HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment of Community ... (3) D OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONCRS
April 6, 1992
COMMUNITY
D VCLOPMCNT
ADMINISTRATOR
TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP
Mr. Robert Pennock, Chief
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Subject: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Amendment - Ft. Pierce Land Trust
Dear Mr. Pennock:
Pursuant to Rule 9J-Ii.011, FAC, enclosed you will find five
(5) copies of Ordinance 92-018 which adopted the following proposed
modification to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan:
Amendment Number
Petitioning Party
PA-91-004 Ft. Pierce Land Trust
In addition to the ordinance adopting this change in Land Use,
we have enclosed five (5) copies of the final staff report on this
matter addressing the issues raised in the Departments Objection,
Recommendation and Comment (ORC) report of January, 1992. There
were no additional changes to the amendment materials that were not
part of the original submittal to the Department for their review
(9J-11.011(3)(a)FAC).
There are no other findings other than those identified in
ordinance 92-018 (9J-11.011(3)(b)FAC).
There are no additional changes to the amendment other than
those previously reviewed by the Department (9J-11.011(3)(c)FAC)-
If there are any additional questions, please let us know.
Dev/~lopment Administrato
/
TLV/DJM/me
OR92-18A(e)
cc: County Administrator
County Attorney
Planning Director
Treasure Coast Regional Plan.
FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULPEPP£R. District No. 2 · JACK KRliEGER, 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) 468-1576
Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Corn pliance: (407) 468-1571
PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898
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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
:.~;~T'~:-"J;'. ..... .: FILE NO= PA-91- 004
~ O~IN~CE C~GING THE FUTU~ ~ USE DESIGNATION OF
THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMP~HENSI~ P~ FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE CO~TY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCX; AUTHORIZING ~ND~NTS TO THE
FUTU~ ~D USE ~S OF THE COMP~HENSIVE P~; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SERVILITY;
PROVIDING FOR ~PLIC~ILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH
THE FLORIDA DEP~NT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING
WITH THE DEP~NT OF COMITY ~FAIRS; PROVIDING FOR
~ EFFECTI~ DATE; ~D PROVIDING FOR ~OPTION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
e
Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston presented a
petition for a change in Land Use from RU (Residential Urban)
to RM (Residential Medium) for the property described in the
Part A below.
The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local
Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on
August 22, 1991, 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 sub'
property, and has recommended that the Board approve the
hereinafter described request for change in Land Use' from RU
(Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) for the
property described in Part A below.
On September 24, 199, this Board, through ResolUtion 91-183,
authorized the transmittal of this petition for further agency
review in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes.
On March 24, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the
petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Ft.
Pierce News Tribune and the Port St. Lucie News on March 16,
1992, and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500
feet of the subject property.
oRO 7 8 5 0 0,5
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
53
54
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED' 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:
The N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of'
Section 10, Township 36 South, Range 40 East, St. Lucie
County Florida, less rights-of-way for drainage canals
and public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres
of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 36 South, Range 40 East, less rights-of-way for
public roads and drainage canals.
ALONG WITH:
The South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4
of section t0, Township 36 south, Range 40 East, ALSO
described as the South 5 acres of the. SW 1/4 of the NE
1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said section 10, St. Lucie County,
Florida.
owned by Ft. Pierce Land. Trust, as Trustee, be and the same is
hereby changed from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential
Medium).
B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY i ~_.
This Board specifically determines that the approval of this
in the Land Use Element is internally consistent with the-policies
and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan, specifically Polices 11.1.3.6 and 11.1.3.7 of the Capital
Improvements element which identify this approval as a Preliminary
Development Order and provides 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 in the 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 th~ Florida Legislature applicable only to
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
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 holdin~ 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 Bureau of Laws, Department of State,
The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304.
H. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF coMMUNITY AFFAIRS
The County Attorney shall send a certified copy of this Ordinance
to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne Building, 2740
Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399.
I. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of official
acknowledgment from the Office of Secretary of State that this
Ordinance has been filed in that office.
J.ADOPTION
After motion and second, the vote on this Ordinance was as follows:
Chairman Jim Minix
Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger
AYE
AYE
7 8 5 0 0 7
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
Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE
Commissioner Havert L. Fenn AYE
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner ABSENT
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992.
- ATTEST:
. ,.',' - .
.:.. ~. , , ...... t..,/.%. .:3' . /.t /
.'-.<.~\ ,. '~ /.¢ ¢. :.. -
.-f%." ,,,:~~~,. , ~ .~... '.~f,/- ~_,..
Cji , ~.~ '. "'~ '
,/
?. '
OR92-018 (e)
DJM
SOURD OF cotmT~r
ST.
BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM/~ND
COm=qTN~S~ , / )
/ COUNTY ~TEY
oR~i
,.:, 5 ?AE2 0 0 8
COMMISSION REVIEW: MARCH 24, 1992
ORDINANCE NUMBER: 92 - 018
FILE NUMBER: PA-91-004
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date~
Subject:
County Commission
Development Administrator
March 18, 1992
Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael
Houston, t6Amend the Future Land Use Classification of
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU
(Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium)
On Tuesday, March 24, 1992, you will be requested to conduct
the final adoption review of the petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust
for an amendment to the Future Land Use Classification of the St.
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential Urban) to RM
(Residential Medium). The applicants are proposing this amendment
for a 9 acre parcel which is'located approximately 630 feet west of
South U.S. 1, about 1/4 mile north of Saeger Avenue. This
amendment would increase the maximum permitted residential density
on this property from 5 du/ac to 9 du/ac.
On September 10, 1991, this Board authorized the transmittal
of this proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for further review under the requirements of Chapter
163, Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on this amendment was
returned to St. Lucie County in .late January, 1992. In this
report, DCA raised only one objection relating to the potential
traffic impacts from this proposed amendment%' The objection notes
that South U.S. 1 is recognized in the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan as a backlogged facility with no {mprovements
scheduled at this time.
In response to this single objection, staff would point out
that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is considered a Preliminary
Development Order, as defined under Policy 11.1.3.7 of the County's-
Comprehensive Plan, and in Section 2.00.00 of the St. Lucie County
Land Development Code, and that no reservation of capacity will
result from the adoption of this amendment. In addition, any
development of the subject property to the maximum density
peimitted under the proposed future land use designation can only
be done after a chang~ in the property's zoning designation has
March 18, 1992
Page 2
Subject: Ft. Pierce Land ~rust
File Number: PA-91-004
been approved. A change in zoning is also considered to be a
Preliminary Development Order~ ..... carrying with it no specific
reservation or assurance of LOS capacity. It is at the time of
final site plan approval, which is a Final Development Order, that
the impacts of traffic from this project must be addressed, or that
a final development order will not be issued.
staff has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the ORC Report from the Department of Community Affairs, and we
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this
proposed amendment. Citing our original memorandum to the Board
regarding this petition, staff notes that this amendment will
further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan regarding increasing the availability of land suitable for
moderate income residential development, promoting the efficient
use of land through clustered and mixed use development, and
directing development away from coastal areas.
Attached is a copy of Ordinance #92-018, which would grant
approval to this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends approval of Ordinance #92-018.
If you have any questions on this matter, please let us know.
SUBMITTED. ·
D~ee~e~/~ieVn~A~dmini s t rat or
CONCURRENCE:
PA91004A(e)
cc: county Attorney
Commission Secretary
Michael ~ouston
Press/Public
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY
COMMISSION£RS De'V LOPM£NT
lViaroh 9, 1992 ADMINISTRATOR
TERRY L. VIRTA. AICP
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing 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 on the petition of Fort
Pierce Land Trust for a change in land use from RU (Residential
Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) for the following described
property: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles
north of Saeger Avenue)
The purpose of this meeting is to consider whether or not to adopt
the proposed land use amendment. 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/~lorida, 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 testifyingduring 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,
00ON
ix, ~ airman ~
FILE NO. PA-91-004
HAV[I~,T t. DIENN. Dislrict No. I · JUDY CULPEPPEI~,. District No. 2 '~ JACK KRIEGER. District No. ~3 · f~_ DALE ~REFEtNER. Disrnct Mo. 4 · JIM MtNIX. District No. 3
County Adr~inistrotor -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administrator: (407) 468-t S90 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Prope~y Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571
PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898
Legal Description:
The. N-1/2 of the_ SW 1/4 of ~'NE 1/4 of the_ SW //4 of Sectio~ 1~, ~wnshfp 36
South, Range 4~ East. St. Lucie County, Florida, less rights-of-way for drainage
canals and [m]blic roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres of t~e SW //4 of
the NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~. Townships'36 South, ~an~e 4~ East, less
rights-of--way for public roads am]drainage
~ South//2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE/14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Township
36 South, ~ 4~ East, ALSO descr~ as the South 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of
t~e NE 1/4 of the_ SW 1/4 of said Sectio~ 1~, St. Lucie County. Florida
! Midwa~ Road
'~! ! I
I
POftTST. LUCI~'
Site Location Map
r', )
661'
620'
VI CINITY MAP:
FT PIERCE LAND
TRUST
SAEGER AVENUE
EASY STREET
LAND USE
PE III ION
T
OF FORT PIFRCE LAND TRUST
T
ZONING
CHEZ NOUS GROVES CHEEZ NOUS GROVES HEMINWAY CORP PUOLIESE
7S -2
~ W/~T, IALANCIT
o~ ;~////~.~ ~ ,
~////~. ~ ~ & R ,~C
~ ~c~
_ L~, , I~--
~ EASY ST
PE ri FION OF FORT PIERCE
LAND TRUST
~C~Z~EL HOUSTON
:/o [~RBAN DESIGN SqUODIO
~00 E OCEAN 8LV
· ~CUART FL 34994
..31
~ NOUS GROVES INC
~) BOX 125
· Tr~ITER FL 33468
P~'"FRTY OWNERS IN PETITIONED AREa
FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST
C~R'f L. KORNF~D ESQ
1400 CENTREPARK 8LV
WEST PAL~ BEACH FL 33401
c/o 1ST AM~X~[CAN BANK #010527
PO BOX 3146
WEST PALM BEACH FL 33402
"A".6.7
2992 ~$ PASSAGE
PALM BEACH FL 33410
ANTHONY V PUGLIESEIII
2500MILITARYTRAIL
SUITE 200
BOCA RATON FL 33431
~OVE~ASSN INC
~00 S. FEDERAL HWY
T PIERCE FL 34982
1.12
& R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE CO INC
503 ~ ST
· PT~RCE-FL 34982
5.i6.17.22
tOS~AS & LOUISE DEAL
~RRRroL & JUDITH FRANKLIN
· ~FERY & DELAINE FORST
)O3 YORK CT
? PIERCE FL 34982
,TER LOUPE
~m. bVK LOUPE
39 TORTUCAS AY
PIERCE FL 34982
)8 OLEANDER AV
PIERCE FL 34982
5
PO BOX 152
LOWELL MA 01853
ROBERT KEATTNG-
NINA KEATIN~
BOBBY & ' SHEIi2Y' EGGERT
222- SMALIfNOOD AV
FT PIERCE FL 54982
18.20
FRANK & MARIE-LOUPE
384 GREEN~Ay TER
PORT ST LUCIE FL 34983
23.24
HAYSLIPLANDSCAPE
6147 $ US #1
FT PIERCE FL 34982
27
W£LLIA~& B~ITY FULLING
6404 OLEANDER AV
PT PIERCE FL 34982
8.9ft0'
GEORGE &.'LISELOTTE PETRIE
LISA ANNPETR~E
5989 S FEDERAL R~%~
FT PIERCE FL 34982
14
JERRY & ~ONNtE ASH
6070 S US #1
FT PI-ERCE FL 34982
19
HAROLD & CARRIE LOUPE
6009 S FEDERAL HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34982
25
PHILIP RODI
JACQUEL/NEBAL[X~IN
6406 OLEANDER AV
FT PIERCE FL 34982
RALPH & ELVIRA~UrA
6400 OLEANDER AV
FT PIERCE VL 34982
L B & FRANCES OWE2'4
[~O 13OX 3324
~T PIERCE FL 34948
HESLEY JOHNSON
6300 OLEANDER AY
FT PIERCE FL 34982
ROADS
~TATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT
]OHN ANDERSON FDOT
3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112
{AILBOX 122
CST PALM BEACH FL 33405
-~CllfOtt
~6~[ ~L~ ZDLEiId .Ecl
A~%5t~0 00f9
Of
BOARD OF COUNTY D6V LOPM6NT
COMMISSION£Rs D IR6CTOR
TERRY L ~IRTA. AICP
October 25. 1991
Fort Pierce Land Trust
Gary L. Kornfeld, Esq.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Dear Mr. Kornfeld:
This letter is to confirm that on September 10, 199t the'Board of
County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, approved the
transmittal of a proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan changing the future land use designation from RU
(Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium).
A copy of the recorded Resolution No. 91-183 is enclosed for your
information.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Havert L. Fenn, Chairman
HLF:ep
Enclosure
File No. PA-91-004
co:
Community Development Administrator
Land Development Manager
Planning Director
Michael Houston
File
IF[lIN. Ois~ric~ No. I e JUDY CULP~PPI~R. Oisrricr No., 2 e JACK.. KRIEGER. District No. 3 e R. OAL£ Tf~FELN£P,. Disrrio No. 4 e JIM MINIX. Oisrric~ No. 5
Coonry Adm, n~srroror -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2000 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 04982-5652
Director: (407) 468-1590 e Building: (407) 468-1.550 e Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning-. (407) 468-155.3 · Code IEnforcemenr: (407) 468~1571
PORT ST. LUCITE TEL£PHON£ NO. (407) 878-4898
Doc ^ss~ $ .S:. Lu.:ie County'
Doc la.~ $ ~/~ C,~ C~cu, Co~
J.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
RESOLUTION NO. 91-183
FILE NO.: PA-91-004
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. Ft. Pi erce Land Trus t, by Agent Mi chael Hous ton,
pres ented a peti ti on for a change i n Land Us e from RU
(Residential Urban) to RM (t(esidentiat Medium) for the property
described in the attached Exhibit A.
2. The S t. Luci e County P1 anning and Z oni ng
Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the
petition, on August 22, 1991, 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 approve the
hereinafter described request for change in Land Use from RU
(Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium).-
3. The propos ed amendment wi 11 pres erve the int ernal
consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section
163. 3177(2), Florida Statutes.
4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public hearin~
on the petition, after publishing notice- of such hearing in The
Tribune on August 30, 1991, and notifying by mail all owners of
property within 500 feet 'of the subject property, at which time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2t
official consideration of this
until September 24, 1991.
request to transmit was delayed
On September 24, 1991, this Board held a public hearing
on the petition to transmit the proposed plan amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board
Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida:
The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land
of County
use designation,- filed by Ft.
Houston, is hereby approved
Department of Community Affairs
163, Florida Statutes.
Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael
for transmittal to the Florida
for further review under Chapter
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as
f ol 1 ows:
Chairman Havert L. Fenn
Vice-Chairman Jim M[n]x
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
Commissioner 0ack Krieger
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this
ABSENT
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
ST. L. UCIE COUNTY,
COR~CTNESS: -
~, COUNTY AT~EY
'9~ o~r -3 P ~ :o7j
On~:P'u,_..;, ;':L L:!.<ON
COMMISSION REVIEW: September 10,
RESOLUTION NUMBER: 91 - 183
MEMORANDUM
1991
To:
From:
Date:
Board of County Commissioners
Planni ng Director
August 28, 1991
Subj eot:
Application of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael
Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation
from RU (~esidehtial Urban) to RM (Residential Medium)
On Tuesday, September 10, 1991, you will be requested to
review an application Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael
Houston .for a change in future land use designation from RU
(Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). A report on the
plan amendment follows.
OVERTVI EW
LOCATI ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXI STING LAND USE
DESI GNATI ON:
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESI GNATI ON:
PARCEL SI ZE:
PROPOSED USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE
DESI GNATI ON$:
Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S.
%1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue.
RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/ac)
RU (Residential Urban) - 5 du/ac maximum
RM (Residential Me_~.'um) - 9 du/ac maximum
9 acres
To develop for residential use.
CG (Commercial, General) zoning is located
to the east and the south .... RS- 2
(Residential, Single-Family '- 2 du/a~j
zoning is located to the north and the
wes t.
COM (Commercial) is located to the east
and the south. RU (Residential Urban) is
located to the north and the west.
FI RE/EMS PROTECTION:
August 28, 1991
Page 2 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA- 91-004
SURROUNDING LAND USES: This property is surrounded by vacant land
and some single-family residences. To the
south there is a commercial nursery.
Station ~6 (White City) is approximately
1. 5 miles away.
WATER/SEWER SERVICE:
Ft. Pierce .Utilities Authority (FPUA)
water is located approximately one-half
(1/2) mile away. FPUA wastewater service
is located approximately one ( 1 ) mile
away. This property is within the FPUA
planned service area.
Connection to FPUA service, or the
construction of an on-site package
treatment plant will be required for any
residential development that exceeds a
density of two units per acre.
TRANSPORTATI ON IMPACTS:
RI GHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY:
No addi ti onal
required.
right-of7way will -be
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
U.S. 1, east of this parcel, currently
operates at -Level of Service E. This
portion of South U.S. 1 is identified in
the County Comprehensive Plan as a
backlogged facility, with no improvements
scheduled at this time. Maintenance of
the current LOS is, therefore, required
with an increase i~-~raffic possible of 5%
over 1990 volumes.
The Florida Department of Transportation
has scheduled preliminary engineering
studies for Fiscal Year 93/94 for future'-'
improvements to this portion of South U.S.
1.
St. Lucie County Capital Improvements in
this area include: '.
August 28, 1991
Page 3
CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED:
Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA-91-004
Roadway Expansions:
Palmer Expressway (U.S. 1 to Lennard)
94/95
Lennard Road (E. Port St. Lucie to
Buchanan) 94/95
Non-Concurrency Affidavit
STAFF REVIEW-AND COMMENTS
This- application is for a change in the Future Land Use
Designation of a 9 acre parcel from RU (Residential Urban) to RM
(Residential Medium). The proposed_ amendment would change the
maximum permitted residential density on. this property from 5 to
9 dwelling units per acre.- Development of the property to this
maximum density requires not only this change in the Future Land
Use, but also requires a change in the zoning, from ~he current
RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family _ 2 du/ac) designation.
To date,-the, applicant has n~ submitted an application for
a change in zoning, nor has he .submitted any plans for
development of this property. This-amendment, however, would
allow the applicant to seek development of this parcel for multi-
family residences. Development of this property would utilize an
adjacent 8 acre parcel, which is under the same ownership, for
access to South U.S.. 1. The adjacent parcel, which has a Future
Land Use 'Designation of COM (Commercial), is currently
undeveloped. Dewelopment of these properties would be subject
all standards of concurrency upon the approval of the site plan
for the proposed development. Th~ applicant is aware that the
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a Preliminary
Development Order, and that approval of this amendment will not
result in a reservation of capacity.
The subject property is situated between the U.S. 1
commercial corridor and lower intensity residential development
located along Oleander Avenue. The corresponding Future Land Use
Designations in this area are COM (Commercial), to the east and
south of this parcel, and RU (Residential Urban) on the remaining
two- sides of the property. The application of the propose~
Future Land Use Designation to this property is consistent with a
statement within the Future Land Use Element which expresses that
the RM (Residential Medium) designation may act as a transitional
area between the lower intensity RU (Residential Urban) areas and
the more intense land use designations_
August 28, 1991 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
Page 4 File Number: PA-91-O04
In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, County Staff has determined Whether the
proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policieScomprehensWithinive Plan:the following elements of the St. Lucie County
1. Future Land Use Element
The proposed amendment has been determined to be
consistent with both this element and the Land
Development Code which is established as a result
of Objective 1. 1.2-.0f ~his element. In accordance
with Policy 1. 1. 4. 1, this amendment will result in
urban development that is within the Planned Urban
Sez~ice Area of the County. Development of this
property together with the development of the
adjacent commercial parcel is consistent with
Policy 1.1.3.3(e) which encourages clustered
housing and mixed-use development.
Traffic Circ~iation Element
The proposed amendment has been determined to be
consistent with this e.lement. South U.S. 1, east
of the subject property, is identified in .this
element as a State Backlogged Facility with no
improvements scheduled~.at this time. The proposed
amendment, at maximum, build-out, will result in
traffic that is within the permitted 5% increase
over the 1990. volumes specified in Policy 2. 1. 2. 10
of this element, and will permit maintenance of
the current Level of Service on this roadway.
Mass Transit Element
St. Lucie County does not currently operate any
form of public mass transit, nor are there plans
of establishing such a system during the current
five year capital facility planning period. This
amendment, however, would promote an efficient use"
of land through the concentration of residential
development, assisting in the establishment ~f
South U.S. 1 as a corridor for future mass
transit.
August 28, 1991
Page 5
Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA-91-004
Port and Aviation Element
The subject property is well outside of the land
areas discussed within this element, and this
amendment is not expected to result in any direct
impact to these areas.
Housing Element
The proposed amendment has been d'~termined to be
consistent with this ~lement. Policy 5. 1. 6. 2 of
this.~ element establishes that the County ~ shall
maintain a surplus of land designated for high
and/or medium intensity residential development in
order to ensure that an adequate choice of sites
for low and moderate income housing~ is available.
This amendment will result in an increase the
availability of land suitable for medium intensity~
development.
Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element
The proposed amendmen~lhas been determined to be
consistent with this sub-element. Ft. Pierce
Utility Authority (FpUA) sanitary sewer lines are
available approximately one (1) mile north of this
property. In accordance with Policy 6A. 1. 2. 6 of
this element, development on the subject parcel
will be required to tie i~to or make provisions to
tie into this system. In accordance with
Objective 6A. 1. 1, the. provision of sanitary sewer
service to this facility will be in a manner that
does not promote urban sprawl.
S'°lid Waste Sub-Element
The proposed amendment has been determined not
conflict with this sub-element.
Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element
The proposed amendment has been determined to be
consistent with this sub-element. In accordance
with Objective 6C. 1. 3 of this element, stormwater
management on the s ubj ect property s hall be
consistent with the standards of the Land
August 28,
Page 6
1991
Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA-91-004
Development Code, and shall include
maintenance of natural drainage features.
the
9. Potable Water Sub-Element
The proposed amendment has been determined to be
consistent with this sub-element. In accordance
with Policy 6D~ 1. 2. 1 of this element, development
of this property shall be subject to the
availability of services. FPUA water connections
are available approximately one-half (1/2) miles
north of this site. FPUA has indicated that
capa?ity t6 maintain the Level of Service standard
established in Policy 6D. 1. 2. 2 of this element is
available for development of this 'property at the
maximum density permitted- under the proposed
Future Land Use Designation.
!0.
.11.
12.
Coastal Management Element
The proposed amendment has been determined not to
conflict, with this element. This property is no.t
located within any of. the areas, specified Lin
Section 3..D of this element, which are subject to
coastal flooding and ~equire evacuation in the
event of a hurricane. Access to this property
will be along South. U.S. ! which is not identified
in this element as a critical link for hurricane
evacuati on.
Conservation Element
The proposed amendment has__been determined to be
consistent with this element. Development of this
property . shall be subject to conservation
standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2,
and 8. 1. 10 of this element which are incorporated
into the Land Development Code.
Recreation and Open Space Element
The proposed amendment has been determined to..be
consis tent with this element. Exis ti-ns
recreational facilities and open spaces in the
vicinity include the following: Indian River
Estates Park (neighborhood park)-; Savannah
Preserve (open space); and Heathcote Botanical,
August 28,
Page 7
1991
Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA-91-004
St. Lucie County Sports Complex, St. Lucie County
Civic Center, '-' St. Lucie County Library, the Old
Fort Site (special facilities). Development of
the subject property to the maximum density
permitted under the propos ed Future Land Us e
Designation would result in approximately 170
residents, and would require 0. 85 acres of
regional parks, 0. 85 acres of community parks, and
0. 15 acres of neighborhood parks. Parks capacity
is currently available to maintain the Level of
Service Standard established in Policy 9. 1. 1. 1 of
this element.
13.
Intergovernmental Coordination Element
The proposed amendment has been determined not to
conflict with this element.
t4.
Capital Improvements Element
The proposed amendment . has been determined to be
consistent with this element. This amendment.will
not result in a reduct$on of the Level of Service
standards which are .establishedwithin policies of
this element.
In reviewing, this petition, County Staff has determined that
the proposed amendment is consistent with the St. Lucie County
Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with
exiting and proposed land uses in the area, will not result in
excess ive impacts on pub!i c faci 1 i ti es or the natural
environment, and represents a logical and orderly development
pattern. Additionally, staff notes tha%_.the proposed amendment
will further the goals, objectives, ahd policies of the State and
Region regarding increasing the availability of land suitable for
moderate income residential development, promoting the efficient
use of land through clustered and mixed-use development, and
directing development away from coastal areas. Staff recommends_
that this Board transmit this petition for further State review.
tf you have any questions on this matter, please contacE this
office. .~
August 28, 1991
Page 8
Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust
File Number: PA-91-O04
S UBMI TTED:
Planning Director
CONCURRENCE:
~rry ~. ~irt~
Devel o~ment Admi ni s trator
County Attorney
Commttssion Secretary
Michael Houston
Press/Public
File
CONCURRENCE:
Danigl $. Mcl~y~e
County Atto~//
PA91004. MEM(RESLS)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
UNOFFICIAL'
SUBJECT TO
PLANN1Nt~ & ZONING
COM,'VlISSION A~Pt{OVAL
MI NUTE$
AUGUST 22, 1991
BOARD MEMBER~ PRESENT: Jo Ann Allen, Robert Carman, Doug
Skidmore, Ralph Flowers (late 7:10 p.m., left at 8:15 p.m.),
Diana Enck-Wesloski,. Ken Sattler, Dixon McCain, Donna Calabrese,
Chairman J. P. Terpening '
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PP~ESENT: Dan McInt, yre, Cou~t-y Attorney; Nancy Munshaw,
Planning Director; J6 Frances Haywood, Planner ti; Luis Serna
Planner I, Diana Waite, Planner I_ '
t NVOCATI ON
The Invocation was given by Mrs. Enck-Wesloski.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pl~dge of Allegiance was 1-ed by Chairman J. p. .Terpening_
APPROVAL.. OF JULY 25, 1991 MINUTES OF. THE PLANNING AND ZONING~
COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY.
Mr. Carman made a motion to approve the: minutes of the July 25;
1991 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local
Planning Agency. Mrs. Enck-Wesloski seconded the motion and upon
roll call, the Commission voted unanimously in favor of the
motion with Chairman Terpening abstaining.
APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDED DATE 'FOR COMBINED NOVEMBER/DECEMBER
MEETING ON DE~E~MBER 5, 1991. ~
Unanimous approval - no vote was taken.
stated
~-~.c~.l TO
PL~,NN~NG & ZON~Nfl
PUBLIC HEARING FT. PIERCE LAND TRUST - FILE NO. PA'91-0~
Luis Serna presented staff comments. He stated the subject
property is located approximately 600 feet west of South U.
Highway #t, one quarter mile north of Saeger Avenue. He stated
the petition requested a change in maximum density permitted on
this 9 a. cre parcel from 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre_
Surrounding this parcel are vacant la.nd to the east, a commercial
nursery to the south, and. generally vacant Property to the west,
with some residential uses. Mr. Serna 'emphasized that the
proposed amendment is a preliminary development order; no
development plans are required at this time. However, the
amendment -would permit the petitioner to seek a change in zoning
and site plan approval for multi-family development of up to 9
dwelling u .nits per act?.. Access to 'this possible f~ure
development would .b9 through what is. now a ~vacant, Commercially_
zoned parcel which fronts on .U.S. Highway ~1 to the east, which
parcel is under the same ownership.
Mr_ Serna stated that as a preliminary development order,
approval of this amendment will not result in any re.se, zT~.ation of
capacity in this area. M~. Serna stated staff reviewed this
amendment in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, with special
attention to three areas. Regarding the Future Land Use Element,
the proposed amendment is consistent with Policy 1. 1. 4. 1 and
1_ 1. 3. 3 which encourage urban development to be within the
planned urban service area and
mixed use development, encour.ages clustered housing and
Mr: Serna further stated that regarding the Housing Element, this
amendment would result in an increase' in the availability of land
suitable for medium intensity development which is consistent
with a policy within this element; and thirdly, regarding the
Capital Improvement Element, staff determined that the amendment-
would not result in a reduction of Level of Service standards
which are established within the policies of this element. The
amendment is consistent with other-elements of .the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff notes the proposed amendment._ will further some of
the goals, 'directives and policies of the State and region
regarding increased, availability of land suitable for moderate
income residential development, promoting the-.efficient use of
land through clustered and mixed use development, and directing
development away from coastal areas. Mr. Serna stated staff
recommends approval of this amendment.
Michael Houston, Urban Design Studio, appeared on behalf of the
applicant. He stated staff had summarized the request and
obvious benefits, particularly in light of the fact that
commercial property surrounding to the east and south will
obviously impact a low density residential development_ He
at this point·the petitioner had no plans for development
11
but is putting the property in position for higher density
forward,residential and meeting concurrency requirements before moving
There were no appearances in favor of
petition, or in opposition to the
Mr_ Sattler made a motion, seconded by Ms. Calabrese, that the
petitiOnrecommendationbe forwardedof approval.t° the Board of County Commissioners with a
Mrs. A11 eh, Mr. Carman, FLr. Skidmore, Mrs. Enck-Wes 1 os ki, Mr.
Sattler, Mr. McCa±n, Ms. Calabrese and Chairman Terpening voted
"Aye". Mr. Flowers was absent. .--
Chairman Terpening a~vis.ed the agent for the applicant, that the
petition ~would be fDrwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendati6n of approval.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
2740 C E N 'i' E R ¥ I i~ W D R I V E
LA~rON CHILES
Govo'nor
3 1997_
COMMUNITY DEVELOP.I'dEN~ ST. LUCIE CO., FL '
AFFAI RS
TAt LAHASS E E. F I-OR ! DA 32399-2100
January 10, 1992
WILLIAM E. SADOVV'SK!
The Honorable Jim Minix
Chairman, St. Lucie C~unty
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft...Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Dear' Commissi0~er Minix:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (92-1), which
was s~bmitted on October 2, 1991. Copies of the proposed amend-
ment 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, i~sued 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 amendments.
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments
is outlined in s-163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-Ii.011,
Florida Administrative Code.
Within five working days of the date o~--adoption, St. Lucie
County must submit the following to the Department:
Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment;
A copy of the adoption ordinance;
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
EMI~R(:I~NCY MANA(:EMI!N'[ - HOUSING ^NO COMMUNI I'Y O[Vi~LOPM~NT o RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAC[M~ NT
The Honorable Jim Minix
J~.nuary 10, 1992
Page Two
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 requirement above, you are requested
to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment direct-
ly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council. The regional planning councils have been asked
to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive
plan compliance with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
If you have any questions, please contact Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, Dale Eacker, Community Program Administrator
or Randy Fox, Planner IV at (904)-487-4545.-
RP/rfw
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 Program Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
ST LUCIE COUNTY -':'
Amendm6nt 92-I
January
Division 1o~ 1992
Resource PIanning and-Management
Bureau of Local Planning__
Thl. report i~ prepared pursuant [o Rule 9J-Il.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. c~rected 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 t~e local government
.considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case,
a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-
5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and. if
addressed.the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered
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, RECO~-~NDATIONS AND COMMENTS
Bt- Lucie Count Com reheRsive Plan Amendment 92-1
FUTURE LAND USE ELRMENT
A. OBJECTIONS
~9J-5.006(3) (b)~5-_
Proposed amendment No. PA-91-003, which would increase
residential densities to 5 d.u./ac on a parcel located
within a hurricane evacuation area, does not address
the coordination of coastal area population densities
with appropriate regional or local hurricane evacuation
plans. The.most direct evacuation route for residents
of the proposed development would be south on S.R'. A1A
and across the Jensen Beach Causeway in Martin ~ounty.
-- .The increased densities would be~nconsistent with the
Martin County Comprehensive Plan which establishes a
maximum residential density for new development at 2
d-u./acre to decrease hurricane evacuation times and'
maintain LOS standards on S.R. A1A and the Jensen Beach
Causeway. which are currently operating at capacity.
Recommendation
Withdraw the proposed amendment or include additional
data and analysis Which demonstrates that the amendment
addresses the coordination of Coastal area populatiOn.
densities with appropriate regional or'local hurricane
evacuation plans.
Proposed amendment No. PA-9t-003, which would increase
residential densities on a parcel located on Hutchinson
Island, does not address coordination with th~
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning-and Management
Plan. Transportation policies within the adopted
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan
require the effective utilization of the transportation
network on the barrier islands "[s]o that the
appropriate levels of land use density and character do
not exceed the efficient use and evacuation capability
of the principal transportation system on the islands.,,
Residential populations within this area would evacuate
south on S.R. A1A into Martin County and across the
Jensen Beach Causeway. These roadways are currently
operating at capacity and increased'residential
development would result in increased traffic volumes
and hurricane,evacuation times.-~
Recommendation
Withdraw the proposed amendment or includ~ additional
data and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment
addresses coordination with the Hutchinson Island
Resource Planning and Management Plan.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EL_~MRNT
A. OBJECTIONS
9J-5. 007 (2) (b)
Proposed amendment No. PA-91-004, which would increase
residential densities on a 9 acre parcel from 5 d-u./ac
to 9 d.u./a~, is not supported by adequate data and
analysis regarding the projected traffic impacts. The
proposed amendtment could result in an additional 800 to
900 daily vehicle trips on U.S. 1. Because of its
designation.as a backlogged facility, the County is
required to "maintain or improve,, traffic ~perating
.conditions on U.S.1. ~
Recommendation
Withdraw the proposed amendment or include additional
data and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment
will not significantly degrade the level of service of
U.S. 1 below the "maintain or improve,, condition. FDOT
considers a 5 percent increase !in the traffic volume or
a 1 MPH decrease in average travel speed as a
reasonable indicator of deviation from the maintained
condition.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT EI.F. MENT
A. OBJECTIONS
9J-5.~012 (3) (b) 6.
Proposed amendment No. PA-91-003, which would allow
residential development (at 5 d.u./ac) within a coastal
high-hazard area on a vacant parcel that is currently
designated as commercial, is inconsistent with
requirements to direct population concentrations away
from coastal high-hazard areas.
Recommendation
Withdraw the proposed amendment or provide further
justification for the amendment which-indicates that
2
the amendment is necessary for the County to meet other
significant growth management goals and objectives.
9J-5.012(3)(b)7.
Proposed amendment No. PA-91-003, which would increase
residential densities within a hurricane evacuation
area, does not provide for the maintenance or reduction
of hurricane evacuation times. Residential populations
within this area would evacuate south on S.R. A1A into
Martin County and across the Jensen Beach Causeway.
S.R. A1A is-currently operating at capacity in the
Jensen Beach area (LOS E) and is projected to fall to
LOS F by 2010. Increased residential development will
increase hurricane'eva6uation times.
Recommendation
Withdraw the proposed amendment or include additional
data and analysis which demonstrates that the overall
~esidential densities within the ~rea are being
maintained or reduced or that additional hurricane
evacuation routes will be developed which will
contribute to a reduction in hurricane evacuation
times.
CONSISTENCY ~!TH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. OBJEcTiONs
~ 1. .9J--5. 021
The proposed plan amendment does not adequately address
and further the following State Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies:
(a)
Coastal and Marine Resources Goal 9, Policy
(9) (b) 3, to advoid the expenditure of s~ate funds
that subsidize development i~ high-hazard coastal
areas; and,
(b)
Transportation Goal 20, Policy (20) (b) 3, and 9, to
promote a comprehensive transportation planning
process which coordinates state, regional, and
local transportation plans and ensure that the
transportation system provides timely and
efficient access. ~
Recommend_ation
Goal 9 may be furthered by withdrawing proposed
amendment No, PA-91-003 or by including adequate data
and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment will
not result in the expenditure of state funds for road
improvements or-other infrastructure in the coastal
high-hazard area.
Goal 20 may be furthered by including adequate data and
analysis which demonstrates that the proposed
amendments promote a comprehensive transportation
system which is coordinated with state, regional, and
local transportation plans.
.REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
9J-5. 021 (1)~
The proposed plan'does not adequately address and
further the following goals and policies of
Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan:
(a) Coastal and Marine Resources Goal 9, Policy 9-3.2,
to eliminate public subsidies to new, private
development in high-hazard coastal areas and to
provide adequate protection to existing residents
of these areas.
~ecommendation
Goal 9 may be furthered by w~hdrawing proposed
amendment No. PA-91-003 or by including adequate data
and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment will
not result in public subsidies to new, private
development in coastal high-hazard.areas and will not
reduce the safety of existing residents in these areas.
4
'FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
November 18,
Mr. Robert Arredondo
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Division of Resource Planning and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
BUREAU OF LOCAU
RE: Department of Transportation Review
Proposed ComprehensiVe ~ian~en~ent
St. Lucie County Ref. ~/92-1/
As requested in your memorandLum of October 7', 1991 the
Department has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan of St. Lucie County
We have no objegtions td the proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
& .osCh
District Director
Planning & Programs
JY/mw
cc: Mr. Patrick McCue Mr. Bob Romig
Mr. Gus Schmidt
Mr. Mike Tako
: "~ Depar~tm
Florida_. ..... ent--of Environmental Regulation
"l~in Tox~n:::~y~-o. fi~i0~: : _ '..'Bld~':_.. ..~.. 2~ B~ S~ne ~ad ' ~ HOfi~ 323~-24~
i
"- ' ~50u¢CE P~"' November 26, 1991
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Community Program Administrator
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re: Proposed Amendment to ~
/ ,
St. Lucie County. Comprehensiv? .Plan -~?.
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 ~esponse please call me at
904/487-2498. ,
JBO/br
Attachment
Sincerely,
o~ehr~atBio~2talna~dMa nagement
Consultant Manager
Office of Planning and Research
FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Amendment ~ PA-91--004
.Recommended Objection~
4 o
The amendment does not include the proposed Future Land
Use Map with the designation of the subject property.
9J-11. 006 (1) (b) 1.
The analysis of the availability of and the demand on
public facilities is inadequate. Page 2 of the amendment
states that water and sewer service connections are
one-half and one mile away from the site, respectively.
There is no information concerning when the lines are to
be extended to th~ site or who will pay for the extension.
Further, although it is stated that wate~ capacity is'
available, no information is provided on the capacity of-
the wastewater facility.
Page 2 states that U S 1 in the vicinity of the site is
operating at a LOS of E and has been identified as a
backlogged facility, with no improvements scheduled at
this time. Moreover, the Department of Transportation
letter (August 30, 1991) confirms that the roadway is
already operating at a less£than_satisfactory level of
service and the proposed amendment will add another 8 to
900 daily trips. Since no capacity for any of the
facilities is being reserved and no development plans are
being proposed as a part of this amendment, it seems that-
the proposed land use change is speculative.
9J-11.006(1) (b)4; 9J-5.006(3) (c)3; 9J-5.006(3) (b) l and 7.
The amendment does not include __an analysis of the
character of the vacant land parcel to determine its
suitability for use. 9J-5.006(2)(b).
The amendment does not include an analysis to support the
need for the increase in residential land use density.
9J-5.006(2) (c)_
RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTy AMENDMENT -- ~92--1
PAGE TWO
_Amendment ~ PA--91~~~.~_.
Recommended Objection~
1. The traffic circulation analysis indicates that the site
is located in an emergency evacuation constrained area
with no improvements scheduled, and LOS of E exists during
the period of January to April along segments of SR A--1-A.
Further, the D~partment of Transportation states that they
are opposed to any intensification or increase in density
which will result in more traffic on Hutchinson Island
than there is today. 9J-11.006(1)(b)4; 9J-5-006(3) (c)3.
2. The analysis of the amendment for consistency with the
adopted comprehensive plan does not address how the
amendment complies with the need to direct population
concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas, and
maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times.' Pages 10
and 11 of t~e amendment states that residents on
Hutchinson Island are considered to' be those at highest
risk and that St. Lucie County currentl3 maintains a worst
case hurricane evacuation time scenario of 22.5 hours.
.. 9J-11.006(1) (b)5; 9J-5.012(3) (b) 6 and 7; 9J-5.012(3) (c)7.
3. The amendment does not include an analysis of the
character of the vacant parcel to determine its
suitability for use. 9J-5.006(2)(b).
4. The amendment does not include an analysis to support the
need for the increase in residential land use density.
9J-5. 006 (2) (c) . ._
2740
STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
C EN T E RV I EW DRIVE o TALLA HAS SEE
LAW[ON CHILES
Governo~
FLORIDA 32399-2100
WILLIAM E. SADOWSK!
October 28, 1991
M E M O R A N'D .U M
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robert Arredondo
Division of Resou~rce/Planning and Management
Division of E~gency~'~ Management
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
The Division of Emergency Management has completed its
review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for St. Luci~
C~unty (Reference Number 92-1). During the course of our review,
we have. identified several concern~ which are attached for your
consideration.
If you should have any questionS, please call Tom McGinity
at 487--4915.
:' .U (:,' LOCAL \F~'/'
PL/' . .....3 t ,-t,',.;'4 F,.EVIEV~
EM~£GENC¥ MANA(:I.=MENT . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEvE[oPMI~N][ . RESOURCE i'[ANNING AND MANAGEMEN]-
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
.Element: Coastal Management
A. Objections
9J-5-012(3)(b)(6) directs population concentration away
from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas.
Hutchison Island is located almost entirely within Flood
Zone AE or designated velocity zones. ~he area of the
proposed plan'amendment request currently has a land use
designation of Commercial. A change of land use
designation to Residential with a maximum of five du/ac
has been requested for the 5.5 acre parcel.
In addition, the proposed plan amendment request is
located within a Coastal Barrier Resources (COBRA) area.
This act specifically~ forbids any type of federal public
assistance for infrastructure in designated _COBRA tracts.
Federal flood insurance is ~tso Unavailable in COBRA
tracts. Should damage be'incurred during a
Presidentially declared disaster, the site will not be
eligible for any kind of federal disaster assistance.
If PA-91-003 were approved, the plan amendment change
would allow the construction of twenty-seven single
family lhomes on the site.
Approval of th~_.requested ame~dment to the Residential
land use designation would be in conflict with the above
referenced 9J-5 requirement which directs population
concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-
hazard areas. Also, approval of the proposed land use
designation could establish a bad precedent for future
development in coastal high-hazard areas
Recommendation:
Retain the current land use designation of Commercial
rather than changing it to Residential.
BOB ~RAWFORD
COMMISSIONER
Florida
Agriculture
Departme. nt
& Consumer
The Capitol
Tallahassee
32399-0810
8,1991
)
i:'.. ,t"~;.-'. i ~Uge,t~t~%
of
S e r v i c e ~UR~U OF LOC~AI~
R .F_.~OUi=~CE Pt_ANNIN~
P~s~ ~ T~
~ 131, ~ ~
~, Flo~ 32399
Mr. Robert a~t~o
E~t of C~mmm/ty Affairs
~u of ~ p~g.
2740 ~~~ ~
~~~, Flo~ 32399
We have reviewed the St.__ ~cie'County
as requested.
Plan
~t
92-1
thePr°ceSS'a~ proposedOther cc~,~ntspla~ ams~t.maY ~e forthc~in9 later as ~ continue to z~view
Should ~ou have any questions, please contact me at 488=3201.
G.F. (Frank) Browning, Rzk3et. D- .Lrector
Bureau of P/arming and Budgeting
DMSION OF Al~f~Tf~~
488-3201
:4L,R~
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
aLu*jor~ $leneman Doughs Bm]ding
3~00 Commonwealth Baulevard
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear ~. Arredondo:
Staff of the Department of Natural Resources have reviewed
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, reference numbe~ 92-1
for'St. Lucie County and have-no comments. '
DED/mpp
Sincerely,
Don E. Duden
Assistant Executive Director
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Dept. of Comm. Affrs.-
Bureau of Loqal Planning
2740 Centerview Dr.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
/
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STAT~ . .
Jim Smith OCT 17 1991
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES [~UREAU OF LOCAl2
R.A. G~y ~%~,g ~ESC-~U ~CE PLANH:tqG
500 Sou~ Bro~u~h
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0250
Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
(904} 488-3353
October 14, 1991
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the St. Lucie County's
(92-1) 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'~ata regarding historic resources have
been given sufficient consideration i~ithe request to amend the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. '
Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9 ~cre
tract (File No. PA-91-004) from Residential.Urban to Residential
M~dium should have no 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 Commercial to
Residential Urban on the 5.5 acre tract (File No. 91-003) may
affect significant resources in the county. Archaeological sites
a-re recorded both north and south of this tract on the barrier
island. So, it is our recommendation that the county require a
systematic, Professional archaeological survey of this parcel
before allowing any additional land disturbing activities to take
place.
Archaeological Research Florida Folklife Programs Historic
Page Two
Mr. Robert Arredondo
October 14, 1991
It would be even better if St. Lucie County sponsored a
systematic, professional archaeological survey of the entire
unincorporated county that was 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 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-1945 structures to ensure that they are
considered before allowing any development or redevelopment to
take place. Some matching grant funds for historic resource
surveys may be available from the Grants and Education Section of
the Bureau of Historic Preservation at (904) 487-2333.
In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan
meets the concerns of the Division of Historical Resources and
the State of Florida,s requirements as promulgated in Chapters
163.3177 and '163.3178,
F..S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.: regarding
the identification of known historical resources within t~eir
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 commen~s, please feel
free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the
Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333.
Sincerely,
[0 L~eor~ W. Percy, Director
-- Div. of Historical Resources
South Florida Water/ kanagement District.
Gun Club l~oad · P.O~ Box24680 · Wesl Palm Beach. FL~416-4680 · (407) 68645800 · FL WATS 14500-4~2-2045
GOV 08-32
Iq0¥ 19 1991
November 15, 1991
~BUREAU OF
RE.qOURCE
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Bureau of Local Planning .
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Subject:' Proposed Cbmprehensive 'Plan Amendment for the
92-1. '
St. Lucie County -
Staff has reviewed the subject document and we have no water resource related
comments. Please call us if you have any questions, or require more information..
Sincerely,
arson, AICP
Director
Comprehensive Planning Division
Planning Department
LP/PK/ng
C:
Bob Nave. DCA
Terry Virta, St. Lucie County
Terry Hess, TCRPC
Paul Millar, SFWMD
V.'~k-ri¢ l~.Lvd' Vice Ch.~irrn~n
Adams. West 1~1,. l~-,~ch
I_c.~h (; .%chad - /Vc.-;~ I~.zlnx I~,,.ach
Tilf,,rd C. t'r,-ct_ t".xccufiv~- I
Th.,ma.~ K. AL~,- Vicar. l)ct,u
st. luCi¢ - tfc Cl/Uf
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
The Rhyne Building-
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Subject: St. Luoie County Draft Local Government
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; ReferenCe ~92-t
Dear Mr. Arred6ndo:
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 S~atutes; Council,s - ,
review procedures; and Council-s
adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the
-report as approved by Council.
The report was approved by Council at its regular meeting on
November 15, 1991, 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.
'Si~cLerely,
aniel ~. Cary
Executive Director
DMC:lb
Enclosure
3228 S_w. marlin down~; blvd.
· .u/le :2'05 - p.o. box 1529
POlm city', llo,rldo 34990
phone (40F'J 22t-4060
:~c 269-4060 lax ~'407'I 22t-4067
BOAPd) OF COL-.'N'/-y COMMISSIONERS
'- 2401.: $.E. Monrer~__-Road o Stuart, F/or/da 3~996
COUNTY OF MARTIN
CO-92-MH-40A
November 6, 1991
The Honorable Havert L. Fenq
Chairman, Board of County Co~missloners
St. Lucle County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652
STATE O F I:'LO RI DA
HUM 0
NOV 1 19 !
COAST REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCJL
RE: Proposed Land Use Map Amendments Nos. 91-003 and 91-004
Dear Mr. Fenn:
Attached please flnd a copy of the Martin County staff report regarding the above
referenced Land Use Map a~no~nents. Martin County Is greatly concerned vr~th
Amendment No. 91-003 In light of the possibility that it may lead to'a development
approval which would Increase-traffic volume on Hutchinson Island,.a situation
Martin County is strongly trying to avoid. BecaUse of the potential impacts to
Martin County arterial roads such as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SR AIA, the
County goes on re:co, rd as opposing this proposed amendment.
The CountYstormCo~lsslOnevent evacationn°ted the needsSpecifiCforC°ncerns for Hutchinson island regarding
hurricane residents on both sides Of the County
line. 'The Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan limits new development
to single family residences (Policy 4-~, A.5.b., Page 4-37) and hopes:that St. Lucie
County will recognize in a similar fashion the maxtnaJm density for new development
is set at two (2) units per acre (see Traffic Circulation Elen~nt. Page 5A-40.
Policy g.).andWlth a reduction of the density to maximum density of 2 upa. the Joint
County concernSMartinfOr hurrlcanev wouldevacuati°nnot time standards would be adequately
addressed Count_ have the same objection as results with the
St. Lucie County proposed density of 5 upa
I '
With
regard
to
Amendment No. 91-OO4. it Is the opinion of County staff that the .
increase in density on this nlne (9) acre parcel will not have a significant impact
kand°n Martinuse MapC°untY~nendment.public facilities' lherefore, the County is not o~posed to this
' The Honorable Havert ~,~ Fenn
November 6. 199.1
Page 2 -~:
Th~nk you for the opPortunity, to comment on these imPOrtant land use issues
Through toni1 nulng 1 ntergovernmental, coordl nation, our r~gt on wt 11 ach1 e've ~ hi gher
quality of life for all its residents.
Si ncerely .~
Maggy Hu~hall.a-'
Chairman, Board of County Ccmtnissloners
MH/PE/gg:[3293h]
Attachment
-CC:
Board of County Co~Tnissioners
Sue B. Whittle. County Administrator
Local Planning Agency
Harry W. King. Acting Growth Management Director·
Kevin J. Foley. Chairman. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
To:
From:
Date:
Council Members
Staff
AGENDA IT ] 7B1
November 1~, 1~91 Council Meeting
Subject: L°cal'Government COmprehensive Plan Review -
_- _Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County
uomprehensive Plan;: DCA Reference ~92-1
Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning:._and Land DeVelopment
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Regulation Act,
provided an opportunity the Council
t°% review and must be
C°mprehensive~an .Amendment~ Prior to ~ - comment on
Lucie Cozlnty Proposed a~endments to the State
~ ~/bmitted -unelr adoption. St.
'Department of CommLmity 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 ~he proposed amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPp) developed
.... pursuan~ to Section 186.507, F.S. A written report,
containi~ any objections, recommendations-for modification
and comments (as defined in Cha~ter 9J-11, Florida
Administrative Code) ms to be Provided to the DCA within 45
calendar days of receipt
amendments, of the plan, elements or
St. Lucie C0~ty is considering two amendments to its Future
Land Use Map. The locations of the properties under
consideration are shown on the accompanying maps, and the
number of acref,,, and proposed 'changes in -land use
designations are_., stlmmarized in Table 1 which follows:
Amend.
N~o.
91--003
91--004
Approx. Land Use
5.5 Commercial
9.0
-.~-.'~ ..... TABLE 1
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP A~~S
Current Proposed
Land Use
Desi~natioD
Residential
Urban--5
dwelling units
per acre
~o~
Res~ential South Hutchinson Island,
Urban--5 dwelling 3 miles north of Martin
~nits per acre County iine, adjacent to
N°rmandyBeachAccess.
Re~idential West of South U.S. 1 and
Medi~m---9
dwelting.%lnits north of Saeger Avenue.
per acre
Amendment 91-003
~his ocean front property
located apProximately ~hree is 5.5 acres in size and is
line
The. j~_~el~tively narrow~les ~orth of the Marti~ CoLlnty
section of Hutchinson Island.
m per~y ls currently Undeveloped -and contains good
condition native habit~ including both coastal
~oastal hammock communities. Significant strand and
stretches of land
~mmediately north of the property (east of S.R. AIA) remain
undeveloped and in their natural ktate. To the S6~th lies a
beach access Walkover and Parking area (Normany Beach
Access),~_some additional vacant land zoned for resident/al
purposes, and the Island Dunes development which includes a_
golf course, a restaurant, and a large number of condominium
units.
It is important to note that due to the elevat/ons which
exist on the property, and the narrow width of Hutchinson
Island in this area, the property would be sUSceptible to
storm surge flooding in the event of even a Category I
hurricane (the least severe category hurricane).
As nOted in Table I, the County proposes to amend the land
use designation '"'on this parcel from Commercial to
Residential-Urban (allowing a maximum of five dwelling units.
per acre to be built). From a planning perspective, the
existing St. Lucie County land use designation of Commercial
appears to be very logical and preferable to the proposed
residential designation from several Perspectives.
First and most importantly, the property is located between
~w6 relatively ~arge areas of land designated for
residential development and, therefore, is '~. logical
2
cat,.on for the develo ent
uo serwe ~ . ~ of c
Stag ~d ~ci~ se ' '
fa~__ ~ -~ ~o~t~ ~ o~=_ u~ ~ese ar~s. The
e~~-~ ~o ~e sou~ to Se~, '~ co~ercial Pr~e~:-
parcel (~~tly ~ere ~u, ~o~ no~ ~d · ~*
~e 688 ~iSt~g ~i~ sou~.i~of
land417 apprOVed.use al~OUghUP to 1,014 more ~ · ano~er
build~le)
-~ ~cen= ~e likely, to prove
Y :l°~d c~~:-~ ~ at least some
~S~e ~at d-~ ~__ ~ S~iC~' i~ ~- . de~ee of
P rspe~lve, i~ ~ .... ~= - ~e. ~ _ , If not
C°~ercia] %._i -~u not ~ a . __ r~om a pla~i
. - ~u use . . go~ md=a =o . . ng
~tli ~o~ _ desl~atxon o - ~l~nate ~e
r~ldents of eh~. ~e ~e nee~ o~ .... l~ated for
~s area. ~ e~S=~g ~d fUt~e
~eSi~ation of ~is land as r~id~tial WO~d also
Inconsistent wi~ .errors to
'development on b~ier isl~. disco~age r~id~al
high hazard coas~l ~eas mu~ ~_~ffid~i~ develo ~ -
can create a d~d mot ~ive ~ ~ uy at risk,
proje~s, and compli~tes eva~ation ~
~ wOUld Ce~ain t~es of co~cia1 a~ivity. Co~cil
, .=o a ~eater ~ent
poli~ discourages all but-' Water de~ndent ~ ~ su~
areas, al~ough cO~cial se~ices Wo~d be-allowed to meet
local needs.
Al~ough not a major probl~, cO~ercial uses adjacent to
~e existing P~lic access may be more
residential developm~t t~es. compat~le ~ WO~d
e he ~roposed land ~ -~
ga=iv.l~ ~pa= 1,%11V~ge COuld create more t
OC~r bo~ ~ ..... uz se~ice n, - ~ - raffic ~d
o ' ~=~e resid - . --. o.~. A~ -
P tentlal for c ...... ~tlal. ls bein~ ~' ~ls CO~d
~liminatino c~~la~ se~ices is a.-~f ~nd ~cause
generated ~.. ~=rclal Uses, a h~_~elng el~nated
~___ ~3 as many .... ~,~=r percenta .... '. .B=
encouraged, t~~e right kind of co__~~ ~e l~ene~
presently ~_ ~ W°uld be sho~ ..... se~lces are
a~Jacent to ~=- = ~= ~evel of .... ~= ~ere is
projected ,~s ~ope~y, a ~ve] ~5~lce on 'S.R A~
noulevard/c---- ~ u~ S R ~ ~ . = ~S) E (and
County 1~ .... Y ~n ~e vicinit .... ~_nG Jensen ~a~h
Beac~=~_~,,= ms oI great conce~ ~ ua ~e Matin-st ~-- 7-
· , ~uusewa~ is ~ - ~', especial/-- - - mcle
= ~e ~ eva~ati .... ]_~y since ~e Jensen.
'The County staff repo~ ~-, zuu=e from ~e island.
indi~tes ~at ~e Co~ty · s
evacuation conce~s led to a reco~endation of ~e lo--er
residential density which was aPProved. A recent letter
from ~e Florida - ~Pa~ent of Transpo~ation (F~T)
· i ' '
'~ Will r~.7,~ . on to any
tr~affic .unti] a jolt pl~ - ~ ~ additiona~
~ ' - ~ ~ ~u~ o
a~ ~ rt let n
So~ HuJ~=. afl. repo~ indi~
Wa~ewater .) ISI~d as a ' ~ ~e Co.tv c
re~ h' - e ~rlle ~ is o -
. ), ~Sto ~, a - _ ~ ~t~o
. ~c rob ~o~ hal
. ~ea ~e ~,--- sewer ~~__ Co,tv
wappar~tly wou~x~ ~C_ ~eiYall to ~nt~ue.~~=. ~d disposal
aste Wate~ ~ .... OWed to ~--~-- ~s der ~ .
. P ts has - ~e cont' Packa e
Re~ion=] ...... ~Used oDbl----- ~ed Droli~ ..... g
17.2.1.4, ~i~ re~ize ~e
C~lized se~ices for ~b~ d~ity ~ev~opm~t
(qver ~o ~ ~r acre) ~d ~e P~bl~
proliferation of ~all' facilities. ~ed by ~e
~e~ore, as noted ~ ~e '
pro~ is located entirely ln~odu~ para~ph, ~is
and is S~je~ to ~i~ ~e
Catego~I h~ic~e, flood~g~ -fr~ ~e t0_~0-ye~ flO~Plain'
prop~y li~ seaward of ~e 1988 Co- ~'~1~ of ~e
Control L~e. - as~l Const~ion
In S~a~, ~e Cowry d~onstrated ~se of SOld-t~ic and
pla~ing Principles in ~e 1984
reco~izing ~e need for Settl~t A~eem~t by
CO~ercial l~d ~e in ~is
location ~on ~e island. Co~ercial l~d ~es lo~ted in
c°nj~i~n wi~ residential Uses, ~ong O~er positive
results, less~ ~e need for travel from ~e b~ier island
to ~e mainland. The limited access between ~e island and
~e mainland generates conce~s ~out traffic level of
'se~ice, air PollUtion, and O~er ~ality of life-'
The Co~ty should continue to rec~ize.~at favors.
use is needed in ~e ~ediate area. CO~ercial land
~en~ent
The Proposed land Use designation (Residential Urban) WOuld
increase 'the maximum allowable residential density on ~his
parcel from five to nine dwelling units Per acre. Such an
increase is consistent with the regional Plan and may allow
for the t~pe of mixed Use development whic~l WOuld be
appropriate in the U.S. 1 corridor. There are some concerns'
regarding impacts of the development of this and an adjacent
commercial parcel on U.S. 1, which is Prdsently Ol:>orating at
a "backlogged. l~vel of Service. A backlorjged facility has
? l-~_Vel of Service, fLOS) E or lO,er and has no ~schedule~
~mprov~ments. ~ local government should not P~rmit any
4
signif~_~ant deterioration in current operating conditions
under .'~he ~!'~aintain and improve,, criteria established by the
FDOT~""~The'~ Lucie County staff report suggests that while
no improvements-are presently scheduled for this area of
H.S. 1, the .increased traffic would be within an impact of
five percent of 1990 volumes, pe:rmissible under the FDOT
criteria. A recent letter from the FDOT (see attached),
however, suggests that the County should not permit any
significant deterioration in c__urrent operating conditions.
Qbjections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments
Amendment 91-003
A. Objection
1. None
B. Comments
The County's present land use designatibn of
commercial fo~ this parcel appears appropriate and
necessary, given the present and projected amount of
residential development in the ~mmediate vicinity.
The redesignation of this land to residential,
without the change of another parcel in the immediate
area to commerciaI would not result in a balanced,
compatible- and complementary mix of land uses
consistent with Regional Goal 16.1.2.As the
information in the evaluation indicates, ~here are a
large number of residential units which have been
built in the immediate area (approximately 700), a
significant number which have been approved but have
yet to be built (approximately 400), and a very large
number which may be built in the future, based on
land use and zoning designations ~perhaps 1,000). If
all units are built, there would be a clear need for
commercial/retail uses, but an unclear need for
additional residential land use. The Regional Plan
(Policy 9.1.1.2) calls- for .a limit on future
development on barrier islands to those uses which
are resource dependent or compatible with the
physical and environmental characteristics of barrier
islands, or those uses which can occur without
degradation .~of important environmental values or
interference with'public access to beaches.. Not only
are residential structures not resource dependent,
but they. are more likely than commercial uses to
interfere with Public access to beaches. Given the
adjacent location of the County beach access
facility, a commercial use may be more compatible
than a residential use, and provide more of an
5
opportunity (than detached Single_family dwellings at-
e density of five units .per acre) to protect the
....... '~nvi~r~mental values of the site.
~&~ ~nty has determined that it is essential to
commercial designation fro
another parcel in th~'~---~-J m this parcel,
~ ~m~uia~e vicinity which would
equally serve the commercial/retail need of the
projected residents (perhaps as many as 4,000 in the
peak season) of this a~ea should be redesignated to
commercial. Alternatively, if lowered residential
density will reduce the need for future commercial
development or if sufficient vacant commercial lands
exist in the area, the County should provide an
analysis which supports these conclusions.
If the 5.5 acre parcel is to be designated as
residential, then there should be a decrease in the
authorized density on the adjacent parcel which is
under the same ownership; or an equivalent amount of
existing residential use should be deleted so that
the overall net effect of thiS-change is neutral.
While level of service on S.R'. A1A at the location of
this property is adequate, the level of service at
the' area's main interchange (S.R. A1A and Jensen
Beach Boulevard) is LOS E, and is projected to be LOS
F in the future. Although the development of this
property for residential purposes will generate less
traffic than would commercial development,
residential development might generate longer trips,
and trips that would more negatively affect
constrained portions of the regional roadway. The
County should evaluate the impacts on level of
service and on the evacuation of citizens prior to
the issuance of any development permits.
The scope and size of development on South Hutchinson
Island and the resultant traffic and e~acuation
issues which result have for some time generated
controversy between St. Lucie and Martin Counties. A
study is about to commence which will examine land
use and transportation issues along the entirety of
S.R. A1A from Fort Pierce to Stuart. The study is a
joint effort between the St. Lucie County
Metropolitan Planning Organization and Martin County.
The study will include projected trips from all
development based on both county comprehensive plans.
Land use decisions should be postponed until the
results of this study are available. Formal
coordination should occur between the two'"counties on
land use amendments on South Hutchinson Island.
6
The: . Regional ' Plan calls for urban dev'-'lopmente
........ (tnc'l~ding residential development at dens,ties
necessary ~rban se ' _ = ur _nzgner; only whe~
rvlces a,~d fa .....
con~/rre-~ . a~= _ . Cllltles are ava'
~__ ~,~_ wx~n aevelopment tpo~= ..... llable
flay._ indicates ' (Poli~ ~ ~M _%-.1.1.1). It
be .prohibited. The C~t~ =e~te~ facilities should
on ~is ~" 3 ~n~l~tes ~at deve.
' --~ ~ my a a Y new
Given past ~ .... P C~ge tr~~t D]~.e
~u~=y s~ould ~ . - _l-~--~'~=~l conce~s
.... . _ re~t devel~-~ -_. , the
u~xy When a regional s~s~__ ~-~u.. on_ ~ls prope~
5._ Regional' Policy 10.1.2.2 requires that as a minimum,
25 percent of native- plant communities should .be
preserved on site. Because of the rarity of the
plant communities found on site and their functional
role,in stabilizing the dunes during, storms and high
winds consideration should be given to preserving a
greater amount of the vegetation on this parcel.
It is not clear, from the County plan, if.. the
developer would be required to preserve a maximum of
25 percent of the natural habitat found on site
consistent with the RCPp. .The County,s Land
DeWelopment Code (Section 6-02.01 C) may prohibit
development on this parcel if it is considered an
environmentally sensitive habitat. No information
was provided, however, to indicate that such an
identification has been made.
Ideally, development of this -site should be
concentrated in the area nearest the road, which has
been previously impacted by clearing activities. The _
design of a single structure with parking beneath it
would minimize the need to clear native vegetation on
the site. The current proposal to place 28 single-
family lots on the parcel may not be compatible with
preserving the physical -' and environmental
characteristics of the barrier island, as required by
Regional Policy 9.1.1.2.
Consistency...with Regional Policy 8-1.1.6 requires
that 100 percent of all landscaping material used on
the primary dune system shall be composed of native
plants --adapted to soil and climatic conditions
occurring on site. If left in its existing natural
state, the primary dune system will not need an~
landscaping.
g-) '"
8. Much of the exist~n~- -- u ~ ~ ~ t~eve~o--men-
_~utchinson island ~ ~ _ j ..... on the south end of
regional - .... 5--'~ ~ ~ter to Stat
~ ~unue~s re~ar~ ~- ~ ..... e and
resources, ~e c ......... f coastal
s~ctural d~a--e ~-- _~_.~oss _of h~an life and
. . ~ ~m ~uu~, and ' -
eva~atlna cl~{~- =- ~- ~e dlffl~ltv of
o~er disas~ ...... ~ ----="~ ox a natural ~
- ~ .... ~ u,~ develo ......... ~e
sensitive~S more ~ reso~cest~e wi~ W~ch~e scale and ~e scope of ~e
h~p to define coastal
areas.
Amendment 91--004
A. Objection
1. None
B. Comment
Development of. the property at th~ proposed l~nd use
density will generate more traffic. Apparently,
access is' to be via U.S. 1, although the FDOT
suggests that access be via Saeger Avenue and
Oleander Avenue or by a connection to the signalized
intersection at Easy Street. If access is to be via
U.S. 1, the County needs to closely coordinate any
anticipated impacts with the FDOT, since th~s section
of U.S. 1 ~s presently backlogged (LOS E without
scheduled improvements~. The potential for this
development to provide a mix of residential and
employment must be considered, however. There may be
others,an opportunity to capture some trips and to shorten
~ecommendation
Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve
their transmittal to the State Department of Community
Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163
Florida Statutes. ,
Attachments
U
0
0
!
0
0
!
JA~E~
~HINN RD %
HEADER ~ p.~_
-%
9
~ANGE LINE RD
LAND USE
CHEZ NOUS GROVES
JOHNSON
'
OWEN
MOT-IA
L_?gend
RU: Residential~
Urban
COM: Commerciall
-)
mEZ N0US GROVES
RU
t-E'NI I~AY CORP
COM
A
LOUPE
HAYSL IP --
PROPERTY DWNER LINE
ROAD
St_
Future
Lucie County
Land Use Map
10
PUGL~ESt
WANNALANC_'_
TEXTILE
D &RASS
KEATING
ASH
EASY S
N
Am-~ndmen t 91-003
R
CPUB
R
R
COM
CO.M
o
Legend
R : Residential,,
CPUB: Conservation-Public
U : Utilities
COM : Commercial
CPUB
St. Lucie County
Generalized Future Land Use ~p
11
CON
Martin County
COM
U
COM.
U
FLORIDA
DEPARTI _,NT
._~
Palm Beach Urban Office
31tl South Dixie ~ighway, Suite 112
West Palm Beach, Florida 33405
Telephone: 407-837-5290
August 30, 1991
Mr. j,p. TerPening, Chairman
Local Planning Agency
St. Lucie County -
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Attention: NancY Munshaw
Dear Fir. Te.~Pening:
RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan-Amendment
Ft; Pierce Land.-~_ustr File No. PA-91-004
The Department was recently notified as an affected Property
~wne~, of a Public hearing on the proposed amendment from 'iow
aenslty Residential Urban.(RU) to R~sidentialMedium-(RM) for the
property located a~roxim~tety 630 feet west of south SR-5/US-1
north of Saeger Avenue. We regret that we were unable to submit
our comments Prior to the hearing. We ask that you include these
in the file~f°r reference as the amendment moves forward.
d Eve~ ~ough ?he proposed, amendment seems a '
evelopment of this pro rt
density the am~ .... pe- y mn accord~ ....... nor one. the
s 9oo.aa x tr- .woula te -
mmprove" ,..~:_= f SR-5 ms Pack ~,--~ =j_th_e ~mpacte~
any significant ..~u une local gove~ .... J~ __maintain and
deterioration in cUrrent ~=uu should not permit
operating conditions.
The c
facility ;~.t~_ent to "maintain,, the o -
~a~ include some ]~--: .... Peratln~ LOc
However, it is recomm~-~ - ~,,m~eG additional ~.7_~ ~
' ' ~:~l~e = uounty not approve the land use
1 f ss it can be assured ~ -
SR-5/US-1- $inc uegrade the operatin- u~t the traffic
o-er ' - ' e the De~a ...... ~ conditions o '
p atlng condition as a .... ~-~"~'~ considers m~: .... n
. -,=~uulated measure ~ ?~ualnlng tSe
to evluate pOtential Impacts and ~o .- ~x s~ar~ is avilable
assist the County with the
facilities.c°°rdianti°n o~ levels of service on this and .._other' state
12
Mr. J_p. Terpening
August 30, 1991
Page 2
It is °ur Understanding that Your staff recommendation is that
the amen~"nent not t:~ approved at this time and we concur.
It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked. When site
planning t~gins, w~ encou~-age acce.~s to $R-5 either via Saeger
Avenue ~nd Oleander or ~y a. connection to the signalized
intersection at Easy Street' If direct-access is sought, staff and
the owner should Work with adjoining OWners and the FDOT (Traffic
Operations) to develop a safe and convenient access to SR-5/US-1.
JWA/mg
'Sincerely,.
Administ~rator, Palm Beach Urban
Office
cc: Gustavo $chmidt
13
Pal,, Beach Urban Office
3111 South Dixie Highway. Suite 112
West Palm Beach, Florida 33405
Telephone: 40-/'837-B290
OF TI{ANSPOR-TATi O
August 30, 1991
Mr. ~.p. Ten~=~ng__~,
Chairman
Local Planning Agency
St. Lucie Cowry
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Attention: Nancy Munshaw '
Dear
- Terpening:
RE:
~or~d ~ture Land Use Plan Amendment
~f~olon File No~ uu~ - P~-91-'~2~- -
The DePartment was recently notified as a~ adj--ining°
owner of a Public hearing on the-
(COM)~ to Residential _ High ~-- .Proposed amendment from property
SR-A1A.
We re.et that of the 9 ercial
to the hearing. We ask that you include' s~'~Uthese°Ur- comments prior
reference as the amend~nent moves forward, in the file for
i~a-~We.- ~are-'~c°~ce?~ed abo~t the ame~dme
roa~. Ev ..... s .... , and on $~-z~ ~ ~ ~uld h~ve on Hu*~
t~a~;-- ~ ~ougn reside~:~ --~, ~ne island,s ~.~.
o any mnten~;~-- -.-- mmerclal 1-- +~;- ~ . Y result in l~
w~:.~:n wlll re - _ ~ xncrease in . -- .... , we are o os
~lt ~n m ...... densl~ ......... ~ PP ed
Traffic on SR-A1A is still within acceptale liars in the
vicinity of the pro~rty proposed for redesi~ation (LOS C);
however, at and just north of the Martin County line it has reach~d~'
capacity for a two lane road at Level of Service E. the State
standard for a Minor Arterial_ The area impacted lies south of the
power plant and extends into Mar~in County at Jensen Beach. The.
traf[ic impact on ~he Sta~e Highway SYStem (SHS) is to SR-A1A. SR-
707 and SR-732 (Jensen Beach Causeway '~nd Boulevard) _ FutUre
traffic, based on projections, indicate O~rating conditions in
2010 in the vicinity of JenSenon SR-A1ABeach tOand be LOS F ~ithout
~onstruction of additional lanes other--improvements
in the .Jensen Beach a~ea. There are no projects in~-the current
F~T F~ve-Year Work Progr~ to do
14
Mr. J.p. Terpenin9
August 30, 1991
Page 2
Another very important consideration related to public safety
is that SR-A1A is the only evacuation route from the island in the
event of disaster. As such, it is considered a vital regional
transportation corridor on the State Highway System.
We understand the County through its ~O is proposing a joint
effort between St. Lucie County and Martin
uuun nu=cnlson Island which will recognize an~ transportation on
b°ththepotential and
the limitations to development mn this critical area of state
concern_
We strongly Urge ~he County to disa--L
amendment att his time - mprove thi
an~ others s~'~ .... 's Proposed
development-on H~tchison Island prior to the adoption of the plan
for South Hutchispn Island. --'~=~=o it-which may intensify
Sincerely,
Administrator, Palm Beach Urba~
Office
cc: Gus~avo $cbunidt
15
OF GOUN2T COMMISSIONERS
October 24, 1991
Anne M. Cox, Regional Planner
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Boulevard
P. O. Box 1529
Palm City, FL 34990
RE:
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Reference~ #92-1 '
Dear Ms. Cox:
Please be advised that the Indian-River £ounty planning.staff has
reviewed_the above referenced item.
It is staff's.position that the proposed land-use amendments to the
St. Lucie County Future Land Us~ Map will not affect Indian River
County; therefore, county staff has no comment.
Sincerely,
,!
Sasan Rohani-'-
Chief, Long-Range Planning
cc---
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Ruth Jefferson TM #92-29
u\v\s\cox.ltr
16
DIREc
IONs
: Per YOur - (EXc~ ·
e~
0CT--3!-1991
12: ~
CO-92-MH-40A
November $. ] 991
The Honorable Havert L. Fenn
Chairman, Board of County Coe~tsstoners'-
St. Lucte County -
2300 VI roi ni a Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
RE: Proposed Land Use Map Amendments Nos. 91-OO3 and 91-OO4
De&r Mr. Fenn:
Attached please find a copy of the Hartin Counfy staff report regarding the
above referenced Lana Use Map amendments. Martin County is greatly Concerned
wi th Amendment No. 91-003 i n 1 i ght of the posst bi 1 ttY that- i t may tead to a
development approval which wOuld increase traffic volume on Hutchinson Island.
a situation Martin County is strongly trying to avoid. Because of the
potential impacts to Martin County arterial roads such as the Jensen Beach
Causeway and SR AIA. the County goes on record as opposing this proposed
amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. gl-O04, it is the opinion of County staff that
the increase in density on this nine (9) acre parcel .will not have a
significant impact on Martin County public facilities. Therefore the County
is not opposed to thi~ Land Use Map amendment. '
Thank You for the opPortunity to comment on these important land use i~sues.
Through conti nuina intergovernmental coordinatl on. o~ region wi I 1 achi eve a
higher quality of life for all its residents.
Si ncerely,
I~ggy Hurchal I a
Chairman. ~oard of County Commissioners
MH/PE/gg: [3293h ]
Attacl~ent
CC:
BOard of County Corn-nj ssi oner~
Sue B. Whittle, County Administrator
Local Planning Agency '
Harry W. King. Acting Growth Management Director
Kevln 3. Foley, Chairman, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
18
~ Hut
7'he 7-,
Yenet ,,2 ce~n ..
_nsen B, on.:l by t
.
.~ ; frlps ~a~ Use ~' A~u~y ~i l~nt fs _
t ~nt'ia .. ~ O~ l~ss.- . ~s Ch-'~°rd~- "ce, faf r-
' ~ne ~ ~-~'~erc,-2.'; ~ntY's 2ff the
, 7; J;t
on esents ~ re~le ~ ~u for
Ue~aChe~, . -n attic%~
Au
~e
Because th. the
that ~f ll ~ lat .,. on
LUcj ~t:1 use ~,._ '-
lette~3 for
~"ent of ~'U~ent
~ u.
~ I
the
19
[3293h] .... " -
....... ~_..~ --. :..-..
LAND USE AHEN~ NO. 9~-00~ ST. LUClE COUNTY
Th_is !.and use amendment cOncerns a nine
.Z~ m~le north of SaUna, , ....... (9) acre parcel
~.,~- ,,,cuu=. approXimately ssv ,=, _j,~=c=u wes= at- US l.
Martin County line. The amendment calls for a change in' land use from
- -~ ~v, mw~es' north of the
Residential/Urban (five (5)du/acre) t°--Residential/Medium (nine (9) aU/acre).
Martin County is responding to this request because of the Parallel nature of
potential imPacts on US 1. However. since this proposal does not impact
Martin County. public facilities similar to No. 91-003. the County does not
object to the Proposal by_ St. Lucte County.
-2-
2O
[3laSh]
[RESOL~I~ RE~I~ ~E ~ OF ~E ~ P~Z~ AG~Gy A~ THE
~- ~le mett~ as t~ Plannt~ a~ Zoning ~ on September
5. 1~1. t~ Agency ~e~s e~rez~ ~nce~ as to t~ ~ntl~ation of
eevelo~nt aPP~val~ for ~roJe~ lo~ted on ~ ~ton of t~ HUtchinson
Islan~ barrier Island l~ted to ~ ~fl of ~rtln ~unty
~urtsdlc~$on of St. ~e ~: ~
~. t~ ~en~ ~s ~e~ t~ fol]~ng ~rttons of ~ aaoote~
~re~nstvt G~h ~g~nt Pl~ are ~P]t~ble to t~ c~r~tion of
Oeve]o~nt a~ la~ Plannt~ ~ ~tns~
1) Fu~ ~ U~e El~t' Se~on ~. E.5. eollcles _
~r~er ~l~s
Disaster Pre~ra~on Pla~t~
b. feinting ~'~'la~ ~evelo~nt r~latton~
li~t t~ ~bltc e~i~~ for ~ne~a~ facilities
)i~tation of i~$ ~ ~abrml ~ources oA ~ barrier
c. )tatting ~ ~e)o~nt
P~les ~t ~ered by ~ vexed ~gh~ ~te~tions
to assure ~t ~a~flc c~a~ lt~tations re~nized in
t~ ~ut~in~on I$1m~ Re$~r~ Plannin~ a~ ~na~nt Plan
a~ ~t ~rseneu.
- 2) C~tal ~nt E)~nt. Section ~. B.4. ~)lcie: _
~ore a~U afteF ~ na~r~l Ul~a~ter t~
Hu~l~ne~a ~ral Ol~as ter Pre.ration planning Stuoy
)Imtts ~evelo~nt t~t
t~v~nts at rl~k ~ ~~ a~ ot~r ~tural ~ard
1. ~tition of ~ ~ of ~n~ ~i~loners of St. Lucie
~unty to reduce t~ ~[1~ re~l~nttal density on
Pro. rites ~ou~ of ~ Florida ~r & Light ~r Plant
a~ to revl~tt any Uevelo~nt O~er t~t
volU:
m. limltln~ the reueveio~nt of ~arceIs in ~ln ~unty on
" ~lch existing U~elo~nt ~ ~en d~ged by ~tal
hazarO~ to the ~i~ of
a~
'~EREAS. th$~ Agency ~% noted t~t St_ Lucle ~nty ~s required to '
ad~re to t~ s~ requlr~nts of t~ ~tchl
nton
~g~nt Plan as ls ~r:ln ~unt~
~evelo~nt regulations to l~l~nt t~ provl~lon~
Resource ~lan an~ ~nag~nt Plan. ano;
DRAFT
D AFT
~-:- "' ~ i~EREAS, the Evans Crary Br. tcJge, se~nt of SR AIA fr~ the
Traffic Circulation Elint. aha POilcy, Section 5~5. 8.].g~.. ]Jm~ts
Hutchinson 2slan~ neu restdentlal develo~nt to stngle f~ly r~slaences at
~enslty of ~C2) units ~r uplan~ acre ~ere additional traffic t~acts on
Eves Crary Brtage a~ ex~cte~ an~:
NHER~s. there are no existing plans to add 4nother brl~ge to
Hutchfnson [sland tn ett~r ~ln or St. ~cle ~unt~es ~ch ~uia alleviate
trafftc con3estton and Level of Se~tce deflcJenc~es.
~- ~t~nson Zsland ts a~vldea access by three [3) bridges
fr~ the ~1nland and ~ (2) of t~se are located ~n ~tn County. but the
~orttYSt. Lude°f~unty:H~chtns°nand Zsla~ ~eslaents ~o a~ creatlng the traffic 1lye
~. thts ~ency ~s advts~ t~ ~rd of ~unt~ ~lss~oners
the PaSt on la~ deveto~nt issues a~ con,ms relative ~ t~ intensity of
develo~nt ta~l~ place ~h ~thln a~ outslae the 3Udsdt~16n of
_count ....
~EREFORE 8E ~T R~OLV~. t~t this ~en~ ~tes t~t further'
e~o~nt a~a~vals by St ~c~e ~
under . n~ on t~ ~rt~on of flut~Inson [sl~nd
the ~urtsdtct~o~ of St. ~de ~unty ~s inconsistent ~th rat~o~1.
~lanned h~n occuoancy of a barrter lsland and ~t th~s ~enc~ recants
that the ~ard 0f ~unty ~lssJoners fo~ard a letter to ~e ~i~n of the
St.-Lucre ~ty ~tsslon un, er the.~1~n,s slgna~re ~ ~nd~cate the
degree of ~nce~ for thls ~tter tn Hart~n
LOCAL PLANNING ~ENCY
HA.RTIN C~NTY. FLORIDA
'
ROBERT
APPROVED AS TO FC~ AND CORRECTNESS:
BY:
.IC~ APP:, : LLO -
R_SST. COUNTy AllEy
DRAFT
22
OCT-3fo--199. -)7: 21o ~
a. Policy: Lanfl de--lo.ne
~ "',ca~/Ma:ura] ~{.__~ ~vate
~Oated.
b.[]P°]{cY:) ~x~mBarrier~gfdent{al{sla~ develo~nt ~u]at{onm ~ha]] address at a mfn~um-
[4) ft~d d~ge P~ven~on;
[5)
e~ange~d s~ctes ~b~
a..~ ~sc~ater r~t~nts'
~7) Site design
(8) ~c~atton and o~n space
f9) t~Po~tfon ~nda~;
(lO) ~bltc safe~ s~nUard$, and
(ll) sto~ wat~ ~ality
T~ ~jor ~ of ~ develo~ ~gulatt~s ~1~ ~ ~ limit ~bltc
ex~nd(tu~s a~ dt~ population co~entra~s ~ f~ the coastal
~ndations of ~ ~nson I-sland Re~U~e Pla~i~..and Nanag~nt*
Plan by ~qufrin9 ~t until ~h ti~ as ~1~ ~U~y and St. L~e
Coun~ ha~-ado~t~ a ptan ~ (~ase traffic capecf~ ~ Hu~h~nson
not ~sted shall ~ lt~ted ~ St~le f~)y
6. ~T~E
Martin Cou~y shall C~rdtna
~nag~nt plans ~r ...... ~e H~ ell an~m
-~ -~ uuvernor a~ Cabi~t .... ~v, e~O~da S~es.~a~j
Measure:island Resou~eThe COU~yp]annf~1l amsu~ ~t all l~al Pmvisi~s of ~ ~tchtnson
~bfnet, a~ t~l~nt~ a~-~nag~ Plan, ad~d by the Gove~r and
as land develo~
barrier (gland by ~u]y, 1~90. ~9utations ~ciftc
Y. G~ (HIU~IC ~SO~E PROTECT~)-
adverseHartin CountytmDac~Sha)]of ~ve]~.P~t~t historical ~u~em in t~ ~ f~
1. O~ECTiVE
By Ju]y 1990, ~rttn Cou~y'{ Land Dave]ophir R~u]ations s~]l
P~c~u~ ~ en{u~ ~at ail Public and private ~ve]o~nt and
P~Dosals, t~]udin9 ~o~ for lnfKaS=~c~, e~ ~Vi~d for t~tr f~ct -_
u~n hi ~toric
4-37
23
- :_~ndtan St.
· ' I - C~ A1A 90-9]
~ 7~ SR 707 _ ~ ~TAE
~ AIA SO.
~nterey R~.
~1~ : N~ evelo nt ~t -
riCeS
current ~re~nst ye
of all State
syst~ ~ I1 ~
attaln~.
24
P°gt'D{tagter R~evel ~nt
~sDonse ~ a hurr~cl~ or ~turl] disaster {~ludfng clean~
~devel~nt.
a. PoI~c~: Po~t-D1s~t~ove
C~tsg{o~~ _ ~ov~ Task F~.
C~SS~ S~ff ...... u~r ~ at t~ ~-i~ _~re:y.UlreCtOr.
(1) ~v{~ and epp~ve, or d~, ~y ~fld{ng
{3) a~ly~ a~ ~c~nd ~ t~ ~ ~sst~
~ttons ~J~dl~ a~~, ~onst~c:{on, or
(4) P~Pa~ a ~e~]~ p]an; a~
(5) ~nd ~e~nt~ ~ ~ C~nstve G~h ~9~nt Plan,
. Local Peace:{~ ~~ Plan a~ o~r a~pr{a~ plans.
actions n~ Fo- +~ ..... ~- ~tate Cl~nuu d
p~ority (~thin-~ ~s ~ ....... ~,~ a~
~ s~m event)
(2) ~val of ~bHs e~ tns~tton ~or huardous ~terial~;
(3) st~ili~ti~ or ~val of st~s ab~t ~ ~ll~se;
(S)Unit.an envi~n~l assesmnt by t~ Matin C~ E~t~) ~lth
8-55 -
25
P~,~,~iey: Redevelopment Aet~v~t '
- POs:pone' un ~;--.~':'.~__~c::v~t~et. Long ~ere re ~ '
O~e~ ....... ~ aeve]~ apparel C~nty shall aevelop
~o ~t all ~ndft~s for ~butld~ng ~Jn coastal e~as.
P~ess for tho~
ft Na~tn Coun~ ~11 pu~u : - -
O~rto P~vi~ --,~,_ · 4c~1s1:(on of lan~s
~u~es or ~ tt f~ devel~nt' ~, mc access, P~tect
LUcent ~~~tr .... : . ~s ~tCh -
st~ctu~ ~ludtna ~._ _ ~ Shall ~ ...... g
_- ~OUlld len~-~'~c:ons, ~~r ~tch suffer ~peated
t~ a~as ~ p~ ~ ~ or ~ w ,=u co
~ge. Va ~tfy t~
~i~nt ~ ~bufld len~i~ ~ ~r ~~ u~s sh st~ ~ ~lete
.... ~tr cu~ 1~ t~11 ~ ~c r~ the
St~ tS ~tft~ ~ ~nf~ f~ ~get. a ..... if, ~n ~uflt,
-~ ~nl~ ~ ~'~f[{:,,~)o~ of ~'ltcy A. 4. b. in ~ls ,l~. end.
~~ U~te. T~ ~unty
~ ~ica~ ~ical~o~- ~-~: ~cg~o~i Planning ~il durfng'~aa~; of
fl) ide~ify st~~ tn tM C~s~t High ~a~ ~;
(3)
(4) ~keJU~~tt~st~ utilf~ ~ for ~ la~ for ~bltc ~cess; and
arise. ~tstti~ ~n ~st~saster op~ntties
fo11
~ ~ng ~M~ Zsl~ ~vel~nt ~st~ct~o~: a~ ~ enfo~ng t~e
s~1i lJmt ~vel~ ~ ~~n Zsla~ ~ c~tJnu~ng ~ ~fo~e
ext~i~ ~ter tsla~ de~l~.~rJ~to~'
(2) Afar a ~tca~ or Ot~r d~la~ ~rt) ~ter, lny e~ved
de~l~ ~r on ~htnson Is)m~ m~ ~atis~ ~ roll.lng
co~itions or tt s~ll ~ ~nsi~ ~ll ~ Void:
8-56
26
(al 1/3 or less ·
aevelopment ~of t~e ph~sfca!
Ih) t~ ~velo~nt ~s ~t ~d '
:c) ~ P~stcal t~v~nts.on.site t~t-~e ~n con~tructeo nave
sus~in~ ~ fn excess of fifty ~ent (S~) of their
Policy: Rest~ntial Den
5. ~TZYE ..... ~ ae~
After pl~ adoption, ~'tn ~n~ s~t) ~t~tn'establ(s~ levels of- service and
service a~s a~ shell p~ a~ ~tntatn t~~u~, tn Order ~ assu~ that
a~e~ate public facilities ~ .~rvices a~ ewaileble ~ ~isttng a~ P~J~te~
· . T~ ~evel ~ se _
{1 )~tch4 ~n-yearf~]l ~s~S~nc1 udee~nt;a P~t~t~veand
(2)years beach.~urts~nt P~ts 5~11 ~ a ~stgn life ~ at least five
'cant~ for Uevelo~nt
In t~ c~) zo~ d~n~tra~ t~t ~ P~J~t will c~)y ~th t~
ad°D~d leyel$ of ~rvtce for ~essa~ ~bltc fact)ttte~ a~ ~ted In t~
8-57
27