a.m. adjourned: 12:45 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Jim Minix, Judy Culpepper, Krieger, R. Dale Trefelner, Havert. L.. Fenn Jack Others Present: Tom Kindred, County Administrator; ~ick 'Howell, Utilities, Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Heather Young, Asst. County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Admi nis trator; Ronald Brown, Public Works Admini s trator; S am A.merson, Utilities Engineer; Linda Childress, Finance Director; W. Linsen, Sheriff' s Dept.; A. Mitlie White, Deputy Clerk No. 92~029 Ordinance Reference was made to memorandum from Community Development Administrator, addressed to thD Board, dated September 16, 1992, subject: Ordinance No. 92-029, an ordinance granting the petition of Brian and Kathleen Charboneau for a change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-2.5 to RE. Mr. Terry Torres, agent for the petitioner was present to address the Board regarding this item. ' ................ Mrs. Ada Coates Williams, property owne~ 'adjacent to petitioner, addressed the Board regarding their airport. Mrs. Williams requested that anyone requesting to build in the area- should be made aware of the airport adjacent '~o the property so that in the future there would not be complaints and attempts to close the airport. The planes leave very early in the morning and it is an Agricultural area whi'ch means 'they will be spraying and dusting. The County Attorney stated that possibly some language can be added to the final development order to advise the .persons · wanting to build a house in the area of the airport. Ms. Ferrick, taxpayer advised the Board of a .Florida .Statute regarding signaige for AgricultUral.property-owners. Mrs. Williams advised the Board that they have such a sign in place. It was moved by: Com. Trefelner, seconded by Com. Fenn, to approve Ordinance No.~ 92-029 as amended by the Community Development AdminisErator; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. ST. LUCIE COUNTY ~ATTORN~y~i ............. DATE' 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 (407) 468-1415 FAX No. (407) 468-1440 10-9-92 Ordinance No. 92-29 We are sending you: A~enda Item Contract Amendment Change Order Deve!operAgreement. xxxOther Certified copy of Ord. 92-29 DesCription of Attachment: Certified copy Ordinance 92-29 approved by the Board of County Commissioners at their OctOber~9, 1992 meeting. These are transmitted for: Approval .. Signature Your information Your file Corrections , Revisions Revie~ / comment ~ Processing Remarks: By copy of this transmittal, I have forwarded two two originals to the Deputy Clerk, one for recording and one to Department of State. Once the recorded original is returned, I will-forward one for your files. Copy to: Finance Direc5or DOUGLAS DIXON Clerk of Circuit Cour~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE ANNEX · FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 34982 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE This is to certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 92-029, which was approved at the Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on the 22nd day of September, 1992. WITNESS my hand and seal this 9th day of October, 1992. Douglas Dixon Clerk o~ the Circuit Court St. Lucie County, Florida -' ~putY C~erk ( Seal ) 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 10 1t i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 ORDINANCE NO. 92 - 029 FILE NO: PA-92-002 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ST~ LUC!E COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUC!E COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY; AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS 0F THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING 'PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABiLITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF-STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau presented a petition for a change in Future Land Use Classification frOm AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban); On March 12, 1992, the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Future Land Use Classification from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A; On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice at least fifteen. (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, at which hearing the petitioner amended thief request for change in Future Land Use Classification from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) to now be from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RE (Residential Estate) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A; ! 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O On March 24, 1992, this Board, through Resolution 92-057, authorized the transmittal of this petition, as amended, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency review in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and On September 22, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News on September 1, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of-the St. Lucie County, Florida: A. CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION The future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan for the property described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A owned by Brian L. and Kath!een E. Charboneau, be and the same is hereby changed from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RE (Residential Estate). B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY This Board specifically determines that the approved change in the Future Land Use Element is internally consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policies 11.2.3.6 and 11.1.3.7 of the Capital Improvements Element, which identify this approval as a Preliminary Development Order and provide for the recognition that impacts of this approval on the public facilities of St. Lucie County will not occur until such time as a Final Development Order is issued. C. CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAPS The St. Lucie County Community Development Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to cause the changes to be made 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50- in the Future Land Use Maps of the Future Land Use Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and to make notation of reference to the date of .adoption of this Ordinance. D. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ordinance to the extent of such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this Ordinances. If this Ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. F. APPLiCABIL!TY~-OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. H. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS The Community Development Administrator shall send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399. !. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect upon the issuance by the State Land Planning Agency of a Notice of Intent to find the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 5O 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, or until the Administration Commission issues a final order finding the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184110). j. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this Ordinance was as follows: Chairman Jim Minix AYE Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger AYE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE Commissione~ R. Dale Trefelner AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY CHAIRMAN \ ATTEST: DEPOTY 'CLER~ ' 0RD92-29 (k) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N I,'2 OF SW 1/4. AND NE 1/4 OF SW i/4, EXCgI~'TING OF DESCRIBED ~RIWFo~WS: BEG AT ~ COR OF SD ~ i/4 OF SE 1/4; TH S 48 ~ ~ S R/W OF C~, T~ CONT S 1254 ~ TO THE C/L OF ExiSTING ROAD, T~ NELY ~ C/L OF EXISTING ROA~ ~ TO THE W K/W OF GENTILE RD, T~ NLY ON SD W R/W 779..2 ~, TH W 273 ~, T~ N 360 TO S K/W OF ~, T~ W ~G S R/W OF C~ 570 ~ TO POB. P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 ~ 1/2 OF T~E NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.9'6 AC) (OR P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE !/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) p~CEL ID: ~3 22 334 0001 000/8 ~' 4.94 AC~S LEG~' DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 ~ 1/2 OF THE sE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC} (OR 433-110) p~CEL ID: 23 22 3~4 0002 000/5 4.19 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR C~ R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) P~RCEL ID: ~3 22 431 0000 0~0/9 22.9'4 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW i/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 ~ FOR C~ R/W ~D BEG AT ~ COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF 1/4, R~ N ~G 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 ~ T0 PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD T0 THE E, T~ ON A BACK ~G OF 95 39'40' R~ ELY ~ C/L OF SD DIRT RD 8~3.62 ~ TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, T~ R~ SLY ~G SD R/W LI 762.50 ~ TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB ~D THAT P~RT OF ~ 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MO~ P~TICU~Y DESCRIBED AS 48.0 ~ TO S R/W LI OF ~SLR~ ~ %49; TH CONT S-12~7.0 ~ TO POB; T~ R~ NELY 767.00 ~ ~ THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI' C~C~TES 824.81~); T~ R~ SLY'~ W R/W LI OF GENTI~ ~, 13.50 PT; T~ R~ SR~Y ~G C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 ~ (THIS LI C~C~TES 825.93 ~); TH R~ N, 27.00 ~T TO POB. P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: ~. PIERCE TROP !~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T I~ SEC 22-35-39 BLK i ~TS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE .TROPI~ ESTATES~IT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 2~-35-39 BLK 1 ~T 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) P~CEL ID: ~3 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: ' ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T !~ SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 ~T 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 AC~S LEG~ DESCKIPTIO~: ~. PIERCE TROPI~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 ~TS 4 r5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 418-!96!) P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: ~. PIERCE TROP IC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 AC~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: FT · PIERCE TROP IC~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-AN ~KECORDED P~T IN SEC ~2-35-39 BLK 3 ~TS !,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-196i) 'P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACP~S LEG~ DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TR~P IC~ ESTATES -UNIT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (~.07 AC] (OR 434-1383) · P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 ~G~ DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROP IC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 ~TS ! & 2 (OR 705-1797) EXHIBIT ,,A,, ::.-..;.-.::.?: .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION :'~. FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ES~'ATES-UNIT ONE-Alq .UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC} (OR 434-38~.} ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 0 2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PiEkCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE ' TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC)-(OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 70! 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 t~LK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE ' TROPICAL ESTATES-UNI~ ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES -UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 PT-LESS S 42.5 PT- & N 40 FT & W 30 PT-LESS $ 42.5 PT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 PT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 PT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 PT- & N 50 FT O? S 942.5 PT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 PT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 3'63.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N i063 FT- .....-. :-.-..-:.:: _' %: .:' -:::7. AGENDA September 16, 1992 DATE: REGULAR: 9/22/92 SPECIAL: REQUEST PRESENTATION: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: XXX SESSION: .ITEM DESCRIPTION- SUBJECT: COMM~NITX DEVELOPMENT - Planning Division Consider the Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. ~har~oneau by Agent Terry Torres for Change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RE (Residenti~ ~state) Location: West side of Gentile Road, approx/~atel¥ 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance 92-029 i~VAILABLE FUNDING= ACCOUNT NUMB~R / ~ ~-~ (IS BUD~ETAMENDMENT REQUIRED) YES: PRESENTED BY~ DEPARTMENT CO14I%~UNITY DEVEL , ~ x~ ~s¥. ADMIN.~ ~ CONCURRENCE: THOMAS L./=TKiNDRED ~OUNTYADMINISTRATOR A~ENDA(-} NO: · BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION ved - per amended 329 COUNTY ATTORNEY . ~/' ASST CO ADMIN ~ PERSONAL ADMI------ ---...N. AIRPORT DIR. ENGINEERING DIR. PURCHASING DIR. DATE: 9/22/92 0 ~homas L. Kindred County Administrator ~NING DIR. CODE COM~. DIR. __GROWTH MGT. DIR. PROPERTY. ACQ. DIR. LAND USE DIF~ ~CESCO KAUFMAN PETITION OF BRTAN & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU PETITION NGAN OF BRZAN & KATHLEEN ESPOSITO CHARBONEAU iii 0 0 0 0 CHARBONEAU ZONING TERraIN PETITION OF WI[lIAnaS BRIAN NGAN ES?OS~TO KATHLEEN CHAR BONi AU K^UFivlAN LAND DIFRANCESCO TErrAIN DEV, F'ET~TION WILLIA~kS USE CANAL ~49 ELI NGAN OLC INC I WILLtA~LS · OF BRTAN & KATHLEEN ESPOSZTO CHARBONEAU JUL 2 $ STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE · TALI~AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LAW~ON CHILES LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY Governor The Honorable Jim Minix Chairman, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 July 21, 19.92 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-11 011, 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 copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendmehts;-. A copy of-the adoption ordinance; EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ,, 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 yo~ ~ave any questions, please contact Maria Abadal, Plan Review Adm nlstrator, Dale EaCker, Community Program Administrator, or John Healey, Planner IV, at (904) 487-4545. RP/jhw Sincerely, Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Enclosures: 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-II.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 e~=~ a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Ru~-~- 5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-~p~licability 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 plan was brought into compliance through the amendment process, the allocation of residential land uses as shown on the FLUMwas 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 consistency 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 alreadylarge 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 However, without a comprehensive adequacy of the current distribution of land uses i(andi subsequent reconfiguratiOn), plan amendments either exacerbate, or create, development patterns characteristic of In instances where comprehensive plans provide for a adequate supply of urban lands for future development Lucie County's plan), it may be appropriate to the current distribution of higher intensity land couldbe accomplished on a County-wide basis or, by ~ecific 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 Use Map adopted by the 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. ~ecommendation 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 t~.e amendment on the Florida Turnpike inter?h~nge (and.interchange area) with SR 70. Revise ~he facility capacity analysis and the analysis of the impact of the proposed amendment t° be based upon and assessed against the adopted peak hour level of service standard. 2 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 has been estimated, an analysis existing solid waste facility capacity and of the increased generation rate on the adopted level of solid waste service standard has not Also, an analysis of the availability and, capacity of drainage facilities has not been included. Rules 9J-5.011(1) (f); 9J- 11.00~6(1)(b)2.; 9J-11.006(1)(b)4.; and, 9J-11.006(3). Recommendation Include data and analysis for sanitary sewer, potable ~at~r.and drainage facilities addressing existing acllity capacity (i.e., surpluses or deficiencies), identification of the demand generated by the level of development allowable under the proposed land use category and, 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 propertywas 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 m ' ' alntalned 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 have ~ot 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 COMPREHENSIVEPLAN 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 PLA}! 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 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 BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER Florida Agriculture Department of & Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee 32399-0810 June 17, 1992 PLEASE RESPOND To: BUREAU OF LOCAL 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 FB/jh Sincerely, BOB CRAW'FORD CO~gfIS$ION~R OF AGRICOL~ Frank Browlling, Budget Director Bureau of Planning and Budgeting DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION 488-3201 FLORIDA LAWTON CHILES GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OFFICE - DISTRICT 4 BEN G. WATTS SECRETARy Location: 4101 l~vemwood Rd., Bldg. //3, Ft. L~uderdale, FL Telephone: (305) 797-8510; Fax: (305) 797-8339 M~iling Address: 780 SW 24th Street, Ft. L~uderdale. FL 33315-2696 June 5 1992 Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 BUBF_..,,~U O? LOOAL 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 encl. cc: B. Romig G. Schmidt A. Vandervalk Sincerely, J~ Jd~o~eph M. Yesbeck, P.E. District Director Planning and Programs ~il~ REC YC LED ~.T..~ PAPER 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) 1. 9J-5. 0055 (2) 9J-11. 006 (1) (b) 4. 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 from 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 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-92-002 RULE DEFICIENCY: .9J-5. 007 (2) (a) .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 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVI EW DRIVE · TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LAWTON CHILES LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY Governor ~~~ Secretary June 2, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Robert Arredo~do Division of Resource Planning and Management Rod Westall~ Division of'Emergency Management SUBJECT: 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 South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road · P.O. Box 24680 · West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 · (407) 686-8800 · FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 GOV 08-32 June 4, 1992 Mr. Robert A~do~do Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr ye Tallahassee, F'I 32399 Dear Mr Arredondo Subject: Pr'opose~J Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County, #92-2 Staff has reviewed the subject document and we have no water resource related comments Please carl us ifyou have any questions or require more ~nformat~on Sincerely, David B. That~l~, AICP Director Comprehensiv~ Plar~ning Division Planning Department DBT/M M/m m Robert Pe~,~ock, DCA Terry V~rta, Development St. Lucie Co Governing Allan Mflledge, Chairman - Miami Valerie Boy& Vice Chairman. Naples Ken Adams - West Palm Beach James E. Nail - Fort Lauderdate Annie Betancourt - Miami Franklin B. Mann - Fort Myers Leah G $chad - West Palm Beach Frank Williamson, Jr. - Okeechobee Eugene K. Pe£tis * Fort Lauderdale Tilford C. Creel. Executive Director Thomas K..MacVicar. Deputy Executive Director FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Marjor? Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 May 4, 1992 Lewton Chiles 6overnor Jim Smith Secretary of State Bob Butterworth Attorney General Gelid Lewis State Comptroller ?om Gallagher Stale ~'easurer Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Betty Ca~t~r Commissioner 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. ' DED/mpp Sincerely, Assistant Executive Director Administration Beaches and Shores Law Enforcement Marine Resources RecreaUon and Parks Resource- Management State Lands rida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers OfficeB1 clg.- 2600 BlairS ton eRoad · Tallahassee, F1 orida 323 99-2400 Lawton Chiles. Governor June 2, 1992 Mr. Robert Arredondo Community Program Administrator Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Response to the Proposed Amendment to St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-2 Dear Mr. Arredondo: The Department of Environmental Regulation has reviewed the amendment to the referenced comprehensive plan, under the procedures of Chapter 9J-5, and Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. Our comments are provided to assist your agency in developing the State's response. If you have any questions about my response, please call me at 904/487-2231. Sincerely, · //~_o_hn B. Outland Office of Intergovernmental Programs JBO/br Attachment Recycled~ Paper FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT #92-2 Amendment # PA-92-001 1. We offer no objections, this proposed amendment. recommendations, or comments on .Amendment # PA-92-002 gomment mm We have reviewed the amendment package and, based on the March 4, 1992, analysis of the proposed amendment, concur with the recommendation of the County Planning Staff for denial. However, the amendment package should contain an analysis of the character of the amendment parcel to determine its suitability for use [9J-5.006(2) (b)], and an analysis of the need for additional residential land use to support the projected population [9J-5.006(2)(c)]. Mr. Robert Arredondo (904)488-1480 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 Horida Folldife Programs (904) 397-2192 Historic Preservation (904) 487-2333 Museum of Florida History (904) 488-1484 Page ~o 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 if significant 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-194.5 structures to ensure that they are considered before allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some matching grant funds for historic resource surveys maybe 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 Mr. Robert Arredondo 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 Taltahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX) (904) 488-3353 BUREAU Of LOCAL PLANNING / 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-92-001) 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) 497-2299 Florida Folklife Programs Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History (904) 397-2192 (904) 487-2333 (904) 488-1484 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) tofind out if significant 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 stza~ctures to ensure that they are considered before allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some matching grantfunds 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 st. lucie May 15, 1992 .r¢9 o. nal plann .n,9 council BUREAU OF LCO^L PLANNING Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau 'of State Planning 2740 Centerview Drive The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: .St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan - Draft Amendments; DCA Reference #92-2 Dear Mr. Arredondo: The draft amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan have been reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; Council's review procedures; and Council's adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the full staff report to Council. The report was approved by Council at its regular meeting on May 15, 1992, for-transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Sections 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and for consideration by the County prior to adoption of the documents. If you need additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, DanieI M. Cary Executive Director DMC:lb Enclosure 3228 s.w. marlin downs blvd. suite 205 · p.o. box 1529 palm city, florida 34990 phone (407) 22t-4060 sc 269-4060 fax [407) 221-4067 TREAS~ COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDU~ To: Council Members From: Staff AGENDA ITel 6A3 Date: May 15, 1992 Council Meeting Subject~ Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; Reference #92-2 ~ntroductio~ Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Council must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has Submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs (.DCA), which in turn is seeking Council,s comments. Counctl,s review of the information provided by the DCA is to focus on the consistency of the Proposed amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed pursuant to Section 186.507, F.S. A written report, containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan elements or amendments. ' St. Lucie County is considering two amendments .to the Future Land Use Map. The locations of the properf~es under consideration are shown on the accompanying maps, and the n~m~er of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized in the~following list: the County plan, the AG-2.5 designation is for 1ands County's urban service area which are associ agricultural and agricultural-related activities. The potential suitability of such areas for '-limited residentiaI devel, opment is. recognized, .however, .and is permitted 'under certain conditions [oa 'maximum density ~ u~it 2.5 acres. Areas designated as AG-2.5 in west of the existing planned urban land use .ons, b. ut .east of the County' s primary agricultural land designation (AG-5). vacant~ containing native pine ough the eastern portion of .the cleared an4 used for grazing. ~ to the north, east, and south are To the west are lands used for -~azin~, scattered home ~sites. including t~e presently.contains four homes. are agricultural. the of the staff and LPA two dwelling units plan, Agency change. -land referenc~ as reasons for inCluded: a the en of. ~e proposal w' 1th the Future Land anticipates low ial The few nonconformin~ subdivisions and not considered sufflCient rationale for ed land use, which may have the effect of other agricultural land owners to seek land ; 2) ame lies outside the urban service area 1,000 feet) and could not be incorporated area without a formal comprehensive plan 3) of service on Gentile Road and 'Okeechobee currently a problem, the amendment would impacts on the S.R. 70/Turnpike/I-95 area; '. 4) The to I land use is not compatible with surrounding could be in conflict with a private air crop dusting located immediateiy adjacent on its southern border; and test of the County with a land use designation residential) to meet a recognized need s a variety of vacant lands are available .within the urban service area which permit low density residential '- development. At acre ). to the area of hearing before the Board of County proposed lan~ use designat~on~ fo~ this to RE (maximum one dwelling unit per estate) designation, according is intended to act as a transitional agricultural areas and .The designation is -lot, in,areas not required to be utilities. other lo area ~ Pi S~ ~ons~steno~ w~th Pla~s of r Local Governments - Theproposed land use directly conflict with the ~la~.s of Amendment No. 92-001 is an an ect to annexation by the ¢ The area is to Fort Pierce Uti1 Llly requires annexation, for The proposed amendment any City goals. of Fort and (FPUA). be not be in ef~ No. 92-002 is 1Qcated far from any City of this property for low density would detract from both County and City urban infill and development within urban discourge urban sprawl. 001 on this Edwards a He ~ective - Proposed Amendment No. 92- to conflict with regional goals or resources. However, Council is ultimate impact of commercial land use the levels of service on 25th Street and which are regional roadways. Edwards Road at Level of Service D. The County the majority'of availabie capacity along is area is currently committed to several Additional new development which would ad with new trips could not be' permitted meet the standards of concurrency. comprehensive plan permits the County to ~evelopment o~ders (such as use amendments) for where available if land oWners agree to noncurrency affidavit. First, L1 No. 92-002 is inconsistent with the should be denied for several reasons. Policy 16.1.1.2 indicates that all In addition, there is some concern with the impacts which development of this property will have-on Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70), a regional roadway, east of the Florida Turnpike. This segment ~f Okeechobee Road presently .o.p.erates at. a "Level o~ Service C, and appears to have existing capacity available '~o accommodate the traffic generated fro~ this However, the information presented with the amendment fails to adequately address the future ~ong Okeechobee Road. Background , not been considered a factor in ag of Okeechobee Road to accommodate the site c. this segment of Okeechobee Road ~-95 and and for : of Transportation has no improvements should be traffic~ on this segment of or must either cond the is to seem that the County area. Either lands 'for low on of lands desi¢ designated for There is no ,vic exists. received for review pertaining to the case appropriate for higher density because there have been other is n removed from and that the this area. of its conditions 'its land use failed to uses~ uses has purposes that Objections, Recommendations ~or Modification, and Co~ent~. Amendment No. 92-001 A. Objection 1. None B. Comment -. Because many of today's p~oblems are the result of allowing development without sufficient consideration to the cost and timing of infrastructure and service needs, the prevailing growth management philosophy is that development should not be permitted unless necessary infrastructure can be provided concurrently. Recent 'changes An the State Statutes and Administrative Code as .they. relate to roadways indicate 'that local governments might be somewhat 7 Recommendationfor Modificatio~ 1. The County should deny the proposed land use ~ye.,~ag. cal_l~ zor_agr}culture to be the primary use ~1~_ ~_e urban se.rvlc[ Boundary.. The County has m~n Yer~ generous In l=s allocation of land for uses and in its drafting of the Urban ,. If the Count~ feels that' o~e or more of the areas so recently .~eslgnated for agricul- tUral lan~ Use ar~ 9ow appropriate for u~ban use, due to changing conditions or. ~he absorption of lands d ' es~gnated for such urban, use, the County needs to formally .study and recognize these trends. Changes can then be made to the comprehensive plan land ~se on the basis of these new conditions. This will the pitfall of making .piecemeal amendments have the effect of changing' the overall of the County plan. B. Comments 1. A !lc analysis p: to S should be prepared and considered the adoption of this amendment. The should include information on existing, and projected traffic volumes and levels This analysis should be available to the to the adoption-:.of the amendment so that can determine if a nonconcurrency should be executed. Recommendation Council their Affairs Florida the co~ents outlined above and approve to the State Depa, rtment of Community of the requirements of Chapter 163, Attache ts 9 LAND 13 14 SO0'I'[ SCOTT ! CROOKS OLD SU USE A~.~ndment 92-001 PRES] CANAL CHURCH RM EDW,~ REEVES COM 2b-TH STREET ASSOC ETHEL" HAYES 11 81 T~lephone: Facsimile: Dat~ (40~ S68~808 MAY 141992 (407) S6S-4008 -- -" TREASURE COAST REGIONAL ' ' PLANNING COUNCIL - ~/p~ Time: Please Deliver the Following Page~ Immediately to: Total Number of Pages: ..~ (Including this Cover Page) Sender: ~ : Matter: 1~ ~ ~oulev~rd Treasure Coast RegionaZ ~lanning Council 3228 S. W. Har~tn Downs Blvd. P.O. Box 1529 Palm City, FL 34990 TRL: 19AST REGIONAL RE: Staff Repor~ on Bt. Lucia Coun~yl~,:~.~'~G COUNCIL Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-002 Dear Chairman Havert Fenn and Members of the Council: We represent Xr. Brian Charboneau, the owner of the parce! subject to the proposed land use designation change, and respectfully request that you consider the following regarding St. Lucis County Plan Amendment The plan amendment fo= your ¢onsidera%~on initially requested a land use designation of Residential Suburban (RS) which accommodates gross densities of two (2) units per acre without requiring urban services. Mr. Charboneau proposed th~s 'dens~ty because his Property abuts a large parcel of land designated as RS. The St. Lucia County staff and the St. Lucia County Local Planning Agency reviewed the proposed a~endment for the Rs designation. In light of their concerns and comments, Mr. Charboneau revised his request to Residential Estate which allows a gross density of one (1) unit per acre, does ncc require.sewer and water utilities, and is typically located outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary.' Th~ St. Lucia Board of COunty Commissioners unanimously approved the revised land use designation request. Thus, the previous. concerns regarding the urban service area boundary, traffic generation, and other issues related to urban densities have become moot. .. We believe that the process by whichthis plan amendment was adopted has resulted in some confusion. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that certain sections of the draft staff report dated May 15, 1992, for St. Lucia County Plan Amendment ~92-002, are inaccurate. For your convenience, we have arranged our comments to correspond to the order of the draft staff report. (Page numbers refer to the staff draft report). ~2 ,.:. ---~:- . -~ Road, an un, avid-County lo~1 s~roet; however, ~ntile Road doe~ not dead-end at the DrODe~V ~ ~ edg~, but ra~er continues no--ward to connect wi~h Picos ~°ad] A ~empora~ blonde hal been put ~ place by the owners of ~e pro~y 2o ~e no~, restricting access to ~eir prope~y. -~ - -- Sits cond.~tioDs, p.3. While the subject proper~y does currently have a limited amount of grazing, that activity exists solely to ensure the agricultural exemption of the property. Recent attempts by a repu=able agricultural land broker to sell the parcel have resulted in the conclusion that land values in this area 'are already too high to sustain continued a~ricultural ~Se, due to the proximity to the Florida Turnpike and the surrounding residential USeS. Ad4acent EXisting Ls~d Us~, p.3-4. Adjacent land use ~s shown on the attached aerial photographs. Pine Hollow, an existing platted and recorded subdivision of 30 one-acre lots abutting the subject property to the west does contain four (4) homes; however, it also abuts the Ft. Pierce Gardens subdiv~sion, located to the northwest of the subject property and containing substantially more homes. See the attached aerial photos. To .the north is a citrus grove currently in production. To the east are predominantly residential, platted in random two (2) acre to twenty (20) acre lots. Just within the urban service boundary (1800 feet east of the subject property) As another platted subdivision of approximately fifty (50) one-acre lots which is virtually built- out. The site itself includes what is known as Fort Pierce Tropical Estates, a platted, non-recorded subdivision of one- quarter to .one-half acre lots. To the south are a series of properties which are primarily residentAal An nature-.and-contain large-lot single-family he, es fronting on Okeechobee Road. InconsiStencies F=om Staff ~port and LPg, 1) We believe that the trend toward platting one-acre lots-~n this area is firmly established, and that the existing subdivisions are considered nonconforming only because they do not match the current Comprehensive Plan designation. Applying a Plan de~ignation of RE (one (1) unit per . acre), the "transitional" designation between suburban resident~al and agricultural areas, is appropriate in this case, as areas to the 'Treasure Coast Regional pla~tng Council · Page 3 east are designated~S (two (2) units per-acre) and areas ~o ~he west are designated AG 2.5 (one (1) unit per 2.5 &ores). 2) While the property does lie outside the Urban Service~rea, no urban services are required. Current St. Lucie County policy is to allow development on wells and septic tanks at densities of two units per acre and less. The'subject property would be develoPed at a gross density of one (1) unit per acre,-and no urban services would be required. 3) The level of service on both Gentile and Okeechobee Roads is not a problem. Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike is currently an area in which the Florida DOT is acquiring land in order, to widen the roadway to four (4) lanes. Four-laning will occur up to Gordy Road, and an improved two-lane section with shoulders will be extended westward to McCarthy Road. Funds for these improvements are tentatively included in the proposed 1993 budget. Therefore, future LOS will not be a problem. . 4) The air strip to the south of the property is currently ,~nactiv~,. A new runway, running to southeast/northwest is under construction, but has not been permitted by the Florida DOT. Neither the existing nor the new runway affect the subject property, although overflight i s anticipated to affect the~ residential areas to the northwest of the property. The continued llfe of this air strip is in question, because it relies upon verbal agreements for the use of adjacent lands. 5) Future utility service will not be needed. density requested (one (1) unit per acre) can supported on wells and septic systems. The overall be adequately Encroachment on ~qrieultural area~, p.6. While agricultural areas exist to the north of the subject property~ the encroachment on these areas has already occurred previously. In addition, the subject property is not in agriculture'~ Consolidation of the ~rend cf one-acre lots to the west and northwest of the site will not encroach upon any additional viable agrlcultural lands. B4 Urban ServAOe rXrea BoundarT_, P.S. Land use designations in the vicinity of ~his proper~y which extend outside the urban service area boundary include a substantial parcel designated RS (tWo (2) units per .acre). This-RS parcel is contiguous with the southeast corner of the subject property. agricultural Conversion Criteria, p.7. The subject proper~y ~eets the St. Lucie County's agricultural conversion criteria (1-57) as followsl ~. lo compatible with adjacent land uses. As stated above, the requested land use designation change is consistent with adjacent land uses. Co Maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on edj ¢ Zlndl. --- The predominant remaining agricultural uses ara'the Coca Cola' Minute Maid Company's grove which abuts the northern boundary of the subject proper~cy and ~he Harold & Ada William's grove and airstrip which abuts the subject property on its south and southwest boundaries. Both groves are segregated from the subject property .by Canal ~49 to the north and Canal %50 to the south. Additionally, there ks a dense'tree line and an airstrip between the subject property and the William~s grove. Finally, access tot he subject property would be from Gentile Road.- Therefore, the land use designation change would not decrease the viability of the continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. Contains soils suitable for urb&u use &s defined b~ the Bt. Luo£o CountF so~l Do According to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey, the soil tyDes found on the subject panel are of ~he Nettles-Ankona-Pepper, Wabasso-Winder, and Pineda=Wabasso-Riviera soil types. These are generally nearly level, poorly drained soil types. Through the application of proper building practices, these soils may be used for urban development purposes. (1-26) Is suitable with existing site-sp%olfio land characteristics. There are no site-specific land characteristics which preclude ~he change in land use designation from A~ 2.5 2o RE. Xs consistent with comprehensive development plans. As stated above, the requested land use designation change As consistent with comprehensive development plans. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council May. 13, 1992 ..... Page 5 .. .... LRRSEH 86 Will have nvaAlabla the neOelllry An£rastructure ~curremt with the anticApated demands for devolo~ont. As sta~ed above, .~ha necessa~' infras~c~ure will be avatl~le con,trent wi~ ~e anticipated demands for development. Will avoid tho oz2ension of tho u~ban cervices bounder2 to create an~ enclaves, pockets, or ranger seas in serpentine patterns. .. The proposed plan amendment does not require~ nor does it request, an extension of the urban services boundary. REGIONAL PLANNING ~equired Services, p.9. Any required road improvements in the area will be the responsibility of the developer. The cost of providing bus service for school, children tot he site will be minimal, as the surrounding residential areas are currently served by a school bus. The incremental additional cost of patrolling ~he area bM the Sheriff's depa~cment can also be anticipated to be minimal. 'The development of this site would actually consolidate, and, thereby, increase ~he efficiency of service provision in the area. Xn addition, higher ~han average home values can be anticipated from this proper~y, suggesting that higher than average ad valorem tax revenues will be forthcoming. ~mount of Lan~..to Xccom~_odate Future Grow~, p.10. While the County has in fact provided for substantial residential growth in their Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, the reality of the marketplace is that areas adjacent to Florida Turnpike interchanges, and near substantial ne~ job oppor~unitias (the new Reynolds industrial park Just east of the Turnpike and less than =we miles from the subject property) will see the most demand for future residential development. The County has recognized the dynamic nature of this area by applying the Area of Special Interest designation to it. Other portions of the substantial acreage planned to accommodate future residential development are unlikely to see any significant.development activity for ten (10) to twenty (20) years, while there is demand for housing on the subject property at the present time. l~ew Development Compatible vith murroundin~ tan~ USES, p. 10. The subject :proper~:y is no~ a v~e a~$~u=~ area, an~ ~ ~~ in by existing surro~d~ng residential uses a~. s~lar densities. ~velopment of the subject pro~y will init~ally ~ compa~le with surro~ding uses, and will continue to ~ c~atible and complementa~ in ~e future, balances ~e need for housing In ~e v~cinity of Job opport~i~ies such as ~ose fo~d ~n ~e industrial area near the Turnpike. Future conditions alone Okeechobee ~oa~, p. X1. Seasonally adjusted traffic counts for Okeechobee Road just east cf the. Turnpike are 28,451 vehicles. Adding ten trips per unit per da~ would raise this figure to 30,091 trips. In addition, road improvements by the Florida DOT are anticipated in this area. No deterioration of acceptable levels of service is anticipated to occur due to the development of the subject property. g? · -Lastly, we believe it significant that the region in which the subject parcel is located has undergone tremendous changes since the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan was adopted on January 9, 1990. The area along Okeechobee Road between Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike has been the most active commercial/industrial area in the entire Treasure Coast. Improvements on Okeechobee Road and Virginia Avenue east of 1-95 have been underway for two years and are nearing completion. The Turnpike overpass on Okeeohobee Road was completely rebuilt over the last two years. Utilities have been expanded 'and improved to accommodate the Reynolds Me,als Development PNRD, the Commerce Square Development, and development on Peter's Road which includes the Cracker Barrel ReStaurant and the newly built Motel Six. Additional development along Okeechobee Road includes Shoney's Restaurant, Day's Inn, Taco Ball, Chevron Station, Miami Sub Shop, Kentucky Fried C~icken, and. Perkins Restaurant. This new development is in addition to the Russell Manufacturers Outlet Mall which is located less than tWo miles away from the subject property. The growth in this area has not been unexpected. Throughout the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan are statements which recognize that the 1-95/Florida Turnpike Corridor and the area along the Corridor are expected to be a major force in future development.' For example, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges emergence of the 1-95/Florida Turnpike corridor as a ~a~Jor force in future development consideration" (1,6)~ 'The additional acreage needed for these future use· will. for the ~ost part. be £ound in those areas lying along the Florida Turnpike/I-95 corridor. (1-23) ~ and "In the most general descriptive terms, the future land use maps direct future develot~ent away from the .environmentally sensitive areas cf the coastal and e·tusrine environment to more concentrated' employment and housing center· along ldme 1-95/Florida Turnpike corridor" (1-41). I~ light of this growth, we believe that the requested land u~e designation change'ia consistent with th~ goale, policies, and objective· oft he St. ~ucie'County Comprehen·xVe plan; It will provide a transition between this ~ew growth ~o the-east and the agricultural activities to the west. Furthermore, the proposed development of the subject parcel is intended to provide residential units for those employed in the newly constructed commercial and indu·trial establishment·. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Treasure Coast Reglonal Planning Council revi·e its staff repo~c in line with comments made above, and forwards raco~endation to thaDepar~nent of Community Affairs that Plan Amendment ~92-002 be approved. Very truly yours. David A. Theriaque, Esq. Owner, · Representative FIGURE 1: Th'e subject property (outlined in red), looking east towards Turnpike and 1-95. FIGURE 2: The subject property, looking northwest along Gentile Road to Picos Road in the background (along with the Turnpike). To the west and northwest (upper left of photo) are existing improved subdivisions. Note the air strip and associated facilities in the left foreground, along with existing housing fronting on Okeechobee Road. FIGURE 3: The subject property, looking southwest. Note the existing grass airstrip to the south of the property (top side of photo), and the new air strip running northeast/southWest through the adjacent property. Flight patterns will not affect the subject property. FIGURE 4: The. subject property, looking south along Gentile Road towards Okeechobee Road. Note the existing grazed areas in the right side of the photo and the existing housing just to the west of Gentile Road. The existing agricultural area to the southeast (upper left corner of the photo) is currently designated-RS - 2 units per acre. FIGURE 5: Looking east along Okeechobee Road through the area between the Turnpike and 1-95. Note that the distance between the two interchnages i: approximately 3/4 mile. The Z-shaped building to the north of Okeechobee Rom' is the Outlet Mall. The Reynolds Industrial Park lies to the south of of Okeechobe~ Road. FIGURE 6: A closer look at a. portion of the Reynolds site, looking northward.' Note the substantial recent road work. The Outlet Mall lies in the background. rICE Mars~h suite 339 DATE Signature S~gna~u~e 4008 IIII SIEMON, LRPSEN 0I ( LAW OFFICES SiEMON, LARSEN & MARSH Mizner Park 423 Plaza Real, Suite 339 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (407) 368-3808 Facsimile: (407) 368-4008 Date: Time: (EST) Please Deliver the Following Pages Immediately ( ) Total Number of Pages: Sender: Client: (including this Matter: Name; Firm: FAX Number: Message: II ?/ ~ 09.,"i4/92 08:25 ~'407 ~68 400E: $IEMON, Li~RSEN 02 Siemoib Larsen iii Mar h MEMORANDUM TO: Luis N. Serna Sr. Lucie Count), Community Development FROM: Lee D. Einswei!er DATE; RE: September 14, 1992 Charboncau Amendment Attached you will find a first cut at responses to the ORC report. Please call 368-3808 this morning to discuss. After our discussion, Z will arrange to messenger you a diskette with the document on it for your receipt early this afternoon. My apologie~ for the short timing . . . __~_~ ~ ,- 09/14.x92 0~:25~ ~ ~ 4o? 3G8 4oo8 SIEMON~ LARSEN 03 A. OBJECTIONS 1. Rule 9J-5.00~,~2) (c) 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 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. 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. RESPONSE: The appropriateness of development at a density of one unit per acre on the Charboneau parcel should be considered cn its own merits -- especially in light of the recent extensive development of the Turnpike and 1-95 interchange area nearby. The appropriateness of residential designations elsewhere in the county should ROt be an issue here. An overview of the lands surrounding the Charboneau parcel is useful in order to fully understand this proposed amendment. To the south and east of the parcel lie active citrus groves which have been designated for a future density of 2 units per a~re (RS). Approximately 1,000 feet east of thesubJeot property lies the urban service boundary, which delimits an area intended to be served b~ urban services such as centralized water and sewer. The urban service boundary is intended to focus development intensity of greater than two units per acre in the delineated area.~ To the east of the Charboneau property (yet still west of the Turnpike) lie lands currently designated for two units per acre (RS), lands St. Lucie Co~ty Ptan Amendment Page 1 04 designated commeraial, and lands designated for Mixed Use. See Map__. To the west and northwest of the property lie Port Pierce Gardens and the Pine Hollow PUD (which borders the entire western edge of the subject property). The subject property itself wholly oontains an [unplatted???] subdivision known as Port Pierre Tropical Estates. The densit~ Of these currently nonconforming properties is one unit per aore or less. The intent of the gradual transition from AG-5 to to RE to RS is to provide a logical progression of density (and development expect~tions) from the agricultural (grove) lands to the west, to the more intense uses surrounding the Turnpike and interchanges. In the case of the subJeot property, ~he current A~-2.5 designation direotly abuts the RS designation in this area in an illogioal manner, espeoially considering the existing density of development on the adjoining parcels. 08:2? ~ ~07 36B 400B 5IEMON~ LARSEN 05 l~ules 9J-5. 007 (2) (b); 9J-11. 006 (1) (b)4;. {%nd 9J-~1.006(4) 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 thi~ estimate considers the adopted peak hour level of ~ervice standard. 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. This area is really just one roadway link -- okeeohobee Road from 1-95 west to the Turnpike interahange. Under the area of Special Interest designation provided in the county's Traffia Oirculation Element, the County,s policy is to allow no lower than Level of Service D during the peak season on this roadway link. NO additional improvements to this link (beyond those recently completed) are proposed at this time. This roadway link is currently a lane (divided???) arterial, ~apable of handling up to vehicles per day during peak season at Level of Service "D". Existing traffic counts on show it to be operating at Level of 8ervloe .'"The additional traffic generated by 160 units on the Charboneau property will not reduce the Level of Service below adopted standards. The 2015 Traffic Needs Plan shows this link as a 6-lane divided arterial from the Turnpike interchange east into Fort Pierce. st. Lt~o County PLan Amendment Page 89,'14/92 0~:27 8 4~? 3~B 40*8 SIEHON, LARSEN 06 Bules 9J--5,01,1 [1) {£}.1 9,.T-11o 096 {1) (b)2; 9J-11.00_6 ¢1) angl. 9J-11. 006.(3) 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 analy~es 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 on and, capacity of drainage facilities has not been included. ~acommendation~ 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 category and, an assessment of the impact on the County's adopted level of service standard~. 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 ~ite. The amendment adopted by the St. Lucia County Commission on March 24, 1992~ provided for a maximum density off 1 dwelling unit per acre. This intensity can be supported by we!ls and septic systems. No extension of public facilities or urban services is anticipated, nor is any modification of the existing Urban Ge=vice Boundary proposed. Therefore, no analysis of sanitary sewer o~ potable watem plant capacity has been provided. At the time the staff report Eot this amendment was prepared, the amen4men~ was determined by the St. Lucre county planning staff ~t to oon£1ict with t~he Page 09/14/~2 08: ~~ 40? ~68 4888 SIEMON, LARSEN 07 waste sub-~lement of the Plan. Based upon a generation Utilities Solid Waste Department), the 160 propose~ units would produce 9,920 lbS. per week. The existing Glades Road disposal site (Phase II) has adequate capacity to serve this development, and is anticipated to serve the County until the year 2002, based on the projection provided in the 8olid Waste Sub-~lement. ST. Lucje County PI[an Amer~ment 09/14/92 08:29~,, ~ ~ 40? 568 4008 consis~.e~cV with the (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; REBPONB~: While the site lies outside the urban service boundary, development of the Site at the density approved by the St. Luoie COUnty Commission on March 24, 1992, will not require urban services. This site is primarily vacant pine flatwoods. Surrounding uses include substantial areas of development at densities of one unit to the acre (Ft. Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow PUD). Residential activity at this density and of the character of that proposed is no'threat to existing active citrus production in the area. The development of the subject property will place no additional pressure on agrlcul~ural lands in the vicinity. The site will not set a precedent for the conversion of citrus lands in the area, because it is vacant pine flatwoods, not an active citrus grove. Further, conversion of citrus grove properties rarely occurs until the trees are no longer of active fruit- bearing age, which will be ten or more years for the groves in the vicinity of the subject property. At that time, existing nonconforming areas such as Fort Pierce Gardens and the Pine Hollow PUD are likely to be approaching buildout at a density of one unit per acre. To consider the development of the charboneau propert~ as exacerbating the likelihood that thegrove areas adjacent to the subject property (within two miles of a major Turnpike and !-95 interchange) will be converted mt such time as the trees on them no longer economically produce fruit is absurd. St. LU~{e CoUnty P[~n k~-~cJ~ent P~ge 6 4'07 J68 4008 $IEMO~, LARSEN 09 (b) Puture 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 have not been included; Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve this site. At a density of one dwelling unit per acre, no public water and sewer are required. The capacity of the roadway is currently adequate. No other urban services have been requested, nor are they required, and the capacity of publi~ fa~ilities at adequate levels is considered currently available. (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; RESPONSE: Solid waste disposal capacity to serve this development is adequate. Please see the response to objection 3 above. is also adequate. Please see the response to Objection 2 above. (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. RESPONSE: The higher densities and intensities of development referred ko in Policy 1.1.12.1 refer to resident~al land use designations of greater than two units per acre RM and RH). The maximum density adopted by the St. Lucia county commission on March 24, 199~, WaS one dwelling unit ~er acre. Since this density does not require urban services, its establishment outside of the Planned Urban service Boundary is not ~nconsistent with the stated Plan policy. St. LUcre County PLan 9znendment Page 7 09/14.,92 88:~0 ~ 40? 56~-' 4888 SIEM~ON~ LARSEN 18 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). RESPONSEz Existing nonconforming subdivisions to the north and west of the site have already set the pattern of development in this vicinity. This pattern is recognized in the extension of the RS (2 DU/acre) category west of the Turnpike to the southeastern corner of the subject property. The County,s Plan provides for a gradual and logical transition from agricultural lands (AG-5) to transitional agricultural lands (AG-Z.5) to transitional residential lands (RE and RS) and then into areas where urban services will be provided (RU, RM and RH). The application of the RE category to the subject property furthers this logical transition in an area where it does not currently exist, and where existing surrounding land uses make it ap~ropriate. See Map . Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and does not further Goal 20 (Transportation), policies (b)2o and (b)3., of the Sta~e 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). The Turnpike inter,hangs area is already deemed an Area of Special Interest by the County. The acceptable Level of service for this roadway link has been set at no less than "D". C~ren2 counts in the area show an existing level of servi~e of . The additional 160 u~Its proposed on the Charboneau property will not reduce the level cf service below the adopted standard. $'1;. LL~ Co,d~'LY Plan ~t AGENDA DATE: Auqust 19,1992 REGULAR: 8/25/92 REQUEST PRESENTATION: SPECIAL: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: SESSION: XXXX ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - (Planning): Permission to Advertise Consider authorizing a second public hearing on September 22, 1992 to adopt the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1.) Sue Ethel Hayes for a change in land use from RU (Residential, Urban) to COM (Commercial). 2.) Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in land use from AG-2.5 (Agriculture 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential suburban, 2 du/ac). RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the scheduling of the requested public hearings. AVAILABLE FUNDING: ACCOUNT NUMBER CONCURRENCE: ~,, '~'Hd~k%S L. KINDRED INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (IS BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED) YES: DEPARTMENT: COI4~fUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO: AnFNDA( ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION Approved DATE: August 25, 1992 Vote: to Thomas L. Kindred Interim County Administrator PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. UTILITIES ADMIN. CODE COMP. DIR. LEISURE SERVICES ADMIN. PERSONAL ADMIN. GROWTH MGT. DIR. PORT DIR., AIRPORT DIR. PROPERTY ACQ. DIR. ENGINEERING DIR. PURCHASING DIR. AGENDA R E Q u L~$ T DATE: Auqust 19,1992 REGULAR: '8/25/92 REQUEST PRESENTATION: SPECIAL: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: SESSION: XXXX ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - (Planning): Permission to Advertise Consider authorizing a second public hearing on September 22, 1992 to adopt the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1.) Sue Ethel Hayes for a change in land use from RU (Residential, Urban) to COM (Commercial). 2.) Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in land use from AG-2.5 (Agriculture i du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential suburban, 2 du/ac). .~ECOMMENDATION~ Authorize the scheduling of the requested public hearings. AVAILABLE FUNDING: ACCOUNT NUMBER CONCURP~NCE~ ' COMMUTy DEV. ADMIN. THOMAS L. KINDRED INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (IS BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED) ~ES: DEPARTMENT: COI~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT NO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION DATE: Vote: to Thomas L. Kindred Interim County Administrator COUNTY ATTOR/FEY ASST. CO. ADMIN. MANAGEMENT & BUDGET ADMIN. COMM. DEV. ADMIN. PLANNING DIR. PUBLIC WOP~KS ADMIN. UTILITIES ADMIN. CODE COMP. DIR. LEISURE SERVICES ADMIN. PERSONAL ADMIN. GROWTH MGT. DIR. PORT DIR. AT'PORT DIR. ! PROPERTY ACQ. DIR. ,ENGINEERING DIR. PURCHASING DIR. k~NDA - BOARD OF COUNTY CO~[~£"SSIONERS SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 9:00 A.M. TUESDAY, Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau to consider the Objections,. Recommendations and Comments of the Florida Department of Community Affairs and determine whether or not to adopt the proposed land use amendment from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70). If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners on September 4, 1992. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on September 1, 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN FILE NO. PA-92-002 PARCEL ID: 23 22 3~ ~0000 000/7 94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 9.2 35 39 N 1/2 OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR-6 L - T T PART OF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT ~ COR OF SD ~ 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF C~, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ~G C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF C~, TH W ALG S R/W OF C~ 570 ~T TO POB. P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES . LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) P~CEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE sE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4' OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR C~ R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) P~CEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.9~ ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT~FOR C~ R/W ~D BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, R~ N ~G 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ~G OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH R~ SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT P~T OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE .P~TICU~LY DESCRIBED AS F~L~S:__FRO~.~E.~ CO~ OF ~ !/4~ Q~ 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, R~N_S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI OF NSLRWMD C~AL ~49; T~ CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH R~ NELY 767.00 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (T~IS LI C~CU~TES 824.81 FT); TH R~ SLY'~G W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH R~ SWLY ~G C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI C~CU~TES 825.93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- 388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) JPARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) .PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) 'PARCEL ID: 23 22 7~ ~..0034 000/4 .52 ACRES~.~, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONi~¥""FT. PIERCE TROPICAL EStaTES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) pARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIEkCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE ~TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC)-(OR 434-1948) ONE-AN (OR 428-' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE'S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT TERRY T TOI~qES COSlv~DS CONTRACTING CORP PO BOX 1556 FT PIERCE FL 34954 BRIAN & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU 2789 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9518 BLK 2 LOT 1 EDITH SHAFRANICK C/O BLANCHE GARY 9156 LAKELAND DR RICHMOND VA 23229 BLK 2 LOT 2 BEN STURMAN C/O PHILLIP ~ 425 SW 4 AVE APT 318 FTLAUDERDAT~ FL 33315-1062 BLK 2 LOT 11 MILTON & MILDRED COHEN 1625 BAY DR MIAMI BEACH FL 33141-4717 #13,16,17,20 BLK 4 LOT 3,4 HAROLD &ADAWILLIAMS 3333 S INDRIV DR FT PIERCE FL 34982 BLK 4 LOT 6 ALBERT R ENGLE 3 S~ HARBOR APT 731 WINTHROP MA 02152-1026 BLK 4 LOT 7, 8 TED T NIEWISIEWICZ 518 18 ST NIAGARA FAT~SNY 14301 BLK 5 LOTS 3-6; 6:1,2,7,8 BLK 7LOTS 4,5 MURRAY HILDAR(YU~ 27577 LAHSERRD #127 SOUTHFIELDMI 48034 BLK 7 LOTS 6 SOMER & ADELAINE ROTHMAN 84 PLEASANT HILL LN TA~2%RAC FL 33319-2442 BLK 7 LOT 7 HAROLD/DOLORES REISFIRTD 1869VENICE PARK DR #111 N MIAMI FL 33181-1963 BLK 7 LOT 8 BERNARD& SHIRLEY RUDY 4516 W FRANKLINST RICHMOND VA 23221-1116 #1, #2 C/O TAX DEPT PO BOX 247 AUBURNDALE FL 33823-0247 #3 HARRY B ALBRITTON 2650 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #4 ROBERT & YOLANDA SCI4_ASANE 2031 44 AV VEROBCH FL 32966 #5 SIDNEY C ALBRITTON 2690 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9517 #6 RICHARD& SCOTT SNOWD~N ANITA M YOUNG 2726 G~TILERD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #7 HARVEY &WYNONAMARTIN 2790 GENTILERD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9517 ~8 R & R CITRUS INC 2790GENTILERD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #9 H NGAN STEVENK CHAN/LISALU~G 2868GENTILERD FTPIERCE FL 34945 #10 OLC INC C/O CMC MANAGEMENT P O BX 14019 FT PIERCE FL 34979 ~11 ERIC P & CAROL SANDT 3078 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9517 JOSEPH-ESPOSITO VANZIE ESPOSITO 3150 DAME RD FT PIERCE FL 34981 ALICE J GAGNON 9802 OKEECHOBEERD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9692 PAUL& JUANITAGAGNON 9864 OKEECHOBEE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 pAUL HFREEMAN C/O SE CITRUS CAPITAL C 11006 OKEECHOBEERD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #19 & LOT 1 TERRAIN DEVELOPERS CORP P O BX 1987 FT PIERCE FL 34954-1987 t21 DOUGLAS & KARENHOGUE 11010 HEIL RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 922 DENNIS & SHERRI KAUFMAN 10650 HEILRD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #23 JOSEPH F DIFRANCESCO PENNY L DIFRANCESCO P O BX 345 FT PIERCE FL 34954 COUNTY ROADS SLC ADM BLDG ANNEX ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 2300 VIRGINIA AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 N ST LUCIE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2721 S JENKINS RD FT PIERCE FL 34981 LOT 2 KEVIN & LISA KEENE 10604 PINE CONE LN FT PIERCE FL 34945 LOT3 PHILIP & MARJORIEMUHDAY 187 HORSELEYDR SCARBOROUGHONT CANADA M1B 1W4 LOT 28 MICHAEL & MARY SMITH 10609 PINE CONE LN FT PIERCE FL 34945 LOT 29 G~ORGE pAPPAI~aRIX) CATHERINE LOZADA 2557 SWGRO~TOCIR PORT ST LUCIE FL 34955 LOT 30 KERRY D & STEPHANIE WAGNER 6010 PALM AV FT PIERCE FL 34950 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS September 4, 1992 COMMUNITY D VCLOPM£NT ADMINISTRATOR TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September 22, 1992 in St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 23000 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on the petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The purpose of this meeting is to consider whether or not to adopt the proposed Land Use Amendment. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner, ff you should have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898, and then ask for extension 1593. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS j~.. LUCI~ COUNTY, FLORIDA HAVERT L. FENN. District No. I ® JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468- t 720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE 'TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 AC) (OR 4~-l~l) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22,35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434'1383) · PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) 08~28×t992 14:05 FROH THE PT. ST. LUCIE NEI~$ F'.O] (607)878-5693 ~0: ~UHBE~ O~ ~AG~$ TO FOLLOW THIS _, FROM THE PT. ST. LUCIE NEWS TO 4681735 NO, Receiver Transmitter Date Time Node Pages Result Transmit Confirmation Report : 005 : 98785695 : SLC/COMM DEVELOPMENT : .. Rug 27,92 10:25 : 02'09 : Norm : 05 : OK BOARD OF COUNTY D6V£LOPM6NT COMMISSION£RS DIRECTOR TERRY L. VIRTA, AtCP F A X # ~'407) 468-1735 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM /; NO. OF PAGES SENT (INCL. COVER) - HA~RI L FENN. Di~rio No. 1 e JUDY C~PPE~ Dis~io No. 2 · JACK KRIEGE~ Distfio No. 3 e R. D~E T~FELNER. Disrri~ No. 4 e JIM ~NIX. Distrio No. 5 Coun~ Administrator -- J~E5 V. CHISHO~ 2300 Virginia Avenue e Fo~ Pierce. FL 34982-5652 Dire~or: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 ATTENTION: MIKE BOWERS SI REMOVED ~%- BOB FRANK ' DATE THIS SIGN TO BE TAKEN DOWN / SIGNATURE PLEASE RETURN A SIGNED AND DATED COPY OF THIS TO SUE HARTZOG - GROWTH MANAGEMEN~ DIVISION SO IT CAN BE ADDED TO THE FILE. T H A N K Y O U. DATE SENT TO ROAD DEPT. SIGNATURE DIFt~CE$CO - CANAL ~49 TERRAIN DEV. LI_ C.t~lgL ~.50 FREE-t'IAN ~ILLIA~S I ES?OSI'IO PETITION OF I~R'iAN 8. KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU Dearborn Station 47 West Polk Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 93%7117 LAW OFFICF. S Siemon Larsen & Marsh Mizner Park 433 Plaza Real, Suite 339 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone (407) 368-3808 Facsimile (407) 368-40( July 30, 19'92 Mr. Brian L. Charboneau Charboneau, Inc. 2789 Gentile Road' Fort Pierce, Florida 34945 Re: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Pigment: Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Dear Mr. Charboneau: We have reviewed the Department of Community Affair's "ORC" Report (Objections, Recommendations and Comments) and offer the following observations for your consideration, First and foremost, the Department's objections do not recommend that the county not approve the requested amendment. To the contrary, the Department's recommendations are that certain additional data and analysis be provided in supPort of the amendment when the amendment is approved. Second, the fact is that even if the Department recommends that a proposed amendment not be approved (the Department did not do so in this instance), the Department's recommendation does not affect the County's ability to approve an amendment. The Growth Management Act, sections 163.3161 et seq. Fla. stat. (1991) expressly reserves the power to approve or deny Plan amendments to local government, and a local government is empowered to approve an amendment notwithstanding the Department's Objections. The Department does have the authority to initiate administrative proceedings directed as to whether a plan amendment is in "compliance," however, a determination that a plan amendment is not in compliance does not affect the validity of the amendment. All the Act provides for in the event an amendment is found to not be in compliance is the possibility of sanctions in regard to certain categories of state funding, if the Department seeks them and if the Governor and Cabinet impose them. Mr. Brian Charboneau July 30, 1992 Page 2 Third, the Department's objections involve three components: 1. objections unrelated to the specific details of your amendment (i.e. lingering DCA concerns about the amount of land already designated for urban growth in the County's Comprehensive Plan); 2. A request for additional infrastructures impact analysesl; and 3. Misapplication of certain policies of the St. Lucie County Plan to the amendment. It is our opinion that these matters are eaSily resolved. The data and analysis that is already available responds to each of the factual issues that has been raised and that information, together with an explanation of why the identified plan policies have been misapplied, supports the amendment. As for the Department's concern aboUt the County's Plan in general, the Department approved the plan, and there is no basis in fact or law with which we are familiar for denying the amendment. It is our opinion that the data and analysis that are available more than adequately support the amendment. Finally, we have considered the significance of the Department's ORC Report in the event the County were to deny the amendment request and you were to seek judicial review. We have no doubt that a court of competent jurisdiction would consider the Report, however, it is our opinion that the fact that the Department is dissatisfied with other provisions of the County's Plan, 1.e. the allocation of other lands for urban development, would not be sufficient to justify a denial of the amendment. It is well-settled in Florida that the police power can be extended no further than is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare from injury, All incidents of property ownership are protected from infringement by the state unless regulations are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, and general welfare of the public. 1 curiously, the Department has asked for an analysis of sewer capacity, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment does not involve the use of sewers. Mr. Brian Charboneau July 30, 1992 Page 3 Snyder v. Brevard Count~, 595 So.2d 65, 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The ~act that other lands are improperly designated is simply not relevant to whether development of your property as permitted under the proposed amendment would be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. In that we are all quite satisfied that the proposed amendment is consistent with the County's plan, the 'regional policy plan and the State Comprehensive Plan, and is not inimical to the any aspect of the public health, safety and welfare, we feel confident that the ORC Report would therefore be of little practical significance in a court of law. What all of this~means is that we believe that the Board of County Commissioners should proceed to approve the amendment. We are confident that we can effectively respond to the Department's request for additional data and analysis. As for the "urban sprawl" issue, we do not think that the issue is implicated to the extent that would support a determination that the amendment is not in compliance, and that therefore the amendment should be approved. I hope that this letter is responsive to your questions- If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Charles L. Siemon ~~ May 8, 1992 Terry Virta, AICP Development Administrator Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan - Draft Amendments; DCA Reference #92-2 Dear Mr. Virta: Council staff has completed its review of the St. Lucie County draft amendments in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and has prepared comments for Council consideration. These comments will be presented to Council at its next regular meeting on May 15, 1992. You are invited to attend the meeting and address the Council if you wish° Enclosed are staff's recommended comments and the agenda for the meeting. Following the meeting, the comments as finally approved by Council will be forwarded to the State Department of Community Affairs for transmittal to your governing body for consideration before final adoption of the amendments. If you would like to discuss the staff report or Council procedures for plan review, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Terry ~.. Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH:lb 3228 s.w. ma~n downs blvd. suite 205 · p.o. box t529 palm city, florida 34990 phone (40~ 22~-4~0 sc 269-4060 fax (4~ 22t-4067 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 6A3 Staff May 15, 1992 Council Meeting Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; Reference 992-2 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Council"must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs (--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 proposed amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed pursuant to Section 186.507, F.S. A written report, containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments. Background St. Lucie County is considering two amendments to the Future Land Use Map. The locations of the properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying maps, and the number of acres and proposeR changes in land use designations are summarized in the'following list: According to the County plan, the AG-2.5 designation is for lands outside the County's urban service area which are associated with agricultural and agricultural-related activities. The potential suitability of such areas for limited residential development is recognized, however, and is permitted under certain conditions to a maximum density of one unit per 2.5 acres. Areas designated as AG-2.5 in the County planlie west of the existing planned urban land use designations, but east of the County's primary agricultural land designation (AG-5). The propert~ SurroUnding al vacant~ containing native pine although the eastern portion of the .e Road is cleared and used for grazing. uses to the north, east, and south are To the west are lands zing, some scattered home the which presently use and zoning are both (LPA) At use was RS :ies with the )lan, .ff and the County denial of the proposed use.change. the staff and LPA review, the proposed land two dwelling units per,acre). The referenced as of denial included: reasons for a 1) USe the use of the proposal with the Future Land which anticipates agricultural and very low :ial development in this area. The of a few nonconforming subdivisions and was not considered Lle for land use, which may the effect of other agricultural land owners to seek land 2) The into lies outside the urban service area 1,000 feet) and could not be incorporated area without a formal comprehensive plan 3 ) While Road have of service on Gentile Road and-Okeechobee currently a problem, the amendment would impacts on the S.R. 70/Turnpike/I-95 area; 4) The proposed land use is not compatible with surrounding land uses and could be in conflict with a private air strip used for crop dusting located immediately adjacent to the property on its southern border; and 3 test of providing the County with a land use designation (very low density residential) to meet a recognized need since a variety of vacant lands are available within the urban service area which permit low density residential '-development. At the -transmittal hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the proposed land use designation for this property was changed to RE (maximum onedwelling unit per acre). (residential estate) designation, according to the County plan, is intended to act as. a transitional area between the agricultural areas and the eastern portion of the The designation is intended for large lot, dwellings in:areas not required to be served withcentral utilities. and Consistency I Local ~over-ments - The map do not directly confli other local governments. Amendment No. subject to annexation The area is to be ' the Fort Pierce UtilitJ The requires annexation The proposed oals. with Plans of land use plans of 92-001 is in an of Fort sewer and (FPUA). I! to be be in · 92-002 is located far from any City development of this property lowidensity ses would detract from City urban infill and urban , and to discourge urban sprawl. does on this Edwards Perspective - Proposed Amendment No. 92- to conflict with regional goals or regional resources. However, Council is ultimate impact of land use the levels of service on street and are regional roadways. Edwards Road at Level of Service D. The !~County the majority of avai this area is currently Additional new would with new trips not not meet the st~ of ,. comprehensive plan ts the to d~velopment o~ders (such as use zoning amendments) for ~here be available if land ~owners to affidavit. Proposed Amendment No. 92-002 is inconsistent with the Regional Plan and should be denied for several reasons. First, Regional Policy 16.1.1~2 indicates that all 5 In addition, there is some concern with the impacts which development of this propert (s.R. %0), aregio~1 roadwaY, willeast haVeof the°nFloridaOkeech°beeTurnpike.R°ad This segment of Okeechobee Road presently operates at a "Level of Service C, and appears to have existing capacity available 'ko accommodate the traffic generated from this development. However, the information presented with the proposed amendment failsto adequately address the future traff%c conditions aiong Okeechobee Road. Background trafficI has not been considered a factor in as of Okeechobee Roadto accommodate the site c. SinCe this. segment of Okeechobee Road provides access to both 1-95 and the Florida Turnpike, and the Florida of Transportation has no improvements scheduled, a traffic analysis should be projected traffic on this segment of Okeechobee Road. In some In or been must now be either trials received for review pertaining to the the case is appropriate for higher density because there have been other area, the parcel is not far removed from · and that the was arbitrarily County to protect would seem that one if the County i~.-to area. Either lands for iow of lands desk lands designated There is no .on exists. this area. of its conditions its land use failed to [al uses, uses has purposes st that Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comment~ Amendment No. 92-001 A. Objection 1. None B. Comment -- Because many of today's problems are the result of allowing development without sufficient consideration to the cost and timing of infrastructure and service needs, the prevailing growth management philosophy is that development should not be permitted unless necessary infrastructure can be provided concurrently. Recent changes in the State Statutes and Administrative Code as they relate to roadways indicate that local governments might be somewhat Recommendation for.Modificatio, 1. The County should deny the proposed land use amendment. The recently completed County comprehen- sive plan calls for agriculture to be the primary use O '' utslde the Urban Service Boundary. The County has be~n very generous in its allocation of land for future urban uses and in its drafting of the Urban Service Boundary. If the County feels that one or more oftheareas so recently designated for agricul- tural land use are now appropriate for urban use, due to changing conditions or- the' absorption of lands designated for such urban use, the County needs to formally study and recognize these trends. Changes can then be made ot~ the comprehensive plan land use map on the basis these new conditions. This will avoid the pitfall of making piecemeal amendments ~ · hlch have the effect of clanging the overall h' p ~losophy of the County plan. B. Comments 1. A of s, the a~ Recommendation analysis should be and considered the adoption of .amendment. The include information on existing, and projected trafficl volumes and levels e. This analysis should be available to the · ior to the adoption-~of the amendment so that can determine if a nonconcurrency · ~should be executed. Council their Affairs in Florida the comments outlined above and approve to the State Department of Community of the requirements of Chapter 163~ Attachments 9 LA.ND USE Am, mmdment 92-001 scow 13 AKINS 1,4 $60"F1' 15 CROOKS PRESBYTER] CANAL ~:d CHURCH RM REEVES OM 2STH STREET ASSOC SU ETHEL" HAYES 11 COMMISSION REVIEW: MARCH 24, 1992 Resolution No.: 92-057 File Number: PA-92-002 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: County Commission Development Administrator March 17, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Ka%hleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (AgriCultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). On Tuesday, March 24, 1992, you will be asked to review the petition of Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG 2.5 to RS. This change would permit an increase in residential density on this property from .4 units to the acre to 2 units to the acre. On March 12, 1992, this petition was presented to the St. Lucie C~unty Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission for review. At that time the LPA/P&Z voted to recommend that the petition be denied and consequently that it not be approved for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The reasons for this recommendation were as outlined in the staff recommendation of March 4, 1992, which cited several areas of deficiency in meeting the Objectives and Policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the original staff report on this matter are attached for your review. Briefly, the petitioners appear to have not adequately addressed how this property is consistent with the restrictions in the Plan calling for contiguity in the expansion of the urban service area; they have failed to address how the proposed amendment does not constitute "leap-frog" type of development and they have failed to address how the property will be adequately served by existing public services. Noting the above, and referring to the attached staff report of March 4, 1992, staff recommends that this Board find the Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau inconsistent with Objectives and Policies of the adopted St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan and that transmittal for further agency review not be authorized at this time. March 14, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Consistent with Board direction, attached you will find a copy of draft Resolution 92-57 which, if approved, would authorize the transmittal of thiS petition to the Department of Community Affairs for further review. Staff recommends denial of draft Resolution 92-57. If you have any questions, please let us know. SUBMITTED: ~erry V~t~ - Develot~ment Administrator County Attor~// TLV/DJM/me PA92002a(e) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Planning Director Terry Torres Commission Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jo Ann Allen, Robert Carman, Robert Klein, Ken Sattler, Doug Skidmore, Donna Calabrese, Dixon McCain, J.P. Terpening, Ralph Flowers (late 7:10 p.m.). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Murphy, Land Development Manager; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Luis Serna, Planner II,~ Diana Waite, Planner I, Doug Coward, Planner I, Betty Conner, and Charline Burgess, Administrative Secretary. INVOCATION Chairman Terpening requested those present to stand for a moment of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Terpening. APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1992 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1992. Dixon McCain made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 8, 1992 and the Regular Meeting of January 23, 1992. Mr Sattler seconded the motion, and upon roll call, the Board unanimously vo%ed in favor of the motion. PUBLIC HEARING - BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHAI~BO~AU PA-92-002 Mr. Luis Serna presented staff comments. He stated that this petition is for a change in the Land Use designation of a 164 acre parcel, lying west of Ft. Pierce, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). He also stated that the Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. He stated that the proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum permitted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre which represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. He further stated that Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application, as presented, does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to the Traffic Circulation Element, Port and Aviation Element, Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water), and Capital Improvements Element. The petitioners' contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west, is not supported by the information which was provided. He stated that the petition does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to explain why the proposed change should be approved. The petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. He further stated if this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. Mr. Serna stated that, based upon the above comments, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Skidmore asked whether or not the outlots were owned by the petitioner or by individuals and if the individuals were asking for the change. Mr. Serna replied that most ~of the outlots were owned by individuals and that only the petitioners were asking for the change in land use, Mr. McCain asked what the Level of Service was for Okeechobee Road as a whole and for the portion between 1-95 and the Florida Turnpike. Mr. Serna replied that the Level of Service for Okeechobee Road was Dennis Murphy stated that the current Level of Service between 1-95 and the Turnpike is Low C, D, which means that it is near saturation and could be placed in the Failure category. Mr. McCain asked if the D.O.T. has any plans to expand the capacity. Mr. Murphy replied, "no", the only programmed improvement for Okeechobee Road is what they are finishing up right now. There was a general discussion regarding the Level of Service and improvements scheduled for Okeechobee Road. Mr. Sattler asked what the supporting evidence would be for obtaining water and sewer. Chairman Terpening replied that you would use the approved Master Plan of the designated utility service which is an approved plan that designating their area of service. He further stated this petition is outside of the FPUA Service Area. Terry Torres, Agent for Brian L. and Kathleen Charboneau appeared before the Commission, He passed around a colored map showing the proposed site and the surrounding area. He stated that his clients' are requesting a Land Use Change that is consistent with the surrounding area and it was their intention to develop the property at a density of 1 du/ac. He stated that the petitioners' would be more than happy to revise their request to Residential Estate which is a 1 du/ac land use designation. The only reason they had petitioned for Residential Suburban was to be consistent with existing Land Use designation of surrounding area. In addressing the Transportation Impacts, Mr. Torres stated that Gentile Road was to be improved in the future and that he was told he would have no problem where the level of service is concerned. Mr. Torres addressed the Infrastructor Element and stated there would be no sewer requirement since septic tanks would be used. He further stated he had spoken with Harry Schindehette., Director of Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, and was told that their area of service extends to the Turnpike along Okeechobee Road this property 5 is only 1 mile west of the Turnpike, and since FPUA would service this area at the expense of the owner, if County would agree. The County currently has this area in their service area, however they have no facilities for either water or sewer. Mr. Torres stated he had not contacted every owner of the 22 outlots, but the petitiondid encompass the entire area, including the outlots, it would change the Land Use Designation for the entire area and, if approved, including the 22 lots. He stated that it was his understanding that the Urban Service Area boundary could be puShed out 1000' per year without having to go to D.C'.A., and since this property is located about 1000' from this boundary it could be done at the County level. Dennis Murphy replied "that was not correct". That Policy 1.1.5.7 of the Comprehensive Plan basically provides for a fluctuation of up to 1500' in the Urban Service designated line, provided the property meet severalcriteria~ including that it be contiguous to the Urban Service line. If it is not contiguous you cannot leapfrog over interveningproperties to get to that area. Mrs. Allen asked who had assured the petitioner that the level of service on the road was not a problem. Mr. Torres stated that he asked this question in a preliminary meeting with the County Planning Department, and he was told that everything was o.k. as far as concurrency and level of service were concerned. Mr. Klein asked if it was the eastern boundary of the subject property that was 1000' feet from the urban service, Area Boundary. There was a General Discussion regarding the Urban Service Area Boundary Line. Mr. McCain asked if Mr. Schindehette, FPUA, petitioners that FPUA could run in water lines. had told the Mr. Torres replied "no". He stated he had spoken with FPUA about water and sewer and was assured that the capacity was there, but no promises were made. Mr. McCain asked staff how a petitioner would initiate this boundary change with the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. Mr. Murphy replied that the Utilities Authority would have to initiate the amendments to the Master Plan for the Fort Pierce Utility Authority With concurrence by the County and that then they could come into this area. He further stated that to his knowledge no one had initiated this amendment to the Master Plan. There was general discussion between Mr. Murphy and Mr. McCain regarding provisions for amending service area boundaries. Mr. Klein asked why the petition had been filed at this time. Mr. Torres replied his clients wanted to develop their property and, needed to get the approval for a change in land use first. Mr. Klein asked if Mr. & Mrs. Charboneau, had appeared to object at the public hearings prior to the Comprehensive Plan being approved. Mr. Torres replied "yes" and he asked Mr. Charboneau, the petitioner to comment. Mr. Brian Charboneau appeared before the Commissioners. He stated that he and his wife had owned the subject property for ten years and that in November or December of 1989, he had hired Dan ~arrell, Esquire to meet with the County Attorney about a new Comprehensive Plan that was being written. At this meeting Mr~ ~arrell was advised by the County Attorney to sit and wait. Around the first part of January, 1990 a meeting was held with Mr. Murphy and we were advised to go ahead with preliminary plans which we had finished by March of 1990 while the Comprehensive Plan was still being kicked back and forth. There was no commitment, but we were told we could proceed on it. We then met with Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director and she notified us that we were too late. I had no rebuttle at that point, it was my own fault for not standing up, I was advised by my attorney not to do so, because the County said things would n~t work out. I was present at the meeting, but I was ill advised. I want to develop my property, and now is the time for me to develop, but I can't. Chairman Terpening asks if anyone would like to speak in favor of or opposition of the petition. Chairman Terpening asks if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the petition. Paula ~olly, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission. She stated she was opposed to the Land Use Change. She stated the reason they bought land in this area was to have animals and to live in the country. If a subdivision is built it means an increase in traffic and danger to the children, also they would no longer be allowed to have animals because of the Residential Land Use designation. Harry Albritton, an adjacent property owner appeared before the Commission. Be stated he lives at the end of Gentile Road and there's only one way in and one way out, which is a dirt. ge stated his main concern was who's going to pay for paving the road, and bringing in the utilities. He stated he thought the taxpayers will have to pay and not the land owners. He stated he also wants to be able to have annals, but doesn't ~nd re-zoning the prope~y to 2.5. Mrs. Harold S. Williams appeared before the Commission. She stated she was not objecting, but wanted to seek information and give information that the Commission, potential home buyers and the public should be aware of. She stated her family had the Agricultural Air Service located in this area and they will be spraying groves early in the morning and chemicals will be sprayed thrOugh the air. She stated she just wants to make sure people are aware of the noise and air pollution of the airport. She asked the petitioner what the plans were for the streets and who would be responsible for paving the streets. Mr. Torres stated the petitioner hoped to acquire the remaining lots and that he would then be responsible for the road. There was a general discussion regarding the roads and outlots. Betty Conner appeared before the Commission. She stated she does not live in the petitioned area. She further stated she understands the petitioners position, but since she attends the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority meetings she knows that FPUA does not easily move franchise lines nor do other utilities and there is no move on to expand FPUA to the West, North, South or East. Mr. Skidmore asked how the owners of the 22 outlots would be affected if utilities were brought in and the roads were paved. Mr. Torres stated they would benefit from both because under current zoning the property they own can not be developed. A general discussion was held. Mr. McCain asked if this petition was in conflict with the Port and Aviation Element. Dennis Murphy replied this Element was geared toward larger airports. When doing site design get your houses as far from the airport as possible. Mr. Torres stated that the petitioner had addressed this element in their request for land exchange. Mr. Stattler stated the plan must stay consistent or it becomes a very emotional issue. Hearing no further public comment in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of the hearing. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, Mr. Sattler made a motion that theLocal Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). Motion was seconded by Mr. Carman, and upon roll call Mrs. Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Sattler, and Mr. McCain, voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Flowers, Ms. Calabrese, Mr. Klein and Chairman Terpening voted against the Motion. This resulted in a vote of four in favor of motion and five against the motion. Chairman Terpening declared the motion had failed. Chairman Terpening commented that he could not support this petition because he feels it violates our total planning process. He further stated that he agreed with staff comments that it violates too many sections of our Comprehensive Plan that we have worked so diligently to accomplish. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, Mr. Flowers made a motion that the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) because of conflicts with the overall development plan. Mr. Skidmore seconded the motion, and upon roll call Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Flowers, Ms. Calabrese, Mr. Klein, and Chairman Terpening voted in favor of the motion. Mrs. Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Sattler, Mr. McCain voted against motion. This resulted in a vote of five in favor of the motion and four against the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioners that the petition will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Agenda Item: File Number: PA-92-002 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Local Planning Agency Planning Director March 4, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Ka%hleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). LOCATION: West side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road EXISTING ZONING: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - I du/2.5 acres) EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/acre) PARCEL SIZE: 163.92 acres PROPOSED USE: To convert into residential use. SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - I du/2.5 ac) to the north, east and west. A small area of AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) is located to the southeast of the petitioned property. SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5 ac) surrounds the majority of the petitioned property. A small area of RS (Residential Suburban) land use is located at the southeastern corner of the petitioned site. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The land uses surrounding this parcel are predominantly agriculture, with scattered single-family residences in this area. FIRE/ EMS PROTECTION: Station #11 (Shinn Road) is approximately 4 miles away. March 4, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 WATER/SEWER SERVICE: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) water and wastewater service lines are located approximately 1.5 miles east of this site. This property is not within the planned FPUA service area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY Gentile Road - Current ADEQUACY: Future 66 feet 130 feet SCHEDULED AREA IMPROVEMENTS: Gentile Road - None Okeechobee Road (SR 70) - None Ail roadways adjacent to the site currently operates at or above minimum Level of Service. TYPE CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit COMMENTS: This application is for a change in the Future Land Use designation of a 164 acre parcel, lying west of Ft. Pierce, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). The petitioned property is specifically located on the west side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. The proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum permitted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre. This represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. The petitioners have not at this time filed for any accompanying change in zoning. However, if this amendment were approved, a change in zoning application could be filed at any time. In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, County Staff is required to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, March 4, 1992 Page 3 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 and Policies with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A review of this petition against these elements has resulted in the following analysis: Future Land Use Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed the following Objectives from the Future Land Use Element, 1.1.2.;' 1.1.5; 1.1.7, and 1.1.12. The petitioners filings have not adequately addressed the following Policies from the Future Land Use Element 1.1.2.4; 1.1.2.5; 1.1.4.2; 1.1.5.1; 1.1.5.6; 1.1.5.7; 1.1.5.10, and 1.1.12.1. The petitioner has included references within this application that the conversion of this property to a higher land use designation is warranted because of the presence of certain other development within the general vicinity. The petition cites as one of the adjacent properties enjoying a greater intensity of use, the "Pine Hollow" subdivision, located to the northwest of the petitioned property. While this development site does have development lots less than 2.5 acres in area, what is omitted from this citation is that this project was approved under the County's prior development regulations and is considered under the present comprehensive plan as a valid "nonconforming" use. That property carries with it certain vested development rights based on those approvals. The distinction between the petitioned property and the adjacent properties is that under the County's development regulations, the petitioned property does not have a claim to the same degree of vested rights. The arguments presented that the presence of these existing development sites is in itself sufficient grounds to amend the future Land Use Plan, needs additional elaboration on how such an action is consistent with the Polices of the Local Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan and the policies of the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, FS) relative to the expansion of urban expansion activities into productive agricultural areas. Traffic Circulation Element The petitioners' filings have identified the recognition under the County's Comprehensive Plan of the need to maintain transportation levels of service in the 1-95/Fla Tpk/SR 70 interchange area. The petitioned property is located about 2 March 4, 1992 Page 4 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 miles from this area. The present transportation network dictates that the vast majority of any development related traffic from this property will have to pass through this interchange area. The petition has failed to address how an increase of 250% in the development intensity of this property would not result in an impact upon this interchange or what mitigative steps would be necessary to address this impact. 3. Mass Transit Elemen~ The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Port and Aviation Elemen% The proposed amendment has been determined generally not to conflict with this element. However, there is a private airstrip located to the south of the petitioned property. Consistent with Policy 4.1.2.1, any residential use of this property would have to account for the presence of this airstrip. 5. Housinq Elemen~ The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Infras2ruc2ure Element - Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6A.l.1, 6A. 1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer) 6A.l.l.1 and 6A.1.1.2 and 6A.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 6B. Infrastructure Element - Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposedamendment has been determined not to be in conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 5 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Infrastructure Element - Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this sub-element. Infrastructure Element - Potable Water Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6D.l.1, 6D.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (potable water) 6D.l.l.1 and 6D.1.1.2 and 6D.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Seryice Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 7. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Conservation Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. The ultimate development of this property, regardless of land use intensity, shall be subject to conservation standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.8 and 8.1.10 of this Element. 9. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 10. Interqovernmen%al Coordination Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 6 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 11. Capi2al Improvements Ele~en% The petitioners' filings have consistency with the following Improvements Element 11.1.4.3(B). not adequately addressed Policies from the Capital Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application as presented does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to how this change would effect the Plan as a whole. The petitioners contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west is not supported by the information which was provided. The petition does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to explain why the proposed change should be approved. It does not demonstrate how this change is consistent with not ~nly local performance standards but also how the amendment is consistent with State and regional policy regarding the extension of urban densities into agriculturally used areas. The petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. What is proposed for these properties? When reviewing a petition for modification of land use, the burden or responsibility for demonstrating that sufficient changes have occurred within a given area is that of the petitioner. It is the documentation that quantifiable changes have occurred in a given area that are to be the basis for the granting of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The petition, as filed, does not adequately address this need. As pointed out previously, this property is not contiguous to the Urban Service Area boundary and this petition does not include any proposed expansion of it. If this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the FUture Land Use Maps, is to have all of the property designated for urban use confined within the Urban Service Area boundary, which this petition would seek to contravene. March 4, 1992 Page 7 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Based upon the above, staff recommends that this Board forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and that this petition for amendment not be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for review. Attachment DJM/LNS/me PA92002(d) cc: County Attorney Brian & Kathleen Charboneau Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in Future Land Use MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN). ~OTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) BECAUSE... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] ZONING Brian L. and cation' propgrty . .ee LeqaI Dcscripti0n Attached. (Location: iJ~side °f;Gentile'~''~Ro~d 1 · recor, ded. : If L~ ..;.: ~.;~- estimony and evidence upon appeal is t° :b~:'{b~Sed;~:~: ~Pon the request of 'any party tO'the .proceeding, individua~testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- individual testifying during a hearing upon request received in advance of the public hearing will ered.. Ls public hearing, notice of the same was sent to ' owners February 26, 1992. Legal notice was a newspaper of general circulatio~ on February 24, 1992 and March 4, 1992. File No. PA-92-002 RD,~' TH NLY 50 'S'R/W OF_CANAL . '~"PARCEL ID: 23~22 331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 31 _1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433v110' : 23 22 33I'0002 22 ~3~ ~'3 ~22 334~:0 ION:~ 22.35 -39'N (OR '-433~t10 : .000/5 ~ ~ .LEGAL bESCRIPTION: 22 35 · ~ LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W' (4.!9~ PARCEL ID: 23 .22 '43I 0000 0( CRIPTION: 22 35 39 ~JW AND BEG AT'] .~62.50 FT'TO N~LI OF-TEE : PART OF NW 1/4 OF THE NE'~ 1 4.19 ACRES 1/4 OF SW 1/4u DF SW 1/4 OF SE TO THE D DIRT · RD 7~00 IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 ] PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/I .24. 'ACRES i~- .-. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATEScuNi~ ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC). (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) P~%RCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & tl (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK AC) (OR 428-1961) 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7~ 2.11 ACRES . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATEs_UNiT ONE_AN 428-1961)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,.5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ES . UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC ~ ~ ~ .... TATES-UNIT ONE-AN 434-1383) =z-oo-~ SLK 3 LOTS2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR PARCEL ID: 23 22 70I 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS i & 2 (OR 705-1797) PARCEL ID LEGAL DESCRIPTION:.' k'~. UNRECORDED PLAT IN ~ 1961) ..... ]:',i'PARcEL ID: 23 22'~701 ~004 /!]i UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22 "PARCEL ID: 23 22_. 701 0054 000/0 ~LEGAL~. DESCRIPTION: ~ FT. ~iPIERCE' TROPICAL UNRECORDED.~ ~' PLAT~.. IN SEC'22-35-39. BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR' 71 LEGAL-. DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROP U~ECORDED PLAT' ~, ~' ~ '-- -_ ICAL ESTATES~UN & W. 30 ., FT-LESS ' " , ~. __E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5~FT~:~ N 40 FT . .S 42.5 FT- & N bU'FT . OF. S 242.5 FTLLE~s E 3°FT:& 50 ~ OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 & ,LESS W 3( LAND USE TERRAIN DE¥. L~ PETITION WILLIAMS WILLIAMS OF BRIAN NGAN OLC INC ESP~O~ITO & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU KAUFMAN ZONING DIFRANCESCO CANAL '~49 PETITION WILLIAMS WILLIAk~ OF BRIAN NGAN OLC INC KATHLEEN CHARBONf AU 0 CHARBONEAU ,1991~' ST. LUCIE COUNT~ APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Name: Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau 's'Address: 2789 Gentile Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945-9518 's Phone Number: 407-461-6844 ~eby petition_the St~ Lucie Planning and Zoning Commission St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to change the future land use classification of the following property: : 23 22 310 0000 000/7-~-~94.78 ACRES SCRIPTION: 22 35 39/NW .l~]3~/OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, FOR CANAL, ~- THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 BED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE.'C/L OF EXISTING TH NELY~ ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779~2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT , ~TH W ALG S~R/W OF CANAL i570 FT TO POB. ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.'96 ACRES DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW ) (OR 433-110) 114 ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW .95 AC) (OR 433-110) (4.9 ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES [PTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 AC) (OR 433-110) ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) ID: 23 22 431-0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES DESCRIPTION: 22 35.39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W L~ i0 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW I/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1./4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS : FROM THE NW COR OF NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S NSLRWMD 00 FT TO'THE W R/W 5I'~OF~GENTILE RD (THIS LI TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI 825~93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN ! IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN PLAT IN SEC 22'35~39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES ~LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 44'0-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,~,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-196~) ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. -PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 8ri961) ID:-23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN IN SEC 22-35'39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) --PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES · LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES EGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-19483 iPARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES .UNIT ONE -AN ~D PLAT.IN'SEC 22-35~39~BLK 5 LOTS 2'& 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN D PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES · DESCRIPTION: FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN :CORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6~LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC)~(OR 434-1383) P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 'LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 'FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNP~CORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) L ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN ) PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR '428-1961) ARCEL ID: 23 22 ~701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES EGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S'42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS'E 30~FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N'50 FT OF S~'592.5'FT-LESS'~ 30 FT & LESS W-30'FT~ & N 50 FT OF S 9~2i5 FT-LESS.E 30 FT '& LEss W 30 FT~'~~'W 50 FTj FROM: AG-2.5 TO: RS ' ~ reason for making this request is: that substantial changes occurred within the general area since the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for St. Lucie Coun. ty w,a, rranting the requested land use designation; that when the Plan was adopted th~ lines indicating the RS boundaries within the Okeechobee Road west of the Florida Turnpike were ~n fact arbitrarily nated and do not represent a pattern of good or logical urban relative to the surrounding land use designations and the of the area. 3 : .Terry T.'~Torres Address: P.O. Box 3808 Vero Beach, Florida 32964 -~Phone Number: 407-231-7977 answer the following questions that are relevant to the ovisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan Whenever poSsible. QUESTIONS 1:, Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? ~es. The subject property is surrounded by properties on the East, )uth, West, and on the North in an area South of Orange Avenue and ~st of the Turnpike, all of which enjoy land use designations of S or greater intensity. Additionally there are properties in Pine Dllow Subdivision and Ft. -PierCe Gardens Subdivision to the orthwest and contiguous with the subject property which are urrently non-conforming With the "Plan", but contain one acre omesites.and are approved to be developed as one acre homesites. The Residential Suburban (RS) land use category is intended to act s a transitional area between the agricultural areas and the more ntense residential areas in the eastern portion of the County" per hapter 1-48 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. What conditions affecting the future land u~e designation have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any Changes in develoPment patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. There have been significant changes in the area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted on January 9, 1990. The area along the Okeechobee Road between 1-95 and the Turnpike has been the hottest and most active commercial/industrial area in the entire Treasure Coast. The growth within this area has been~.~ruly Phenomenal and development is continuing at a rapid ~ace. !~ Improvements on Ok~echobee Road and Virginia Avenue east of ~-9'5 have been underway for two years and are nearing completion~ The turnpike overpass on Okeechobee Road was completely rebuli 4 t ~'Restaurant' and et > Mall,'~'::' which anCh6rs the fitable mall cbu~se chapter.~ 1-6 Thisar~a isPecial~.~intereSt~(Chapf'2- e Turnpike and ghfare~Network :n growth pat- into the area to accommodate the ~ex-iSting' ~t~dlas two ~ and all of-~this has -wor se .we _ have Gdod. ~ · residential rOwth in ose ! commercial, industrial','~a~d recreational :e ·areas ~ ~ Public fac: , including the roads all appear to be above minimum level of service (LOS) standards adopted by the County ensive Land Use Plan. More improvements are planned for :hobee Road west of the Turnpike. Whereare the'nearest public or investOr-owned'iwater and. sewer the service provider? I~ the site included in plan of these utilities? If private .roposed, describe-the capacityandtype°f water and ~'services to be provided.' nearest.public water and sewer services are located at the Inn just~ east of the .Turnpike and are "under the of.. Ft. Pierce Utilities. 'The Turnpike .ha~ been ignated as thedivision line between the serviCe.areas, wmth Ft. Utilities servicing the area to the east and St. Lucid Utilities servicing the area to the` west. Harry the Director of Ft. Pierce utilities, has advised 5 the County has is~'_~are proposed. : drain'~ge ~sted.'land ~tedland~u ~lnme- eievation 0f 22 feet and ~Lucie?"River: ~d'on the~NOrth:by canaI#49'and°n' c~nals'aremaintained ast.Withinth~sec Properties c has corner.or,the intersectJ management would be. employed.'-This might would"not.be limited to generous green space with on ~"landscaped retention areas, Miami curb and gutter, on the street right,of-ways in conjunction with exfiltration trenches eqUipped~ith st0r~grates, gentle swale areas along rear property' i~ne~ to direct and allow the first inch of stormwater to be on .site, and a plan that would facilitate any proposed connection to a public or private storm sewer system. All [irements of St. Lucie County-and the South Florida District (SFWMD) would be satisfied. g the proposals outlined above, the requested land ~'changewould undoubtedly have a positive effect on the volume .lityof runoff by significantly reducing the volume which is ,sed of within Canal #49 and Canal ~50 and ~ntually on to the North Fork of the St.~Lucie River collectively [own as the North Fork Basin (Chapter 6-C-10 and 6-C-12 of the ).. Currently the runoff is .'of poor quality, due to the volume of herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, an~ 'strong and perhaps toxic agents associated with the current icUltural use. Needless to say the quality of the runoff would 6 enhanced-by the requested change. a projection of the average daily volumes of solid waste '~that 'would be generated if the land use changes. land use were adopted at a density of one unit per acre the could be developed into a subdivision of y 160 single family home sites. Although not required ~rthe current plan, if at all practical this subdivision would serviced with central utilities. The average daily volume of waste generated by the proposed land use change is based on 2 pounds per week per single family unit according to data rovided by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Solid Waste Department. 160 DU's X 62 LBS/WK / 7 DAYS/WK =1417 LBS/DAY 7. What demands for recreational facilities will be created by development in accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? The proposed land use change would not create any significant emand for recreational facilities. One conceptual idea for the of this property includes the concept of.a common fOr horses and the incorporation of equestrian trails hout the community as a common recreational facility. would be ample green space, lakes, and. the estate size lots would provide sufficient space for families to recreate in privately owned swimming pools and children's play areas. In addition to our beautiful beaches, magnificent lagoon, and lent fishing areas, subject property has easy access to the eautifu~ North Fork of the St. Lucie River from the County Park lOcated~on Midway Road, convenient access to Indian River Community COllege and the excellent recreational facilities located there, access to the County recreational complex on Virginia Avenue, and access to all of the private shopping, dining, movies, and ~iature golf facilities which are conveniently located along the Oikeechobee Road corridor just to the east of the subject property. Table 9-5 & 9-6 of the "Plan" establishes desired outdoor ecreation standards and includes a level of service standard which quire .35 acres.of neighborhood park and 1.95 acres of ~ommunity park. This is based on a population of 2.~ people per ~ingle family unit and a total projected population 390 people. 8. Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Boundary? No 7 e-proPerty.be activities~ fined in Policy .1.5.1)?Check Whichurbandevelopment residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non.extractive, non-agriculturally relatedindustrial activity !None of the above apply. 10. 'If any item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the follOwing questions: A. Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use claSsification? iA.-The subject property is contiguous to Residential Suburban Land Use ClaSsificati°~s t~ the~ south and to non'conforming single family development at a density of one unit per acre to the west, B. Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided? If so, please provide documentation. B. Yes, Ft. Pierce Utilities has advised that they have sufficient capacity to service the subject property. All other required infrastructure is in place and meets the required level of service standards. See response to question~ 3,5, and 7. C. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? C. The proposed expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary will have no detrimental effect on the established character of the area. The "Plan" has intended that the Urban Service Area Boundary be a dynamic boundary with the flexibility to change and expand. (Policy 1.1.4.3 and 1.1.5.7) The subject property is located within 650 feet of the existing Urban Service Area Boundary. 8 "',.:.!:: i~..~-- ahd/: adjacent - properties ?:':~ HOW :'Will-t. thiS'~.:Use ' ~ ' .ricultural useS?~ . to become a major :iGentile Side'/of' ' ha~'!:'~':Iand''use with [thiSbe' p is i the":- Timberland '.whiChincludes a conVenience Store, .the north and 'east of the'campground the South or~MXD. This includes Estates, ~whi~h' size. of the-Sub; is ~currently..~n r-located non-agr~cu. ~nt adjacent agricultural uses affect the uses you propose? ~he predominant remaining agricultural uses are the Coca Cola CompanY's grove lying to the North and contiguous to ect property and the Harold & Ada Williams grove and contiguous to the subject property to the south and grove and the-William's Grove are ~ect property by Canal %49 to the north and south. It is completely buffered from the rOve tO-the south by a dense tree line, then the canal, y south.of ~he canal an airstrip which is located on the s Property. Access to the subject property would be from- e Road So that.the remaining agricultural uses would have no [Cant effect on proposed land use. C. Please provide documentation of the soil types and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey? 9 fic, land:~ -26) ' ~.~pper, -Geherally.'_.. ~es. Through soils'may be: Ul treed:: ~dwithn~{ural 'contribute significantly-to!the beauty development bUt'~-als ho% it doeS:n°t' - it~would pr°vide'~'~'~safermeans':Of:ingress it_is an envlronmentallyF~afe:siteas nor;nsed )ss okeechobee Road %node aswell ~d .use deSi( of.the remaining,p :~°f~t~ ed.:to ,the west and is cOnSistent with the theVery large parCel OWned Company, Inc. loCated on the south.side of ~ Road. It is through this parcel that the proposed .sion from the Palmer Expressway would pass connecting 1-95 Okeechobee Road west of the TurnPike and very likely g opposite Gentile Road. propose to buffer 'adjaCaht,agricultural uses . agricultural uses are and Wilil-be effeCtively buffered ~he natural site-specific' land.:characteristics which ~nse tree'line and Canal ~49 to the north and Canal #50 south. In addition a fence or a wall is being considered ~strlan trails around the perimeter .of the' subject and drawings that you hav~ property, including type and t0 drainage: tenants_'~, or -. ',-prepar' a ~ for ' :paring a 11 ~change~. in/~ leqal_ lat" r we~Wish ~.to have 12 April 22, 1992 Pcolanni .n.c until Terry Virta, AICP Development Administrator Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan - Draft Amendments; DCA Reference #92-2 Dear Mr. Virta: This is to notify you that the Regional Planning Council has from the State Department of Community received a request Affairs (DCA) '~or comments on the following comprehensive planning documents: Draft Amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan Council staff will review the documents in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It is anticipated that the report and recommended comments will be presented to Council at its meeting on May 15, 1992. Prior to the Council meeting, the meeting agenda, report, and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to you. You or any representative of your local government are invited to attend the meeting and will be afforded an opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council meeting the adopted comments will be transmitted to DCA. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerel~ Terry ~L. Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH:lhb 3228 s.w. marlin downs blvd. susie 205 o p.o. box t529 palm ci~, ~lorida 34990 phone C407) 22~-~06o sc 269-4060 fax (407'j 22~-4067 · coMMiSsION6Rs D v6LOPM£NT ADMINISTRATOR .. TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP April 10, 1992 Terry T. Torres, as Agent for Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau P.O. Box 3808 Veto Beach, Florida 32964 Dear Mr. Torres: This letter is to confirm that on March 24, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, approved a Resolution for transmittal of a proposed Amendment to the St. Lu~ie County Comprehensive Plan changing the Future Land Use Designation to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review. A copy of the recorded Resolution No. 92-057 is enclosed for your information. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ji~inix, Chairman HLF:cb Enclosure HAVERT L. FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPEP, District No 2 · JACK KRI£GER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. Disrria No. 4 · JIM MJNIX. District No. 5 County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1.553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1 571 PORT ST. LUCtE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 BOARD... OF' COUNT~ COMMISSIONERS. ~' '~i?'~: "' "ST.. 'LUCI~ COUNTY, ' FLOR~..DA. '\ ............. :' REGULAR MINUTES )ate: March 24, 1992 ~ape: 1,2' convened: -9:20 a.'m. adjourned: 11:27 a.m. ,~ommissioners Present: Chairman, Jim Minix, Havert L. Fenn, Jack (rieger, Judy Culpepper, R. Dale Trefelner (absent with flu) Dthers Present: James Chisholm, County Administrator; Danny ~rew, As s t. County Admi nis trat or; Tom Kindred, As s t. County ~dminis tratOr; -Rick Howell, Utilities Administrator; Dan ~cIntyre, County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development kdministrator; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Manager; Clifford 2rawford, Leisure Services Administrator; Ronald Brown, Public Works Administrator; Gayla Barwick, Tourism Director; Harold Wheeler, Special Activities Director; S. DeMichael, Sheriff' s Office; A. Millie White, 'Deputy Clerk Resolution No. 92-057 Reference was made to memorandum from Development Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated March 17, 1992, subject: Resolution No. 92-057, a resolution authorizing the transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, for a change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-2. 5 to RS. Mr. Terry Torres, Agent for Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau, was present and addressed the Board regarding this peti'tion. Mr. John Albrigh.ton, surveyor and consultant, addressed the Board regarding this petition. Mr. Torres, Agent for the petitioners requested the fOllowing memo be entered into the record: To: Planning Director and ~he Board of Coun~y'C0mmissioners ~ From:' Terry Torres, Agent for ~rian L. & Kathteen E. Charboneau Date: March 19, 1992 Subject: Comments and Clarifications to the Memorandum dated March 4, 1992, from the Planning Director to the local planning agency concerning the petition of Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Future Land Use Designation from AG- 2.5 to RS. Surround£nq _Land .Uses The land uses surrounding this parcel are predominately in nature with the exception of the property to the north which is an producing citrus grove owned by Coca~Cola Minute Maid. To the West and contiguous with the subject parcel are two residential subdivisions, Pine Hollow Subdivision developed at a density of one unit per acre and Ft. Pierce Gardens Subdivison; On the East side of Gentile Road opposite the ~property are a series of predominatel, y residential properties ranging in size from approximately' 2 acres to 20 acres. East of these properties, located off Coolidge Road, is the residential subdivision of Hidden Pines~. Estates, developed at a density of one unit per acre. Located within the Southern part of the subject properties Fort Pierce Tropical Estates, a platted non-recorded subdivision consisting of '. 62 lots ranging in size from approximately one- quarter to one-half acre. South of Ft. Pierce Tropical Estates are a series of properties which are primarily residential in nature and contain single family homes fronting on Okeechobee Road. The Southeast corner of the subject property is contiguous with a Residential Suburban Land Use designation which extends to the entire property located south of Okeechobee Road and West of the Florida Turnpike, a parcel containing in excess of 1200 acres of land. There- is no question as to the surrounding compatibility of adjacent land use which can easily be seen by examining current aerial photographs. Transportation I~',r ~cts Right of Way Adequacy Gentile Road Currently has a 66 foot right of way. The comprehensive plan calls for a future right of was adequacy of 130 fe~t. It is reasonable to. infer that i.f our planners see the need t0 near double the right of way adequacy in the future that they contemplate higher levels of service on Gentiie' Rbad which could only come as a result of. future development. Scheduled Area Improvements Gentile Road- No improvements are presently scheduled of budgeted for Gentile Road, however there has been discussion and consideration to a proposal which would extend Gentile Road to the north to cross the Turnpike and 1-95 and eventually Join Johnson Road to the North and the proposed East-West expressway to the South. This would provide a North-South reliever route which would connect Pt. St. Lucie to the South with Indian River County to the North as Johnson Road currently ~connects with Clemann (43rd Avenue) at the Indian River -St. Lucie County Line. One glance at the map or aerial photographs would indicate just how logical this proposal- is. Currently the right of way acquisition is in the process of being negotiated. Although no funding has been approved for the construction of this reliever route, the major property owners involved are aggressively promoting this concept with the appropriate governing authorities. Okeechobee Road - Staff has incorrectly stated that no improvements are scheduled for. Okeechobee Road. Nothing could be further from the truth. Okeechobee Road has been tremendously enhanced in the past twelve months in conjunction with the continued explosive development which is and has been occurring between 1-95 and the Turnpike. Virginia Avenue improvements linking Okeechobee Road to the East to join U.S. % 1 are now nearly complete. Lane improvements are currently underway from the union of Virgihia Avenue and Okeechobee Road West to Gordy Road which will include improved four lanes with turning lanes and ingress and egress ramps into and out of all major developments. .Commenoing at Gordy Road and continuing westward to McCarty Road, lane improvements with enhanced shoulders will be constructed to link to the existing improvements completed several years ago on Okeechobee Road West of McCarty Road. The Department of Transportation is in the process of acquiring the necessary right' of way to complete these improvements. The continued and proposed enhancements of this important corridor should assure that the level of service will not be exceeded any time in the near future and that concurrency upon completion of these scheduled and funded improvements will no longer be an issue. According-- to the traffic studies' completed for 1991, Okeechobee Road had the following seasonally adjusted levels-of- service: Level-of-Service C Wgst of 1-95 to the Florida Turnpike --and Level-of-Service B West of the Florida Turnpike. Comments The objections of Staff are appreciated-and duly noted, and will be specifically addressed as to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan~and the expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary. The Petitioner, s proposal is to extend the Proposed Land Use Change t' ~be contiguous with the cu'~ I~nt Urban 'Service 'Area Boundary, ex%.~.~ding West to include the i~idential enclaves already developed and abutting with the large finger of Residential Suburban Land Use designation to the South. It is the intention of the petitioner to address each objection by staff on a point by point basis, 'citing first the specific objectiVe or policy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan upon which the staff based their objection and then providing our comments and clarifications in support of the Proposed Land Use Amendment. 1. Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.2 Provide in the land development regulations. provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture, as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Petitioner supports implementation of the Future Land Use Element requesting only that the Residential Suburban Boundary be redesignated to more accurately reflect existing approved residential developments to the West of the subject property, thus eliminating the two fingers of residential land use to the North and South, created with the adoption of the "Plan". Objective 1.1.5 In coordination with other elements of this plan, future develOpment within the Planned Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where the urban and community services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Obi ective 1. 1. 7 Future development and -redevelopment activities shall be directed to those areas depicted with urban land use designations on the Future Land Use Map and are to be consistent with sound planning principals contained in the goals, objectives, and policies of this plan. The petitioner recognizes the need for consolidation of services/facilities in order to optimize land development while minimizing the adyerse'impacts of the development. Because of the dynamic character of the area East of the Turnpike identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an "Area of special interest" and as a "major force in- future development consideration" a demand is being created for upscale housing to accommodate the many people who will be working within this critical node of development. This will include office workers, proprietors, service personnel, and professional people who will be locating their businesses and offices in what is emerging as the economic hub of the Treasure Coast. It would be very convenient for these people to be housed in such proximity'to their places o~ work thereby minimizing traffic impacts to and from work and enabling the residential developments to share the existing facilities Which are already in place to meet the future needs of this dynamic area. This would be consistent with should planning principals. Objective 1.1.12 The County shall improve coordination with affected and appropriate governments and agencies to include their input into the development process and to mitigate potential adverse impacts of future development and redevelopment activities. Policy_ 1. 1. 12. ~ ~t~oordtnate requests for der, ~,~opment orders or permits, as ~p¥~Jopriate, with the City of~. Pierce, port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village, adjacent counties, special districts, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District, and state and federal agencies. The petitioner has sought coordination with Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the principal agencies involved, other'than the'-'Co~nty and the DCA. We have discussed this matter with several County Commissioner's who have expressed their willingness to comply with the above objective by seeking an agreement which would allow Ft. Pierce'Utilities Authorities to extend their boundary further into the County enabling the developer to utilize their existing facilities to service the proposed future needs of this area. Poli~ ~. 1.2. 4 The County shall include in its Land Development Regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non,agricultural land uses in a rationai and orderly manner. Such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: a.' is compatible with adjacent land uses; b. maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; c. contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie Soil Survey; d. is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; e. is consistent with existing comprehensive development plans; f. will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, g. will avoid the extension of the Urban Service Area Boundary to create any encalves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Compatibility with adjacent land uses exists with single family residential development to the West and East of the subject property and existing Residential Suburban Land Use Designation contiguous to the property' to the Southeast. Contiguous is defined in Webster's Dictionary as "in contact"; touching." The proposed land Bse change would have no impact on the viability of continued agricultural use of the citrus grove to the North. Current Land Development Regulations permit the development.of single family residential on lots of one-half acre or greater wit~ well water and septic. We propose, however to extend the Ft. Pierce Utilities Water line into the project at developer expense and to plan for future hook-up to the sewer line when it becomes available. This could only be done in cooperation with the Ft. Pierce Utilities Department and the County in conjunction with Objective 1.1.12. In short the necessary -infrastructure is in place just to the East of the subject property and has sufficient capacity to adequately meet all of the future demands of the proposed land use change. The petitioner seeks to avoid the creation of pockets or enclaves o~ urban development such as already exist along both the Okeechobee Road and Orange Avenue Corridor's west of the Florida Turnpike by proposing that the Residential Suburban Land Use Boundarmes be redrawn to encompass existing non-conforming residential enclaves ~and to tie into ~-~e already established fin~s of Residential Land Use to th%~JNorth and'to the South, 'c~nereby eliminating existing patterns which are nOt consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Policy 1. 1.2. 5 Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agricultural and non-agricultural uses to -protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with encroachment of non-agricultural development or creation of nuisances bY agricultural operations. The buffering is previously addressed in paragraphs ll-B and ll-F of the application and no further elaboration is necessary. Policy 1. I. 4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the services and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy. 1.1.5.1 Urban development activities shall be restricted to that area identified as the Planned Urban Service Area. Urban Development activities are defined, for the purposes of this policy, as any residential development actfvity in excess of two units to the gross acres, any non-agricultural commercial activity or any non-extractive/non -agriculturally related industrial activity. Polic~ 1. 1.5.6 No urban development activity shall be permitted outside of the Planned~Urban Service Area that does not address all of its community infrastructure impacts, both on site and off site. All development outside the Urban Service Area shall pay the entire cost of. its fiscal impacts on the public facilities and services. Pol!c~ 1. 1. 5.7 The Planned Urban Service- Area is not intended to be a static line of development. This area may be extended or contracted only for a residential classification up to 1500 feet from that which is indicated without necessitating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan where the urban service area lies contiguous to a residential classification, the owner of contiguous property can insure the provision of appropriate infrastructure and services, and the-resulting change does not detrimentally impact ~he established character of the area. St. Lucie County . shall be responsible to maintain an updated map indicating the location of the approved Planned Urban Service Area Boundary and once every two years include as part of its Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the latest Urban SErvices Area Map. Any extension of the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary beyond 1500 feet, will require a formal amendment through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process. Compliance with tke Comprehensiye Land Use Plan is at the heart of the ~etitioner's requested land use change. Policy 1. 1. 5. I defines the Planne~ Urban Service Area as "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre". The petitioner is not requesting a land use change that would allow development in excess of two units per gross acrs and in fact intends to develop at a density of approximately one unit per gross acre. County staff has erred in citing Policies 1.1.5.1, 1.1.5.6, and 1.'1.5.7 as these policies by definition are not'applicable to the requested land use change. The petitioner intends to adhere to the spirit of the above policies by assuming fully the economic burden of the fiscal impacts of any f~ture development permitted~'~ander the requested lnot land use reguli .ons. Additionally the p.~l~itioner would object to the u~ban Service Area Boundary b~ng 'redrawn to more accurately reflect the residential character of the existing area, although ~he Comprehensive Plan clearly does not mandate that this be done. It should be nOted that the Boundary at present bisects the parcel of Residential Suburban Land Use located to the south of Okeechobee Road and contiguous with the subject parcel, while it follows a serpentine route around the finger of Residential Estate Land Use located along the Orange Avenue corridor to the North of th subject property. It is the objective of this proposed land use amendment to eliminate these existing residential enclaves by adjusting the Urban SErvice Area Boundary Westward to encompass the existing residential areas of non-compliance in a manner, which is 'consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Policy 1.1.5.10 As provided for under Policy 1.1.5.1, construction of new residential development at densities greater than two units per acre shall only be permitted when central or on-site water and central or on-site wastewater systems are available or will be provided concurrent with th.e impacts of development, consistent with the adopted levels of service found in the plan. Once again Policy 1.1.5.10 is not applicable to the requested land use change. It is the intention of the petitioner to seek coordination between the County and the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority in order that any proposed development be serviced by connecting to and extending from the twelve inch water main currently located at Okeechobee Road, just East of the Turnpike. The petitioner would do this at his expense recognizing that the Plan does not mandate connection to on-site water or wastewater facilities for the requested land use which would only permit development 'at a density of two units or less per acre. Finally, after pursuing chapter 187, of the Florida Statues, the petitioner finds the requested land use change consistent in every respect with the letter and the spirit of the statue to wit: 197.101 (3) The goals and policies found in the State Comprehensive Plan shall be reasonably applied where they are economically and.environmentally feasible, not contrary to the public interest, and consistent with the protection of private property rights. 187.201 (15) PROPERTY RIGHTS (a) Goal- protect private property rights and recognize the legitimate and often competing public and private land use regulations and other government action. Florida shall existence of interests in 2. Traffic Circulation Element This element has been addressed at the beginning of this memorandum under transportation impacts. Seasonally adjusted traffic counts East of the Turnpike are 28,451 for a level-of-service C. Adding ten trips per day per unit would result in 3280 total trips. P~esently under AG-2-5 Land Use the subject property would contribute 656 trips per day. The difference 3280 trips for the. proposed land use change less 656 trips for the existing land use designation is 2624 trips per day. This would constitute the maximum net increase in trips resulting from tD~ proposed land use change.~ Assuming that 90% 'of these trips ~< id impact directly on Oke~/obee Road of the Turnpike the seasonally adjusted traffic count would increase from 28,451 to 30,813 trips per day which together with the current ongoing improvements would not exceed level-of-service C. 6A. Infrastructure Element ~ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element 6D. Infrastructure Element. L Potable. Water Sub-Element Objectives 6A. 1. 1, 6A. I. 5, 6D. 1. 1, and 6D. 1. 5, Policies 6A. 1. 1. 1, 6A. 1. 1. 2, 6A. 1.2. 1, 6D. 1. 1. 1, 6D1. 1. 2, '6D. 1. 2. 1 are not applicable to the requested land use amendment, but rather are directed at residential development in excess of two units per acre. Under current land development regulation, residential lots of one-half acre or greater can be developed using well and septic. The petitioner's objective would be to extend City water to the site and to include in the development plan the means to facilitate future hook-up to sewer facilities should they become available. 11. Capital Improvements Element Policy 11.1.4.3 (B) is concerned with applications for Preliminary Development Orders. The applicant is not requesting a preliminary development order at this time and will address this policy if applicable at the appropriate time. Summary The effect of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan would be to create a unified and contiguous area of residential land uses West of the Florida Turnpike from Okeechobee Road- to Orange Avenue, encompassing the subject property, the non-conforming approved residentia~ developments contiguous to the West of the subject property, joining the West boundary of the existing Residential Suburban Land Use South of Okeechobee Road withe the finger of Residential Estate Land use along Orange Avenue. By .doing this, the two fingers of residential land use would be unified and the serpentine route of the Urban Service Area Boundary would be straightened and aligned with West boundary of the existing residential land use designations and residential developments, establishing a more logical pattern of development consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The twenty-two outlots are entirely contained within the platted subdivision of Ft. Pierce Tropical Estates and should properly be designated with the requested Residential Suburban Land Use designation. There is no other logical use for these properties which currently range in size from approximately one- quarter acre to one-half acre. The Proposed Amendment for a change in Future Land Use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in every respect. The plan does not require that the property be contiguous with the Urban Service Area Boundary and the property is contiguous with Residential Suburban Land Use Designation. Compatibility has been established with the surrounding properties, and compliance with the Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been addressed and strictly adhered to. Based on the above comments, the petitioner respectfully requests that Resolution No. 92-057 be approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review with a recommendation that the Proposed Amendment be adopted. It was moved by Com. Culpepper, seconded by Com. Fenn to approve Resolution No. 92-057, a resolution authorizing transmittal to the Florida Department of Community. Affairs the petition of Brian L and Kathleen E. Charboneau, fo~ a change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-2. 5 to RS; with modifications as outlined that RS be changed, to Residential Estate, (1 Unit per acre); and, upon roll call, motion carried. Staff was instructed to revisit the Urban Boundary for review purposes. Service Area It was annouDced that it is the intent of the Board schedule a second public hearing and that proper notification this public hearing will be given. to Depu, 7 Cbrk FILE NO.' PA-92-002 PROPOSED ~ND~NT TO THE ST. LUCIE CO~TY FUTU~ ~D USE D~S[GN~TION ON CErTaiN PROPERTY IN ST. LUC[E CO~Y~ FLO~D~ WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: ¸o Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, presented a petition for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 IAgricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on March 12, 1992, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Land Use from AG- 2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St, Lucie News on March 16, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. At the March 24, 1992, public hearing held to consider the question of transmitting this petition for further review, the petitioners proposed, and this Board accepted, to reduce the requested LandUse change from RS (Residential Suburban) to RE (Residential Estate), permiting a maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit to the acre. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: A.' The petition for a plan amendment, as amended, to qhange the future land use designation, filed by Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by agent Terry Torres, for the property described in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 7 8 Lt PAEO 0 I 3 After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Jim Minix AYE Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger AYE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner ABSENT PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992. BY ATTEST: APpR0~ED AS TO FORM AND 'PARCEL ID: 23 22 310 0000 1/7 94.78 ACRES DESCRIBED ~ FO~WS: BEG AT ~ COR OF SD ~ 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 ~ ~ S R/W OF C~, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING RO~, TH NELY ~G C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENT~ ~, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779..2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT ~ $ R/W OF ~, TH W ~G S R/W OF C~ 570 ~ TO POB. P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LE~ DESCRIPTION= 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE ~E 1/4 OF T~E SW 1/4 O? SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110 P~CEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION: 2~ 35 39 S 1/2' OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) P~CEL ID= 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEG~ DESCRIPTION= 22 35 39'N 1/2 OF THE S~ 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) P~CEL ID= 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 AC~S LE~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1'/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW lY4- LESS S 49.5 ~ FOR C~ R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) P~L ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9' 22.94.AC~S LB~ DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 T~ SW 1/40F"SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS T~ S 42.5 FT FOR C~ R/W ~D BEG AT ~ COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, R~ N ~G 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD T0 THE E, TH ON A BACK ~G OF 95 39'40" R~ ELY ~G C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI 0F GENTILE ROAD, TH R~ SLY ~G SD R/W LI 762.50 ~ TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB ~D THAT P~T OF ~ 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MO~ P~TICU~LY DESCRIBED AS ~OWS:_~Om~..~ COR 0F .~ ~/4 Q~ ~_~ ..1{.4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 ~ TO S R/W LI OF NSLR~D C~ %49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POE; TH R~ NELY 767.08 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI C~C~TES 824.81 FT); TH R~ SLY'~G W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD~ 13.50 FT; TH R~ S~Y ~G C/L OF EXISTING ~, 767.00 FT (THIS LI C~C~TES 825.93 ~); TH R~ N, 27.00 FT TO POB. P~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES. ~ DESCRIPTION ~ ~'. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35,39 ELK t LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- ~C~L ~D: 23 22 70~ 000~ 000/~ .24 AC~S ~ ~ DESCRIPTION = ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-~ ~CO~ED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 ELK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) P~CEL ID= 23 22 761 0003 000/8 .24 AC~S LB~ DESCRIPTION = ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES ~UNIT ONE-~ ~CO~ED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK i LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~CEL ID: 23 22 70I 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LE~ DESCRIPTION: ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC}. (OR 428-1961) . . ~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 AC~S LE~ DESCRIPTION ~ ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-~ ~CORDED P~T IN SEC. 22-35-39 ELK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.~6 AC) (OR 428-1961) P~L ID= 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES ~ DESCRIPTION: ~. PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-~IT ONE-~ ~CO~ED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,.5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) . wP~CEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LE~ DESCRIPTION: FT. ' PIERCE TROPIC~ ESTATES-UNIT ONE-~ ~CO~ED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 ELK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (2..07 AC.) (OR ~P~CBL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 ~CORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) '-:-::;:-:::::7 :-':-': :'-. '.." :"-- ::.':::~:%-": ~. "' ' Y:: V:::::. :- ' ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::.::~:'::}:':_:...~b" :-:W'.::-'"':.- :'. :?:::::.:-:':.: '::'?: :?:-:: '%?.::!.::~:}::.?:-.:./'- .: ::.::-.:,.×.- -.>-:-. :?.::::::::::::::"::::::/:: L:-: x..:~-' f:::-':::: .:-.: :.-:::: :...--.'. -' '.- i::?:}': ' :::-:' --' .- .:::~i-::~?':" :-:" :'::: : ' -: . " ..::.::. :'.... i:}::?: :. ===================================""':---"': - :-::-:-:-:-:-:-'-.::::.:::-::-'.:-:-. :-::-:-::-:-:-x- --' :'.'::.: -: -- .. ============================================= .. ..... =============================-:.::-:-:-vz-x-:-::::.' ................. '. ' · .' '-'-'- ".. ;::/::-:-: ,.:':- .::-::.f -.. ::::.::-.:.::.: - ::::.:.:: ..... :....-._<:.:~::::.::-:-: .:~ :::::._: :.-:.::..:: ======================= - ~' ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000_/4 .52 ACRES. · ~EC~AL DESCRIPTION: FT, P? 'CE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35.- .~ BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR pARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 ,52 ACRES -LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT, . PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 'UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1,04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1,04 AC) (OR 428-' 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID.. 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID,' 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION .. FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE.S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0,54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8,24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 49..5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 249.,5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942,5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363,93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 689. FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT s-:'-'-:-:-'-., x':" .;~¢?:~-'-. ' - ~?.'.7': · .-. '-:'. ':?X. ~.-- :,-:.:-::::t:', -.;~::~::~?:.:..":' , ', ':'.-'. '-', :¥?-.S.. :. . .::~ -:-' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 RESOLUTION NO. 99- - 057 FILE NO: p&-92-002 A RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: e Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, presented a petition for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on March 12, 1992, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Land Use from AG- 2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News on March 16, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. At the March 24, 1992 public hearing held to consider the question for transmitting this petition for further review, the petitioners proposed, and this board accepted, to reduce the requested Land Use change from RS (Residential Suburban) to RE (Residential Estate), permiting a maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit to the acre. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: The petition for a plan amendment, as amended, to change the future land use designation, filed by Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by agent Terry Torres, for the property described in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved for transmittal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Jim Minix AYE Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger AYE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner ABSENT PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: DEPUTY CLERK COUNTY ATTOIqNEY 92-057(e) DJM File Number: PA-92-002 MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Director and the Board of County Commissioners Terry Torres, Agent for Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau Date: Subject: March 19, 1992 Comments and Clarifications to the Memorandum dated March 4, 1992, from the Planning Director to the local planning agency concerning the petition of Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). SURROUNDING LA~D USES: The land uses surrounding this parcel are predominantly residential in nature with the exception of the property to the north which is an producing citrus grove owned by Coca-Cola Minute Maid. To the West and contiguous with the subject parcel are two residential subdivisions, Pine Hollow Subdivision developed at a density of one unit per acre and Ft. Pierce Gardens Subdivision; On the East side of Gentile Road opposite the property are a series of predominantly residential properties ranging in size from approximately 2 acres to 20 acres. East of these properties, located off Coolidge Road, is the residential subdivision of Hidden Pines Estates, developed at a density of one unit per acre. Located within the Southern part of the subject property is Fort Pierce Tropical Estates, a platted non-recorded subdivision consisting of 62 lots ranging in size from approximately one-quarter to one-half acre. South of Ft. Pierce Tropical Estates are a series of properties which are primarily residential in nature and contain single family homes fronting on Okeechobee Road. The Southeast corner of the subject property is contiguous with a Residential Suburban Land Use designation which extends to the entire property located south of Okeechobee Road and West of the Florida Turnpike, a parcel containing in excess of 1200 acres of land. There is no question as to the surrounding compatibility of adjacent land use which can easily be seen by examining current aerial photographs. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: Gentile Road Currently has a 66 'foot right-of-way. The comprehensive plan calls for a future right-of-way adequacy of 130 feet. It is reasonable to infer that if our planners see the need to near double the right-of-way adequacy in the future that they contemplate higher levels of service on Gentile Road which could only come as a result of future development. will be s~ecifically addressed as to consistency With the Comprehensive Plan and the expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary. The Petitioner's proposal is to extend the Proposed Land Use change to be contiguous with the current Urban Service Area Boundary, extending West to include the residential enclaves -v~ ~a~er Sub-Element 6A.1.1.1 Objectives 6A.1.1, 6A.1.5. 6D.1.1, and 6D.1.5, Policies · 6A.1.1.2, i6A.1.2.1, 6D.1.i 6D1.1.2, and 6D.1.2.1 are not applicable to the requested land .1, directed at residential development in excess of two units er acre. Under current land d~velo me ~se amendment' but rather are of one-half acre or -~-~-- ? ~t regulation· resid~-~ ~ The petitioner,s ob4ec~= .... -~m=u Us&ng well and septic. ~ uzYe WOUld be t · site and to include in t ~ .... ~ .... ~ extend City water to the future hook-up to he ~=v=~upmen~ plan the means to facilitate sewer facilities should they become available. 11. Ca:i~al Im-rovements Elemen% Policy 11.1.4.3 (B) is concerned with applications for Preliminary Development Orders. The applicant is not requesting a preliminary development order at this time and will address this policy if applicable at the appropriate time. The effect of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan would be to create a unified and contiguous area of residential land uses West of the Florida Turnpike from Okeechobee Road to Orange Avenue, encompassing the subject property, the non- conforming approved residential developments contiguous to the West of the subject property, joining the West boundary of the existing Residential Suburban Land Use South of Okeechobee Road with the finger of Residential Estate Land use along Orange Avenue. By doing this, the two fingers of residential land use would be unified and the serpentine route of the Urban Service Area Boundary would be straightened and aligned with West boundary of the existing residential land use designations and residential developments, establishing a more logical pattern of development consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The twenty-two outlots are entirely contained within the platted subdivision of Ft. Pierce Tropical Estates and should properly be designated with the requested Residential Suburban Land Use designation. There is no other logical use for these properties towhich one-half currently acre. range in size from approximately one-quarter acre The Proposed Amendment for a change in Future Land Use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in every respect. The plan does not require that the property be contiguous wit~ the Urban Service Area Boundary and the property is contiguous with 8 Residential Suburban Land Use .designation. Compatibility has been established with the surrounding ~roperties, ~nd compliance with the Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been addressed and strictly adhered to. Based on the above comments, the petitioner respectfully requests that Resolution No. 92 - 057 be approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review with a recommendatiOn that the Proposed Amendment be adopted. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONCRS COMMUNITY DCV6LOPMCNT ADMINISTRATOR Dos '7,.ssum~, Tota~ O57 A RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, presented a petition for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on March 12, 1992, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Land Use from~AG- 2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). 3. On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News on March 16, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. 4. At the March 24, 1992, public hearing held to consider the -question of transmitting this petition for further review, the · ~etitioners proposed, and this Board accepted, to reduce the requested Land Use change from RS (Residential Suburban) toRE (Residential Estate), permiting a maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit to the acre. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: A. The petition fora plan amendment, as amended, to change the future land use designation, filed by Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by agent Terry Torres, ~or the property described in'the attachedExhibit A, is hereby approved for transmittal to the~ Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 7 8 6 0 i 3 April' 3, 1992 Page 2 Subject: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan Transmittal of Amendments 4.) 6.) The proposed amendments are not exceptions to the twice per year restriction on amendments to the Local Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are not to be adopted under a Joint Planning Agreement. The contact person for the local government submitting the plan amendment is: Terry Virta, AICP Co~unity Development Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 201 Ft. Pierce Florida 34982 (407)468-1590 If you need anything additional, please let us know. 'err_y/irta/ A~P Dev~.l,~pment Administrator TLV/DJM/me COMPLNi(e) attachments cc w/o att: County Administrator County Attorney Planning Director Daniel Harrell, Esq. Terry Torres Treasure Coast Regional Plan. COMMISSION REVIEW: MARCH 24, 1992 Resolution No.: 92-057 File Number: PA-92-002 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: County Commission Development Administrator March 17, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Ka~hleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). On Tuesday, March 24, 1992, you will be asked to review the petition of Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG 2.5 to RS. This change would permit an increase in residential density on this property from .4 units to the acre to 2 units to the acre. On March 12, 1992, this petition was presented to the St. Lucie County LoCal Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Comm%ission for review. At that time the LPA/P&Z voted to recommend that the petition be denied and consequently that it not be approved for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The reasons for this recommendation were as outlined in the staff recommendation of March 4, 1992, which cited several areas of deficiency in meeting the Objectives and Policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the original staff report on this matter are attached for your review. Briefly, the petitioners appear to have not adequately addressed how this property is consistent with the restrictions in the Plan calling for contiguity in the expansion of the urban service area; they have failed to address how the proposed amendment does not constitute "leap-frog- type of development and they have failed to address how the property will be adequately served by existing public services. Noting the above, and referring to the attached staff report~ of March 4, 1992, staff recommends that this Board find the Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau inconsistent with Objectives and Policies of the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and that transmittal for further agency review not be authorized at this time. March 14, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Consistent withBoard direction, attached you will find a copy of draft Resolution 92-57 which, if approved, would authorize the transmittal of this petition to the Department of Community Affairs for further review. Staff recommends denial of draft Resolution 92-57. If you have any questions, please let us know. S UBMI TTED: ~e~ry V~a - -~ Development Administrator County Att TLV/DJM/me PA92002a(e) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Planning Director Terry Torres Commission Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 I~SOLUTION NO. 92 - 057 FILE NO: P&-92-002 A I~SOLUTIONAPPROVING TRANSHITTALOF A PROPOSED AHENDHENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CO~PI~HENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE FUTUI~ LAND USE DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: e e e Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, presented a petition for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on March 12, 1992, after publishing notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail the owners of property within five hundred (500') feet of the subject property, and has recommended that the Board deny the hereinafter described request for change in Land Use from AG- 2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). The proposed amendment has been determined to preserve the internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes. On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News on March 16, 1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within .500 feet of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: ae The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land use designation, filed by Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by agent Terry Torres, for the property described in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved for transmittal to th~ Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Jim Minix XXX Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger XXX Commissioner Judy Culpepper XXX Commissioner Havert L. Fenn XXX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 2&th day of March, 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: DEPor~ CLERK COUaT~'ATTORNEY 92-057(e) DJM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERs PRESENT: Jo Ann Allen, Robert Carman, Robert Klein, Ken Sattler, Doug Skidmore, Donna Catabrese, Dixon McCain, J.p. Terpening, Ralph Flowers (late 7:10 p.m.). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Murphy, Land Development Manager; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Luis Serna, Planner II,: Diana Waite, Planner I, Doug Coward, Planner I, Betty Conner, and Charline Burgess, Administrative Secretary. INVOCAT I ON Chairmansilence. Terpening requested those present to stand for a moment of PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Terpening. APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUAR~ 8, 1992 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1992. Dixon McCain made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 8, 1992 and the Regular Meeting of January 23, 1992. Mr Sattler seconded the motion, and upon roll call the Board unanimously voted in favor of the motion. ' 1 PUBLIC HEARING - BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU PA-92-002 Mr. Luis Serna presented staff comments. He sta petition is for a chana. {- ~ ~--~ . .... ted that this parcel, l¥1na w s:t ~f ~ ~= eslgnat~on of a 164 acre to RS 'Rf~f=~£c~-J ~%~' r~erce, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) ~ =~uen=~alsuburnan). He also stated that the Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the ComprehensivePlan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. He stated that the proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum pe~tted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre which represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. He further stated that Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use maps of the County,s Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application, as presented, does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to the Traffic Circulation Element, Port and Aviation Element, Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water), and Capital Improvements Element. The petitioners, contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west, is not supported by the information which was provided. He stated that the petition does not provide sufficient supporting approved,documentation to explain why the proposed change should be The.petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. He further stated if this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. Mr. Serna stated that, based upon 'the above comments, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning AgenCYcommissioners.fOrward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Mr. Skidmore asked whether or not the outlots were owned by the thePetiti°nerchange.°rbyindiViduals and if the individuals were asking for ~ 4 Mr. Serna replied that most 'of the outlots were owned b~ individuals and that only the petitioners were asking for the change in land use. Mr. MCCain asked what the Level of Service was for Okeechobee Road as a whole and for the portion between 1-95 and the Florida Turnpike. Mr. Serna replied that the Level of Service for Okeechobee Road was Dennis Murphy stated that the current Level of Service between 1-95 and the Turnpike is Low C, D, which means that it is near saturation and could be placed in the Failure category. Mr. McCain asked if the D.O.T. has any plans to expand the capacity. Mr. Murphy replied, "no", the only programmed improvement for Okeechobee Road is what they are finishing up right now. There was a general discussion regarding the Level of Service and improvements scheduled for Okeechobee Road. Mr. Sattler asked what the supporting evidence would be for obtaining water and sewer. Chairman Terpening replied that you would use the approved Master Plan of the designated utility service which is an approved plan that designating their area of service. He further stated this petition is outside of the FPUA Service Area. Terry Torres, Agent for Brian L. and Kathleen Charboneau appeared before the Commission, He passed around a colored map showing the proposed site and the surrounding area. He stated that his clients' are requesting a Land Use Change that is consistent with the surrounding area and it was their intention to develop the property at a density of 1 du/ac. He stated that the petitioners' would be more than happy to revise their request to Residential Estate which is a 1 du/ac land use designation. The 0nly reason they had petitioned for Residential Suburban was to be consistent with existing Land Use designation of surrounding area. In addressing the Transportation Impacts, Mr. Torres stated that Gentile Road was to be improved in the future and that he was told he would have no problem where the level of service is concerned. Mr. Torres addressed the Infrastructor Element and stated there- would be no sewer requirement since septic tanks would be used. He further stated he had spoken with Harry Schindehette., Director o~ Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, and was told that their area of service extends to the Turnpike along Okeechobee Road this property is only 1 mile west of the Turnpike, and since FPUA would service this area at the expense of the owner, if County would agree. The County currently has this area~in their service area, however they have no facilities for either water or sewer. Mr. Torres stated Ne had not contacted every owner of the 22 outlots, butthe petition did encompass the entire area, including the ou~iots, it Would change the Land Use Designation for th~ entire area and, if approved, including the 22 lots. He: stated that it was his understanding that the Urban ServiceArea boundary could be pushed out 1000' per year without having to go to D.C.A., and since this property is located about 1000' from this boundary it could be done at the County level. Dennis Murphy replied "that was not correct". That Policy 1.1o5.7 of the Comprehensive Plan basically provides for a fluctuation of up to 1500' in the Urban Service designated line, provided the property meet severaIcriteria, including that it be contiguous to the Urban Service line. If it is not contiguous you cannot leapfrog over intervening properties to get to that area. Mrs. Allen asked who had assured the petitiOner that the level of service on the road was not a problem. Mr. Torres stated that he asked this question in a preliminary meeting with the County Planning Department, and he was told that everything was o.k. as far as concurrency and level of service were concerned. Mr. Klein asked if it was the eastern boundary of the subject property that was 1000' feet from the urban service, Area Boundary. There was a General Discussion regarding the Urban Service Area Boundary Line. Mr. McCain asked if Mr. Schindehette, FPUA, petitioners that FPUA could run in water lines. had told the Mr. Torres replied "no". He stated he had spoken with FPUA about water and sewer and was assured that the cap~city was there, but no promises were made. Mr. McCain asked staff how a petitioner would initiate this boundary change with the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. Mr. Murphy replied that the Utilities Authority would have to initiate the amendments to the Master Plan for the Fort Pierce- Utility Authority with concurrence by the County and that then they could come into this area. He further stated that to his knowledg.e no one had initiated this amendment to the Master Plan. There was general discussion between Mr. Murphy and Mr. McCain regarding provisions for amending service area boundaries. Mr. Klein asked why the petition had been filed at this time. Mr.. Torres replied his clients wanted to develop their property and, needed to get the approval for a change in land use first. Mr. Klein asked if Mr. &Mrs. Charboneau, had appeared to object at the public hearings prior to the Comprehensive Plan being approved. Mr. Torres replied "yes" and he asked Mr. petitioner to comment. CharbOneau, the Mr. Brian Charboneau appeared before the Commissioners. He stated that he and his wife had owned the subject property for ten years and that in November or December of 1989, he had hired Dan Harrell, Esquire to meet with the County Attorney about a new Comprehensive Plan that was being written. At this meeting Mr, Harrell was advised by the County Attorney to sit and wait. Around the first part of January, 1990 a meeting was held with Mr. Murphy and we were advised to go ahead with preliminary plans which we had finished by March of 1990 while the Comprehensive Plan was still being kicked back and forth. There was no commitment, but we were told we could proceed on it. We then 'met with Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director and she notified us that we were too late. I had no rebuttle at that point, it was my own fault for not standing up, I was advised by my attorney not to do so, because the County said things would not work out. I was present at the meeting, but I was ill advised. I want to develop my property, and now is the time for me to develop, but I can't. Chairman Terpening asks if anyone would like to speak in favor of or opposition of the petition. Chairman Terpening asks if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the petition. Paula Holly, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission. She stated she was opposed to the Land Use Change. She stated the reason they bought land in this area was to have animals and to live in the country. If a subdivision is built it means an increase in traffic and danger to the children, also they would no longer be allowed to have animals because of the Residential Land Use designation. Harry Albritton, an adjacent property owner appeared before the~ Commission. Be stated he lives at the end of Gentile Road and there's only one way in and one way out, which is a dirt. He stated his main concern was who's going to pay for paving the road, and bringing in the utilities. He stated he thought the taxpayers will have to pay and not the land owners. He stated he also wants to be able to h~e animals, bUt doesn't mind re-zoning the property to' 2.5. Mrs. Harold S. Williams appeared before the Compression. She stated she was not objecting, but wanted to seek information and give info~-mation that the 'Commission, potential home buyers and the public should be aware of. She stated her family had the Agricultural Air Service located in this area and they will be spraying groves early in the morning and chemicals will be sprayed through the air.~She stated she just wants to make sure people are aware of the noise and air pollution of the airport. Sheasked the petitioner what the plans were for the streets and who would be responsible for paving the streets. Mr. Torres stated the petitioner hoped to acquire the remaining lots and that he would then be responsible for the road. There was a general discussion regarding the roads and outlots. Betty Conner appeared before the Commission. She stated she does not live in the petitioned area. She further stated she understands the petitioners'.position, but since she ~ttends the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority meetings she knows that FPUA does not easily move franchise lines nor do other utilities and there is no move on to expand FPUA to the West, North, South or East. Mr. Skidmore asked how the owners of the 22 outlots would be affected if utilities were brought in and the roads were paved. Mr. TOrres stated they would benefit from both because under current zoning the property they own can not be developed. A general discussion was held. Mr. McCain asked if this petition was in conflict with the Port and Aviation Element. Dennis Murphy replied this Element was geared toward larger airports. When doing site design get your houses as far from the airport as possible. Mr. Torres stated that the petitioner had addressed this element in their request for land exchange. Mr. Stattler stated the plan must stay consistent or it becomes a very emotional issue. Hearing no further public comment in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of th9 hearing. After considering the testimony presented during the p~blic. hearing, including staff cOmments, Mr. Sattler made a motion that the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). Motion was seconded by Mr. Ca~man, and upon roll call Mrs. Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Sattl~, and Mr. McCai~ voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Flowers, Ms. Calabrese, Mr. Klein and Chai~-man Terpening voted against the Motion. This resulted in a vote of four in favor of motion and five against the motion. Chairman Terpening declared the motion had failed. Chairman Terpening commented that he could not support this petition because he feels it violates our total planning process. He further stated that he agreed with staff comments that it violates too many sections of our Comprehensive Plan that we have worked so diligently to accomplish. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, Mr. Flowers made a motion that the Local Planning ~gency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Co~,~ss~oners deny the application of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau for a change in Land Use from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban) because of conflicts with the overall development plan. Mr. Skidmore seconded the motion, and upon roll call Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Flowers, Ms. Calabrese, Mr. Klein, and Chairman Terpening voted in favor of the motion. Mrs. Allen,: Mr. Carman, Mr. Sattler, Mr. McCain voted against mOtion. This resulted in a vote of five in favor of the motion and four against the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioners that the petition will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 9 Agenda Item: File Number: PA-92-002 ME MO RAN D U M To: From: Date: Subject: Local Planning Agency Planning Director March 4, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). LOCATION: West side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/acre) PARCEL SIZE: 163.92 acres PROPOSED USE: To convert into residential use. SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LANDUSE DESIGNATIONS: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - i du/2.5 ac) to the north, east and west. A small area of AG-1 (Agricultural - i du/ac) is located to the southeast of the pet%tioned property. AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5 ac) surrounds the majority of the petitioned property. A small area of RS (Residential Suburban) land use is located at the southeastern corner of the petitioned site. SUBROUNDINGLAND USES: The land uses surrounding this parcel are' predominantly agriculture, with scattered single-family residences in this area. FIRE/ EMS PROTECTION: Station #11 (Shinn Road) is approximately 4 miles away. March 4, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 WATER/SEWER SERVICE: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) water and wastewater service lines are located approximately 1.5 miles east of this site. This property is not within the planned FPUA service area. T~ANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY Gentile Road - Current ADEQUACY: Future 66 feet 130 feet SCHEDULED AREA IMPROVEMENTS: Gentile Road - None Okeechobee Road (SR 70) - None Ail roadways adjacent to the site currently operates at or above minimum Level of Service. TYPE CONCURRENCY DOCIIMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit COMMENTS: This application is for a change in the Future Land Use designation of a 164 acre parcel, lying west of Ft. Pierce, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). The petitioned property is specifically located on the west side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. The proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum permitted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre. This represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. The petitioners have not at this time filed for any accompanying- change in zoning. However, if this amendment were approved, a change in zoning application could be filed at any time. In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, County Staff is required to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, March 4, 1992 Page 3 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 and Policies with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A review of this petition against these elements has resulted in the following analysis: Fu2ure Land Use Elemen2 The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed the following Objectives from the Future Land Use Element, 1.1.2.;~ 1.1.5; 1.1.7, and 1.1.12. The petitioners filings have not adequately addressed the following Policies from the Future Land Use Element 1.1.2.4; 1.1.2'.5; 1.1.4.2; 1.1.5.1; 1.1.5.6; 1.1.5.7; 1.1.5.10,~ and 1.1.12.1. The petitioner has included references within this application that the conversion of this property to a higher land use designation is warranted because of the presence of certain other development within the general vicinity. The petition cites as one of the adjacent properties enjoying a greater intensity of use, the "Pine Hollow" subdivision, located to the northwest of the petitioned property. While this development site does have development lots less than 2.5 acres in area, what is omitted from this citation is that this project was approved under the County's prior development regulations and is considered under the present comprehensive plan as a valid "nonconforming" use. That property carries with it certain vested development rights based on those approvals. The distinction between the petitioned property and the adjacent properties is that under the County's development regulations, the petitioned property does not have a claim to the same degree of vested rights. The arguments pre~ented that the presence of these existing development si~s is in itself sufficient grounds to amend the future Land Use Plan, needs additional elaboration on how such an action is consistent with the Polices of the Local Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan and the policies of the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, FS) relative to the expansion of urban expansion activities into productive agricultural areas. Traffic Circulation Elemen% The petitioners' filings have identified the recognition under the County's Comprehensive Plan of the need to maintain transportation levels of service in the 1-95/Fla Tpk/SR 70 interchange area. The petitioned property is located about 2 March 4, 1992 Page 4 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 miles from this area. The present transportation network dictates that the vast majority of any development related traffic from this property will have to pass through this interchange area. The petition has failed to address how an increase of 250% in the development intensity of this property would not result in an impact upon this interchange or what mitigative steps would be necessary to address this impact. 3. Mass Transit Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Port and Aviation Element The proposed amendment has been determined generally not to conflict with this element. However, there is a private airstrip located to the south of the petitioned property. Consistent with Policy 4.1.2.1, any residential use of this property would have to account for the presence of this airstrip. 5. Housing Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 6A. Infrastructure Element - Sani~ar~ Sewer Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objective~ 6A.l.1, 6A.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer) 6A.l.l.1 and 6A. 1.1.'2 and 6A.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. Infrastructure Element - Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposedamendment has been determined not to be in conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 5 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 6C..~a e andA-uifer. Rechar e The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this sub-element. 6D. InfrastructUre Element - Potable Water Sub-Elemen~ The petitioners, filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6D.1.1, 6D.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (potable water) 6D.1.1.1 and 6D.1.1.2 and 6D.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 7. Coastal Management Element. The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Conservation Elemen% The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. The ultimate development of this property, regardless of land use intensity, shall be subject to conservation standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.8 and 8.1.10 of this Element. 9. ~ecreation and Open Space Elemenl, The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. lO. ~nterqover-~ental Coordination The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 6 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 ll. Capital Improvements El~men~ The petitioners, filings have consistency with the following Improvements Element 11.1.4.3(B). not adequately addressed Policies from the Capital Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application as presented does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to how this change would effect the Plan as a whole. The petitioners contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west is not supported by the information which was provided. The petition does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to explain why the proposed change should be approved. It does not demonstrate how this change is consistent with not only local performance standards but also how the amendment is consistent with State and regional policy regarding the extension of urban densities into agriculturally used areas. The petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. What is proposed for these properties? When reviewing a petition for modification of land use, the burden or responsibility for demonstrating that sufficient changes have occurred within a given area is that of the petitioner. It is the documentation that quantifiable changes have occurred in a given area that are to be the basis for the granting of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The petition, as filed, does not adequately address this need. As pointed out previously, this property is not contiguous to the Urban Service Area boundary and this petition does not include any proposed expansion of it. If this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the Future Land Use Maps, is to have all of the property designated for urban use confined within the Urban Service Area boundary, which this petition would seek to contravene. March 4, 1992 Page 7 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Based upon the above, staff recommends that this Board forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and that this petition for amendment not be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for review. Attachment DJM/LNS/me PA92002(d) cc: County Attorney Brian & Kathleen Charboneau Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in Future Land Use . .MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CNARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN). ~OTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNINGAGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) BECAUSE... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE sPECIFIC] Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E Charboneau-:~0 'amend' the property: See Legal Dgscription Attached. -" ( Location: On t 'West side of Gentile '/"Road 1/4 mil'e '-nOrth of ~.',~ ~- '~. - . . ... ,, .. des.~he testimony and evidence upon which ~he appeal is ":'~/'~" / 'to be:~based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individual~.~testifying durin~ a hearin~ will be sworn in. Any Par~7 to the procood~n~ w~ll be ~ranted an opPortun~t7 to cross- oxam~no an7 ~nd~v~dual testifT~n~ dur~n~ a :hear~n~ upon request. ~'.'. Written.. . .c°mments. _, received in advance of the public' hearing will . .... .~...?~::'"':~.. .. Prior to th~s public hearing, not~ce of the samo was son~ ~o -- ~,~,.,,,:~,,. property owners February 26, 1992. Legal notice was- publ~shed~ ~n tho ~ows Tribune, a nowspapor, of ~enoral c~rculat~o~ · n St.' Buc~o CountT~ on Februar7 2~, 1992 and ~arch ~, 1992. File No. PA-92-002 PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 ~ 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) {OR 433-110) 'i' .i'~-'- - .iPARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 ' 4 95 ' " ' . .. - '~-LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ~ ~ ...... ' ~ - -ACRES;'i . ' ' ~ ~" ~ ~ '" ~ 1~~ 4 95 A .... ~ ~ ~ ~/2 OF T.E NE 1 - -. ~ ...:', -'~..~: -~:~', ..,~ ( - C) (OR 433-110)· ~ - ' . /4 OF THE' SW 1/4 OF SW PARCEL ID: 23 22 334.0001 000/8 . :LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39'N 1/2 OF THE-SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW i/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002'00'0/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL bESCRIPTiON: 22 35-39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433cl10) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22-94-ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/40F'SW 1/40F~SE~]i/4 LESS THE' 'S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4' OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI-688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, T~ ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" .RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD ? ? ? TILE ROAn, TH.R ALG SD LI' 762 50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4:OF SW - PART' OF NW 1/4 - · '. 1/4'OF SE 1'/4 TO ' · ... ~ ' . OF SE~i/4/~.BEiNG ' POBA/~D THAT ''' ....... ' .... '.F-fkL~OWS''FRO~ T ' ~ · MORE~PARTICULARLv" · ~ · . . ~'~ .. HE.NW ~__OR~O '~ ~ ~ - DESCRIBED - ............ F.NW~:I .... AS -.:.' ~ .... ' . '-48.0 FT TO S R'W'~'~'''~J'~ '~'''~:''':~ ~'':~ ~ .:- ~'~_.~EC~22,~ ~. '. ~ :~:' ..... .~' ' - ' 7-00'FT TO'TH ~ - ..... ~' . .'.: .... ~.--': . '~:CALCULATES.824 81' ' ' E.'W.:R/W'LI-:OF:~'GENTIL .... ~'--~--. :~-~.:~- , ~TH RUN. S .......... W-R/W LI OF' ' ............... · WLY ALG C/L' : - · ..... ~ ,~GENTILE RD 13 · ~ '-"-~ '~'~ ..... 'CALCUL~ -- OF "EXISTING R ........ ' " -50'~ .~.¥~=~ · . ~-~.~:.:- ~ .. ~ . . · TES 825.~93. FT%--~= ...... .. D, '767 00 ~'.~;.-~.-.~ ....... ~'i;?~!~".. ~:i:'i~ 7~: '::~"'?'.'! L :? .. ~.' . ~'~'.'--;~ .~U~'N,u'27'-00"'FT .TO'P~n "?-'-:-:!~- 388] ...... -~-~gBLK. 1 LOTS-1.& 7'r~ - - - ~.zu ~uL-(OR'434_ . · PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 '-24 ACRES" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE '.TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC)-(OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 · -24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL .~STATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (~.24 AC) (OR 440-389) Pi%RCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 0020 000/3 TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN u~nUORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7~ 2.11 ACRES . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 428-1961}UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR wPARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL 6ESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2 ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 434-1383} ,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TRO ' UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 9~ ~ .... PICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN ~-~-~ sLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) DESCRIPTION: ' ~RECORDED p~ T~ ~m~ '~ IC~ ESTATESLUNiT ' . T ........ -35- . · ONE-AN 1961) 39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' -~ P~CEL .ID: 23 22 701 0044' 000/7 ' 52 -~ - .. ' ...' '/': '. N. SEC 22-35-3g-BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) ..:<: ..j.- ._ 434-1383) .... -~'~u ~ ~ ~TS 3,4,5 &.6 (2.09 AC):(OR :.': P~C~L ~D: 23 22_. 70~ 0054 000~0 LEG~ DESCRIPTION: FT. - P~ERCE TRoPIC~ ESTATES-UNIT . ON~_~ ~RECORDED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 ~ 2 (OR 717-0956) P~CEL-ID:_23 22 701 0056 000/4 PIERCE .__ __ECOR_ED P~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK hUT 3. (0.54 AC) (0R~428-196I) ' PARCEL~ID: 23 2~ 701 0062 000/9 '8.24 ACRES LEGAL 'DESCRIPTION: ~ FT..' PIERCE TROP ' ".' U~ECORDED' PLAT' IN ~ ~' -- ~- ICAL ESTATES-~IT ' - ' ~W 30T~ -ESS S ~.5~FT~-~-~& N 50E 30 ~-LESS S 42.5-FT'-& N 40 FT LAND USE TERRAIN DEV. WILL]A/dS PETITION OF BRIAN & KATHLEEN 0LC INC ESPO$ITO CHARBONEAU ZONING ~E~RAIN DE¥. LL WILLIAMS PETITION OF WILLIAMS BRIAN & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU 1 7 5 0 ~_ · z F-- rn o ~ 0 0 CHARBONEAU TERRY T TORRES COSMOS CONTRACTING CORP PO BOX 1556 FT PIERCE FL 34954 BRIAN & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU 2789 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9518 BLK 2 LOT i EDITH SHAFRANICK C/O BLANCHE GARY 9156 LAKELAND DR RICHMOND VA ~3~29 BLK 2 LOT 2 BEN STURMAN C/O PHILLIP HAMMER 425 SW 4 AVE APT 318 FT LAUDERDALE FL 33315-1062 BLK 2 LOT 11 MILTON & MILDRED COHEN 1625 BAY DR MIAMI BEACH FL 33141-4717 #13,16,17,20 BLK 4 LOT 3,4 HAROLD & ADA NtLLIAMS 3333 S tND RIV DR FT PIERCE FL 34982 BLK 4 LOT 6 ALBERT R ENGLE 3 SEAL HARBOR APT 731 NtNTHROP MA 02152-1026 BLK 4 LOT 7, 8 TED T NIEWIStENICZ 518 18 ST NIAGARA FALLS NY 14301 BLK 5 LOTS 3-6; 6:1,2,7,8 BLK 7 LOTS 4,5 MURRAY HILDA ROTH 27577 LAHSER RD #127 SOUTHFIELD MI ~8034 BLK 7 LOTS 6 SOMER & ADELAINE ROTHMAN 84 PLEASANT HILL LN TAMARAC FL 33319-2442 BLK 7 LOT 7 HAROLD/DOLORES REISFIELD 1869 VENICE PARK DR #111 N MIAMI FL 33181-1963 BLK 7 LOT 8 BERNARD & SHIRLEY RUDY 4516 W FRANKLIN ST RICHMOND VA 23221-1116 #1, #2 COCA-COLA CO C/O TAX DEPT PO BOX 247 AUBURNDALE FL 33823-0247 #3 HARRY B ALBRITTON 2650 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #4 ROBERT & YOLANDA SCHASANE 2031 44 AV VERO BCH FL 32966 #7 HARVEY & WYNONA MARTIN 2790 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9517 #5 SIDNEY C ALBRITTON 2690 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL,34945-9517 #8 R & R CITRUS tNC 2790 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #6 RICHARD & SCOTT SNOWDEN ANITA M YOUNG 2726 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #9 H NGAN STEVEN K CHAN/LISA LUEG 2868 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 OLC INC C/O CMC MANAGEMENT P 0 BX 14019 FT PIERCE FL 34979 ERIC P & CAROL SANDT 3078 GENTILE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9517 #12 JOSEPH ESPOSITO VANZIE ESPOSITO 3150 DAME RD 'FT PIERCE FL 34981 ALICE J GAGNON 9802 OKEECNOBEE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945-9692 ~19 & LOT 1 TERRAIN DEVELOPERS CORP P 0 BX 1987 F1 PIERCE FL 34954-1987 #15 ,rs PAUl' ,/~JUA~ITA~.GAGNON 986~O~EECHOBEa RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 ~-~21 DOUGLAS & KAREN HOGUE 11010 HElL RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #18 PAUL H FREEMAN C/O SE CITRUS CAPITAL C 11006 OKEECHOBEE RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #22 DENNIS & SHERRI KAUFMAN 10650 HElL RD FT PIERCE FL 34945 #23 JOSEPH F DIFRANCESCO PENNY L DIFRANCESCO P 0 BX 345 FT PIERCE FL 34954 COUNTY ROADS SLC ADM BLDG ANNEX ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 2300 VIRGINIA AV FT PIERCE ~L 34982 CANALS N ST LUCIE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2721 S JENKINS RD FT PIERCE FL 34981 LOT 2 KEVtN & LISA KEENE 10604 PINE CONE LN FT PIERCE FL 34945 LOT 3 PHILIP & MARJORIE MUHDAY 187 HORSELEY DR SCARBOROUGH ONT CANADA MiB 1W4 LOT 28 MICHAEL & MARY SMITH 10609 PINE CONE LN FT PIERCE FL 34945 LOT 29 GEORGE PAPPALARDO CATHERINE LOZADA 2557 SW GROTTO CIR PORT ST LUCIE FL 34955 LOT 30 KERRY D & STEPHANIE WAGNER 6010 PALM AV FT PIERCE FL 34950 December 26, 1991 ST. LUCIE COUNTY · APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Applicant. s Name: Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau AppliCant's Address: 2789 Gentile Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945-9518 Applicant's Phone Number: 407-461-6844 We do hereby petition the St' Lucie Planning and Zoning Commission and the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to change the future land use classification of the following property: Legal Descriptions: PARCEL ID: 23 22 310 0000 000-/-7 ~--~,94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39./NW .1~/.4/OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR CANAL, ~D~- THAT PART OF NW 1/4 -OF SE 1/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE:C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH 'NELY ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO. THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD,-TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779..2 FT, '.TH W-273 'FT,i TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, -TH W ALG S R/W OF CANAL. "570 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL1/4 (4.96 DESCRIPTION: AC) (OR 433-110)22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL1/4 (4.95 DESCRIPTION: AC) (OR 433-110) 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 AC~ES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431-0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, T~{ ON a BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L' OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NW COR OF NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S ~'¥ 767.00 FT TO THE W R/W LI' OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI CALCULATES 824.81 FT); TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT' (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES ' 'LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- .388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35,39 BI/{ 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.2'4 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4 5 6 8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) · , ,. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. ' PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN '.' UNRECORDED ~ PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 -AC) .'..(OR .428-1961 ) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL 'DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1 4 5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) , , ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 434-1383)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED1961) PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428- PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 434-1383)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 'FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 nOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT ~IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT' OF S 592.5 FT-LESS<~. 30 FT & LESS W'30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 94'215 FT-LESS E 30 FT-& 'nESS W 30 FTC" ~'W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S. 323.93 FT OF N 363,93 FT & W 50 ~ ~ ~. a¥~'~ ~ '~ ~i~-- ~ FROM: AS-2.5 TO: RS Our reason for making this request is- th have occurred within th ........ ' at substantial chan~es · '-~ ~=~*=~u~ area si · ~ ~ompre~e~s~ve Land Use Plan for S~ ~.._:~0% th~ adoption of the requesEe~ land use desi~-~=-- _~ ~=~u uounEy warranting the the lines indicating th~'~u%U~n~e~.~he "Plan" was adopted · ~nin the Okeechobee Road Area west of the Florida Turnpike were in fact arbitrarily designated and do not represent a pattern of good or logical urban plan~ing relative to the surroundin land u . · dynamics of the area g 59 designations and the 3 Agent authorized by Applicant to represent the Applicant: Name: Terry T. TOrres Address: P.O. Box 3808 Veto Beach, Florida 32964 Phone Number: 407-231-7977 Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thoroug~ answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. QUESTIONS 1.useIS thedesignations?proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land Yes. The subject property is surrounded by properties on the East, South,.West, and on-the North in an area South of Orange Avenue and ~ West of-the Turnpike, all of which enjoy land use designatiOns of ~RS or greater. ~ub~''in~ensity' Additionally.. there are properties. . in pine O~ S 1~10~ a~d ~t-. ~ler~e Gardens Subdivision to the Northwest and contiguous w~th the subject pro err ~r~lY n°~-c°nf°rm~-ng with th~ ..u~ ...... P Y which are · ,uiaesl~es.and are aDDrov~ ed ~+~ ~=~'~-~-f~iu~v~_~_ DU~ contain one acre "The Residential Suburban (RS) land use'categoryis~P=u as one acreintendedhomesiteSto act as a transitional area between the agricultural intense residential areas in the eastern portion areas and the more of the County,. per Chapter 1-48 of the St. Lucie County. Comprehensive Plan. 2. What conditions affecting the future land u~e designation have ~anged since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns utility availability, and public service capacity. ' There have been significan Comprehensive Pla ........ t changes in the area since the · , w=s a~op~eo on January 9, 1990. The area along the 0keechobee Road between 1-95 and the Turnpike has been the hottest and most active commercial/industrial area in the entire Treasure Coast. The growth within this area has been~.~ruly_ phenomenal and development is continuing at a rapid pace. Improvements on Okeechobee Road and Virginia Avenue east of 1-95 have been underway for two years and are nearing completion~ The turnpike overpass on Okeechobee Road was completely rebuilt p°intsa proposed area'ofspecialw theinterest (Chap2 2-21)~...one .Of. onlY two inthe.state.i~here Turnpike and 1-95~et~with adjacent :.aCC,_S.p°ints,'~he~i!i. IThoroughfarses Networ .~ .... .. ~ .... . . ghg °f aY' Pr°tea i°n ~" GladeS " , _~,.-' ~ ~=P~'.~ ~u'i~oot-'~i~ ~= -" .- ,~..- ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,_ ~. ~ .-_ · ~ ~u '.-a~ong.~F~:F:~A~¥.Ro~ -to land. i~%~D~ ~' "logical i: .bOundal-y-]'b-~ween :~.th~,?AG:2.5 j~ctives t' :of.-?~'t~e in rate' '"' ....~. :ban' ' ' ' -?: of'~ ~nd all, of-this urban ~ we:have, had.in-.the' . . _ -- residential-developm~nt:.~n~?- ...... prOximity . .... . . :' required Commer~] ~_, _ . .~..:..gr~wth ~n'Close service areas.'..'.: ' ' -?---, ~n~us~r~a±, and-recreational Public facilities, including the roads all appear to be above the minimum level of service (LOS) standards adopted by the County C°mprehensive Land Use Plan. More improvements are planned for Okeechobee Road west.of the Turnpike. 3. Where are the nearest public or investo - services? Who. is t . _ . _ r pwned water and s ~_ ~. · - . · he servlc~ Dr ~7 r2 ~t · · .. . . ewer u"e r~ve-year, eX~an~, _~_ 5~°/~- ~.~~~n? s~e ~ncluded ' facilities are proposed, describe.the capacity ahd type of water · ~' ~ prlva~e and wastewater services to be provided. ~....- The nearest public water and sewer services are located at the Holiday Inn just east of the Turn '. Jurisdiction. of Ft.. ~u~~: ............ u~ p~ke. and are. 'under the desxgnated as the d~vision line be~ .... ~s2~ The Turnpike has been Pierce Utilities servicing the area to the east and St. Luci~ County Utilities servicing the area to the west. Harry Schindehette, the Director of Ft. Pierce Utilities, has advised · .i.:/ . ' ~:. ~- :' '- "": '.-??:- - - ~ tW°::years and is now .comPleted.~:?:Ut~ i~ h~ ...... "2 and' :~i:;~r°Ved~-'.the' Co~' to acCo--k~-.~,,uuaue ~': .... ...... ,t :' th~:: . : .:.,..,:.'":t ..... 'Reyn0' ids' ' ' ' qb:Metals~ ~ . erce Square Develonmeht.~;?:a,a .'~:,~z' .... _ ...- on-.:"Pet ~r.', s. 'Road..:which includes the Cracker Barrel -::Restaur~t :: and ~ t .. ~ .~v~p~ent. ' bh~:" Newly built<Motel Six The Russell.; .Manufacturers Outlet Mall, which anchors the c0~ercial in the node, is the most' profitable mall in : terms 'o deve _ per square foot on 'the ' Treasure~. CO~st ~... The .... . . .:'~..Okeechobee ~: 'Road.. also ::.inci ' .. Restaur~t; .~In_. ,~_~. ; . .. :.. udes.?:a.V.::'Sh0ne~,, ' ' '"'"~"'~'" ~ ' - -' ~:: ~ ~'a~u~ :a Taco ::" · ' '~ " :-- z' ~ : .a-::Mi~,-Sub .ShO~:-:-~ --:~ · _ ... . Bell; "a.new,.ChevrOn.:g~-~.e~, Restaurant currently under c~--~---~· Fr~ed Ch~cken:~ and "a'~ pe~kins "sch~uled in-:"the .near future This' dyn~ic area has:'signifi~'~ntly.~ ~ . . . -. . --" ~..~uc~on. and 'a MiniatUre Golf.c0U~se r~d/.an~, sh~fted.t~e gro~h patterns in'. S.t:J.Lucie County"With znzras~rucEure g~ing into the area to acco~odate-the e=;sting~ and proposed gro~h. . ~. ~ The "Plan", in Chapter 1-6, sDecif{ca]],,~ ___ ~ ..:','a=~LesVesuu~ s futureemergenceev°f- the I- 95/FlOrida 'Turnpike], Corridor as/"':-a ~__elopment consideration . This are'~- has bA~n:-.de~ign~tedmaj o~ Uforce asin t ~,sewer 'sewer .~ services- to':~ the .i subject )'~ provide propertyl: 'At :?Present ~the: County has ~o facilities withi'n..~h,e area: No Private _f.~ilitie.s:.are propOSed -~.4 .' i If,i .~. change t° :indUstrial land use' is. proposed-.- . :.~.;..:-.:wate~ a'~d--wa t~_W~ ,, - .-... ~ ,"~-ex lain how ~.'.. .- S- e - ..... P ~ - . · '" ~ ~ '.-~i'AT~. r s3stems meet: DroDosed p~]4~.A~. ~ ~ ~ ~' '~ ~ ' P -- ". .an:(f°und~ln?Exh~bit~B of ~- :~-~' .... : - ~.% .~u=zemenc.. Agresment ;~.~-gnd :~.~aj:~Au~t,,<28, 1990 .:~... .:.,=- =:.:- ~ial~ use is prop0sed.'~.??~.~/.)..: - .... : '~ rai oe and what general, approach to sto~water management wouldarea'you anticipate if-.the requested land .use. change'/is,:_g~anted? What '-~.[_~ :':.~<:::effe~ts would 'the re~ested land useTChange?:haee:o~ ~the VOl~e :~"" ject:/Prope~ty has an average:~eievation of 22 fee ~'~ ~~ -- __~ -- ~ze .~ ~:~~entirely'>:::~:wi{hin'(<'the'~ N°rth:' ~:~ ' "~" . .~_ :. t and _.::.: ::is.'fib::~.:the...~U~..:~.~ ~.. :~ :. .... :.:...._ i _ :. y>the'.::diStrict ............ ,.::, : : a~.State. Turn .=~, 2:; -:. ~ ...... -: ~le .......... ~ke Auth .......... .:~:: : ....... . · .P . or~t ..has.:a-: ..... - · . :.-:-: ...... Sou · ~ mar e-re~ .......... theast corn ..... : .... _ g ent~on ......... ~ ~ ~-. ....... ... er. of.th~.~ntersectfon,o... :':: .:4~":~ : .,_ ]~ ~:[Ro~d;.::..-. ':- '. ;' - :.. ::'t:-: ..... ': f the~Turnp : ,:-~-:..,:., -;:'~:::tf:'?the[~ re~ested land use. :change. is ~ rant . .....:: approach 'to.;'sto~ water · . _ g e~ a. mult~ faceted management would be employed. 'This ~ght · :includ~ .'but 'would :not be limited to uenerous green space with on site" landscaped retention areas, Miami curb and 'g~tter on th~ street right.of-ways in conjunction with ~x' · ~qu~pped w~th stO~ ~rates -~-~ ...... f~ltrat~on trenches :- lines t~ ~ .... ~ · ~=,.~= ~wd~e areas aion- r ...... .... . ~ u~=uu and allow the f~ ~- _ ~ =~ property .... ~ch of sto~a~er to be :., retained on site, and a plan that would facilitate any proposed - '-..-, 'future connection to a public or private sto~ sewer System. Ail 'reqUirements of St. Lucie County-and the South Florida Management-'District (S~) would be satisfied. ""Considering the proposals outlined above th ch~ge'would und~,~_. ~ . , e requested land ~=~3 l~ave a os' ' Ualit o- - P ~tlve effect on the q Y · runoff b~ si~nif= ...... volume = ~ ~u~uiy reducing the volume which is ~ ~?.~:¥.:::':/:)~.'currently being disposed of within Canal ado ~' ?~.~'?~J~:'::~: eVentually on t~ the ~ ..... U_ ..=~ =nd Canal ~50 and ! :..: ~.~- ~,~=~ ~urK oI the St L ' ' : ,: ,: .,,~ ~, known as the No~ ~ .... · ..... .~ uc~e R~ver collectiv~]xr ~,, ..... .?'.--:::.' Plan Curr _ ( p ~r 6 C-10 and 6-C-12 o r,...,,~?:,?~.',..,.:.~.:.z )- entl the ru-~ : ..... · the ?..::.,:..-,... u~mendous volume of herb' ' . __~.oF quality .d~e to the ..:'...:'.'. ?ther ~rong and perhaps t~e~:e~je;J~ez. ~i%~zers. an~ runoff would 6 be greatly enhanced by the requested change. 6. Provide a projection of the average daily volumes of solid waste · that would be generated if the land use changes. If RS land use were adopted at a density of one unit per acre the ~subject property could be developed into a subdivision of approximately 160 single family home sites. Although not required under the current plan, if at all practical this subdivision would be serviced with central utilities. The average daily volume of solid waste generated by the proposed land use change is based on 62 pounds per week per single family unit according to data provided by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Solid Waste Department. 160 DU's X 62 LBS/WK / 7 DAYS/WK =1417 LBS/DAY 7. Whet'demands for recreational facilities will be created by development in aCcordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? The proposed land use change would not create any significant demand for recreational facilities. One conceptual idea for the development of this property includes the concept of.a common stable' area fOr horses and the incorporation of equestrian trails throughout the community as a common recreational facility. Additionally there would be ample green space, lakes, and the estate size lots would provide sufficient space for families to recreate in privately owned swimming pools and children s play areas. , In addition to our beautiful beaches, magnificent lagoon, and excellent fishing areas, subject property has easy access to the beautifu~ North Fork of the St. Lucie River from the County Park l°cated~on Midway Road, convenient access to Indian River Community College and the excellent recreational facilities located there, access to the County recreational complex on Virginia Avenue, and access to all of the private shopping, dining, movies, and miniature golf facilities which are conveniently located along the Okeechobee Road corridor just to the east of the subject property. Table 9-5 & 9-6 of the "Plan" establishes desired outdoor recreation standards and includes a level of service standard which would require .35 acres community park. This is .of neighborhood park and 1.95 acres of based on a population of 2.44 people per single family unit~-.and a total projected population of 390 people. 8. Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Boundary? NO ~ 7 If you answered "no" t · · . u quesElon / aD . ' used for "urba ' __ . . ore. will the property-be 1 · A · - n ~evelopm~nt activities, as ...... x ~proposed Polic~, 1 · ~ ~,~ ..... - ....... in Policy activities apply: = .... ~-xl- unec~ which urban development residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity None of the above apply. 10. If ~ny item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie ~t~ ~nPd~a_nn~% Urba~ ~ervice Area Boundary If an ex~ansio- · . ~3 needed and ou ' ~ ~* ' Y propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Poli the following questions- cy 1.1.5.7 and answer A. Does the subject property .lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? A. The subject property is contiguous Use Classificationsp att°a the south andt°toResidentialnon_conformingSUburbansingleLand family develo_ment density of one unit per acre to the west. B. Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided? If so, please provide documentation. B. Yes, Ft. Pierce Utilities has advised that they have sufficient' capacity to service the subject property. Ail other required infrastructure is in place and meets the required level of service standards. See response to question~ 3,5, and 7. C. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? C. The proposed expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary will have no detrimental effect on the established character of the area. The "Plan" has intended that the Urban Service Area Boundary~ be a dynamic boundary with the flexibility to change and expand. (Policy 1.1..4.3 and 1-1.5.7) The subject property is located withi~ 650 feet of the existing Urban Service Area Boundary. . - . .' ....- -.: . -....... 11...:a. If changing:':from: an agricultural-' cat~rY. ( AG_2.'i'5'.:.,..an'dJ,~GZ5 ) answer'..the following questions~ . . . . ' ? ~::'"?.~'~ ....... > : . . .:'.--: -.~ ._.. A. How is the proposed use compatible with exlS'~ing .~and' proposed-uses of adjacent properties? How'will thiS-.use .. impact on adjacent agricultural uses? a ~ ': '~. ".':'"?:-"'".:'"" . .... '.'.. '... :)'.~-:~:-:~:: :_ '.. ": ..': Compatlbllmtyf.With adjacent' pro e .' . . . the. ~ rO osed.4:, -'~ :: · · --- P rties:-:would'- ":~":"~: "::-::':~"'.'--' '"- ._'.' - ', i~ P.....:.::~.e%~.,To .the "west.. . = · . . ..-b?.-'enhanced b -':' -. property is . Erie.: Pine Ho]]~., ..... .. a~d contx~ous..:-.to. :the '::"S~b~ ":' .' -' subdivision-'fea~rin~. :~%%~5.~u°~mvZsm°n .'which ':is:.a {'Sin~i'~-.:~.f~ ~: · .: '. ' ~ .~ o~ a~rox~~-- -- '. ~ ':' ~3 -: =r =~=~ one acre...,U~lt...one has .' beenbeen 'completed:and... ~..~ .-the remaining phases-of':t ' · approved 'bY-('the 'County ~ =~ -_. .-. .<, ~e subd~vision~ have = ...... = ~wal~lng 'development i :..?-,'... .~. . The east bounda~ of ,the sub'ect :oa eco O$- ' ' .... ~ u'~3uz No,n-'SOuth .... ' " ~uEe. East and West of Ge-e~ ~ ' :reliever uneechobee- R~=A..~- = .~ . · . -%~= ~uau an~ on the ,~6~ '- = .-- contiguous wit :.+~_ .__._~ ~gular shaped parcel of~land~ .... -., .... . . h ,~,~=-~uu ec · _'_ ,. ..... ' .... .whmch 'I~es 3 .~ property ~nd currently has a..land use designati°n~"°f: RS i'"Contigu0us with th' " C~pground.a ~~ ~-- , . , ~s parcel is the''-Ti~erland c ........ ~=z-~v par~ 'which includes a convenience Store, - with. all of 'the'%property'.'to .the north' . _ and.:.~und,., by .i Oke~d~b~e R6'ad':'0n th~ o--~?d e%s~. of. the-. c~pground . .' east :.:havin _:~:- ' .... · >:"?.--.-.. -' ...... .. = oou~n, an~_the T .... ' .:. - · -,_=.'.-.g .... ?~a~d:.~se:.:of ..RS:or-M .... · .__ . .... . ~rnp!ke.-on- the . .s~bdlvmslon.-..~oi.?_?--- .....: =_ ... X~_..Th~s Includes Ene'.'r '. - -- - -. ...... ~ .... H!dden Pmnes Es~ . -.A ....... ~ .~ .c. esldent!al . --' approxmmatet~, -one':'a~i = ... a~es, which congalns :.'-':-: . . -.- · · . , !or,.. .... "'": :':::::"::::':':~ne~pr°perty':::~tO~the~north'of the subject'Pr°hertL'iS':i~d::?-~,.?':':~::~P ~ by . .... :~'::~:]~:~:~r'6~:~r~Y~?:~P~6sit~:?:~h6::::':'::the:i~: .COca-: :~.C Ol ~:? CompAny...:::..~nd..~ubje6tis. ..- currentlYro e - : :'' in....:citru s:.~:-Ali~::.[6f :::)thg -: ' :~.: Okeechobee -..RO&d.~.t:a~: =C__~ ~ p p rty .-located :'t'6?::~he:~.,~.~%.~-~ ~.k~--.':..' .... '-. :" ': ' '~' - '- .: g on Okeechobee Road has '.a'?land-:-uS~. '' '(designati°n':of : Rs~':[bIt is-:-clear that . ..'.". :~0~DK~ibiii~Y-: ~&i~n :-~jace~' pr0P~rtie~ ~ne ~o~o~ea:.-:-~a~ u~e- B. How.will,.remaining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non-agricultural uses you propose? B. The predominant remaining agricultural uses are the Coca Cola Minute Maid Company's grove lying to the North and contiguous to the subject property and the Harold & Ada Willies grove and airstrip lying contiguous to the subject property to the south and southwest. The Coca Cola grove and the "William.s Grove are segregated from the subject prope~y by Canal .~49 to the north and :' Canal ~50 to the . south. It is completely buffered from the ".Willi~.s grove to the south by a dense tree line, then the canal, :. and finally south of the canal an airstrip which is located on the . Willi~.s property. Access to the subject property would be from. 'Gentile Road so that the remaining agricultural uses would have no significant effect on proposed land use. C. Please provide documentation of the soil types and - . suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, ... according to the St. Lucie County Soil Su~ey? C~!?.~iAccci ~[i:hg to.,:the St.~Lucie Count f°U~d?(-~n:'!(ith&--::. SUbdect ~__~ . ~ · ~he'"a ~ '1 .... ~ , Fuuzxy ~ramned 'used for.urb=--~:[---~ ~ _ uu~xu~ng practmces '-'.'these soils- .. ~....~-~. - ..~:/ ;.:.~:: )./. P . p s.. (Chapter 1-26) ~ ~. - .- . - :.~ ?D, DeScribe:how the propOsed land ~Se~designatlon:~is suitable' sP;cific 'land': ch'~aCteristic s ~/.:_....: is quite suit~i~.['f~'r:~.:~e~.~0~osed land use ,.:: ~: site-specific ~land:..ch~acteristics: -. . .[ ' ~ The'~ pr0perty,.( is :beautifully. treed.(:'~d'. bi'~d with 'natUral f°liage~.W~ic~ will nOt'only contribute si ' ', of any :proposed resident' ___ gnlflcantly..to the beaut ' ' ' ' wall eIIecclvely mal development hut'.also --=~ :~ -- , - ~ y bufferJthe subject(property from the adjacent, agriCUltural uses It ha'~?ex6~llent access,tO Okeechobee:Road .An~/yet.beca~se-it does nOt ' fr°nt/°n'okeeChobee Road it would provide':a safer means of ingress 'and:egreSs[from'Gentile Road. It is an envi .... . mt.:. haS::::~.nev~r.~,b :' "" - r°~entall sa "' ..:sit~ :~c6~v~.-i6.~te%%~.)~t_~ no~.: ~sed fo~. in~Ustria1_ .: r~' o fa ~Slt..e. ~s~ "'sc- .......... ":'~- :'~'~' u~eeqnonee Road cO~erCiai/i~d~%~1 : .... ..=:. nools,~?~d3recreati0n areaS,. as well as-'~the :~ihfr~t~dre~:~Whi.c~ ' "? '(;f ':'~' '"' acc0mp~i~s' ~hes'6~:~de~el°pments ~" ~' .'-"~'~"~'>?<~?-~.:~?~? ' u.%~:.::.(~f~7??:-~-:?~:.::f::..~ .?-.~; '~ '":/'~:~ .'~'~-~.-'[ ~ ~ ~ )ose~nd us~s[i~hation.~][elate~ .~:,: 0th~.~. ' ~:~"~':' ~..~'~:~'--~:~ [~.,:, p s" that ,ar~.ap~6Vedv:?6r/(.~n~W.:.being . land use deSignation..:, i~...co~S~stent w . ?'.'. . .. ...... ant ,of.the're · · : :~ -- ~ . · ~ .... ~ ith:.-the Su~mvmsion lOc~ ,~ =. ma~nmng phases of;~,the:--Pine.. conce tual 1a'' est and zs consmstent .... P p ns for the devel~ .... ~ ~= =, . :.~ wzth the ~ .... ,~ u~ nne ve~ 'large parcel~owned by the Okeechobee Land Company, Inc. located on the south, side of Okeechobee Road.~ It is through this parcel that the proposed extensiOn from the Palmer Expressway would pass connecting 1-95 with Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike and ve~ likely te~inating opposite Gentile Road. : , F. How do you propose to buffer adjacefit agricultural uses '? :: from-the effects of urban development?. F. Adjacent agricultural uses are and will be effectively buffered first by the natural site-specific land characteristics which '.include a dense tree line and Canal ~49 to the north and Canal ~50 to the south. In addition a fence or a wall is being considered with equestrian trails around the perimeter of the subject 'property. 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you hav~ developed as a concept plan for the property, including type and 10 location and types of '-~p~bliC~.~ faci] information ,~ development ~ ~ purchasers. Owing~.to~ the complexity and ~r~me~dOus~ .-': · .~°mprehenslve' setI, of en,inee~= ~,~ .... ~:-'~"~'an~ co~'~ :' ~xpens~ of ~-preparing a develo ment of ' -. ~ · ..... ~- ns~ruction:: la ' ' ~ :~.~'~".~no.t?knowzng ~'./whether th~ P ~!2:!~P~.~h9~' Wz~i' the. uncertaint'~- "~of cons~der~n t · . , .~ ~ ~. e ~-wx~l .be.~.~. .. ......... ~..-...::~..-.~.: ~_~. ~ · .g h?_current feces ~' ....... ~..~ .......... . . .~. granted -~and s&ona . s ~ - .......... · ,~t: be-econom' ~ . . ~ tat= of our ~o .......... '-:: .... ....... . ~call ¥ ................. ~ .... nom ~t wo -~ ~-~ · · g. g nted ~..the ro .~ ?.... , .... e . w~thout ... f~r -' , , , .... , · P posed..land~.use,~...: ' '- . ..... st . . proverbial ..- .......... It. bo~l . ~ .... ~ . Putt~n ........ s do~ to .... , .. . ...... g .the~. cart..-: ~-. ........... the d~ctates: that. · . .:L ....-~.~.before.... the:.~::.horse,,.i~/::~o~-~ :~::~-~... .... :~; us . .~ . _ f~r~t ~e must succeed:.~n ob ......... ~Yeu''?'' :-. s~nse :.~'.: ,e~and then we wrll 9i o ..... .' ". ta~.~ng-~the"proposed'lah :/' '- ' o~ re erin g rously pursue the technicaI c :' ' : - ,. d P P g a development nlan .~:'-.~: ..... -. . ~ omplexxtres r · ~ ~uae 'SUD]ecE property. .' :' 11 We ~ do ' .described property.: and have:legal right to request -. '".'~'FutUre Land Use: ~f '.-'Said p~oPertY.: and .we .Certify': ~ that the %legal?i~i : ::.}..-',: -. .: 'description's.~i~ submitted by us: represent the pr°per~y we wish ,.to-have~..::? ., :.... We U~ders'tand/that .we muS~::...be: pr~sen~.:.at the' ' -~ ~' {:-.. represent, r~ '~./~'~Orres 12 A~ENDA REVUES? DATE: March 17, 1992 REGULAR: 3/24/92 REQUEST PRESENTATION: SPECIAL: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: XXXXXX SESSION: I'TEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: CO]4]4UNITY DEVELOPI~ENT - P~n~qlNG Consider Draft Resolution 92-057 authorizing the transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the petition of Brian L. and Ka~hleen E. Charboneau, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). Location: West side of Gentile Road, 1/4 mile north of SR 70 (Okeechobee Road) - Ft. Pierce. RECOMMENDATION: Deny Resolution 92-057. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AM~ENDMENT IS REQUIRED) PRESENTED BY: CONCURRENCE: CHISHOLM ADMINISTRATOR (AGENDA22 ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,ACTION DATE: 3/24/92 DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Approved as amended for a change /~ ~ to RE (Residential Estate) f///James/3' TO: ~ u/ County AdministratorV' Chisholm Please proceed,.as approved by the Board. AGENDA - BOARD OFf,COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MARCH 24, 1992 9:00 A.M. Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70). If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying request. Written comments received in hearing will also be considered. during a hearing upon advance of the public Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners on March 9, 1992. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on March 16, 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN FILE NO. PA-92-002 PARCEL ID: 23 22 320 0000 000/7 94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXdEPTING R/W FOR CANAL, ~I~D THAT PAR OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~-~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NL¥ ON SD W R/W 779..2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH W ALG S R/W OF CANAL 570 PT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 33,1 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/6 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39. THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/WAND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK LNG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823,62 FT TO W R/~ LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI ~ SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF 1/4, BEING MORE ~ARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FDLLOWS: FRO~-.~E~N~ COR OF NW !/4 Q~_~E 1~4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W L] POB; TH RUN NELY 7~ CALCULATES 824.81 FT; TH RUN SWLY CALCULATES 825.93 OF NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO .00 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS Li ; TH RUN SLY'ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI ); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- 388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24' ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION:: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN'SEc 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTII UNRECORDED PLAT IN 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 70!1 000'4 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION~ FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN 'SEc 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) · PARCEL ID: 23 22 7011 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION~i FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 7Q!l 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES - LEGAL DESCRIPTION~i FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5., & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2~07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION~i FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN sEc 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 7Q. 1 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION~ FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN .SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) 'PARCEL ID: 23 22 7C 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PI_~T IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-~ 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-13831 PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE,S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN ~SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 5Q FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS March 9, 1992 COMMUNITY DeVeLOPMeNT ADMINISTRATOR TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau have petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See LeDal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on this petition at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, March 24, 1992 in St. Lucie County Commission Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of' County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898 and then ask for extension 1593. ' Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,~T. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA HAVERT L.'Jlr~k District N<~ ~ · JUD~a~L~E~p~ District No 2 · JACK KRI£n~n n .......... .F/.~.L. ~E..~O ..~ P~A- 92 - 002 Coun'~y Adrninistro,;~'"' "J,~".'~H~s~L~M ..... r~FELNI:i~,, ~istrict No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District ,o. 5 Administrator (407' 4~°2'3~O"O"Velr~ginia .Av. enue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 / oo-'~o¥u ~rowtl~ Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 ~ Property Acqu~sj'ti_o~ns: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-157t . h ~ PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEC'~ DESCRIPTION: 'FT. PIERCE TR~'-:'~IAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UN~ ,DRDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 ~ ~ 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT t (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000~5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39.. BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062-~00/9 8.24 ACRES - ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- &~N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT 0 Z 0 CHARBONEAU NOTICE OF' CHANGE IN AND USE C~.unt~ Comm~s~cne¢s o¢¢ Tuesd~.y, Ma¢gh 24, ~)2. ~,t 9:00 A.M. i~ the r~ommend:~t,orm of th~ St, Luc~ Ooun~ L~a~ Planrfing .Agency and determJn(: quir~men~ of Ohaptdr 1~,31~ Fiurina avat~:b~e fi>r ~h¢¢~c:tlor~ in ~he Offi0e of O01~m~d~ DeveiopmerK, 23~ Vfrgmfa Ave- nue, FL PieFCe, Florida, during normal bUSif~ hour,. the hearing w(Li 8e nworn in. Any pa~y tg ~he pr~adh"~g wilt be gr~nted an oppodu- ~ity t~ cross ex3mm~ :zny ~ndividua~ ~a~ying during ~e hearing upon r~uest. ST. LUCRE ~L)~, FLORIDA BOARD O~ COU~ OOMMISSIONERS /Si JiM MIN1X, ~AIRMAN Sue Ethel Hayes ($how~ a~ "A" on map) ~m ~ PA-g2-001 '~ From RU ,'~,=,~ de,~.~ Urban) tO COM (Commerciai) for property located on [he n..,4 m side o~ ~dw;~rds Rogd ~f~ mite west of South 25th S~reet, ~rlan L, ~d Kathle¢~ E, Cha~b~neau ($how~ ~s "B" on map) PA-92-002 From AG-2,5 (Agriculture, ~ du/2,5 ,,.,,) ~o R~ (ResidentiAl Suburban, 2 dun zu~ for prcpe~y located o~ the west side of G~ntile Ro~d % mils no~h of Okeechobee Ro~d (SR 70). T.3 4."_',8] '! H_,_s ~s on maD) - PA-9~-001 RU Urban; to A Agenda Item: File Number: PA-92-002 ME MORAN DUM To: From: Date: Subject: Local Planning Agency Planning Director /~ March 4, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Ka%hleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: West side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road AG-2.5 (Agricultural - i du/2.5 acres) AG-2.5 (Agricultural - I du/2.5 acres) RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/acre) PARCEL SIZE: 163.92 acres PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: To convert into residential use. AG-2.5 (Agricultural - i du/2.5 ac) to the north, east and west. A small area of AG-1 (Agricultural - i du/ac) is located to the southeast of the petitioned property. SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5 ac) surrounds the majority of the petitioned property. A small area of RS (Residential Suburban) land use is located at the southeastern corner of the petitioned site. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The land uses surrounding this parcel are predominantly agriculture, with scattered single-family residences in this area. FIRE/ EMS PROTECTION: Station #11 (Shinn Road) is approximately 4 miles away. March 4, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 WATER/SEWER SERVICE: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) water and wastewater service lines are located approximately 1.5 miles east of this site. This property is not within the planned FPUA service area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: Gentile Road - Current Future 66 feet 130 feet SCHEDULED AREA IMPROVEMENTS: Gentile Road - None Okeechobee Road (SR 70) - None Ail roadways adjacent to the site currently operates at or above minimum Level of Service. TYPE CONCURRENC~ DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit COMMENTS: This application is for a change in the Future Land Use designation of a 164 acre parcel, lying west of Ft. Pierce, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). The petitioned property is specifically located on the west side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. The proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum permitted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre. This represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. The petitioners have not at this time filed for any accompanying change in zoning. However, if this amendment were approved, a change in zoning application could be filed at any time. In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, County Staff is required to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, March 4, 1992 Page 3 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 and Policies with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A review of this petition against these elements has resulted in the following analysis: Future Land Use Elemen% The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed the following Objectives from the Future Land Use Element, 1.1.2.; 1.1.5; 1.1.7, and 1.1.12. The petitioners filings have not adequately addressed the following Policies from the Future Land Use Element 1.1.2.4; 1.1.2.5; 1.1.4.2; 1.1.5.1; 1.1.5.6; 1.1.5.7; 1.1.5.10, and 1.1.12.1. The petitioner has included references within this application that the conversion of this property to a higher land use designation is warranted because of the presence of certain other development within the general vicinity. The petition cites as one of the adjacent properties enjoying a greater intensity of use, the "Pine Hollow" subdivision, located to the northwest of the petitioned property. While this development site does have development lots less than 2.5 acres in area, what is omitted from this citation is that this project was approved under the County's prior development regulations and is considered under the present comprehensive plan as a valid "nonconforming" use. That property carries with it certain vested development rights based on those approvals. The distinction between the petitioned property and the adjacent properties is that under the County's development regulations, the petitioned property does not have a claim to the same degree of vested rights. The arguments presented that the presence of these existing development sites is in itself sufficient grounds to amend the future Land Use Plan, needs additional elaboration on how such an action is consistent with the Polices of the Local Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan and the policies of the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, FS) relative to the expansion of urban expansion activities into productive agricultural areas. Traffic Circulation Elemen% The petitioners' filings have identified the recognition under the County's Comprehensive Plan of the need to maintain transportation levels of service in the 1-95/Fla Tpk/SR 70 interchange area,. The petitioned property is located about 2 March 4, 1992 Page 4 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 miles from this area. The present transportation network dictates that the vast majority of any development related traffic from this property will have to pass through this interchange area. The petition has failed to address how an increase of 250% in the development intensity of this property would not result in an impact upon this interchange or what mitigative steps would be necessary to address this impact. 3. Mass Transit Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Port and Aviation Element The proposed amendment has been determined generally not to conflict with this element. However, there is a private airstrip located to the south of the petitioned property. Consistent with Policy 4.1.2.1, any residential use of this property would have to account for the presence of this airstrip. 5. Housinq Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 6A. Infrastructure Element - Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6A.l.1, 6A.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer) 6A.l.l.1 and 6A.1.1.2 and 6A.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 6B. Infrastructure Element - Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be in conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 5 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 6C. Infrastructure Element - Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this sub-element. 6D. Infrastructure Element - Potable Water Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6D.l.1, 6D.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (potable water) 6D.l.l.1 and 6D.1.1.2 and 6D.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 7. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Conservation Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. The ultimate development of this property, regardless of land use intensity, shall be subject to conservation standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.8 and 8.1.10 of this Element. 9. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 6 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 ll. Capi%al Improvemen%s Element The petitioners' filings have consistency with the following Improvements Element 11.14.3(B). not adequately addressed Policies from the Capital Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use mapsof the County's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application as presented does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to how this change would effect the Plan as a whole. The petitioners contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west is not supported by the information which was provided. The petition does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to explain why the proposed change should be approved. It does not demonstrate how this change is consistent with not only local performance standards but also how the amendment is consistent with State and regional policy regarding the extension of urban densities into agriculturally used areas. The petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. What is proposed for these properties? When reviewing a_petition for modification of land use, the burden or responsibility for demonstrating that sufficient changes have occurred within a given area is that of the petitioner. It is the documentation that quantifiable changes have occurred in a given area that are to be the basis for the granting of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The petition, as filed, does not adequately address this need. As pointed out previously, this property is not contiguous to the Urban Service Area boundary and this petition does not include any proposed expansion of it. If this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the Future Land Use Maps, is to have all of the property designated for urban use confined within the Urban Service Area boundary, which this petition would seek to contravene. March 4, 1992 Page 7 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Based upon the above, staff recommends that this Board forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and that this petition for amendment not be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for review. Attachment DJM/LNS/me PA92002(d) County Attorney Brian & Kathleen Charboneau Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in Future Land Use MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN). MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) BECAUSE... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] AGENDA - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY MARCH 12, 1992 7:00 P.M. Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70). Please note that all proceedin§s before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners February 26, 1992. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on February 24, 1992 and March 4, 1992. File No. PA-92-002 PA ~ZL ID: 23 22 310 0000 000/7 9~ ~ ACRES LE~L DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF S~-~?i/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT ~ COR OF SD ~ 1/4 OF SE 1/4; T~ RUN s 4s ~ ~o s ~/~ o~ c~, ~ CON~ s ~2~ ~ ~0 ~ C/~ o~ ~XZS~Z~G ROAD, TH NELY ~G C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF C~, TH W ~G S R/W OF C~ 570 ~T TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL-ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/40F'SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/WAND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS F/1LLO~S: FROM .THE NW COR OF NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI OF NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH RUN NELY 767.00 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI- CALCULATES 824.81 FT); TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- 388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS. 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) ..PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL 'ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PAlataL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4, .52~ACRES LEk DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TRCI'"~.AL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 ~.~ 5~ (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948 PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428- 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE'S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 AcREs LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT 0 0 0 0 F CHARBONEAU ZONING DIFP, ANCESCO KAUFMAN ///~ TERRAIN [~-r Il-ION WILLIAMS CANAL ~49 L.LI I~I NGAN OLC [NC WILLIAMS SCHASANE OF BRIAN & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU LAND USE KAUFMAN D!FRANCESCO TERRAIN PETITION WILLIAMS CANAL #49 WILLIAMS OF BRIAN & KATHLEEN SCI.IAS,aNE EIN ILl OLC INC I ESPOSITO CHARBONEAU TO: FROM: DATE: RE: M~MO~D~ 92-24 Director of Engineering Property Acquisition Director~ March 4, 1992 Gentile Road/FFA Road Extension PA-92,002/Charboneau, Brian L. & Kathleen E. Attached you will find the following on the above mentioned project: Review Record Report Form The right-of-way needs determination is needed in our office by March 5, 1992 for submission to Planning and Zoning for their deadline of March 6, 1992. The existing right-of-way for Gentile Road is 66', which leads to Okeechobee Road to the South. FFA Road Extension lies West of the property with a 100' existing right-of-way. The following roads are private roads: South Canal Street - 50' Poinsettia Street Hibiscus Street Flamingo Drive Palm Avenue Citrus Avenue Central Avenue - 50' - 50' - 40' - 30' - 50' - 30' Attachment JM/BV/gk cc: Development Administrator Planning and Zoning Development Review Committee Agenda Item: File Number: PA-92-002 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Local Planning Agency Planning Director March 4, 1992 Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau, by Agent Terry Torres, For a Change in Future Land Use Designation From AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). LOCATION: West side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road EXISTING ZONING: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) EXISTING-LAND USE DESIGNATION: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/acre) PARCEL SIZE: 163.92 acres PROPOSED USE: To convert into residential use. SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 ac) to the north, east and west. A small area of AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) is located to the southeast of the petitioned property. SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5 ac) surrounds the majority of the petitioned property. A small area of RS (Residential Suburban) land use is located at the southeastern corner of the petitioned site. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The land uses surrounding this parcel are predominantly agriculture, with scattered single-family residences in this area. FIRE/ EMS PROTECTION: Station ~11 (Shinn Road) is approximately 4 miles away. March 4, 1992 Page 2 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 WATER/SEWER SERVICE: Ft, Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) water and wastewater service lines are located approximately 1.5 miles east of this site. This property is not within the planned FPUA service area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: Gentile Road - Current Future 66 feet 130 feet SCHEDULED AREA IMPROVEMENTS: Gentile Road - None Okeechobee Road (SR 70) - None Ail roadways adjacent to the site currently operates at or above minimum Level of Service. TYPE CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit COMMENTS: This application is for a change in the Future Land Use designation of a 164 acre parcel, lying west of Ft. PierCe, from AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 2.5) to RS (Residential Suburban). The petitioned property is specifically located on the west side of Gentile Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The Urban Service Area Boundary, as established by Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, lies an average distance of 1,000 feet to the east, and is not contiguous to any of the petitioned property. The proposed change in Land Use would increase the maximum permitted residential density from 1 dwelling unit for every 2.5 acres to 2 dwelling units for every one acre. This represents a 250% increase in the potential development density on this site. The petitioners have not at this time filed for any accompanying change in zoning. However, if this amendment were approved, a change in zoning application could be filed at any time. In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, County Staff is required to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, March 4, 1992 Page 3 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathteen File No.: PA-92-002 and Policies with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A review of this petition against these elements has resulted in the following analysis: me Future Land Use Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed the following Objectives from the Future Land Use Element, 1.1.2.; 1.1.5; 1.1.7, and 1.1.12. The petitioners filings have not adequately addressed the following Policies from the Future Land Use Element 1.1.2.4; 1.1.2.5; 1.1.4.2; 1.1.5.1; 1.1.5.6; 1.1.5.7; 1.1.5.10, and 1.1.12.1. The petitioner has included references within this application that the conversion of this property to a higher land use designation is warranted because of the presence of certain other development within the general vicinity. The petition cites as one of the adjacent properties enjoying a greater intensity of use, the "Pine Hollow" subdivision, located to the northwest of the petitioned property. While this development site does have development lots less than 2.5 acres in area, what is omitted from this citation is that this project was approved under the County's prior development regulations and is considered under the present comprehensive plan as a valid "nonconforming" use. That property carries with it certain vested development rights based on those approvals. The distinction between the petitioned property and the adjacent properties is that under the County's development regulations, the petitioned property does not have a claim to the same degree of vested rights. The arguments presented that the presence of these existing development sites is in itself sufficient grounds to amend the future Land Use Plan, needs additional elaboration on how such an action is consistent with the Polices of the Local Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan and the policies of the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, FS) relative to the expansion of urban expansion activities into productive agricultural areas. Traffic Circulation Element The petitioners' filings have identified the recognition under the County's Comprehensive Plan of the need to maintain transportation levels of service in the 1-95/Fla Tpk/SR 70 interchange area. The petitioned property is located about 2 March 4, 1992 Page 4 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 miles from this area. The present transportation network dictates that the vast majority of any development related traffic from this property will have to pass through this ~nterchange area. The petition has failed to address how an increase of 250% in the development intensity of this property would not result in an impact upon this interchange or what mitigative steps would be necessary to address this impact. 3. Mass Transit Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Port and Aviation Element The proposed amendment has been determined generally not to conflict with this element. However, there is a private airstrip located to the-south of the petitioned property. Consistent with Policy 4.1.2.1, any residential use of this property would have to account for the presence of this airstrip. 5. Housinq Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 6A. Infrastructure Element - S~nitaz7 Sewer Sub-Elemen~ The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6A.l.1, 6A.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (Sanitary Sewer) 6A.l.l.1 and 6A.1.1.2 and 6A.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application° 6B. Infrastructure El-~ent - Solid Waste Sub-Elemen~ The proposed amendment has been determined to be in conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 5 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 6C. Infrastructure Element - Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this sub-element. Infrastructure Element - Potable Water Sub-Element The petitioners' filings have not adequately addressed consistency with the following Objectives 6D.l.1, 6D.1.5, and the following Polices from the Infrastructure Element (potable water) '6D.l.l.1 and 6D.1.1.2 and 6D.1.2.1. The petitioned property is located outside of the recognized Urban Service Area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) and no evidence has been submitted supporting the assertion that the FPUA will extend its service lines to this property as indicated in the application. 7. coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. Conservation Elemene The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. The ultimate development of this property, regardless of land use intensity, shall be subject to conservation standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.8 and 8.1.10 of this Element.. 9. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. 10. Intergovernmental Coord{-ation Elemen~ The proposed amendment has been determined to not conflict with this element. March 4, 1992 Page 6 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 11. Capital Improvements Element The petitioners, filings have consistency with the following Improvements Element 11.14.3(B). not adequately addressed Policies from the Capital Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the application as presented does not adequately address the Objectives and Policies of this plan in regard to how this change would effect the Plan as a whole. The petitioners contention that the division of land use categories as presently depicted is unreasonable given uses to the west is not supported by the information Which was provided. The petition does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to explain why the proposed change should be approved. It does not demonstrate how this change is consistent with not ~nly local performance standards but also how the amendment is consistent with State and regional policy regarding the extension of urban densities into agriculturally used areas. The petitioner has also failed to adequately address the status of the 22 outlots or enclaves that are surrounded by the petitioned property. What is proposed for these properties? When reviewing a petition for modification of land use, the burden or responsibility for demonstrating that sufficient changes have occurred within a given area is that of the petitioner. It is the documentation that quantifiable changes have occurred in a given area that are to be the basis for the granting of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The petition, as filed, does not adequately address this need. As pointed out previously, this property is not contiguous to the Urban Service Area boundary and this petition does not include any proposed expansion of it. If this property were to receive the requested land use change, it would result in the establishment of an enclave of urban intensity land use, virtually surrounded by agricultural land use. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the Future Land Use Maps, is to have all of the property designated for urban use confined within the Urban Service Area boundary, which this petition would seek to contravene. March 4, 1992 Page 7 Petition: Charboneau, Brian & Kathleen File No.: PA-92-002 Based upon the above, staff recommends that this Board forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and that this petition for amendment not be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for review. Attachment DJM/LNS/me PA92002(d) cc: County Attorney Brian & Kathleen Charboneau Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in Future Land Use MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN). ~OTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN L. AND KATHLEEN E. CHARBONEAU FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG-2.5 (AGRICULTURAL - 2.5) TO RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) BECAUSE... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] AGENDA - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY MARCH 12, 1992 7:00 P.M. Petition of Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On- west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70). Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individual~.~testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a_hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners February 26, 1992. Legal notice was published~ in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulatio~ in St. Lucie County, on February 24, 1992 and March 4, 1992. File No. PA-92-002 Le,' l Descriptions: PA.~..]L ID: 23 22 310 0000 000/7 94~.-~ ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR CANAL, ~'~THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~--~FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH W ALG S R/W OF CANAL 570 ~T TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/40F'SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FDLLQ~S:_.FROM THE .NW_~C~OR OF _NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI OF NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CON~ S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH RUN NELY 767.00 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI' CALCULATES 824.81 FT); TH RUN SLY'ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93-FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 388)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC). (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3r4,5,6,7,8 9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) , PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7' 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 428-1961)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR wPARCEL ~D: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES O EC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PA~L ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 r~ ACRES LE( DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TRO~ .AL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428- 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044~ 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES ~E~CCO ~CpR~IiONN:S FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN R EC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS t & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE.S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED P~AT I~N SEC~22-35-39_ BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062-~00/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT~LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S FT300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 © ~> o~_ CHARBONEAU -~ ZONING TERRAIN PETiTiON WILLIAMS WtLLIA~kS OF BR~[AN WILLIAMS & KATHLEEN LLI NGAN · OLC INC ESPOSITO CHARBONEAU LAND USE TERRAIN DEV. D_ ?ETITION V~IFLLI AW~S WILLIAMS OF BRIAN LLI NG,NN OLC INC t ESPOSITO & KATHLEEN CHARBONEAU December 26, 1991 ST. LUCIE COUNTY ' APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Applicant's Name: Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau Applicant,s Address: 2789 Gentile Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945-9518 Applicant's Phone Number: 407-461-6844 We do hereby petition the St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Commission and the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to change the future land use classification of the following property: Legal Descriptions: PARCEL ID: 23 22 310 0000 000~7~-~94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39/NW !/~/OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR CANAL, ~--~ THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD./~> FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH W ALG S R/W OF CANAL 570 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL1/4 (4.96 DESCRIPTION: AC) (OR 433-110) 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL1/4 (4.95 DESCRIPTION: AC) (OR 433-110) 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID~ 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CD~AL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431-0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK LNG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THA~ PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NW COR OF NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI OF NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH RUN NELY 767.00 PT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI CALCULATES 824.81 PT); TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1 20 AC) (OR 434- 388) ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT~ PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,~,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6 7,8 9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) ' ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5 & 8 (2 11 AC) (OR 428-1961) ' ' ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3 6 & 7 (2 07 AC) (OR 434-1383) ' ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT, PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428- 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4 5 & 6 (2 09 AC) (OR 434-1383) · - PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 PT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & Our reason for making this request is: that substantial changes have occurred within the general area since the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for St. Lucie County warranting the requested land use designation; that when the "Plan" was adopted the lines indicating the RS boundaries within the Okeechobee Road Area west of the Florida Turnpike were in fact arbitrarily designated and do not represent a pattern of good or logical urban planning relative to the surrounding land use designations and the dynamics of the area. 3 Agent authorized bY Applicant to represent the Applicant: Name: Terry T. Torres Address: P.O. Box 3808 Vero Beach, Florida 32964 Phone Number: 407-231-7977 Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. QUESTIONS 1. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? Yes. The subject property is surrounded by properties on the East, South, West, and on the North in an area South of Orange Avenue and West of the Turnpike, all of which enjoy land use designations of RS or greater intensity. Additionally there are properties in Pine Hollow Subdivision and Ft. Pierce Gardens Subdivision to the Northwest and contiguous with the subject property which are currently non-conforming with the "Plan", but contain one acre homesites and are approved to be developed as one acre homesites. "The Residential Suburban (RS) land use category is intended to act as a transitional area between the agricultural areas and the more intense residential areas in the eastern portion of the County" per Chapter 1-48 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. 2. What conditions affecting the future land use designation have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. There have been significant chanqes in the area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted on January 9, 1990. The area along the Okeechobee Road between 1-95 and the Turnpike has been the hottest and most active commercial/industrial- area in the entire Treasure Coast. The growth within this area has been truly phenomenal and development is continuing at a rapid pace. Improvements on Okeechobee Road and Virginia Avenue east of 1-95 have been underway for two years and are nearing completion. The turnpike overpass on Okeechobee Road was completely rebuilt 4 over the last two years and is now completed. Utilities have been expanded a~d improved to accommodate the Reynolds Metals DeVelopment PNRD, the Commerce Square Development, and development on Peter's Road which includes the Cracker Barrel Restaurant and the Newly built Motel Six. The Russell Manufacturers Outlet Mall, which anchors the commercialdevelopment in the node, is the most profitable mall in terms of dollar volume per square foot on the Treasure Coast. The development boom on Okeechobee Road also includes a Shoney's Restaurant, a Day's Inn Motel, a Taco Bell, a new Chevron Station, a Miami Sub Shop, with a Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Perkins Restaurant currently under construction anda Miniature Golf Course scheduled in the near future. This dynamic area has significantly altered and shifted the groWth patterns in St. Lucie County with much infrastructure going into the area to accommodate the existing and proposed growth. The "Plan", in Chapter 1-6, specifically addresses "The emergence of the 1-95/Florida Turnpike Corridor as a major force in future development consideration" This area has been designated as a proposed area of special interest (Chap. 2-21), one of only two pOints in the state where the Turnpike and 1-95 meet with adjacent access points. The "Thoroughfare Network Right-of-Way Protection Map" (Fig. 2-8, Chap. 2-41) depicts a 120 foot right-of-way from Glades Cutoff, across Okeechobee Road, north along F.F.A. Road to Picos Road. This would be a logical boundary between the AG-2.5 land use and the RS land use. One of the objectives of the "Plan" is to concentrate effective use of infrastructure in order to employ the economy of dollars and to discourage suburban sprawl. The development continues along the node and all of this has occurred in the throes of the worse recession we have had in the last two decades. Good urban planning dictates residential development and growth in close proximity to the required commercial, industrial and recreational service areas. ' Public facilities, including the roads all appear to be above the mlnimum level of service (LOS) standards adopted by the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. More improvements are planned for Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike. 3. Where are the nearest public or investor-owned water and sewer services? Who is the service provider? IS the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? If private facilities are proposed, describe.the capacity and type of water and wastewater services to be provided. The nearest public water and sewer services are located at the Holiday Inn just east of the Turnpike and are under the jurisdiction of Ft. Pierce Utilities. The Turnpike has been designated as the division line between the service areas, with Ft. Pierce Utilities servicing the area to the east and St. Luci~ County Utilities servicing the area to the west. Harry Schindehette, the Director of Ft. Pierce Utilities, has advised 5 that Ft. Pierce Utilities has the capacity to service the subject property with water from an existing 12" water main and a sewer forced main could be extended and a lift station added to provide sewer services to the subject property. At present the County has no facilities within the area. No private facilities are proposed. 4. If a change to industrial land use is proposed, explain how water and wastewater systems meet proposed Policies 1.1.5.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan (found in Exhibit B of Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and dated August 28, 1990.) No change to industrial use is proposed. 5. What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what general approach to stormwater management would you anticipate if the requested land use change is granted? What effects would the requested land use change have on the volume and quality of runoff? The subject property has an average elevation of 22 feet and is located entirely within the North St. Lucie River Water Management District. It is bounded on the North by Canal #49 and on the South by Canal #50. These canals are maintained by the district and drainage is to the East within these canals. Subject property is generally higher than the properties which lie to the south of Okeechobee Road along the drainage for Ten Mile Creek. The natural drainage and fall of the land is toward the South and Ten Mile Creek. The Florida State Turnpike Authority has a large retention area in the Southeast corner of the intersection of the Turnpike and Okeechobee Road. If the requested land use change is granted a multi faceted approach to storm water management would be employed. This might include but would not be limited to generous green space with on site landscaped retention areas, Miami curb and gutter, on the street right-of-ways in conjunction with exfiltration trenches equipped with storm grates, gentle swale areas along rear property lines to direct and allow the first inch of stormwater to be retained on site, and a plan that would facilitate any proposed future connection to a public or private storm sewer system. All applicable requirements of St. Lucie County'and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be satisfied. Considering the proposals outlined above, the requested land use change would undoubtedly have a positive effect on the volume and quality of runoff by significantly reducing the volume which is currently being disposed of within Canal #49 and Canal #50 and eventually on to the North Fork of the St.~Lucie River collectively known as the North Fork Basin (Chapter 6-C-10 and 6-C-12 of the "Plan"). Currently the runoff is of poor quality due to the tremendous volume of herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, an~ other strong and perhaps toxic agents associated with the current agricultural use. Needless to say the quality of the runoff would 6 be greatly enhanced by the requested change. 6. Provide a projection of the average daily volumes of solid waste that would be generated if the land use changes. If RS land use were adopted at a density of one unit per acre the subject property could be developed into a subdivision of approximately 160 single family home sites. Although not required under the current plan, if at all practical this subdivision would be serviced with central utilities. The average daily volume of solid waste generated by the proposed land use change is based on 62 pounds per week per single family unit according to data provided by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Solid Waste Department. 160 DU's X 62 LBS/WK / 7 DAYS/WK =1417 LBS/DAY 7. What demands for recreational facilities will be created by development in accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? The proposed land use change would not create any significant demand for recreational facilities. One conceptual idea for the development of this property includes the concept of ~a common stable area for horses and the incorporation of equestrian trails throughout the community as a common recreational facility. Additionally there would be ample green space, lakes, and the estate size lots would provide sufficient space for families to recreate in privately owned swimming pools and children's play areas. In addition to our beautiful beaches, magnificent lagoon, and excellent fishing areas, subject property has easy access to the beautifu~!~ North Fork of the St. Lucie River from the County Park located on Midway Road, convenient access to Indian River Community College and the excellent recreational facilities located there, access to the County recreational complex on Virginia Avenue, and access to all of the private shopping, dining, movies, and miniature golf facilities which are conveniently located along the Okeechobee Road corridor just to the east of the subject property. Table 9-5 & 9-6 of the "Plan" establishes desired outdoor recreation standards and includes a level of service standard which would require .35 acres_of neighborhood park and 1.95 acres of community park. This is based on a population of 2.44 people per single family unit and a total projected population of 390 people. 8. Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Boundary? No 9. If you answered ,no" to question 7 above, will the property be used for "urban development activities" as defined in Policy 1.1.4.1 (proposed Policy 1.1.5.1)? Check which urban development activities apply: residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity None of the above apply. 10. If any item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: A. Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? A. The subject property is contiguous to Residential Suburban Land Use Classifications to the south and to non-conforming single family development at a density of one unit per acre to the west. B. Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided? If so, please provide documentation. B. Yes, Ft. Pierce Utilities has advised that they have sufficient capacity to service the subject property. All other required infrastructure is in place and meets the required level of service standards. See response to questions 3,5, and 7. C. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? C. The proposed expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary will have no detrimental effect on the estab~lished character of the area. The "Plan" has intended that the Urban Service Area Boundary be a dynamic boundary with the flexibility to change and expand. (Policy 1.1.4.3 and 1.1.5.7) The subject property is located within 650 feet of the existing Urban Service Area Boundary. 11. If changing from an agricultural category (AG-2.5 and AG-5) to a non-agricultUral category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions? A. How is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? A. Compatibility with adjacent properties would be enhanced by the proposed use. To the west and contiguous to the subject property is the Pine Hollow Subdivision which is a single family subdivision featuring lots of approximately one acre. Unit one has been completed and the remaining phases of the subdivision have been approved by the County and are awaiting development. The east boundary of the subject property fronts on Gentile Road which is proposed to become a major North South reliever Route. East and West of Gentile Road and on the North side of Okeechobee Road is a triangular shaped parcel of land which lies contiguous with the subject property and currently has a land use designation of RS. Contiguous with this parcel is the Timberland Campground a commercial RV park which includes a convenience store, with all of the property to the north and east of the campground and bound by Okeechobee Road on the South and the Turnpike on the east having a land use of RS or MXD. This includes the residential subdivision of Hidden Pines Estates, which contains lots of approximately one acre in size. The property to the north of the subject property is owned by the Coca Cola Company and is currently in citrus. All of the property opposite the subject property located to the south of Okeechobee Road and fronting on Okeechobee Road has a land use designation of RS. It is clear that the proposed land use has compatibility with adjacent properties. B. How will remaining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non-agricultural uses you propose? B. The predominant remaining agricultural uses are the Coca Cola Minute Maid Company's grove lying to the North and contiguous to the subject property and the Harold & Ada Williams grove and airstrip lying contiguous to the subject property to the south and southwest. The Coca Cola grove and the William's Grove are segregated from the subject property by Canal #49 to the north and Canal #50 to the south. It is completely buffered from the William's grove to the south by a dense tree line, then the canal, and finally south of the canal an airstrip which is located on the William's property. Access to the subject property would be from Gentile Road so that the remaining agricultural uses would have no significant effect on proposed land use. C. Please provide documentation of the soil types and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey? C. According to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey, the soil types found on the subject parcel are of the Nettles-Ankona-Pepper, Wabasso-Winder, and Pineda-Wabasso-Riviera soil types. Generally speaking theseare nearly level, poorly drained soil types. Through the application of proper building practices these soils may be used for urban development purposes. (Chapter 1-26) D. Describe how the proposed land use designation is suitable, recognizing site-specific land characteristics? D. The subject property is quite suitable for the proposed land use due to the following site-specific land characteristics: The property is beautifully treed and blessed with natural foliage which will not only contribute significantly to the beauty of any proposed residential development but also will effectively buffer the subject property from the adjacent agricultural uses. It has excellent access to Okeechobee Road and yet because it does not front on Okeechobee Road it would provide a safer means of ingress and egress from Gentile Road. It is an environmentally safe site as it has never been farmed nor used for industrial proposes. It is site convenient to the Okeechobee Road commercial/industrial node, schools, and recreation areas, as well as the infrastructure which accompanies these developments. E. How does the proposed land use designation relate to other nearby development plans that are approved or now being formulated? E. The proposed land use designation is consistent with the proposed development of the remaining phases of the Pine Hollow Subdivision located to the west and is consistent with the conceptual plans for the development of the very large parcel owned by the Okeechobee Land Company, Inc. located on the southrside of Okeechobee Road. It is through this parcel that the proposed extension from the Palmer Expressway would pass connecting 1-95 with Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike and very likely terminating opposite Gentile Road. F. How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban development? F. Adjacent agricultural uses are and will be effectively buffered first by the natural site-specific land characteristics which include a dense tree line and Canal #49 to the north and Canal #50 to the south. In addition a fence or a wall is being considered with equestrian trails around the perimeter of the subject property. 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you hav~ developed as a concept plan for the property, including type and 10 size of the project, proposed roads and roadway improvements, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, development schedule, and proposed tenants or purchasers. Owing to the complexity and tremendous expense of preparing a comprehensive set of engineering and construction plans fOr the develOpment of the subject parcel together with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the proposed use will be granted and considering the current recessionarystate of our economy, it would not be economically prudent to pursue this avenue without first being granted the proposed land use. It boils down to the proverbial "Putting the cart before the horse". Common sense dictates that first we must succeed in obtaining the proposed land use and then we will vigorously pursue the technical complexities of preparing a development plan for the subject property. 11 We do hereby certify that we own in fee simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change in Future Land Use of said property and we certify that the legal descriptions submitted by us represent the property we wish to have reclassified. We understand that we must be present at the hearing or will be represe~nted by ~r agent, AGENT SIGNATURE Terry T. Torres. 12 ?c-c e .T F' ,arl ~: rrt i f [- ~", [-~ ,~ i F' ['i'l a f i n r, r-,. l "32: ~ 9 BOARD OF COUNTY D6V6LOPM6NT COMMISSION(ERS D i R6CTOR TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP F A X # (407) 468-1735 DATE: TO: FAX # ATTN- RE' TRANSMISSION COVER FORM NO. OF SENDER: PHONE: ~OMMENTS: HAVERT L FENN. District No I e JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRtEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER_ District No. 4 · JIM MINiX. District No. 5 County Administrator _ JAMES V_ CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zon ng: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 BOARD OF COUNTY D6V6LOPM6NT COMMISSION(ERS D i R6CTO R TERRY L VIRTA, AICP (407) 468-1735 DATE: TO: TRANSMISSION COVER FORM NO. OF PAGES BENT (INCL. COVER).: _ ~.~ HAVERT L FENN. District No. ~1 · JUDY CULP£PPER. District No_ 2 · JACK KRI[GER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX District No. County Administrator _ JAMES V_ CHISHOLM · 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Pl anning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1.553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE Ths St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners proposes to advertisement,change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this A public hearing on the proposal will be held before the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 24, 1992, at 9:00 A.M., in the County Commission Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building - Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to consider comments and recommendations of the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency and determine whether or not to transmit the proposed land use plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.~3184 Florida Statutes. Copies of the proposed amendment to the St. Lucie CounTy Comprehensive Plan are available for inspection in the Office of Community Development, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, during nOrmal business hours. Ail proceedings before ths Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon ~hich the appeal is to be ~based. At the request of any party to~ ths proceedings, individuals testifying during the heari~ will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be g anted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during the hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /S/ JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Sue Ethel Hayes (Shown as "A" on map) PA-92-O01 From RU (Residential, Urban) to COM (Commercial) fOr property located on the north side of Edwards Road 1/4 mile west of South 25th Street. Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau (Shown as "B" on map) PA-92-002 From AG,2.5 (Agriculture, I du/215 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for property located on the west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). Publish Date: March 16, 1992 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map i Desc '- PARCEL ID 22.310'~0000 000/7 94.78 ACRES LEGAL DES( tON: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF SW 1/4'~AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 EXdEPTING '-']~D THAT-----PART' OF NW-1/4 OF SE 1/4 R/W DESCRIBED AS AT ~ COR OF /4; TH RUN s S R/W S C/LOF RO~D~ TH NELY ~G C~L OF EX~ST~NG RO~D~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD~ TH NLY ON SD ~ R/W 779,2 FT~ TH W 273 FT~ TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF ~~ TH ~ ~G S R/W OF C~ 570 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SM 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL RJW AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SE~ LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE .PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS F/1LLO/~S:__FROM.~H~ NwiCOR 0F. NW ~/4._Q~ SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI ~0NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH RUN NELY 767 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI' CALCULATES 824,81 F T)i~ TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT)i; TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN S~ 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- 388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 ~0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN · UNRECORDED PLAT IN 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 .0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION. iFT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN ~EC 22-35-39 BLK I LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 000'4 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: liFT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEd 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: UNRECORDED PLAT IN SE( 428-1961) 000/7 2.11 ACRES PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 ~023 000/4 2 07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ]FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 9030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: i~T. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SE~ 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701f )34 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 'FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTAfES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4 5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT &~ W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682~FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY COMMISSION£RS DCV¢LOPMCNT ADMINIST TOR February 26, 1992 ~RRYL.~R~.AICP In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau have petitioned the Local Planning Agency to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from AG- 2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached. (Location: On west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70). The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 p M on ThUrsday, March 12, 1992, in Room 1 . ' ' Administration Buildin~ oann ..... 01, St. Lucie County Florida All i~+^~-~' ~ouu vzrglnma Avenue, Fork ne~rd at that time Ur.~nn~Z_LC%% u~ gzven an opportunity to · . . - itu .... u~.u~[~n~s r ' public hearing w~ll also be considered ece~ved zn advance of the Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person de~sion made by the Local Plannin~ A- dec~es to appeal any ma~ter considered at suu~ ...... meeting or ~nearingency w~n. respect to any of the proceedings, and tha~ ~-- _ g, he Will need a record · ~, ~u~ SUCh purpose, he may need to e~sure ~at a v~batzm record of the ro · . . reco~d includes the testlmon and . P cee~_ing~ ~s .made, which to ..... b~ based. Unon th .... ~qu~u~-~ of~v~dence U~On which the appeal ls lndzv&duals testifyin~ durin~ - ~ aQy party to the proceedin -art - -- - ~ ~ ~ nearmng will be · , g' ~mLf°_~e. p~oce~ing will be granted an o .... ~.~n ~n. Any ,,~ mny mnoividual testif,,~_ ~ .... _ ~u~unl~y ~o cross- 3~ uurzng a nearing upon request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1593 and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898 ask for extension 1593. , Sincerely, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION S~. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA J' - Te~peni~g,-~airman File No. PA-92-002 HAVEI%T L. FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5 County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407)468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407)468-15 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571 7~6 PORT ST. LUCIETELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Leqal Descriptions_~ ~ ~ ..... PARCEL ID: 23 22 3'1~ 0000 000/7 94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 ..... 35 39 N 1/2 OF SW 1/4 AND NE 1./4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR CANAL~ ~THAT- ~R~~ OF ~ ~/~ O~ S~ ~/~ ~SC~ ~S ~O~O~S: ~S ~ ~ CO~ O~ S~ ~ ~/~ O~ S~ ~/~ ~ ~UN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF C~, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO T~E C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ~G C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF C~AL, TH W ALG S R/W OF C~ 570 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES .LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0002 ~000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22~35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/WAND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 sEC LI 688.79 FT TO PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W Li OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI ~ PART OF NW 1/4 OF FDLLO~.S: FROM~ITHE NW 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI ( POB; TH RUN NELY 767. CALCULATES 824.81FT) SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ~0~ OF~ N~ 1/4 QR.~ 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S F NSLRWMD CANAL #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO t0 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI' TH RUN SLY'ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT ; TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 ~001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~T. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) 388) ONE-AN (OR 434- PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 02 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SE( 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~T. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 )04 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: · PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6 8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) ' ~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0~20 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC ~9 BLK 2 LOTS 3~4,5,6 7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) ' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC ~2-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428-1961) -~PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0Q23 000/4 2 07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: F~. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN .U~_R.E~C_O_R~D.ED PLAT IN SEC 22-S5-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 4~4-~383; PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) ~ ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 7C 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION:- FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNiT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES UNRECORDED1961) PLAT IN SEc 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428-' PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN 434-1383)UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATE.S-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC .... 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FiT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 323.93 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 713.93 FT & W 50 FT OF E 682 FT OF S 300 FT OF N 1063 FT NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE . '--: ....... , ........... .. ~nd ZoMn~ Commie,~on/L~c~l Pl~.~nin~ Agency ~,.~,,~,. the use o~ ~.~nd within the a?~ show~ in th~ map in this adve~i~ment. '"ct~- ~' ~ , ,... .,~ ~-,' . , , , , .vv~",[~.~i~O0m 10t ~ ~.. ~oun~? A~m m~tr~t.,.n Building, ~ V~rgrm~ Ay-anuS. Fl PieD~. Florida. The ~he p~o~ose¢ arnen~me.n~*--~ ,~..e F~O.., ~'rda, DeDe~ment ~ ~mmunff~ Affairs for fu~he¢ view'~no~r'~ the r~qu~r~men~' - of Ch'ap~? I~:31~, Florida $~tut~. P~erc~, Florida, Outing normal business hou~ -- ' any ma~er ~n-~ddred at [he healing, he will n~ed a rc~ord of the proceedings a~d that for suc;~ purpose, he may need to en~ure that a vat.tim teco~ of the Pr0Oeedin~ is made, ~hi~ ch. r~c~rd indludes the testfmonv, a~d evider~ce, upon which. ~he ap~eal is to be based. ST, L~C!E COg~, ~ORIDA ' :: LOCALP~NNINGAGEN~- l~ ~AMES P, ~EPENINO, ~HAiRMAN ,,--ro~ .~d (.'~.~n:ial, Urban) ~o ' , .c . . CO.~(Oommer~m0 ~ proPer~ lo~ated cn tf~,no~'h ~ide of Edwards RoAd ~ mit~ we~t of ~ou.t~ 8Sth 8treat -. Bria~ ~, and Kat,hleen E. Cha~orl~u (Shown as "~" Sn m~p} ' PA-92-002 ' ' ~ ,=;om AG-2.5 (Agriculture. I alu/2.5 ac) td RS (Residential Suburban. 2 dui ac) for prope~y {ocsted on [he west side of Gentile Road % ' 8TN36410t ,B..,CARD OF CO. COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY D6V£LOPM£NT COMMISSIONERS D IR6CTOR TERRY L. VIR1-A, AICP F A X # (407) 468-1735 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM ATTN: NO. OF PAGES SENT (INCL. COVER.) HAViERT t FENN. District No. I e JUDY CULPEPPER District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. zt · JIM MINIX, District No. 5 County Administrator JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginio Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zon ng: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORt, ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO_ (407) 878-4898 BOARD OF COUNTY D6V6LOPM6NT COMMISSiON£RS D ! R6CTO R TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP F A X # (407) 468-1735 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM DATE: TO: HAVEI~[ £ FENN D~srricr No 1 · JUDY CULt)El)PER. District Nc) 2 '~ JACK KRIFG£R. Dis~nc~ No .3 · iR. DALE TR£EELNEI~; District No. 4 e JIM MINIX D~smct NO .5 County Adm~ms~ra~ Dr -- JAMES V. CHISF,~OLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL ,34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 e Building: (407) 468-155,:3 e Plonning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT SI- LUCIE TELEPHONE NO (407) 878-4898 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning theAgency map proposes in this advertisement, to change the use of land within the area shown in A Public hearing on the proposal Will be held before the Plannin and Zoning.Commission/Local Planning Agency on Thursday, March 12 1992, at ~.0~ P.M., in Room 101, S~. Luci~ County Ad~inistra~io' Building, 23~0 ~irginia Avenue, ~t. · . n of this meetlnq is t '~ ' _ Pierce, Florida. an __ o ~onslder the ro . The purpose - d forward a recommendation to ~%s~ed ~and us? plan amendment ~= ~u. ~ucie County Board of county Commissioners. The BOard of County Commissioners WOuld then be requested to determine whether or not to forward the proposed amendment to the Florida Departmen further review under +~ ...... t of Communit Affair Statutes ~= ~qulrements of Chad ~ 1~ y ~ fO~ . _te~ -~3.3184, ~lorida Copies of the proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are available for inspection in the Office of Community Development, 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce Florida, during normal business hours. ', Ail proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. At the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during the hearing Will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during the hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY /S/ JAMES p. TERPENING, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Sue Ethel Hayes (Shown as "A PA-92-001 "on map) From RU (Residential, Urban) to COM (Commercial.) for property located on the north side of Edwards Road 1/4 mile west of South 25th Street. Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau (Shown as "B" on map) PA-92-002 From AG-2.5 (Agriculture, 1 du/2.5 ac) to RS (Residential Suburban, 2 du/ac) for property located on the west side of Gentile Road 1/4 mile north of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). Publish Date: February 24, 1992 March 4, 1992 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: County Engineer Planning Director Name:~ Attached is a petition for a. D~.~ scheduled for the ~~-~ ;~ J ; qq ~~~~'Planning andThiSzoningiS Co~ission meeting. ' ' - . . - Please notify me of the existing amount of right-of-way in this location and any additional right-of-way the County needs. The staff report will be completed and prepared for mailing ten days prior to the above scheduled meeting. NCM/ep WP/PZDOCS/ROW cc: Land Acquisition Director File 199I December 26, 1991 ST. LUCIE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN FUTUI~E LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Applicant's Name: Brian L. & Kathleen E. Charboneau Applicant's Address: 2789 Gentile Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945-9518 Applicant's Phone Number: 407-461-6844 We do hereby petition the St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Commission and the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to change the future land use classification of the following property: Legal Descriptions: PARCEL ID: 23 22 310 0000 00~94.78 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39/NW i_~L4/QF SW 1/4 AND NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, EXCEPTING R/W FOR CANAL, ~ND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT NW COR OF SD NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4; TH RUN S 48 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH CONT S 1254 FT TO THE C/L OF EXISTING ROAD, TH NELY ALG C/L OF EXISTING ROAD~ FT TO THE W R/W OF GENTILE RD, TH NLY ON SD W R/W 779.2 FT, TH W 273 FT, TH N 360 FT TO S R/W OF CANAL, TH W ALG S R/W OF CANAL 570 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 33t?~0001 000/9 4.96 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.96 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 331 0002 000/6 4.95 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.95 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 334 0001 000/8 4.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION{ 22 35 39 N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (4.94 AC) (OR 433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22.~3:~!~ 0002 000/5 4.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4- LESS S 49.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W (4.19 AC) (433-110) PARCEL ID: 23 22 431 0000 000/9 22.94 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 22 35 39 THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS THE S 42.5 FT FOR CANAL R/W AND BEG AT NW COR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, RUN N ALG 1/4 SEC LI 688.79 FT TO.PROJ C/L OF DIRT ROAD TO THE E, TH ON A BACK ANG OF 95 39'40" RUN ELY ALG C/L OF SD DIRT RD 823.62 FT TO W R/W LI OF GENTILE ROAD, TH RUN SLY ALG SD R/W LI 762.50 FT TO N LI OF THE SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TO POB AND THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NW COR OF NW 1/4 OR SE 1/4 OF SD SEC 22, RUN S 48.0 FT TO S R/W LI OF NSLRWMD CAN~ #49; TH CONT S 1227.0 FT TO POB; TH RUN NELY 767.00 FT TO THE W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD (THIS LI CALCULATES 824.81 FT); TH RUN SLY ALG W R/W LI OF GENTILE RD, 13.50 FT; TH RUN SWLY ALG C/L OF EXISTING RD, 767.00 FT (THIS LI CALCULATES 825.93 FT); TH RUN N, 27.00 FT TO POB. PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0001 000/4 1.20 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 1 & 7 (1.20 AC) (OR 434- 388) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0002 000/1 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 2 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0003 000/8 .24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOT 3 (0.24 AC) (OR 440-389) ~P~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0004 000/5 2.55 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 1 LOTS 4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 (2.55 AC) (OR 428-1961) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0020 000/3 3.16 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 2 LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 (3.16 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0022 000/7 2.11 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 1,4,5, & 8 (2.11 AC) (OR 428'1961) /PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0023 000/4 2.07 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 3 LOTS 2,3,6 & 7 (2.07 AC) (OR 434-1383) /PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0030 000/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 705-1797) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0034 000/4 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 4 LOT 5 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-387) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0038 000/2 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 1 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0039 000/9 1.04 ACRES ~EGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOTS 2 & 7 (1.04 AC) (OR 428- 1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0044 000/7 .52 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 5 LOT 8 (0.52 AC) (OR 434-1948) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0048 000/5 2.09 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 6 LOTS 3,4,5 & 6 (2.09 AC) (OR 434-1383) ~ARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0054 000/0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOTS 1 & 2 (OR 717-0956) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0056 000/4 .54 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 BLK 7 LOT 3 (0.54 AC) (OR 428-1961) PARCEL ID: 23 22 701 0062 000/9 8.24 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FT. PIERCE TROPICAL ESTATES-UNIT ONE-AN UNRECORDED PLAT IN SEC 22-35-39 E 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 40 FT & W 30 FT-LESS S 42.5 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 242.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 592.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & N 50 FT OF S 942.5 FT-LESS E 30 FT & LESS W 30 FT- & W 5~F~O~ E 682 FT OF S 323 FT OF N 363.93 FT & W 50 ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ FROM: AG-2.5 TO: RS ~_~ Our reason for making this request is: that substantial changes have occurred within the general area since the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for St. Lucie County warranting the requested land use designation; that when the "Plan" was adopted the lines indicating the RS boundaries within the Okeechobee Road Area west of the Florida Turnpike were in fact arbitrarily designated and do not represent a pattern of good or logical urban planning relative to the surrounding land use designations and the dynamics of the area. 3 COSMOS CONTRACTING CORP. P.O. BOX 1556 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 3345,4, December 26, 1991 Luis N. Serna St. Lucie County Community D~volopment 2300 Virginia AvenUe Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Luis: Enclosed is the Application for Change in Future Land Use Classification for the Brian L. and Kathleen E. Charboneau property located west of the Turnpike on the north side of Okeechobee Road. I trust you will find the application complete. Please advise me as agent for the owners of any additional requirements or clarifications. I sincerely hope you had a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for a prosperous New Year! Enclosures Agent authorized by Applicant to represent the Applicant: Name: Terry T. Torres Address: P.O. Box 3808 Veto Beach, Florida 32964 Phone Number: 407-231-7977 Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the · s of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use Provl~l?n . -~ .... ~ ~ou~h answers that ~efer to c!as~l~lcatl~n~- F±ease P~u%%U~e~'~r~ the ComprehensIve Plan specific policies and page w~henever possible. QUESTIONS il. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? 'es. The subject property is surrounded by properties on the East, .uth, West, and on ~he North in an area S~uth of Orange Avenue and ~t ~f the Turnpike, all of which enjoy land use designations of or greater intensity. Additionally there are properties in Pine tollow Subdivision and Ft. Pierce Gardens Subdivision to the Northwest and contiguous with the subject propert~ which are currently non-conforming with the "Plan", but contain one acre homesites and are approved to be developed as one acre homesites. "The Residential Suburban (RS) land use category is intended to act as a transitional area between the agricultural areas and the more intense residential areas in the eastern portion of the County" per Chapter 1-48 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. 2. What conditions affecting the future land use designation have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. There have been significant changes in the area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted on January 9, 1990. The area along the Okeechobee Road between 1-95 and the Turnpike has been the hottest and most active commercial/industrial area in the entire Treasure Coast. The growth within this area has been truly phenomenal and development is continuing at a rapid pace. Improvements on Okeechobee Road and Virginia Avenue east of 1-95 have been underway for two years and are nearing completion. The turnpike overpass on Okeechobee Road was completely rebuilt 4 over the last two years and is now completed. Utilities have been expanded and improved to accommodate the Reynolds Metals Development PNRD, the Commerce Square Development, and development on Peter's Road which includes the Cracker Barrel Restaurant and the Newly built Motel Six. The Russell Manufacturers Outlet Mall, which anchors the commercial development in the node, is the most profitable mall in terms of dollar volume per square foot on the Treasure Coast. The development boom on Okeechobee Road also includes a Shoney's Restaurant, a Day's Inn Motel, a Taco Bell, a new Chevron Station, a Miami Sub Shop, with a Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Perkins Restaurant currently under construction and a Miniature Golf Course scheduled in the near future. This dynamic area has significantly altered and shifted the growth patterns in St. Lucie County with much'infrastructuregoing into the area to accommodate the existing and proposed growth. The "Plan'", in Chapter 1-6, specifically addresses "The emergence of the 1-95/Florida Turnpike Corridor as a major force in future development consideration". This area has been designated as a proposed area of special interest (Chap. 2-21), one of only two points in the state where the Turnpike and 1-95 meet with adjacent access points. The .'Thoroughfare Network Right-of-Way Protection Map" (Fig. 2-8, Chap. 2-41) depicts a 120 foot right-of-way from Glades Cutoff, across Okeechobee Road, north along F.F.A. Road to Picos Road. This would be a logical boundary between the AG-2.5 land use and the RS land use. One of the objectives of the "Plan" is to concentrate effective use of infrastructure in order to employ the economy of dollars and to discourage suburban sprawl. The development continues along the node and all of this has occurred in the throes of the worse recession we have had in the last two decades. Good urban planning ~tates residential development and growth in close proximity to the ired commercial, industrial, and recreational service areas. Public facilities, including the roads all appear to be above the minimum level of service (LOS) standards adopted by the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. More improvements are planned for Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike. 3. Where are the nearest public or investor-owned water and sewer services? Who is the service provider? Is the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? If private facilities are proposed, describe the capacity and type of water and wastewater services to be provided. The nearest public water and sewer services are located at the Holiday Inn just east of the Turnpike and are under the jurisdiction of Ft. Pierce Utilities. The Turnpike has been designated as thee division line between the service areas, with Ft. Pierce Utilities servicing the area to the east and St. Lucie County Utilities servicing the area to the west. Harry Schindehette, the Director of Ft. Pierce Utilities, has advised 5 that Ft. Pierce Utilities has the capacity to service the subject property with water from an existing 12" water main and a sewer forced main could be extended and a lift station added to provide sewer services to the subject property. At present the County has no facilities within the area. No private facilities are proposed. 4. If a change to industrial land use is proposed, explain how water and wastewater systems meet proposed Policies 1.1.5.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan (found in Exhibit B of Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and dated August 28, 1990.) No change to industrial use is proposed. 5. What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what general approach to stormwater management would you anticipate if the requested land use change is granted? What effects would the requested land use change have on the volume and quality of runoff? The subject property has an average elevation of 22 feet and is located entirely within the North St. Lucie River Water Management District. It is bounded on the North by Canal #49 and on the South by Canal #50. These canals are maintained by the district and drainage is to the East within these canals. Subject property is generally higher than the properties which lie to the south of Okeechobee Road along the drainage for Ten Mile Creek. The natural drainage and fall of the land is toward the South and Ten Mile Creek. The Florida State Turnpike Authority has a large retention area in the Southeast corner of the intersection of the Turnpike and Okeechobee Road. If the requested land use change is granted a multi faceted approach to storm water management would be employed. This might include but would not be limited to generous green space with on site landscaped retention areas, Miami curb and gutter on the street right-of-ways in conjunction with exfiltration trenches equipped with storm grates, gentle swale areas along rear property lines to direct and allow the first inch of stormwater to be retained on site, and a plan that would facilitate any proposed future connection to a public or private storm sewer system. All applicable requirements of St. Lucie County and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would be satisfied. Considering the proposals outlined above, the requested land use change would undoubtedly have a positive effect on the volume and quality of runoff by significantly reducing the volume which is currently being disposed of within Canal 949 and Canal #50 and eventually on to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River collectively known as the North Fork Basin (Chapter 6-C-10 and 6-C-12 of the "Plan"). Currently the runoff is of poor quality due to the tremendous volume of herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and other strong and perhaps toxic agents associated with the current agricultural use. Needless to say the quality of the runoff would be greatly enhanced by the requested change. 6. Provide a projection of the average daily volumes of solid waste that would be generated if the land use changes. If RS land use were adopted at a density of one unit per acre the subject property could be developed into a subdivision of approximately 160 single family home sites. Although not required under the current plan, if at all practical this subdivision would be serviced with central utilities. The average daily volume of solid waste generated by the proposed land use change is based on 62 pounds per week per single family unit according to data provided by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Solid Waste Department. 160 DU's X 62 LBS/WK / 7 DAYS/WK =1417 LBS/DAY 7. What demands for recreational facilities will be created by development inaccordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? The proposed land use change would not create any significant demand for recreationaI facilities. One conceptual idea for the development of this property includes the concept of a common stable area for horses and the incorporation of equestrian trails throughout the community as a common recreational facility. Additionally there would be ample green space, lakes, and the estate size lots would provide sufficient space for families to recreate in privately owned swimming pools and children's play areas. In addition to our beautiful beaches, magnificent lagoon, and excellent fishing areas, subject property has easy access to the beautiful North Fork of the St. Lucie River from the County Park located on Midway Road, convenient access to Indian River Community College and the excellent recreational facilities located there, access to the County recreational complex on Virginia Avenue, and access to all of the private shopping, dining, movies, and miniature golf facilities which are conveniently located along the Okeechobee Road corridor just to the east of the subject property. Table 9-5 & 9-6 of the "Plan" establishes desired outdoor recreation standards and includes a level of service standard which would require .35 acres of neighborhood park and 1.95 acres of community park. This is based on a population of 2.44 people per single family unit and a total projected population of 390 people. 8. Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Boundary? No 7 9. If you answered "no" to question 7 above, will the property be used for "urban development activities" as defined in Policy 1.1.4.1 (proposed Policy 1.1.5.1)? Check which urban development activities apply: residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity None of the above apply. 10. If any item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: A. Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? A. The subject property is contiguous to Residential Suburban Land Use Classifications to the south and to non-conforming single family development at a density of one unit per acre to the west. B. Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided? If so, please provide documentation. B. Yes, Ft. Pierce Utilities has advised that they have sufficient capacity to service the subject property. All other required infrastructure is in place and meets the required level of service standards. See response to questions 3,5, and 7. C. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? C. The proposed expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary will have no detrimental effect on the established character of the area. The "Plan" has intended that the Urban Service Area Boundary be a dynamic boundary with the flexibility to change and expand. (Policy 1.1.4.3 and 1.1.5.7) The subject property is located within 650 feet of the existing Urban Service Area Boundary. 8 11. If changing from an agricultural category (AG-2.5 and AG-5) to a non-agricultural category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions? A. How is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? A. Compatibility with adjacent properties would be enhanced by the proposed use. To the west and contiguous to the subject property is the Pine Hollow Subdivision which is a single family subdivision featuring lots of approximately one acre. Unit one has been completed and the remaining phases of the subdivision have been approved by the County and are awaiting development. The east boundary of the subject property fronts on Gentile Road which is proposed to become a major North South reliever Route. East and West of Gentile Road and on the North side of Okeechobee Road is a triangular shaped parcel of land which lies contiguous with the subject property and currently has a land use designation of RS. Contiguous with this parcel is the Timberland Campground a commercial RV park which includes a convenience store, with all of the property to the north and east of the campground and bound by Okeechobee Road on the South and the Turnpike on the east having a land use of RS or MXD. This includes the residential subdivision of Hidden Pines Estates, which contains lots of approximately one acre in size. The property to the north of the subject property is owned by the Coca Cola Company and is currently in citrus. All of the property opposite the subject property located to the south of Okeechobee Road and fronting on Okeechobee Road has a land use designation of RS. It is clear that the proposed land use has compatibility with adjacent properties. B. How will remaining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non-agricultural uses you propose? B. The predominant remaining agricultural uses are the Coca Cola Minute Maid Company's grove lying to the North and contiguous to the subject property and the Harold & Ada Williams grove and airstrip lying contiguous to the subject property to the south and southwest. The Coca Cola grove and the William's Grove are segregated from the subject property by Canal 949 to the north and Canal ~50 to the south. It is completely buffered from the William's grove to the south by a dense tree line, then the canal, and finally south of the canal an airstrip which is located on the William's property. Access to the subject property would be from Gentile Road so that the remaining agricultural uses would have no significant effect on proposed land use. C. Please provide documentation of the soil types and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey? 9 C. According to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey, the soil types found on the subject parcel are of the Nettles-Ankona-Pepper, Wabasso-Winder, and Pineda-Wabasso-Riviera soil types. Generally speaking these are nearly level, poorly drained soil types. Through the application of proper building practices these soils may be used for urban development purposes. (Chapter 1-26) D. Describe how the proposed land use designation is suitable, recognizing site-specific land characteristics? D. The subject property is quite suitable for the proposed land use due to the following site-specific land characteristics: The property is beautifully treed and blessed with natural foliagewhich will not only contribute significantly to the beauty of any proposed residential development but also will effectively buffer the subject property from the adjacent agricultural uses. It has excellent access to Okeechobee Road and yet because it does not front on Okeechobee Road it would provide a safer means of ingress and egress from Gentile Road. It is an environmentally safe site as it has never been farmed nor used for industrial proposes. It is site convenient to the Okeechobee Road commercial/industrial node, schools, and recreation areas, as well as the infrastructure which accompanies these developments. E. How does the proposed land use designation relate to other nearby development plans that are approved or now being formulated? E. The proposed land use designation is consistent with the proposed development of the remaining phases of the Pine Hollow Subdivision located to the west and is consistent with the conceptual plans for the development of the very large parcel owned by the Okeechobee Land Company, Inc. located on the south side of Okeechobee Road. It is through this parcel that the proposed extension from the Palmer Expressway would pass connecting 1-95 with Okeechobee Road west of the Turnpike and very likely terminating opposite Gentile Road. F. How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban development? F. Adjacent agricultural uses are and will be effectively buffered first by the natural site-specific land characteristics which include a dense tree line and Canal 949 to the north and Canal #50 to the south. In addition a fence or a wall is being considered with equestrian trails around the perimeter of the subject property. 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you have developed as a concept plan for the property, including type and 10 size of the project, proposed roads and roadway improvements, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, development schedule, and proposed tenants or purchasers. Owing to the complexity and tremendous expense of preparing a comprehensive set of engineering and construction plans for the development of the subject parcel together with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the proposed use will be granted and considering thecurrent recessionary state of our economy, it would not be economically prudent to pursue this avenue without first being granted the proposed land use. It boils down to the proverbial Puttl g the cart before the horse" Common sense dictates that first we must succeed in obtaining the proposed land use and then we will vigorously pursue the technical complexities of preparing ~a development plan for the subject property. 11 We do hereby certify that we own in fee simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change in Future Land Use of said property and we certify that the legal descriptions submitted by us represent the property we wish to have reclassified. We understand that we must be present at the hearing or will be Terry T. Torres. AGENT SIGNATURE represe~nt!d~,~~bY ou~ agent, APPLICA~ ~GNATUR 12