The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFort Pierce Land TrustMay 8, 1992 r'¢g onal plarini.n.g council Terry L. Virta, AICP Director, Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan - Adopted Amendment; DCA Reference #92-1 Dear Mr. Virta: Council staff has completed its review of the St. Lucie County adopted amendment in accordance with Council's contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and has prepared a report for Council consideration. This report will be presented to Council at its next regular meeting on May 15, 1992. You are invited to attend the meeting and address the Council if you wish. Enclosed are staff's report and the agenda for the meeting. Following the meeting, the report as finally approved by Council will be forwarded to the DCA. If you would like to discuss the staff report or Council procedures for plan review, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, . Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH: lb Enclosure 3228 s.w. marlin downs blvd. suite 205 - p.o. box t529 ;:~alrn city, fioridc; phone (40~ 22~-~60 sc 269-4060 f~ (40~ 22~-4067 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING. COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: From: Council Members Staff A% GENDA ITEM 6B5 Date: May 15, 1992 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review- Adopted Amendments to the St. LuCie County Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #92-1 Introduction _Pur~uan~ t~..the._Treasu~e Coast Regional Planning Council,s ~ac~_ wl~n the State Department of Community Affairs ~u~;, ~ne Council must review ComDrehe~-~A ~-- =£uer =heir a~optlon. St. Lucl~ County has submitted adopted Council, amendments to the DCA, which in turn is seeking s comments. iou~cil's review of the information provided by the DCA is eI°~io~;h~o~ste~cy ~f_the adopted amendments with ~ .p nenslve Policy Plan ! (RCPP) deve%oped pursuant to Section 186.507, F~orida Statutes. A wrltten report containing a determination of consistency .wit? the Regional Plan is to be provided to t~e DCA within 30 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments. Council reviewed the DRAFT amendments to the County comprehensive plan at its meeting of November 15, 1991 (see attachment). The DRAFT amendments consisted of two changes to the County Future Land Use Map. Evaluation On January 10, 1992, the DCA issued an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments report on the DRAFT amendments. The DCA raised eight objections to the County's proposed amendments. However, the majority of the objections (six of eight) were directed at Amendment 91-003, the proposed change of a 5.5 acre parcel from a commercial to a residential land use designation on South Hutchinson Island. The County has apparently decided not to adopt Amendment 91-003 at the present time. The County has adopted amendment 91-004 and transmitted information TREASD~ COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ~ NOTE: THE COUNTY,S To: Council Members ACTIONS TO ADDRESS COUNCIL,B CONCBRNB From: Staff ARB NOTED IN BOLD TYPE Date: November 15, 1991 Council Meeting Subject: .Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #92-1 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the ~Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Council must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which in turn is seeking Council's comments. Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is to focus on the consistency of the proposed amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed pursuant to Section 186.507, F.S. Ai written report, containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter! 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided tolthe DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments. St. Lucie County is considering two amendments to i. ts Future _Land.~Use..Map. T.he locations of the l properties under con.sxuera=_xon are snown on the accompanySng maps, and the number of acres and. pr.oposed chang, els. in land use designations are summarlze~ i~ Table 1 which follows: 3 locat of commercial servicesneeded to serve and future residents of these areas. The property is better located than other commercial properties =far'her to the south to serve approximately 1,761 units expected to exist at build out, both north and south of the parcel (currently there are 688 existing units, with another 417 approved, t more units are possible based on land use only about .64 percent are likely to prove buildable). are.equivalent to the number of units that towns served-by at least some degree of commercial services, it is logical to for such services will exist, if not in the future. From a planning would not be a good idea to eliminate the designation on unless and [y weI1 located =he needs area. caf P policy areas ~esignation of this land as residential would also be with efforts to residential islands. Re~ development in areas puts people property at risk, for expensive beach ~renourishment ~licates evacuation, extent types of commercial Council all but water dependent in such =ommercial services would be allowed to meet rE not major problem, commercial .c access may be more opment types. adjacent to than would use change could create more: traffic and levels of service on S.R.~AIA, This could. ause residential is being added, and because for commercial services is being eliminated. By eliminating commercial uses, a higher percentage of trips generated bY as many as 2,000 units ~ma~ be lengthened. Conversely, if the right kind of commer6kal services are would be shortened. While there is level of service A1A ~s property, a Level of ~ F) at S.R. AIA in the vicinity of of great concern, especial2 is the main evacuation report indicates led to a which was approved. Department of (and Beach M~rtin-St. Lucie since the Jensen A rSs of the lower letter (FDOT) 5 in current operating conditions under improve" criteria established by the FDOT. The St. Lucie County staff report suggests that while no improvements are presently scheduled for this area of U.S. 1, the increased traffic would be within an impact of five 1990 volumes, permissible under the FDOT letter from the FDOT (see attached)· : the .County should not permit any in current operating conditions. ObjectiOns, Recommendations for Modification, and Comment~ Amendment 91-003 A. Obj ection 1. None B. Comments The County's present land use designation of ia1 for this parcel appears appropriate and · given the present and projected amount of residential development in the immediate vicinity. The redesignation of this land to residential, the change of another parcel in the immediate commercial would not result in a balanced, and complementary mix of land uses with Regional Goal .2. As the in the e~alua~ion . . there are a r of residential un~ts w~ich have been the immedlate area (approximately 700), a .cant number which have been approved but have be built (approximately 400),i a~d a very large ~hich may be built in the ifuture, based on and zoning designations (perhaps 1,000). If :s are built, there would be a clear need for al/retail uses, but an unclear need for residential land use. The Regional Plan 9.1.1.2) ~alls for a limit on future on barrier islands to those uses which dependent or compatible with the and environmental characteristics of barrier or those uses which can occur without of important values or with public access to Not only 1 structures not dependent, , are more likely than ia1 uses to with public access to Given the location of the beach access a commercial use may more compatible residential use, and ,ide more of an 7 coordination should occur between the two counties on land use amendments on South Hutchinson Island. Amendment 91-003h&s not been adopted. ¸4. be on Plan calls for urban development residential development-at densities of units Ret acre o~ ~igher) only where necessary urban services and facilit~esare available concurrent with development (Policy 17.1.1.1). It also indicates (Policy 17.2.i.4) that the of small wastewater facilities should served eider by a new a treatment plant. concerns, the permit this property ilable. Amendment 91-O03'has not been a~opte~ 5. 25 role in , 10.1.2.2 requires that as a minimum, native plant communities should be ..on site. Because of the rarity of the found on site and their functional the dunes during storms and high ~ration should begive~ to preserving a 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 Development Code (Section 6.02.01 C) may prohibit deve on this parcel if it is considered an sensitive habitat. No information was ' however, to indicate that such an identi~ has been made. Amendment 91-003 has not been adopted. 6. Ideally,! woul fam .ly development of this site should be in the area nearest the road, which has 1.y impacted by cle.a, ring activities. The a single structure Wlth Parking beneath it ,.e the need to clear native vegetation on The' current proposal to place 28 single- on the parcel may not be compatible with the physical and environmenta 1 of the barrier island, as required by 9.1.1.2. 9 Recommendation 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 S~atutes. Attachments 11 LAND USE ~ NOUS GROVES JOHNSON ~ OWEN Legend RU: Residential Urban COM: Commercial ~ NOUS GROVES RU I'~MINIAY CORP : CO A PUGLI~[ WANNALANC: TEXTZLE CC '. D &R ASS &'EATING LOUPE PROPERTY 3~ __ ~!7 ASH CRgNER LINE --- - EASY S SAEGER ROAD -- 13 St. Lucte County Future Land Use Map FLOKIDA ~lrn Beach Urban Office 3111 Sou~h D~x~e H~ghway ~.; -- · ele~hone: 407-837-5290 :aUgust 30, 1991 ~. a.~,. Terpening, chainmn S~tc&l Planning Agency . Lucie Cou~tF ' 2300 Virginia Aven~e Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Attention: Nancy M~shaw Dear Mr. Ter~e~L~g: RE: F~.°~e~ Future Lan~ Use Plen EA~_~Land~mU File No. PA-91-004 ~e ~~ ur~ (RU -.-- ,-~ ~= zr~-i __ ~=~=e~ 630 -~----.~; for ~e north of Sa.get Argue . .~ fe~t ~st of s~ _ o~ ~ - ~ - - W_ -e~et ~ 5/~S-1 . . P ~or ~o ~e he ' re ~le to ~' · n the file for --~ .... ~g' We ~evel°~nC;~g~e~~-~=~~t '~ · ~nor one densi~ ~e ~ ~ ~ accor~oe , Y ~nt . ~ ~e resi~ · ~o=her 8-900 ~ilv tri~~~t ~ould ~t~ti.11 . e entl~l n~= =~ sec . ~= =n ~ _ =__ . _ ~ =~on o~ ~-5 Ls ba-~ .... ~ ~_ e ~c=~ se~n~. any si~fi-~-- 2-i--~ ~= ~e ~ ~Dac~ w ,,_ _ s ~t c~ ~ _ ~ ~use · 11 no~ f--~er as~ t~= - s~-5/us-1 ~s ..... ~egra~e ~e o~=a=~ y~e~ng condition~ a --~ZE~"~ co~aers ~_: ~t~u~n o~ levels o .. ----~% .~e Coun~ wi~h 15 October 24, 199I Anne M. Cox, Regional Planner Treasure. Coast Reglona! Planning co'nc1! 3228 SoW Ma~cln!Do~ns BOulevard P. O. Box 1529 Palm CTC¥, FL 34990 Suncmm Teial=4~.~: 224. 1011 OCT St. Lucie Count¥Compr&henstve Plan Amendments, Reference #92-1 Dear Ms. Cox: Please be advised that the Indian R/vet County planning staff has reviewed the above referenced item. It is staff's pos/t/on that the proposed land use amendments to the St. Lucie County :Future Land Use 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 17 DRAFT CO-g2-W-40A NOvember 5. lg91 The Honor'able Itaverl: L. Felm CJqtrmn, Bo~r~ of County Cmmtsstoners" St. LUcte County 23~ Vt r-g1 nti Avenue FOr.t Pt erce. FL 349~2-5652 RE: Proposed Land Use gU Menments Nos. 91-003 ind 91-004 Dear* ~. Fenn: , · ~nls nlne (9) Icrc pircel v!11 not have a s~gntflcant impact off I~r.ttn County public fa~11 ~s ~t opposed to this Lud Use ~ ~nWnt. ttes. T~refore. t~ ~unty g governs] c~tnatton o higher quallty o~ 1t~e ~or all t~s restOents. . ur ~on vtll achieve a Sincerely, I~gg.v Hurcl~l ~& Ch~im~n. BOm-d o~ Count. Ccmmis$toner.s HH/PE/gg: [3203h] Attacment cc: ~oa~d of CoUnty Ca~tssione~s Sue B. Nhtttle. County Amtntstrator* koc~l Planntng Agency Hlrry H. Kt rig. ACttng G~h ~g~nt Dt~r Kevln ~. Foley. ~at~n, Treuu~ ~st ~gto~1 Ptannt~ ~unct1 DRAFT ThtslanO use_ am?_nclmnt ~oneern~ a nine (9) acre parcel locate~ 25 ~ l e nor~ of Saeger Ave~e. '~ ~xt' ~st of US ]. ~tn ~un~ 11ne. T~ ~n~n p rarely s~x (6) ~les. nor~ of t~ ~e,~dent~,~/u~b,, C:~ ,-, .....~.~~_~oe ~ ~,~ use ~. 21 ~11's ~tnt ts 11stK u i 11~ Mtn~tn trlfftc fE~ltt~ tn t~ Trlfftc ~rwll~ Elm~,Zsl~ ~ ~ ~1t~, Scion ~5. B.l.g.. Ii~ ill ens~y o~ ~C2) unt~s ~r ~1~ I~ ~re ~ s~le fret ly ~stOences l~ t ~. t~ i~ ~ e~stt~ ml~ ~ ~ a~r brlage to .ut~tns~ Zsl~ ~n et~r t~fftc ~es~ a~ ~el ~n ~ S~. ~cte ~tes mt~ ~i= i11eviate ~, ~~ Xsl~ ts ~~ i~s ~ ~ C3) brtOges Oevelo~ --, ~ ~la~ ~ ~ tn~enst takt~ Pl~ ~ ~tn aM .~., ...... W of ~uflTM. -- ~,,u, ~ 3u~sdt~ o~ oevelo~fl~ .~as. ~ ..... ~ ~s ~Mt fu~r u~er t~ 4u~s ........ ~ ~ of aut~tns~ Zstand ~linn~ o~uPin~ ~ I ~rrter tsland ~. ~t ~ts qeflc~ re~s t~t of ~unW ~sstoners fo~ t letter ~ ~ ~t~n o~ ~ degree o~ ~nce~ ~o~ thts wC~r tn ~rttn :. ~LY P~S~ ~ ~ ~ZS I~ ~y ~ ~. I~!. LOCAL PLAHNXNG AGENCY HARTZN COUNTY, FLORXD~ APPiK)VED AS TO FOIEH AND COItRECTNES$: BY: RI ~J.~ ,%9~'ZCELLo ASST. CoulrrY A'T'TO~EY 23 - ..Znfftan st. 25 #a~.4= ,,...=~ =.._"~. "--"--,~ ,~c Irm.W lies ,---=, .... - .~,.,,_,.uun~ s.ne, encourage lettvftt--, ~:-I' ."~'P__'ecea .~ts tasks ,-..- ,pm, ~, om iWCOvi~r Task ~eorce. "' b. ;ne ovneq td~o meet all condfC'lons POF' ribulldt~/PP~e°-v~a.1_pr°eess, for C~se ¢. Policy. ,,dcautsltton of La.~d-. Narttn Cou _ . S~rgCtuj.~, '~' '---" ~ $tnce consl:ruc~ton of the 4 27 F FLO RI DA CO-92-HH-40A November 6, 1991 The Honorable Havert L. Fenn Chairman, Board of County Cmmmtssloners St. Lucle County 2300 Vlrgtnta Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 RE: Proposed Land Use Flip Amendments Nos. 91-003 aM 91-004 Dear Mr. Fenn: NOV 12 Attached please find a copy of the Harttn County staff report regarding the above referenced Land Use Hap mmanaments. Rarttn County is greatly concerned with Amendment NO. 91-003 in light of the possibility that it may lead to a development approval which would increase traffic volume on Hutchinson Island, a situation Martin County is strongly trying to avoid. Because of the potential impacts to Martin County arterial roads such 'as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SR A1A, the County goes on re_.~ord as opposing this proposed amendment. The County Cmmtsston noted the specific concerns for Hutchinson Island regarding hurricane storm event evacatton needs for residents on both sides of the County line. The Martin County Comprehensive Growth I~nagement Plan limits new development to single family residences (Policy 4-4, A.$.b., Page 4-37) and hopes that St. Luci County will recognize in a similar fashion the maximum density for new development e is set at two (2) units per acre (see Traffic Circulation Element, Page $A-40, Policy g.). With a reduction of the density to maximum density of 2 upa. the joint County concerns for hurricane evacuation time standards would be adequately addressed and I~rtin Countywould not have the smme objection as results with the St. Lucie County proposed density of 5 upa. With regard to Amendment No. 91-004. 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 this LanU Use Map amendment. ' 29 08x28/1992 14:05 FROM T?-. PT. ST. LUCIE NEWS '- FAX COYE~SHE£T THE POET ST LUCIE NEWS 7830 South UoS.1. ~AX PHON~ NU~BE~ (607)878-5693 DATE: TO; X~C~IVEX'S VOICE PRONE # , VOICE PHONE # , _ O~ PAGES TO FOLLOW THIS _, _ 08/28J1992 14:05 FROM THE' PT. ST. LUCIE NEWS TO 4681735 IIIl!!! ----- ~~ TOTRL P. 02 i~ NAY 6 1992 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Jim Smith Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX) Mr. Robert Arredondo (~4) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353 Dept. of Comm. Affrs. Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32399 BUREAU OF LOCAl PLANNING I PLAN REVIEW. April 23, 1992 Re' Historic Preservation Review of St. Lucie County's (92-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests Dear Mr. Arredondo: According to this agency's responsibilities under section 267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced documents to decide if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the St. Lucie County COmprehensive Plan. Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9.57 acre tract (File No. PA-92-001) from Residential to Commercial should have no adverse affect on historic resources in the county, since this tract appears to be in a low probability area for archaeological sites and lacks any historic buildings. On the other hand, changing the land use designation from Agricultural to Residential Suburban on the 163.92 acre tract (File No. 92- 002) may affect significant resources in the county. An area this large generally needs to be systematically surveyed to discover its potential for producing significant archaeological sites. As we stated in our review of the 92-1 amendment to the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan, the county needs to sponsor a systematic,- professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporated county that is designed to: (1) revisit known sites to find out their present condition, (2) prepare predictive models for the location of sites, and sample selected areas to verify the validity of these models, and (3) delimit archaeological sensitivity areas within the county based on the study results. Finally, the county should consider adopting a policy to require Archaeological Research (904) 487-2299 Horida Folklife Programs (904) 397-2192 Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History Page Two Mr. Robert Arredondo April 23, 1992 that any proposed developments scheduled within archaeological sensitivity areas undergo investigation (such as the tract noted above) to find out 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 bef6re allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some matching grant funds for historic resource surveys may be available from the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of Historic Preservation at (904) 487-2333. ~In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets the concerns Of the Division of Historical Resources and the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 1163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding the identification Of known historical resources within their specified area of 'jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and!objectives for addressing historical and potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please-feel free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333. George W. Percy, Director Div. of Historical Resources STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVI EW DRIVE · TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY LAWTON CHILES Governor The Honorable Jim Minix Chairman, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 July 21, 1992 Dear Commissioner Minix: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (DCA No. 92-2), which was submitted on April 13, 1992. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department,s Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ii.010, Florida Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this letter, St. Lucie County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-ii.011, Florida Administrative Code. Among the issues identified in the Report are the lack of data and analysis to support the increased density of land use as proposed by Amendment PA-92-002 and inadequate analyses of traffic and infrastructure facilities. It is very important that the adopted plan amendment address th~se issues, and all the objections in the Department,s ORC Report. Please contact me if any staff can be of assistance as you formulate your responses to this Report. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, St. Lucie County must submit the following to the Department: Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendme~ts;-- A copy of-the adoption ordinance; EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT The Honorable Jim Minix July 21, 1992 Page Two A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department.s Objections Recommendations and Comments Report. ' The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. As a deviation from the current rule requirement above, you are requested to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to be consistent with recent legislation. The regional planning councils have been asked to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan consistency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. (The Department will thebe promulgatingnew legislation.)a rule revision in the near future to implement If you have any questions, please contact Maria Abadal, Plan Review Administrator, Dale Eacker,-~°mmunity Program Administrator, or John Healey, Planner IV, at (904) 487-4545. RP/j hw Sincerely, Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Enclosur. es: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Amendment 92-2 July_ 21, 1992 Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010 INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department,s review of the St. Lucie County proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s.163.3184, F.S. Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommend- ation of one approach that might be taken to address the Cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable.in specific situations. Some of these objections may have nltially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department,s objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department,s objection would take precedence. Each'of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compli- ance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department,s report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments' are adviso.ry to the Department and may not objections unless they appear under thef°rm bases of Departmental this report. "Objections,, heading in OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS St. Lucie County Amendment 92-2 Introduction The objections raised in this report concern Amendment PA-92-002. One of the primary issues related to the amendment are associated with urban sprawl. When the County's comprehensive plan was found "Not-in-Compliance,, on March 21, 1990, one of the two major issues was the failure of the plan to adequately discourage urban sprawl. Based on the ratio of lands occupied by current residents (approximately 1 acre per 3 persons) approximately 35,000 acres of residential land would be needed to accommodate the year 2015 ~opulation (the planning timeframe). However, the County,s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates 70,989 acres for residential development. Although the plan was brought into compliance through the amendment process, the allocation of residential land uses as shown on the FLUM was not changed from that which was originally adopted. Therefore, the Department is concerned with the proposal to allocate additional lands for residential uses and theconsistency' of' the proposed amendments with plan policies established to address urban sprawl issues. The Department therefore concurs with the objections raised by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to this amendment. The County should be aware of the difficulties resulting from large over allocations of residential (and other) land uses. As Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requires that the allocation of land uses be based upon the projected population and discourage.urban sprawl, amendments to the Future Land Use Map which seek to add t~ an already %arge inventory of non-rural or'non-~gricultural lands are difficult to support. Further difficulties arise where the character of specific areas may be changing and land uses should be re-visited. However, without a comprehensive consideration of the adequacy of the current distribution of land uses (and subsequent reconfiguration), plan amendments either exacerbate, or create, development patterns characteristic of urban sprawl. In instances where comprehensive plans provide for a more than adequate supply of urban lands for future development (as ~does St. Lucie County,s plan), it may be appropriate to reconsider the current distribution of higher intensity land uses. This could be accomplished on a County-wide basis or, by establishing specific planning areas for evaluation. Objections to Amendment PA-92-002 As noted above, the issue of urban sprawl is of concern to the Department with respect to this amendment. Rule 9J-5.O06(2)(c) requires that an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the Co~nty,s projected population. The Future Land Use Map adopted by the County currently provides for twice the amount of residential land needed to accommodate the year 2015 population. However, although the amendment proposes to add to this supply of residential land, an analysis which supportsthe need for additional residential' land, above that which is currently provided for, has not been included. Also, please see the comments of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding this amendment and the issue of urban sprawl. Recommendation In order for the proposed amendment to be supported by adequate da~a and analysis, include an analysis demonstrating that the current inventory and/or -distribution of residential land uses are inadequate to accommodate the County,s projected population. Relevant factors would include unanticipated increases in the projected population, changing development patternsand housing demands. Also, if the County determines that the existing supply of residential land is 'that the current distribution should be achieve its planning goals, it may be o redistribute residential uses without inc the supply of such uses. An analysis of the impact of the increased densities as proposed by the amendment on the Florida Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70 has not i been ncluded. Please see the enclosed comments of the Florida Department of Transportation which address this objection. Additionall~, while data submitted by the applicant (T. Torres letter of March 19, 1992 to the County planning Director, p. 7) appears to indicate that adequate capacity exists on the roadway system to maintainadopted level of service standards given the increased density, it is not clear that this estimate considers the adopted peak hour level of service standard. Rules 9J-5.007(2)(b); 9J-11 006(1)(b)4; and 9J-11.006(4). ' , Recommendation Include an analysis of the impact of the increased densities as proposed by the amendment on the Florida Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70. Revise the facility capacity analysis and the analysis of the impact of the proposed amendment to be based upon and assessed against the adopted peak hour level of service standard. Although information has been submitted by the applicant that development of the subject site is anticipated to be served by central water and sanitary sewer facilities (see page 5 of Mr. Torres letter to the Planning Director dated March 19, 1992) facility capacity analyses for these facilities and the impact of the increased density on these facilities has not been included. Additionally, while the generation rate for solid waste has been estimated, an analysis identifying existing solid waste facility capacity and the effect of the increased generation rate on the adopted level of solidwaste service standard has not Also, an analysis of the availability 6n and, capacity of drainage ~acilities has not been included. R~les 9J-5. 011 (1) ~f); 9J- ~11.006(1) (b)2.; 9J-11.006(1) (b)4.; and, 9J-11.006(3). ~ecommendation Include data and analysis for sanitary sewer, potable water and drainage facilities addressing existing facility capacity (i.e., surpluses or deficiencies), identification of the demand generated by the level of development allowable under the proposed land use category and, an assessment of the impact on the County,s adopted level of service standards. For example, on page 7 of the "Application for Change in Future Land Use Classification,,, dated December 26, 1991, the ~response to question #6 calculates the amount of solid waste that could be expected if the subject property was developed as 160 unit subdivision. The analyslis should be e.x~.anded by i~entifying the ~xisting Capacity of solid waste facilities and the impact of ~he estimated generation rate on the County,s level of s~rvice standard (i.e:, can'standards be maintained or, would facility improvements or expansions be required): This type of analysis should besubject included site. for all facilities which would serve the Amendment PA-92-002 is inconsistent with the following goals objectives and policies of the St Lucie County Comprehensive Plan: ' (a) Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.2, which "-..establishes agriculture as the primary use outside the urban service boundary and promote[s] retention of agricultural activities...,,, because the subject site lies outside the urban service boundary and is proposed for development at a density which is inconsistent with agricultur~I activities; ~ 3 (b) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2.4.f., which provides that when converting existing or designated agricultural land uses to non-agricultural uses that the site will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development, because adequate facility capacity analyses needed to support the amendment have ~ot been included; (c) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.2, which requires that new development be designed so as not to place u~.a~t~cipated economic burdens u on the s and facilities o~ ~ ~ .... ~-- - P . . ervices ..... ~vun~y, mecause facility capacity analyses for solid waste and traffic circulation are -inadequate and do not support the proposed amendment; and, (d) Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.12.1, which provides for restricting higher densities and intensities of development to urban service areas, because the amendment proposes to establish higher intensity uses outside the Planned Urban Service Boundary. Recommendation Revise the proposed amendment and include additional data and analysis as recommended in the above cited objections. CONSISTENCY ~ITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I. Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and does not further Goal 16 (Land Use), Policy (b)l., of the State Comprehensive Plan, which addresses the separation of urban and rural land uses, because adequate data and analysis has not been included to support the need for the increased density. Rules 9J- 5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1). 2. Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and does not further Goal 20 (Transportation), policies- (b)2. and (b)3., of the State Comprehensive Plan because an analysis of the impact of the proposed increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been included. Rules 9J-5.005(2) and, 9J-5.021(1). RecommendatiOn Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended for the objections raised above. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLA~f 1. Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and does not further Regional Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan which indicates that Future Land Use Maps of local governments should be based on the amount of land required to accommodate future growth and the projected population, because adequate data and analysis supporting the need for the -increaseddensity of land use has not been included. Rules 9J-5.002(2) and, 9J-5.021(i). 2. Proposed Amendment PA-92-001 is inconsistent with and does not further Regional Policy 19.2~1.3, addressing acceptable level of service standards for roadways, because an analysis of the impact of the proposed increase in density on the Florida Turnpike interchange (and interchange area) with SR 70 has not been included. Recommendation Revise the proposed amendment, including submitting additional supporting data and analysis, as recommended for the obje6tions raised above. 5 FLORIDA LAWToN C, OVERNO~ Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OFFICE . DISTRICT 4 BE~ G. WATTS Location: 4101 l~ven~wood Rd.. Bldg. #3, Ft. Laudcrdalc. Telephone: (305) 797-8510; Fax: (305) 797-8339 Mailing Addre~: 780 SW 24th Street. Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33315-2696 June 5 1992 · Dear Mr. Arredondo: RE: Department of Transportation Review Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment St. Lucie County - Ref.~ 92-2 As requested in your memorandum of April 17, 1992, the Department has reviewed the documents for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for St. Lucie County. Our objections regarding the proposed amendments are enclosed. JMY:av encl. cc: B. Romig G. Schmidt A. Vandervalk Sincerely, J~eph M. Yesbeck, P.E. District Director Planning and Programs DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: ELEMENT: Traffic Circulation Planninq St. Lucie County .04/22/92 06/06/92 Traffic Analysis for Amendment Number PA-92-001 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.007C3) Cc)l. .9J-5. 0055 C2~. 9J-11.006Cl) Cb) 4 OBJECTION - The report states that there is insufficient roadway capacity to support the proposed amendment. Further, it is stated that this is a preliminary Development Order and can be approved provided that no right to develop is granted until such a time as adequate capacity is available. However, the documents do not address the availability of traffic circulation system nor discuss how adequate roadway capacity could be made available. There is no indication that the public facilities necessary to support such a land use amendment will be in place concurrent with the development. RECOMMENDATION - Revise the analysis of the transportation impacts of the proposed amendment to include a complete analysis of available services and the transportation system required to. support the additional development which would result from this land use amendment. REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: Anita Vandervalk Scott Seeburqer Gus Schmidt PHONE: 305-797-8510 PHONE: 305-797-8510 PHONE: 305-797-8510 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: ELEMENT: Traffic Circulation Planninq St. Lucie County 04/22/92 06/06/92 Traffic Analysis for Amendment Number PA-92-002 RULE DEFICIENCY: .9J-5. 007 (2) (ak _9J-11. 006 (1) Cb) 4. OBJECTION - This amendment will have a significant impact on the surrounding transportation system. The impacts on the facility located directly adjacent to the proposed amendment site have been analyzed. However, the impacts on the Level of Service of the Turnpike Interchange with Okeechobee Road (SR 70) located just 2 miles from the site have not been addressed. RECOMMENDATION - Revise the application to include an analysis of the existing LOS of the interchange and other affected transportation system aspects in order to determine the present and future impacts of the proposed land use amendment. REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY- REVIEWED BY: Anita Vandervalk Scott Seeburqer Gus Schmidt PHONE: 305-797-8510 PHONE: 305-797-8510 PHONE: 305-797-8510 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Jim Smith Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX) Mr. Robert Arredondo (904) 488-1480 (904) 48~3353 Dept. of Comm. Affrs. Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32399 BUREAU OF LOC:AL April 23, 1992 Re: Historic Preservation Review of St. Lucie County's (92-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests Dear Mr. Arredondo: According to this agency's responsibilities under section 267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced documents to decide if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9.57 acre tract (File No. PA-92-001) from Residential to Commercial should have no adverse affect on historic resources in the county, since this tract appears to be in a low probability area for archaeological sites and lacks any historic buildings. On the other hand, changing the land use designation from Agricultural to Residential Suburban on the 163.92 acre tract (File No. 92- 002) may affect significant resources in the county. An area this large generally needs to be systematically surveyed to discover its potential for producing significant archaeological sites. As we stated in our review of the 92-1 amendment to the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan, the county needs to sponsor a systematic, professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporated countY that is designed to: (1) revisit known sites to find out their present condition, (2) prepare predictive models for the location of sites, and sample selected areas to verify'the validity of these models, and (3) delimit archaeological sensitivity areas within the county based on the study results. Finally, the countyshould consider adopting a policy to require Archaeological Research (904) 487-2299 Horida 'Folklife Programs (904) 397-2192 Historic Preservation (004) 487-2.%3% Museum of Florida History Page Two Mr. Robert Arredondo April 23, 1992 that any proposed developments scheduled within archaeological sensitivity areas undergo investigation (such as the tract noted above) to find out if significant archaeological sites are present. On the other hand, areas outside the sensitivlt areas would be free to ~roceed--~2-:-2 ' Y as ,_~A~..~_= _L ~ i ~Q~x~ no chance archaeolo ical f' - = ~ ~uu~u ~oca=e ano evaluate all its pre-1945 structures to ensure that they are considered before allowing any development or redevelopment to take place. Some matching grant funds for historic resource surveys may be available from the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of HiStoric Preservation at (904) 487-2333. In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets the concerns of the Division of Historical Resources and the State of Florida,s requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing historical and potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333. ~George W. Percy, Director Div. of Historical Resources D 7.740 cENI'rcR¥1~W DR:I¥ E * TA1'E OF FLORIDA N'T OF COMMUNITY .TALLAHASS£E' AFFAIRS FLORIDA 32399-2100 LIND.k LOO~AIS Secretary June 10, 1992 Chairman of county 154982-5652 completed its review of the adopted (ordinance No. 92-018; DCA No. 92-1) adopted on March 24, 1992 and determined irements of Chapter 163, part ~t,, Florida , as defined in subsection 163.3184(1)(b)' ~ing a Notice of Intent to find the plan · The Notice of intent has been sent to for publication on June 11, 1992- a copy of the adopted St. Lucie county ~ the Depar~ment-'s objections, 1992, and ommentS Report dated january 10 be available for public inspection except for legal holidays, during normal St. Lucie county Administration Building Room 203, Ft. pierce, Florida 34982- f the adopted plan amendment, the Depart~ rding traffic impacts to U.S. 1. The d~ with the amendment indicates that the densities~~Permitted800 underto 900the pla~ Lit in an addlt~ona~ daily · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' RESOURCE PLANNING. AND tg~__ The Honorable Jim Minix June 10, 1992 Page Two trips on U.S. 1 which is designated as a backlogged facility. As abacklogged facility, the adopted level of service standard which ~he County must satisfy is to "maintain and improve,, traffic operat- ing conditions on U.S. 1. For the "maintain,, standard to be met, the County must ensure that the increased traffic on U.S. 1 is less than 5 percent of 1990 volumes. Facility improvements are not scheduled for this segment of U.S. 1 and the County must prevent significant deterioration in current operating conditions. The County should consider coordinating with the ~orlda Department of Transportation to address actions necessary to mitigate traffic impacts which may result from the plan amendment. If you have any questions, please contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan Review Administrator, or Dal.e Eacker, Community Program Administrator, at (904) 487-4545. Sincere ly, Charles G. Pattison, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management CGP/rfw Enclosure: Notice of Intent cc: Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director Treasure Coast Planning Council ' Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator Regional STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO. 92-1-NOI-5601-(A)-(i) The Department gives notice of its intent to find th~ Amend- ~ ment(s) to the Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County, adopted by Ordinance No(s). 92-018 on March 24, 1992, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S. The adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) and the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 iVirginia Avenue, Room 203, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for a.n administrative hearing to chal- lenge the proposed 'agency determination that the Amendment(s) to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents described in Rule 9J-11.012(8), F.A.C. The petition shall be filed with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 3239-9..~2100, and a copy mailed or delivered to the local governmeht. Failure to ~imely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to :equest an administrative proceeding as a petitioner under Sec- ':ion 120.57, F.S. If a petition is filed, the purpose of the ~dministrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony And forward a recommended order to the Department. If no peti- ~ction.:i°n is filed, this Notice of Intent shall become final agency If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A petition for inter- 7ention must be filed at least five (5) days before the final ~earing and must include all of the information and contents .escribed in Rule 22I-6.010, F.A.C. A petition for leave to ntervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hear- ngs, Departmen~ of Administration, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, ~atlahassee, Florida 32399-1550. Failure to petition to inter- ~ene within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any ight such a person has to request a hearing under Section 20.57, F.S., or to participate in the administrative hearing. Charles G. Pattison, Director Department of Community Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Management 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY COMMISSION(ERS DIEVCLOPM6NT ADMINISTF TOR April 23, 1992 TERRY L. VIRTA. AICP Michael Houston, Agent for Fort Pierce Land Trust Urban Design Studio 900 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, FL 34994 Dear Mr. Houston: This letter is to confirm that on March 24, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, gave final approval to your petition for a change in Land Use from RU (Residential Urban) to RM ( Residential Medium). A copy of the recorded Ordinance No. 92-018 is enclosed for your information. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA JM:cb Enclosure HAVERT L FENN. District No. I e JUDY CULPEPPER. Dist,rict No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREF£LN£R. 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 Compliance: (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 ~44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 APR 2 3 I992 ORDINANCE NO. 92 - 018 1-':; ic FILE NO: PA-91- 004 ~ ORDINANCE CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY; AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 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 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) 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. 0785 f E2005 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 C?.~SSIFICATIO~ 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 10, 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 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. CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP? 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 the Florida Legislature 785 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. Fe APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. FILING WITH THE DEPART~m~T 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 AFFAIR~ 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 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 Commissioner Havert L. Fenn Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day OR92-018 (e) DJM AYE AYE ABSENT of March, 1992. BY: APPROVED AS TO FO~M.AND CO~x~ESS- ~'~ ~EY 2 0 0 8 T¥ 661' 620' VICINITY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST SAEGER AVENUE EASY STREET LAND USE i~: PE'i I'I'ION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST T ZONING CHEZ NOUS GROVES Q.1EZ N~'IIIROVESi HEll.AY COflP PUGI. T,.ESE . _8 D & R ASSOC ! - "EASY ST PET IlION' OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST VICINtTY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST SAEGER AVENUE EASY STREET ZONING PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST LAND USE PETITION. OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST Date: March 24, 1992 Tape: 1, 2' convened: -9: 20' a. m. adjourned: 11:27 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Jim Minix, Havert L. Fenn, Jack Krieger, Judy Culpepper, R. Dale Trefelner (absent with flu) Others Present: James Chisholm, County Administrator; Danny Crew, As s t. County Admi nis trator; Tom Kindred, As s t. County Administrator; -R/ck Howell, Utilities Administrator; Dan McIntyre, CounEy Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Manager; Clifford Crawford, Leisure Services Administrator; Ronald Brown, Public Works Administrator;- Gayla Ba-r~i ck, Tourism Director; Harold Wheeler, Special Activities Director; S. DeMichael, Sheriff, s Office; A. Mittie White, 'Deputy Clerk ~ Ordinance No~ _92-18 Reference was made to memorandum from Development Adm±nistrator, addressed to the Board} dated March 18, 1992, subject: Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael Houst'on, to Amend Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan fro RU to RM. Mr. Michael Houston, agent, was present to answer any questions the Board may have. It was moved by Com. Fenn, seconded by Com. Cuipepper, to approve Ordinance No. 92- 18, an ordinance granting approve to the petition~, of Ft. Pierce ~and Trust, by Agent Michael Houston, to amen~l'~'~he Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU to RM; a.nd upon rollcall carried unanimously. ' , motion AGENDA REOUES? DATE: March 18, 1992 REGULAR: 3/24/92 REQUEST PRESENTATION: SPECIAL: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: XXXXXXX SESSION: ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COI~4UNITY DEVELOPI~NT - PIniONING Consider Draft Ordinance 92-18 granting approval to the petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael Houston, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). LOCATION: 600 feet (+/-) west of South US #1, about 1/4 mile north of Seager Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance 92-18. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER PRESENTED BY: CONCURRENCE: (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED) ./~/~~~ DEPARTMENT: COMJ4UNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES V. CHISHOLM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (AGENDA24) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION DATE: James V. Chisholm County Administrator COMMISSION REVIEW: MARCH 24, 1992 ORDINANCE NUMBER: 92 - 018 FILE NUMBER: PA-91-004 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: County Commission DevelopmentAdministrator 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 improvements 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, an~ development of the subject property to the maximum density permitted under the proposed future'land use designation can only be done after a change in the property's zoning designation has March 18, 1992 Page 2 Subject: Ft. Pierce Land Trust 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 theimpacts 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: / CONCURRENCE: PA91004A(e) cc: County Attorney Commission Secretary Michael Houston Press/Public 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 5O 51 52 ORDINANCE NO. 92 - 018 FILE NO-' PA-91- 004 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. 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 descrihed in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on 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) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. 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 notifyingbymail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of CoUnty Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: A. ¢~NGE 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, Township36 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, ~ange 40 East, less rights-of-way for public roads and drainage canals. /%LONG WITH: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Ordinance NO. 92 - 018 FILE NO= PA-91- 004 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. 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 describDd in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the petition on 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) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. 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 bymail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: A. CWaNGE IN FUTURE ~.a_ND 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, Township36 South, Range 40 East, less rights-of-way for public roads and drainage canals. ALONG WITH= 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 The South 112 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, 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 SW1/4 of said Section 10, St. Lucie County, Florida Ft. Pierce Land Trust, as Trustee, be and the same is here~y changed from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY This Board specifically determines that the approval of this change in the Land Use Element is consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. C. CHANGES TO ZONING ATLAS 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 the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ordinance to the extent of such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative.or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this Ordinances. If this Ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumStances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31- 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 F., APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. FILING WITH THE DEPARTT4ENT 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. FILTNG WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COI~4UNITY AFFAIRS The County~ttorney 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 XXX Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger XXX Commissioner Judy Culpepper XXX Commissioner Havert L. Fenn XXX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992. 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 3'6 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 ATTEST DEPUTY CLERK FTPLAND.RES(RESLS2) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY COMMISSION6RS DEV LOPM£NT March 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. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If'~a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new-owner. 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. Sincere ly, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~T. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIbA Jam Minix, Chairman ~ FILE NO. PA-91-004 HAVERT L FENN. District No. t · JUDY CULPEPPlEf{ District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. Oisrric~ Mo. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No..5 County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administrator: (407) 468-t 590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Legal Description: The. N-1/2 of the_ SW 1/4 of the'NE 1/4 of t~e_ SW 1/4 of Section 1~, 'township 36 South, [tanje 4~ East, St. Imcie Co~nb], 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 /14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Township"36 So~t~, 1~ 4~ East, less rights-of-m~y for p~blic roads and draina~3e CarolS. The_ South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE/14 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~, Towrk~hip 36 South, lZange 4~ East, Ar-~O 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. L~cie County, Florida Midway Road '1 Ft. Pierce Land Trust Parcel S~reet 13aysho~e Bird Prima Vista Bivd PORT ST. I UGIE Site Location Map 661' 620' VICINITY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST EASY STREET SAEGER AVENUE LAND USE PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST T ZONING PEI'I[ION RS-2 , TEXTILE CO .8~ D &RASSOC LO~E OF FOR[ PIERCE LAND TRUST [[C~AEL HOUSTON :/o 0RBAN DESIGN STUDIO 100 E OCEAN BLV .~CUART FL 34994 .,31 ~ NOUS GROVES INC BOX 125 · T~PITER FL 33468 Pr~'~ERFf ~ IN PETITIONED ~(i~ ~ FORT PIE1RCE LAND TRUST GARY L. KORNFELD ESQ 1400 CENTREPARK BLV WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED 2 ~CORP c/o 1STAMERICAN BANK #010527 PO BOX 3146 WEST PALMBEACH FL 33402 "A",6,7 STEPH~ SPALTER ROBERT S~n0MRIDGE 2992 FRENCRV~M~S p~ PAlM BEACH FI. 33410 ANTHONY V PUGLIESE III 2500MILITARYTRAIL SUITE 2OO BOCA RATON FL 33431 ~OVE ~ITY ASSN INC 4300 S. FEDERAL HWY T PIERCE FL 34982 5 ~SR%~EANCIT TEXTILE CO PO }DX 152 ~,T, MA 01853 8,9;16' GEORGE &.'LISEIOTI~ PETRIE LISA ANNPETRIE 5989 S FEDERAL~ FTPIERCE FL 34982 1,t2 ' & R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE CO INC 503 EASY ST T P/~RCE-FL 34982 13 ROBERT KEATING' NINA KEATING BOBBY & SHEIL~' EGGERT 222SMALT~0ODAV FT PIERCE FL ~4982 14 JERRY & BONNIE ASH 6070 S US ~1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 5,16,17,22 ~ & LOUISE DEAL ~RR~r,T. & JUDITH FRANKT.~ · EFFERY & DRrAINE FORST 903 YORK CT T PIERCE FL 34982 ETERLOUPE RANKLOUPE 039~AV T PIERCE FL 34982 18,20 F'RANK&MARIE-LOUPE 384GREEN~YTER PORT STLUCIE FL 34983 23,24 HAYSLIPLANDSCAPE 6147 S US #1 ET PIERCE FL 34982 19 t~AROLO&CARRIELOU~E 6009 S FEDERAL HWY FTPIERCE FL 34982 25 I>HILIP RODI JACQUEL/NEBALD~,!LN 6406 OLEANDER AV ET PIERCE FL 34982 6 ILLIA~& L(kR[LAINE BALDWIN 408 OLEANDER AV ~ PIERCE FL 34982 27 WfLLIAM& BETTY FULLING 6404 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 28 RALPH & ELVIRAMCYUFA 6400 OLEANDER AV FT ~IERCE FL 34982 L B & FRANCES OWEN PO BOX 3324 FT PIECE FL 34948 HESLEY JOHNSON 6300 OLFANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 ROADS STATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT JOHN ANDERSON FDOT 3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112 MAILBOX 122 ~;EST PALM BEACH FL 33405 ~ ~ONtf NHO£ ?~2BfOH ~06f7£ q~ ~D~Id J~ A~ LEION-W-AqO O0'E9 NOSNHOC OY 8P6P£ ~,~ 3Dl~Id J2 ~ S3DNIft~ 'g ~t q 6F~ BOARD OF COUNTY D6V£LOPM6NT COMMISSION£RS D IR6CTOR TERRY L. VIP, TA. 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, 1991 the'Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, approved the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the St. Lucie Count~f 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 cc: Community Development Administrator Land Development Manager Planning Director Michael Houston File HAVERI' L FENN. Distrio No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER. Dis~rio' No. 2 · JACK KI~IE6ER. District No. :3 · R. DALE 1FREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. :5 Count, Adrninisrroror -- JAMES V_ CHISHOLM 2`300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL ,34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-155`3 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1.55.3 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT Si'. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Doc Assume- $ S!. IL~:ie County Doc la, $ ~H,~ Cler~ Circu. C~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~ 18 20 ..~. 21 22 26 27 29 3O 31 RESOLUTION NO. 91--183 FILE NO.: PA-91-004 A RESOLUTI ON APPROVING TRANSMITTAf:~ 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. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael Houston, pres ented a petition for a change i n Land Us e from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. 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 i nternat consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 163. 3177(2), Florida Statutes. 4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice of such hearing in T..he 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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5? 2 5.:-] ~-: :- ' ' 32 33 official consideration of this request to transmit was delayed until September 24, 1991. 5. 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 of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land use designation,-filed by Ft. Houston, is hereby approved Department of Community Affairs 163, Florida Statutes. After fol 1 ows: Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael for transmittal to the Florida for further review under Chapter motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as Chairman Havert L. Fenn ABSENT Vice-Chairman Jim ~inlx ATE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Jack. Krieger AYE Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of September, COUNTY ATOMY 1/2 of tie SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of am lo. ~ip 36 ~ ~ ~c ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ of ~ ~ ~4 of a ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of a~ 1~. ~ip 36 ~. ~ 40 ~t. 1~ ~ ~l of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 6f ~~ 1~. ~p COMMISSION REVIEW: September t0, RESOLUTION NUMBER: 91 - 183 MEMORANDUM 1991 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Planning Director Date: August 28, 1991 Subject: 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 wiil 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. OVE RVI EW LOCATI ON: EXI'STI NG ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PROPOSED LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PARCEL SI ZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE DESI GNATI ONS: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. ~t, 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.~i.'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~) zoning is located to the north and the west. COM (Commercial) is located to the east and the south. RU (Residential Urban) is located to the north and the west. August 28, 1991 Page 2 SURROUNDING LAND USES: FI RE/EMS PROTECTION: WATER/SEWER SERVICE: Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 1. 5 miles away. approxi matel y 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. TILANSPORTATI ON IMPACTS: RI GHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: No additional right-of-way will -be required. 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 Comprehens ire P1 an as a backlogged facility, with no improvements scheduled at this time. Maintenance of the current LOS is, therefore, required with an increase in'traffic 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 St. Lucie County Capital Improvements .~in this area include: August 28, 1991 Page 3 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 CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit STAFF REVIEW-AND COMMENTS This- applicat~6n is for a change in the Future Land Use Designation of a 9 acre parcel from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). The propose~ 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. Development. of these properties would be subject to all standards of concurrency upon the approval of the site plan for the proposed development. The 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 Page 4 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 policies within the following elements of the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan: 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-.of this element. In accordance with Policy 1. 1.4. 1, this amendment-will result in urban development that is within the Planned Urban SerVice 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 Circulation Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this e.tement. South U.S. 1, east of the subj eot 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 of 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~-.has 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 into 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'01id Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to .... 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 hal 1 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 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 capacity t6 maintain the Level of Service standard established in Policy 6D. 1. 2. 2 of this element is available for development of th~s ~roperty at the maximum density permitted~ under the proposed Future Land Use Designation. 10. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict.with this element. This property is no~ located within any o~ the areas, specified ~in Section 3..D of this element, which are subject to coastal flooding and require evacuation in the event of a hurricane. Access to this property will be along SouthU.$. 1 which is not identified in this element as a critical link for hurricane evacuation. -11. Cons ervati on Element The proposed amendment' has_ been determined to be consistent with this element. Development of this property shall be subject to conservation standards specified in Objectives 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.10 of this element which are incorporated into the Land Development.Code. 12. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to..be consistent with this element. Existi-ng recreational facilities and open spaces in the vicinity include the following: Indian River Estates Park (neighborhood park); Savannah Preserve (open space); and Heathcote Botanical, August 28, Page 7 1991 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 St. Lucie ~ounty Sports Complex, St. Lucie County Civic Center,-~St. Lucie County Library, the Old FOrt Site (special facilities). Development of the subject property to the maximum density permitted under the proposed Future Land Use Designation would result in approximately 170 residents, and would require 0. 85 acres of regional parks, 0. 85 acres of community parks, and 0.15 acres of neighborhood parks. Parks capacity is currently available to maintain the Level of Service Standard established in Policy 9.1.1.1 of this element. 13. Intergovernmental Coordination Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. 14. Capital Improvements Element The proposed amendment .has been determined to be consistent with this element. This amendment.will not result in a reduct$on of the Level of Service standards which are .established within 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 excessive impacts on public facilities or the natural environment, and represents a logical and orderly development pattern. Additionally, staff notes that. the proposed amendment will further the goals, objectives, ~nd 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. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact th~s office. August 28, 1991 Page 8 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 SUBMITTED: Nancy ~. Munshaw Planning Director CONCURRENCE: T~rry ~. ~irt~ Devel o~ment Adminis trator cc: County Attorney Commission Secretary Michael Houston Press/Public File CO:NCE :oM~ PA91004. MEM(RESLS) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAl. ST. LUCIE COUNTY MI NUTES AUGUST 22, 1991 BOARD MEMBERS 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 PRESENT: Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director; J6 Frances Hay~ood, Planner II; Luis Serna, Planner I, Diana Waite, Planner I. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Mrs. Enck-Wesloski. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was l'ed by Chairman J. P. .Terpening. APPROVALs. OF JULY 25, 1991 MINUTES OF. THE PLAlq~TNG A~D ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. Mr. Carman made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 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 C0~BINED NOVEMBER/DECEMBER MEETING ON DE~EMBER 5, 1991. Unanimous approval - no vote was taken. PUBLIC HEARING - FT. SU,-~r,,T TO PIERCE LAND TRUST - FILE NO. PA-gl-004 Luis Serna presented staff comments. He stated the subject property is located approximately 600 feet west of South U_S. Highway ~1, one quarter mile north of Saeger Avenue. He stated the petition requested a change in maximum density permitted on this 9 acre parcel from 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding this parcel are vacant land to the east, a commercial nursery to the south, and generally vacant property to the west, with some residential uses. M.~. 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 units per acre.. Access to 'this possible f~ure development wou-ld.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.amendmentwill not result in any re~r~..ation of capacity in this area. Mr. 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 t. 1. 3. 3 which encourage urban development to be within the planned urban service area and encourages clustered housing and mixed use development. 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 amendmen~ 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 stated at this point the petitioner had no plans for development 11 but is putting residential forward. the property and meeting in position for concurrency requirements FL~N~.~ & ZONING higher density before moving There were no appearances petition. in favor of or in opposition to the Mr. Sattler made a motion, seconded by Ms. Calabrese, that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mrs_ Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Skidmore, Mrs. Enck-Wesloski, Mr. Sattler, Mr. McCain, Ms. Calabrese and Chairman Terpening voted "Aye". Mr. Flowers was absent. Chairman Te~pening advised the agent for the applicant-that the petition _would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendati6n of approval. 12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPt~E~i SI'. LUCIE CO., FL STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTER Vi EW DRIVE o TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 3'7399-2100 LAW'irON CHILES WILUAM E. SADOWSK~ Governor Secretary January 10, 1992 The Honorable Jim Minix Chairman, St. Lucie C~unty Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft...Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear' Commissioner Minix: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (92-1), which was submitted 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, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ii.010, Florida Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this letter, St. Lucie County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the.proposed 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 EMER(~ENCY MANA(~EMENT - HOUSING AN D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RESOURCE PLANNIt~(~ AND MANAC;EMENT The Honorable Jim Minix Jgnuary 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 issu~ the appropriate notice of intent. As a deviation fromthe 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 Amendment 92-1 January 10 1992 Division o?' Resource Planning and-Management Bureau of Local Planning _. This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010 INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the St. Lucie County proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to- s.163.3184, F,S. Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommend- ation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. SOme of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department,s objection would take precedence~. - Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and c_q~krrected· . _ when the amendment isl resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result inca determination that the amendment is not'in compli- ance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which th'e l~cal government .considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and~ if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. ~The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections,, heading in this report. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS St. ],ucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendmen% 92-1 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT - 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 County. -- 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. 9J-5.006(3) (b) 6. Proposed amendment No. PA-91-003, which would increase residential densities on a parcel located on ~utchinson Island, does not address coordination with the 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 include additional data and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment addresses coordination with the Hutchinson Island Resource ]'lanning and Management Plan. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS 9J-5. 007 (2) 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./aQ, is not supported by adequate data and analysis regarding the projected traffic impacts. The proposed amendment 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.6perating .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 ELEMENT 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. 2. 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 area 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 WITH 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 state 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. Recommendation 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 ae ! OBJECTIONS 9J-5.021 (1)~. The proposed plan'does not adequately address and further the following goals and policies of th~- 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. Recommendation Goal 9 may be furthered by withdrawing proposed amendment No. PA-91-003 or by inoluding 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. OF TRANSPORTATION ~ G. WAI'I~ :SECRL"TAK'Y November 18, Mr. Robert Arredondo DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Division of Resource Planning and Management 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 BUR~U OF LOCKE RESOURCE PLANN;NG Dear Mr. Arredondo: RE: Department of Transportation Review Proposed Comprehensive ~ian'~en~,ent St. Lucie County Ref. ~/92-1; As requested in your memorandum of October ~, 1991 the Department has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of St. Lucie County We have no objections t6 the proposed amendment. Sincerely, · District Director Planning & Programs JY/mw cc: Mr. Patrick McCue Mr. Bob Romig Mr. Gus Schmidt Mr. Mike Tako Florida Depactment-of Environmental Regulation L:w~on Chil~. ~br '- ~": '-"-~..-..~ . ~1 M. B~. - - RESO~G~ r 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 Comprehensive 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 response, please call me at 904/487-2498. Sincerely, JBO/br Attachment Aohn B..Outland perations and Management Consultant Manager Office of Planning and Research FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PL~N~MENTS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT --(~92--1/ Amendment ~ PA-91-004 Recommended Objections 2e The amendment does not include the proposed Future Land Use Map with t-he 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 c~pacity of- the wastewater facility. 4 o 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 lessLthan-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 ~MENDMENTS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT -- ~92-1 PAGE TWO ~mendment ~ PA-91-0~03 ~ Recommended Objections 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 Department 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. 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 the amendment states that residents on Hutchinson Island are considered to' be those at highest risk and that St. Lucie County currently 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 e The amendment does not include an analys'is of the character of the vacant parcel to determine its suitability for use. 9J-5.006(2) (b). 4 o The amendment does not include an analysis to support the need for the increase in residential land use density. 9J-5.006(2) (c). STATE OF FLORIDA~u~,~u' OF 2740 C E N T E R VI ~E W DRIVE o TALLAH ASSE E, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LAWTON CHILES WILLIAM E. SADOWSKt Governor Secret~ry October 28, 1991 M E M O R A N-D .U M TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Robert Arredondo Division of Re so~;~anning and Management.:._ . Rod M. Westall~ Division of Em~{Zgency Management Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review The Division of Emergency Management has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan a~endment for St. Lucie C6unty (Reference Number 92--1). During the course of our review, we have identified several concerns which are attached for your consideration. i If you should have any questions, please call Tom McGinity at 487-4915. NOV ~, 1991 , \,,~ .LI (.:c LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - HOUSING AND COMMUNI]fY DEVELOPMENI - RESOURCE PtANNING AND MANAGEMEI\IT 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. The 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 also 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 homes on the site. Approval of th~_.requested amendment 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 Department & Consumer The Capitol Tall'ahassee 323994810 of Service~U~u°~k~ c R~OUkCE ~ ~ T~ ~ 131, Ap ~ ~~, F10~ 32399 Nov~t~er 8,1991 Mr. Rob~t~ Department of Oam~nityAffairs Bureau of LocalPlarming~ 2740 Cen~ewDrive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ~have reviewed the St. ~cie'CountvCc~~iveP]mn3~mm~hnent 92-1 ~requested. No inconsistencies have been noted during .the course of our review the ~ proposed plan amendment. Should you have any questions, please contact xe at 488~3201. G.F. (Frank) Browning, ~4get..Director Bureau of P]mnningandBudgeting DMSIONOF3URMINIS~RATIC~ 488-3201 GFB/sik FLORIDA DEPARTMEI~ OF NATURAL RESOURCES Marjory Stoneman Douglas Budding 2~0 Commonwe~ll], l~ulevard Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive ~. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Arredondo: Staff of the Department of Natural Resources have reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, reference numbe~ 92-1, for'St. Lucie County and have-no comments. Sincerely, Don E. Duden Assistant Executive Director DED/mpp t Mr. Robert Arredondo (904)4~14~ Dept. of Comm. Affrs.- Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Taltahassee, FL 32399 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF i~ . . ' ' Jim Smith OCT 17 1991 Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF LOCAU R.A. Gray Building [qESO-U~CE PLANN;NG 500 South Bronough Tallahassc¢. Flog& 32399-0250 Director's Office Telecopi~r Nurab~r (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 data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9 acre tract (File No. PA-9t-O04) from Residential.Urban to Residential Medium 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 are 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 Foiklife Programs Historic Pre~erv:,tlc,. Page Two Mr. Robert Arredondo October 14, 1991 ~t would be even better if St. Lucie County sponsored a systematic, professional archaeological survey of the entire unincorporatedcounty 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 their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing historical and potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333. Sincerely, ~~r~ofW~i~~a~i~ources South Florida % /atcr/ anagcmcnt District. ?~301 Gun Club Road · P.O. Box 24680 · West Palm Beach. FL Z~YlI~-4(:~I · (~07) 888-8800 · FL WATS GOV 08-32 November 15, 1991 Fl0¥ 19 1991 ~UREAU OF:L~ RESOURCE PLANNING Mr. Robert Arredondo Bureau of Local Planning ~ Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Dear Mr. Arredondo: Subject:' Proposed C'o. mprehensive Plan Amendment for the St. Lucie County - 92-1. 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,_ Larry~P'earson, 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 Atla~,, Milledl~,-. Chairma~. Miami Valerie Boy& Vice Chairmas~ - Adams- ~Vcs~ Ikdm lk-ach ,larne~ l". Nail - I:on I..mdcrdal¢ A~mic Ik'la~couf~ * ~iami Leah G .~'had - \Vest I~,~lm tk',~ch Tilfocd C'. ('r¢¢1. J:.x¢culiv¢ l)irccu,r l'~ul~:m-' I~.. Peril_-, - Fc, n l,Juderdak' st. luc, COC"u't ..... '- .... 18, 1991 BUR~U OE [OC~ RESOURCE Mr. Robert Arredondo-. Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2740 Centerview Drive The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: St. LuQie County Draft Local Government Comprehensive Plan Amendments; ReferenCe #92-1 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. Cary Executive Director 3228 s.w. marlin downs btvd. suite :205 - p.o. box 1529 palm city. florida 34~0 ~ne [407'J 22t-4060 sc 269-4060 fax {407} 22t-4067 DMC:lb Enclosure C C) U N'i"Y O F MARTIN E OF FI"ORIDA UH 0 CO-92-MH-~OA November 6, 1991 The Honorable Havert L. Fenn~ Chal rman, Board of County Con~nissloners St. Lucie County 2300 Vi tgi ni a Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 NOV 1 1991 TREASURE COAST RE~ONAL PLANNING COUNCIL RE: Proposed Land Use Map Amendments Nos. 91-003 and 91-004 Dear Mr. Fenn: Attached please find a copy of the Martin County staff report regarding the above referenced Land Use'Map amendments. Martin County is greatly concerned with Amendment No. 91-O03 in light of the possibility that it may lead to'a development approval which would increase'traffic volume on qutchtnson Island,.a situation Martin County is strongly trying to avoid. Because of the potential impacts to Martin County arterlal roads such as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SR A1A, the County goes on re=.cord as opposing this proposed amendment. The County Commission noted the specific concerns for Hutchinson Island regarding hurricane storm event evacation needs for residents on both sides Of the County line. 'The Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan limits new development to single family residences (Policy 4-4, A.5.b., Page 4-37) and hopes.-that St. Lucie County will recognize in a similar fashion the maximum density for new development is set at two (2) units per acre (see Traffic Circulati6n Element, Page 5A-40, Policy g.). With a reduction of the density to maximum density of 2 upa, the Joint County concerns for hurricane evacuation time standards would be adequately addressed and Martin County would not have the same objection as results with the St. Lucie County proposed density of 5 upa. With regard to Amendment No. 91-004. 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 this Land Use Map amendment. The Honorable Havert L. :Fenn November 6, 199] Page 2 '~: 4'' Th~nk you for the opPortunity to coa~nent on these imPortant land use issues. Through continuing Intergovernmental-coordination, our region will achieve a higher quality of ltfe for all its residents. .. Slncerely --~ Maggy Hur'chal 1 a-' Chairman, Board of County Commissioners MH/PE/gg: [3293h] Attachment -CC: Board of County Co~nlsstoners Sue B. Whittle. County Administrator Local P1 anni ng Agency Harry W. King, Acting Growth Management Director ):evin 3. Foley, Chairman, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council -".'J-TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING o/ M EM 0 R A ~ DU~ To: From: Date: Subject: Council Staff AGENDA ITEM 7B1 November 15, 1.991 Council Meeting Local'Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;: DCA Reference ~92-1 Int~oducti0D Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan~ing:.-and La~d Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Council must be provided an opportunity to'- review and comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendment~ prior to their adoption. St. LUcie County has submitted proposed amendment~ to the State 'Department of Community Affairs (DCA)-, which in turn' is seeking Council,s comments. Council,s review of the information provided by the DCA is to focus on the consistency of ~he proposed amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed ...... pursuan~ to Section 186.507, F.S. A written report, containing any objections, reco~endations for modification and co~ents (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided'to the DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments. St. Lucie county is considering two amendments to its Future Land Use Map. The locations of the properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying maps, and the number of acre~,, and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized in Table 1 which follows: TABLE 1 ':~ ...... ST. LUCIE COUNT~ DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMRN~M~NTS Current Amend. Approx. Land Use .No. Acreaq¢ Desi~natioD 91-003 5.5 Co~ercial 91-004 9.0 Proposed Land Use Desiccation Approximate Location Resi~%ential South Hutchinson Island, Urban--5 dwelling 3 miles north of Martin units per acre County line, adjacent to Normandy Beach Access. Residential Re~idential Urban--5 Medium--9 dwelling units dwelling.units per acre per acre West of South U.S. 1 and north of Saeger Avenue. Eva~uation Amendment 91--003 This ocean front property is 5.5 acres in size and is located approximately __three miles ~orth of the Martin County line on a relatively narrow section of Hutchinson Island. The. property is currently undeveloped .and contains good condition native habit~ including both coastal strand and coastal hammock co--unities. Significant stretches of land iMmediatelY north of the property (east of S.R. AIA) remain undeveloped and in their natural ~tate. To the S6uth lies a beach access walkover and parking area (Normany Beach Access) ,~_some additional vacant land zoned for residential 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 elevations which exist on the property, and the narrow width of Hutchinson Island in this area, the property wodld 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 tw6 relatively large areas of land designated for residential development and, therefore, is ~_ logical 2 location for the development of commercial services' needed to sea. ye ~Xistin..g and ~e resident~ of these areas. The property is better located than other commercial properties farther to the south to serve approximately 1,761 units expected to exist at build out, both north and south, of the parcel (currently there are 688 existing units, with another 417 approved. Up to l, 014 more units are possible based on land use although only about 64 percent are likely to prove buildable). ~ Since 1,761 units are equivalent to the number of units that exist in many small town~ served by at least some degree of centrally located commercial service~, it is logical to assume that demand for such services wall exist, if not today,, some time in the future. From a planning perspective, it would not be a good idea to eliminate th.e Commercial land use designation on this parcel unless and until another equally well located parcel was designated for such use that would serve the needs of existing and future residents of this area. Designation of this land as residential would also be inconsistent with .efforts to discourage residential -development on barrier islands. Residential development in high hazard coasta/ areas puts people and property at risk, can create a demand for expensive beach renourishment projects, and complicates evacuation, .to a greater extent than would certain types of commercial activi.ty. Council policy discourages all but" water dependent uses in such areas, although commercial servlces' would be allowed to meet local needs. Although_not a major problem, commercial uses adjacent to the exis~ing public access may be more compatible than would residential development types. The proposed land use change could create more traffic and negatively impact levels of service on S.R. A1A. This could occur both because residential is being added, and because potential for commercial services is being eliminated. By eliminating commercial uses, a higher percentage of trips generated by as many as 2,000 units may be lengthened. Conversely, if the right kind of commercial services are encouraged, trips would be Shortened. While there is presently an acceptable level of service on S.R. A1A adjacent to this property, a Level of Service (LOS) E (and projected LOS F) at S.R. A1A and Jensen Beach Boulevard/Causeway in the vicinity of the Martin-St. Lucie County line is of great concern, especially since the Jensen. Beach Causeway is the main evacuation route from the island. The County staff report indicates that the County's evacuation concerns led to a recommendation of the lower residential density which was approved. A recent letter from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 3 regarding this amendment indicates opposition to any increased :'-q~evelopment which will result in additional traffic until a joint plan for Martin and St. Lucie Counties addresses land use and transportation issues on South Hutchinson Island. A draft letter and staff report from Martin County also includes concerns about-increased traffic volumes on Hutchinson Island (see attached).. The County staff, report indicates that the County considers South Hutchinson Island as a high priority for a regional Until such a facility is operational (September 1994 at the earliest, according to the County report), historic problem~ of sewer treatment and disposal in this area are likely to continue. This development apparently would be allowed to constr~ct an on-site package waste water treatment plant. ' The continued proliferation of such plants has caused problems and is inconsistent with Regional Polici6s 17.1.1.1 and 17.2.1.4, which recognize the need for centralized services for ~rban density ~evelopment (over two uni~ per acre) and the problems caused by the p~oliferation of ~mall' facilities. Furthermore, as noted in the introductory paragraph, this property is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain, and is subject to flooding .from the storm surge of a Category I hurricane. Perhaps as much as two-third~ of the property lies seaward, of the 1988 Coastal Construction Control Line. In summary, the County demonstrated use of sound .logic and planning Principles in the 1984 Settlement A~eement by recognizing the need for commercial land use in this location~on the island. Commercial land' uses located in conjunction with residential uses, among other positive results, lessen the need for travel from the barrier island to the mainland. The limited access between the island and - the mainland generates concerns about traffic level of 'service, air pollution, and other quality of life'-factors. The County should continue to recognize-that co~ercial land use is needed in the immediate area. Amendment 91--004 The proposed land use designation (Residential Urban) would increase 'the maximum allowable residential density on this parcel from five to nine dwelling units per acre. Such an increase is consistent with the regional plan and may allow for the type of mixed use development which 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 Presently operating at a "backlogged', Level of Service. A backlogged faoility has a Level of Service (LOS) E or lower and has no scheduled improvements. A local government should not permit any 4 uSignifi~ant.'- ,, deterioration. . . in current operating conditions nder the -~alntaln and improve" criteria established by the FDOT~"'~=The-S~2 Lucie County staff report suggests that while no improvements' are presently scheduled for this area of U.S. 1, the ~ncreased traffic would be within an impact of five percent of 1990 volumes, permissible 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. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments Amendment 91-003 A. Objection 1. .None B. Comments The County's. present land use designatibn of~ commercial fox this Parcel appears appropriate and necessary, given the present and projected amount of residential development in the immediate vicinity. The redesignation of this land to residential, without the change of another parcel in the immediate area to commercial 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- a density of five units per acre) to protect the ~nvi~mental values oft he site. If the County has determined that it is essential to remove the commercial designation from this parcel, another parcel in the 'immediate vicinity which would equally serve the commercial/retail need of the projected residents (pe_~haps as many as 4,000 in the peak season) of this area 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 owerall 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. 3o 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 4 .~ -. The~ -. Regional Plan calls for urban ......... ~'~(in~'l~ding residential development at development densities of two dwelling units per acre or higher) only where necessary urban services and facilities are available concurrent with development (Policy 17.1.1.1). It also indicates (Policy 17.2.1.4) that the proliferation of small wastewater facilities should be prohibited. The Co~n~ty indicates that development on this parcel will-be served either by a new facility or by a package treatment plant. past problems and environmental concerns, the County should permit development on this property only when a regional system is available. 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 Deyelopment 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, go indicate that such an identification has been made. · 7 4 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~ lahdscaping. 8. Much of the existing development on the south end of Hutchinson Island is of a very high density. Such a ......... ~igh'~nsity of development is counter to State and regional concerns regarding the protection of coastal resources, the concern for loss of human life and structural damage from storms, and the difficulty of evacuating citizens in the event of a natural or other disaster. St. Lucie County is encouraged to trier ls£and so that development which is to occur is more in tune with the scale and the scope of the sensitive resources which help to define coastal areas. Amendment 91-004 A. Objection 1. None B. Comment 1. Development of. the property at th~ proposed l~nd use dengity 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 this section of U.S. I is 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 an opportunity to capture some trips and to shorten others. Recommendation ~-"~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 0 ! o 0 ! L~ SHINN RD HE^DE;~ C~v~kL p~ SNEED RD g .~RANG£ LINE RD' LAND USE GLIEZ NOUS GROVES JOHNSON OWEN MOl'IA FU, 2~NG ~ RODI ._HAYSL -~ L~ F~ ,Leg end -) RU: Residential Urban COM: Commercial CHEZ NOUS GROVES RU t-~I~AY CORP [~ -- CO LOU?E HAYSL IR PRO?~R-~ DWNE~-L INE PUGL_TES[ WANNALANC_'. TEXTILE D &RASS KEATING ASH EASY S SAEGER ROAD St. Lucie County Future Land Use Map 10 N - Am-~ndment 91-003 R CPUB R CO.M O O Legend R : Residential,, CPUB- Conservation-Public U : Utilities COM : Commerci'al CPUB St. Lucie County Generalized FuTure Land Use .MAp 11 COM. Martin County COM COM. FLOIilDA --- DEPART NT OF TRANSPORTATiO Palm Beach Urban Office 3111 South Dixie Highway, 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 Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed FutureLand Use Plan'Amendment Ft~ P~erce Land,'~rus_~tFile ~o. PA-91-004 The Department was recently notified as an affected property owner of a public hearin~ on the proposed amendment from low density Residential Urban.[RU) to Residential Medium'(RM) for the property located approximately 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. Even though the proposed amendment seems a minor one, the development of this property in accordance with the residential density the amendment would permit would potentially result in another 8-900 daily trips on SR-5 which is already operating at a less than satisfactory level of ~ervice in.the impacted segments. Since this section of SR-5 is backlogged t~e LOS is "maintain and improve", which means that the local gove/~nnent should not permit any significant deterioration in current operating conditions. The commitment to "maintain" the operating LOS on a state ~acility may include some limited additional development traffic. However, it is recommended that the County not approve the land use amendment until and unless it can be assured that the traffic impact will not further degrade the operating conditions on SR-5/US-1- Since the Department considers maintaining the operating condition as a negotiated measure, FDOTstaff is avilable to evluate potential impacts and to assist the County with the coordiantionfacilities, of levels of service on this and __other state 12 Mr. J.P. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our understanding that Your staff recommendation is that the amendment not be approved at this time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked. When site planning begins, we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue ~nd Oleander or by a. connection to the signalized intersection at Ea~YStreet. If direct access is sought, staff and the owner should work wit~ adjoining owners and the FDOT (Traffic Operations) to develop a safe and convenient access to SR-5/US-!. JWA/mg cc: Gustavo Schmidt -Sincerely, Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office 13 FLORIDA --- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-TATiO Palm Beach Urban Office JlI1 South Dixie Hiqhway, Suite 112 West Palm Beach, FlOrida 33405 Telephone: 407-837-5290 August 30. 1991 Mir. O.p. Terpening; Chairman Local Planning Agency St. Lucie County -. 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Attention: Nancy MUnshaw De ar Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment ROger L. Tof~olon, File No. PA-91-003 The Department was recently notified as an adjoining propert~ owner of a PUblic hearing on the proposed amendmen~ from Commercial (COM)' to Residential - ~igh Densit~ (PdS) of the propert~ located on SR-A1A. We regret that we were unable to submit our comments prior to the hearing. We ask that you ~nclude these in the file for reference as the amendment moves forward. We are--concerned about the amendment, primarily because of the impact it and perhaps sUbsequent amendments ~would have on Hutchison Island, a barrier island and on SR-A1A, the island s only arterial road. Even though residential, as proposed, may ' result t~affic generation' than com?erclal' in' this' location, w~ are in less opposed to any intensification or increase in dens_ity on ~utchison Island which will result in more traffi-c than there is today. Traffic on SR-A1A is still within . - ~icinity of the property ~ ........ acceptable limits in the however, at and just nor~~,~-~u ~or re~esignation (LOS C) .... u, ~ne martin County line it has reach~d~' capacity for a two 1.ane road at Level of Service E, the State standard for a Minor Arterial. The area impacted lies south of th~ power plant and extends into Martin County at Jensen Beach. The. traffic impact on ~he State Highway System (SHS) is to SR-A1A, SR- 707 and SR-732 (Jensen Beach Causeway '~nd Boulevard) _ FutUre traffic, based on projections, indicate operating conditions in 2010 in the vicinity of Jensen Beach to be LOS F without -- construction of additional lanes on SR-A1A and other-improvements -:~ in the .Jensen Beach area. There are no projects in the current FDOT Five-Year Work Program to do so_ 14 Mr. 3.P. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 Ar, other very important consideration related to public safety is that SR-A1A is the only evacuation route from ~he 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 MPO is proposing a joint effort between St. Lucie County and Marti~ County to develop and adopt a balanced plan for future land use and. transportation on South Hutchi~'on-Isiand which will recognize both the potential and concernthe limitations, to dev. elopment in this critical area of state We strongly urge the County to disapprove this proposed amendment at this time and others similar to it.which may intensify development., on HUtchison Island prior to the adoption of the plan for South Hutchis_on Island. cc: Gustavo $chmidt Sincerely, Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office 15 BO:~.D OF GOUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Strut, V~ro ~ Flm'ida 32960 lelephone: {407] 567-~ 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 County 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 CCi Robert M. Keating, AICP Ruth Jefferson TM #92-29 u\v\s\cox.ltr 16 F,4~ NUHB£R (407) T£L £PHON£ tiLefBER : DRAFT CO-92-MH-40A November 5, 1991 The Honorable Havert L. Fenn Chai rman, Board of County Con~ntsstoners'- St. Lucte County 2300 Vi tgi nia Avenue Fort Pi erce, FL 34982-5652 RE: Proposed Land Use Map Amendments Nos. 91-OO3 and 91-0~ Dear Hr. Fenn: Attached please find a copy of the Martin County sta~'f report regarding the above referenced Lan~ Use Hap amer~ments. I~rt:in County is greatly concerned w~ th Amendment No. 91-003 t n 11 ght of the posst bt t tty that- t t may t ead to a develot~nent approval whtch would increase trat~flc volume on Hutchinson Island, a situation Martin County. Is strongly trylng to avoid. Because-of the potential impacts to M~rttn County artertal roads such as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SR A1A, the County goes on record as oppostng this proposed amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 91-004, ft is the opfnton of County staff that the tncrease tn density on this nine (9) acre parcel ~u~11 not have a s~gnlflcant impact on Martin County public facilities. Therefore, the County ts not opposed to this Land Use Map amendment. Thane you for the opportunity to conw~nt on these ~mportant land use issues. Through continuing Intergovernmental coordination, our regton ~tll achteve a h~gher quatlty of 11re for alt 1ts residents. Sincerely, Maggy Hurchal la Chairman. Board of County Con~issioners MH/PE/gg: [3293h] Attachment CC: Board of County Comni ssioners Sue B. Whittle. County Administrator Local Planni ng Agency Harry W. King, Acting Growth Management Director Kevln J. Foley. Chairman. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 18 '~u 91..004 · -eve ~g * Sou total _ l~p th. ~ (I~ ~...~ht a Res fr ~Ps us, ' Ac ~ a . t~ ~n on~ nts a ~7ects~~0 for ?ge 1'~ 'd S f ~g ~ '. each ~ Hutch~ P~ .- e~ f~ _ ~n a County *;"nson~ ~ ~PPPova, ~ buf T~ chat - at~a~ cOCal n~.~and, j ~hfch .' ?u~ Sce- land u- .' ' r~ly Loca z ~n NOv~esol~?Uency r'~ ~ ~[oVt~e o_.,~-erns ._ Y9], : F,~'e Jurf~ne fn .crafff~ ~_ ~fth ~Cause t~: ~ ~°~cl I ~oun~y LP~ ur On ,~ ~e~f~e LUc~e ~ aaa ._ ~USe ch- 91_0~ rO~er P?~U the ~.~'a~ge. ~c ~s ~.CSSec ent o~'~'.Ot~ent ~'* St. ~r~r~$POt"~ti[ on - 1 _ [3293h] *t'lar~lnCo. ~::~t:orneU DI AFT_ LAND. USE AMENDHENT NO. 91-004, ST. LUCIE COUNTY This land use amendment concerns a nine (9) acre parcel located ~est' of US 1. .25 mile north of Saeger Avenue. approximately six (6) miles north of the Martin County line. The amendment calls for a change in* land use Residential/Urban (five (5) alu/acre) to--Residential/Medium (nine (9) eu/acre). Marttn County t s responding to thts request because of the parallel nature of potential impacts on US I. However. since this Proposal does not impact Hartin COunty, public facilities similar to No. 91-003, the County does not object to the proposal by. St. Lucie County. -2- 2O [31~8h] [RESOLUTION REGARDING ~E ~ OF: ~E ~t P~I~ ~GY A~ THE ~. ~11e ~ettng as t~ Planning a~ Zoning ~a~ on Septe~er ~991. t~ Agen~ ~eP$ e~eg~ed ~nce~ ~ ~ t~ ~ntl~ation of Uevelo~nt appPovals fo~ pro3e~ lo.ted on t~ ~lon of t~ ~utchln~on lslanO ba~ler island l~ted to ~ ~h of ~. t~ ~en~ ~ ~ed ~re~nstve G~h ~g~nt Pl~ are ~Pll~ble to O~ sister PreRra~ Pll~$ng S~y: re~n~ng ~'ll~ eevelo~nt r~latlons neede~ to ll~tmtton of i~a~s ~ ~rml ~sources on t~ barrier P~ies ~t ~ered ~ s~ veg~d ~gh~ eete~l~tions to assure ~t ~affic ~acl~ l$~tions re~nlzed t~ Hutchinson Zsla~ Re$~r~ Plannt~ a~ ~nag~nt Plan a~ ~t ~rseneU. 2) C~gtal ~g~nt Elint. Section ~. B.a. ~lt~es _ k. ~fore anU after ~ na~ral Ut sagter, t~ Hurrl~ne~a~ral Disaster P~ration Planning Study limits ~evelo~nt l~v~n~ at ~sk t~ ~r~ a~ ot~r ~tural ~ard dest~t on: 1. ~titton of ~ ~ of ~n~ ~t~loner~ of St. Lucte ~unty to re~uce t~ ~11~ regt~ntial Uenstty on properties ~ou~ of ~ Florida ~r & Light ~r Plant a~ to revisit any eevelo~ o~er t~t m. limiting the reoevelo~nt of ParCels In ~rtln ~nty on . . ~lch existing ~evelo~nt ~ ~en ~ged by ~tal hazaro~ to the ~ of ~t exlst~ previou[ly on site-. WHEREAS. this Agency has noted t~t St. Lucie County Is requlreU to adhere to the sa~e requirements of the Hutchln[on Island Resource Planning and ~anagem~nt Plan as is Martin Courrty and; WHEREAS. both CJ)unttes have kdopted ~l~mclftc b~rrter lsl&nd Uevelo~nt regulations to t~l~nt t~ provisions of Resource Plan ane ~nmg~nt Plan. [3148h] ~- ~ DRAFT ~.. "' WHEREAS, the Evans Crary 8rtdge. segment of SR A1A fre~ the mainland tO Sewat1's Point ts listed as · 110~)tmtntain traffic facility in the add,tea Traffic Circulation Element, and Policy, Section 5A-5. 8.1.~.. limits Hutchinson Island new residential development to single fa~ily residences at a density of two(2) units per upland acre where addt'ttonal traffic impacts on Evans Crary Bridge are expecte~_ and: NHEREAS. there are no extittng plans to add another bridge to Hutchinson Island in either Partln or St. Lucie Counties which ~ould alleviate traffic cotLlestion and Level of Service deficiencies, and: WHEREAS, Hutchinson Islan~ is provided access by three C3) bridges fro~ the mainland and two (2) of these are located in Martin County. but the inaJorit¥of Hutchinson Island residents who are creatin~ t~e traffic live in St. Lucte County: and WMER~AS, this Agency has advised the Board of County Ccm~lssioners in the past on land development issues ar~ concerns., relative to the intensity of development ta~ing place both wttht.~, ar~ outside the ~urisdtctlon of ~ar~in .County. NOW,-.THEREFOR£ BE IT RESOLVED. that this Agency notes that further' develoument aDprovals by St. Lu¢ie County on the portion of Hutchinson Island under the Jurisdiction of St. Lucte County is inconsistent ~lth rational. planned human occupancy of a barrier Island and that this Agency recoca~en~s that the Board of County Com~issioners forward a letter to the Chairman of the St.'Lucie County Commission under the. C~trman,s signature to indicate the degree of concern for this matter in Martin County. :_ OULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER. lggl. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ROBE~q~ MATHESON. CHAIRt4AN APPROVED AS TO FOR)iM(DOD~RECTNESS: BY: RICP, ARD APPI~L~ DRAFT 22 a. Policy: Land . development regulations and Su~Dortlng urban ~mprovements shall ~ coordinat~ ~ ~lanning Stu0y. as ~eri~icmlly ~ted. - puu,)c and p~ivatt funds, b. Policy: Barrier (S1~ dev~lO~nt regulations ~htI) *dUress (1) ~xi~m residential ~n~ittes; (3) (4) fled d~age endange~d $~cie$ Abt~t ~7) site de~l~, (8) ~c~atton ~nd o~n space s~nda~s; (9) t~nspo~tfon stewards; (10) ~ubltc safe~ s~ndarUs: a~ eX~nd(tu~s and dt~ ~o~ulation co~ntratl~$ ~ f~ the coastal ~ndattons of t~ ~n~on Isl4~ Re~u~e Pla~t~._an~ Manag~nt- ~lan by ~quirtng ~t u~tl ~h tl~ ts ~i~ ~u~y and St. L~e Coun~ haw-aUopt~ a plan ~ t~ase traffic ca~ci~ ~ Hu~h~nson not ~steU shall ~ lt~ted ~ st~le f~y 6. ~T~YE Martin County shall c~tnate ~ all I ~nag~nt plans r - PP P~ate ~u~e P ePa~d ~uant ~ planning and a~p~ved by ~ Governor a~ ~bi~t Chapter ~0, Flo~ua Sta~es, and Measure: The Cou~y ~I1 assu~ ~t all 1~11 P~vtstons of ~ ~chtnson Island Resou~e Planni~ a~_~nag~ Plan, adop~d by the Gove~r ~btnet, are i~l~nt~ as land develo~ ~gulattons $~cific barrier island by July, 1~0. Martin County shall P~t~t historical ~u~e~ tn t~ C~ f~ aOverse tmpac~ of ~vel~. 1. O~ECTIVE By July lggO, ~rttn Cou~y's Land Oevelop~nt R~ulattons s~11 establish P~C~u~s ~ ensu~ that all pub)tc and private ~velo~nt and ~e~lo~nt u~nP~Posal s,histortct~luding~Sou~es.~o~ for tnfrast~c~, a~ ~vl~d for t~ir imct 4-37 23 Stan0ar0 ~: . E 1990-91 E ! 990-9 ! 10~ Ma1 nra1 n ! 989-91 CR 723 SR 707 - CR 707A E 199L-95 Salerno Rd. US 1 _ CR Al& --~_ E ] 992-93 etonterey R~. Palm Beac~ I~. _ SR AIA E Igg4-95 So. of I~onterey Roi. So. of Al flirt !~. CR CR AIA .Honterey Rd. E ! 991-92 E 1991-92 SR 76 - US I : 1991-92- _d- ~t 11 ~*-~---11 : NO la use a~e nas ~Mll be r~rltted - ~=.~ .:_-_ :~rad t~ed that exceed the11 ~ ~ntaln ~~~ ' ,~ .se s ~t ~11 1 be~l ce. f~ ~1~ : N~ evelo fit ~In a~as I ~ S ~t ~ve t~ 11~ syst~ ~11 ~ e~n~ b~ ~ ea~ ~ar un:11 ~a~ ~er~ ts attal n~. ~ ~l-~: ~. i~- J. P~lt?: PUbliC Infv~atton ~e~ponstb~lt~- - ouId continue ~ ~ aeve o~-~"T'":~~es or ~. ~u~]~c ~-,-~...:_ S~IO~. 8-4,avaflableB. 4. for t~ p~ullt/on in a hurricane. Pos~-DtsesteP R~evel T~ es~abl/s~nt of ~st-dJslste~ P~u~s for /~/Ite ~sDonse ~ I hu~cl~ or ~rll disaster including clean~ ~eevel a. Pol/c~: Post-Disast~ove~ Task Fo~. In 1~1. the Coun:~ ' C~t~$J~n s~lt ap~ a ~St-Di~ster~o~ Task Force ~ tncluat. b. Poltc~: Post-O~s~ter P~e~s. T~ Post-Df sis:er R~ove~ Task ro~e t~ fo11~ng P~e~s ~: - assi.s~ce ~plicatims; ~tions t~dt~ a~~, ' ~sst~ ~ mttgatton Local Peace:t~ ~~ Plan a~ o~r app~rta~ actions n~ ~ p,~t t~ puO~tc~ a~ ~afe~ p~ortt~ {~thtn-~ ~% ~ ~ s~ event} ~n {g} ~val of ~b~s a~ tns~t~on ~or h~ar~ous {4) ~nt~1 ~ pat~ ~ ~ke ~11t~. ~bt~ble; 8-55 .% 2S ~. P~'f~cy: Re~v~l~nt Actt~t~e~. Long te~ redevelo t ' postpO~a until ~ R~ove~ T~e~ r ..... p~n. ac:~vt--e~ ~... ' e-"::Po]tcy: St~lt~d Oeve]~nt ~P~val~. ~tn C~nty shal] ' p~e~$ for t~ ~rope~t~ o~e~ ~o ~t ail ~ond~t~ for ~bu~ding ~n coastal f. Po]icy: ~s~t~ of Land~. Na~n ~ounV ~]] pursue ~c~isit~on of ]an~s excess of ttf~ ~e~ of t~tr ~rlt~d vll~ shall ~ ~buJlt to ~e: atl cu~ntst~ctu~.~j~ts. 1~ludJng ~ PolJcy~ St~s VJth R~elt~ O~. St~s ~Jch suffer ~peate~ . ~ ~ ~~ f]11. . C2) tnven~ ~tr assess~ ~1~; Jud~ t~ ut~l~ ~ ~ la~ for ~bllc ~ess; and (4) ~ke ~~tt~s for ~tsttt~ ~n ~st-~sister op~nfties e~se Po~Icy: Hu~n~ ISl~ Deve~nt O~r ko 8-56 26 (a) 1/3 or tess of r~e physical lm~rovemen~s co~:~ed tc -:-. :ne :~)t~ ~vel~nt ~s ~t ~d any aCtSve const~ctfon for a six ~nths, a~ :c) ~ p~stcal t~v~nts'on-s~te t~t'~ve b~n constructea ~ve sus~Jn~ ~ Jn excess of fifty ~ent (S~) of vale.. ~f ~e ~velo~nt O~r Js ~temJned-~ ~ ~11 and voJ~. shall be ~J~d ~ gu~tt a ~ ~tJtlon for develoo~n: approval c~lJ~ ~ cu~t ~ulett~s a~ ts cons~sten: ~th t~ Reaevelop~n: Plan de~lo~ ~ the R~o~ry Task 1. Poltcy: ~ntlal DensJty R~ctlon abo~. - -~ rr~ v~r v~t, e~ ~opt ~ltcy m. Poltc~,: Redevelopment of Parcels. After-a -- alsaster, p~rceis wt~o~ ext hurricane or other declare ~ Y anti/or 5. O~ ECTIVE Coastal Infrastructure After plan ~dop:ton,-~'tn ~n~ service a~as a~ shell p~a a~ ~i~tn t~ast~un, tn or,er ~ essu~ that a~e~ate public facilities ~ .~rvtces a~ available ~ ~$ttng a~ P~j~te~ ~siden~ a~ vist~ ~.~ c~l a~ of Me,in ~. a. Policy: Le~l ~ ~rvtce S~ndar~. T~ le~el of se~ce (L~) facilities a~ ~ ~dtti*--~ ........ .... ~ lan for ~bltc ~ t~ Ha~tn ~y G~ ~nmg~nt or ~ts a~ ~est~. ~n t~ Z~O Trans~tion S~, ~nst~tion shall ~ given ~ usl~ t~ 13.5 Policy B.~.a~ as ~ ~attt~l l~el ~ ~ce m~a~ for ~ads in t~ Hu~ica~ Vul~rebllJ~ Zone. b. Po]icy: ~h ~e~r~s~n: P~J~t S~. ~ch ~urls~nt pmJ~ts shal~ ~:~ t~ oll~ tevii of ~rvtce s~ards: {~) ~ach f~11 ~gt ~nclude a ~ e ~n-year s~ ewnt; and .- beach ~urt~nt P~ts s~ll ~ a ~stgn life ~ at least five ye~ rs. c. Poltc~: Level of ~tce G~delJ~s for ~ ~l~nt T~ ~tn County G~h ~'~g~n: ueper~n: s~, ~I~ ~: ~ eppIicmn~ for ~eve~o~n: adop~ leyels of ~rvice for ~e~sa~ Nbltc ~pt~1 Imp~nts Ele~nt. 8-57 27 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY COMMISSIONCRS DCVCLOPMCNT March 9, 1992 ADMINISTRATOR ~RRYL.~R~,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. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. If you no longer own property ad3acent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should have any ~uestions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898 and then ask for extension 1593. ' Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COU,NTY, FILE NO. PA-9t-004 HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I ® JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5 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 Compliance: (407) 468-1 57.1 PORT ST. LUCIE'TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Legal Description: The. N. 1/2 of the_ SW1/4 of the-NE 1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1~, Yownship 36 South, Ramge~t, St. Lucie~, Florida, less rights-of-way for drair~ge canals and public roads. ALSO described as the North5 acres of the SW1/4 ~f the NE/14 oftheSW1/4 of Sectionl0, ~p~'36 South, Range4~East, less rights-of-~ayfor~lic roads and drainage canals. The South 1/2 of the SW1/4 of the NE/14 of theSW1/4 of Sectionl~, Township 36 South, Ra_nge4~ East, ALSO described as the_ South 5 acres of the Sw 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the_ SW1/4 of said Section 10, St. LucieCounty, Florida Midway Road 13ayshore 131vd I Ft. Pierce Trust Pai;cel PORT ST. LUCiE Site Location Map R~sco~ !0[-~ TTqE FLORIDA CH,~!d,,fBER FUND '' "' ~" ;~'.h.' .,% FAX COVER LETTER The FAX~, TO: TERRY ~/-iR~A & DENNIS MURPHY FROM: MICHAk~. HOUSTON MEMO DATE: MARCH 4, 1992 RE: Ff. PIEI~CE ~ ~ PEI~/~IClq Per DCA's January 10 ORC Report and our m~eting please allow me to respond in support of St. Lucie County's recon~nendation of approval of proposed amendment N.PA-91-004. We believe that ~he referenced petition is consistent with many of the County's comprehensive plan goals and objectives as was stated in our original application. In response to DCA'S traffic con~ments we have the following response. Traffic: Although the proposed amendment will increase the number of auto trips on the road once the property is developed no impacts will occur until all public facilities, including the roadway network, are at an acceptable level as spelled out in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. To make this point even clearer the application does not include a rezoning application which further limits the ability to develop the parcel without being thoroughly reviewed. It is also important to note that a major factor in this application was to provide a multi-family or mixed use oriented product in an areathat lacks affordable housing. The proposed change inthe land use designation of the site would very likely allow for a reduction in local trips and/or trip lengths would be reduced on U.S.~i since service oriented jobs in the area would be filled by people living here. MH:dna Urban Urban Planning Design Landscape Architecture Studio Graphic Design 900 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 126 Stuart, Florida 34994 407.283.0022 West Palm Beach, FL 407.689.0066 Newport Beach, CA 714.675.6658 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners proposes to change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. ublic hearing on the proposal will be held before the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 24, 1992, at A.M., in the County Commission Chambers, St. Lucie County stration Building - Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Drida. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Objections, ~commendations and Comments of the Florida Department of Community fairs and determine whether or not to adopt the proposed land use ,,in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 orida Statutes. of the proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County ~rehensive Plan are available for inspection in the Office of Development, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, normal business hours. Ail proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are [ectronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any ~cision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, ~ will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, a may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ade, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which he appeal is to be based. At the request of any party to the roceedings, individuals testifying during the hearing will be worn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an ~portunity to cross examine any individual testifying during the ~aring upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /S/ JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Fort Pierce Land Trust (Shown as A on Map) PA-91-O04 From RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium): Located approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue. Publish Date: March 16, 1992 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board County Commissioners: Development Administrator ~ ~~ January 16, 1992 DCA.--Review of Comp Plan Amendments We received this week the DCA comments on the two Comp Plan amendments currently in process. (Fort Pierce Land Trust and Toffolon) For your information, I~a~ enclosing a complete copy of their response to the County. A review will show you that their comments were anything but favorable. We will be requesting, in the near future, permission to advertise for the adoption hearing for these two amendments. At this time it is anticipated that the hearing would be in the latter part of February. During the intervening period I will meet with you individually in order to keep you fully appraised. If, in the meantime, you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. TLr/me cc: County Administrator w/encl. County Attorney w/encl. Land Development Manager w/encl. STATE OF FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOP~,~£N~, ST. LUCIE CO.~ FL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE · TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LAWTON CHILES Governor January 10, 1992 WILLIAM E. SADOWSK! Secretary The Honorable Jim Minix Chairman, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft..Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear' Commissioner Minix: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County (92-1), which was submitted 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, Repommendations and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ii.010, Florida Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this letter, St. Lucie County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the proposed 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 of 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 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT The Honorable Jim Minix January 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 fromthe 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 Amen dm6nt 92- I January I0. 1992 . ' Division of Resource Planning and. Management Bureau of Local Planning _ ~ This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010 INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the St. Lucie County proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to- s. I63.3184, 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 andc_~Q_r~ect~ed when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in-a determination that the amendment is not'in compli- ance: The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the l~cal' government .considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department,s report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 92-] FUTURE LAND USE ELR~ENT A. OBJECTIONS 9J-5. 006 f3) Cb) 5. Proposed amendment No. PA-91-O03, 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 County. -- 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. ~ecommendation 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. 9J-5.006(3) lb) 6. Proposed amendment No. PA-91-003, 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. -P Recommendation Withdraw the proposed amendment or include additional data and analysis which demonstrates that the amendment addresses coordination with the HutchinsonIsland Resource Planning and Management Plan. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION F.T. ~WJ~ENT 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,/ac, is not supported by adequate data and analysis regarding the projected traffic impacts. The proposed amendment 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~6perating ~oonditions 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 aver'~ge travel speed as a reasonable indicator of deviation from the maintained condition. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ae OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5. 012 C3) (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 area are being maintained or reduced or that additional hurricane e~acuation routes will be developed which will contribute to a reduction in hurricane evacuation times. CONSISTENCY WITH 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 state funds that subsidize development in-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. Recommendation Goal 9 may be furthered by withdrawing proposed amendment No. PA-91-003 or by including adec/uate data 3 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 ao OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5. 021 The proposed plan'does not adequately address and further the following goals and policies of the- Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan: 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. Recommendation 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 public subsidies to new, private development in coastal high-hazard areas and will not reduce the safety of existing residents in these areas. 'FLOI IDA I,.A,%~t~'ON CHILF_~ GOYEI~OR DEPARTMENT OF November 18, Mr. Robert Arredondo DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Division of Resource Planning and Management 2740 CentervieW Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 TRANSPORTATION BEN G. WAT~ ~ECKETARY BUREAU OF LOCAl2 RESOURCE PLANN:NG Dear Mr. Arredondo: RE: Department of Transportation Review Proposed ComprehensiV~ Flan~u~en~.,ent St. Lucie County Ref. ~/9~ 2-1./ As requested in your memorandum of October 7, 1991 the Department has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of St. Lucie County We have no objections t6 the proposed amendment. Sincerely, District birector Planning & Programs JY/mw cc: Mr. Patrick McCue Mr. Bob Romig Mr. Gus Schmidt Mr. Mike Tako r~tm of Reg Florida Depa ent'- Environmental ulation Lava:on Chiles, GOvernbr. '- ~.,;-' . Carol M. Browner, Sec~a.D, -~: LOCal/ : RESOU~ 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 Comprehensive .Plan -(~9~2-~J Dear Mr. Arredond0: The Department of Environmental Regulation has reviewed the amendment to the referenced comprehensive plan, under the procedures of Chapter 9J-5, and Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. Our comments are provided to assist your agency in developing the state's response. If you have any questions about my response, please call me at 904/487-2498. Sincerely, ~onOs~talna~dMana'gement Consultant Manager Office of Planning and Research JBO/br Attachment FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PL~N~NDMENTS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT -~92-1/ Amendment ~ PA-91-004 Recommended Objections 1. The amendment does not include the proposed Future Land Use Map with the designation of the subject property. 9J-11. 006 (1) (b) 1. 2. 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. ! 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 lessithan-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. 3. 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). 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) . RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT - #92-1 PAGE TWO ~mendment ~ PA-91-00~~ / Recommended Objections e 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 Department 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. 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 the amendment states that residents on Hutchinson Islahd are considered to be those at highest risk and that St. Lucie County currently 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. 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). The amendment does not include an analysis to support the need for the increase in residential land use density. 9J-5. 006 (2) (C). DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF FLORIDABuR~U' : 2740 CE N TE RV IEW DRIVE · TALLAH ASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LAWTON CHILES WILLIAM E. SADOWSKI Governor Secretary October 28, 1991 M E M O R A N'D.U M TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Robert Arredondo Division of Resource/m~ianning and Management /9;// Rod M. Westall~/ Division of E~gency~'~ Management ComDrehensive Plan Amendment Review The Division of Emergency Management has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for St. Lucie C6unty (Reference Number 92-1). During the course of our review, we have identified several concerns which are attached for your consideration. If you should have any questions, please call Tom McGinity at 487-4915. RMW:tmm NOV ~ 199t :' ,'O (-.'i' LOCAL PL/ .... ,5 I ~-t,,.;'4 REVIEW-, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ° HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 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. The 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 also 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 homes on the site. Approval of th~,~..requested amendment 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 CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER Florida Agriculture Department & Consumer The Capitol Taliahassee 32399-0810 of 8ervice~UR~U OFL~AU R~UkCE PLAN ;~NG ~~, ~1o~ 32399 No~r8,1991 Bureau of LocalP]arm_~ng 2740 CenterviewDrive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 We have reviewed the St. ~cie' County Cc~prehensive Plan Amsndmmnt 92-1 as requested. No inconsistencies have been noted during the course of our ~=view process. Other cc~,~nts may be forthc~n~ng later as We continue to ~eview the above proposed plan ammndment. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 488-3201. G.F. (Frunk) Browning, ~get Director Bureau of Planning and Budgeting DMSIC~ OF A[I~INI~~ 488'3201 GFB/sik FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF'NATURAL RESOURCES llarjory Stoneman Dougi~ Buildin~ Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-21Q0 Dear Mr. Arredondo: Staff of the Department of Natural Resources have reviewed the proposed com~rehenslve plan amendment, reference number 92-1, for St. Lucie County and have. no comments. Sincerely, Don E. Duden Assistant Executive Director DED/mpp ("0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STA Jim Smith OCT I? 199I Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Director·s Office Telecopier Number (FAX) Mr. Robert Arredondo tm) 488-1480 (904) 4~3353 Dept. of Comm. Affrs. Bureau of Loc, al Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32399 IBUREAU OF LOCAI2 R'ES OU?CE PLANN{NG 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 data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Changing the Future Land Use designation and rezoning the 9 acre tract (File No. PA-91-004) from Residential Urban to Residential Medium 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 Preservation Museum of Florida History 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 vali~ity 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 their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing historical and potentially significant historical resources in St. Lucie County. If you have any questions regarding our commen~s, please feel free to contact Michael Wisenbaker or Laura Kammerer of the Division's compliance review staff at (904) 487-2333. Sincerely, ~eor~ . . Perc.y, Director Dlv of HIstorical Resources South Florida Water Management District. 3301 Gun Club Road * P.O. Box 24680 · West Palm Beach. FL7~3416-4680 · {407)686-8800 · FL WAT~ 1-800432-204~ GOV 08-32 November 15, 1991 NO¥ 19 t991 ~UREAU OF:L~ R~URCE ?LAN~NG 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 St. Lucie County - 92-1. 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.. Si n' ce r e I Y~'~c~z~ Lar~ry earson, 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 Allan Milledge. Chairman - Miami Valeri¢ Bo.vd. Vice Chairman - Naples Ken Adams o West Palm Beach ,James I(. Nail - Fort kaudcrdalc Annie_- ['~etancourt - ~iami f-'ranklin B f~Sann - t:ort Myers Leah G. ~chad - \'Ves[ Dalm Beach t-'rank VVilliam~n. ,Jr. - Okeechol>,*e t':,u~ene K. Pettis - Fort t~,tuderdale Til[ord C. Creel. l:.xecutivc Director Thomas hr. 3,[acVicar. l)epu[y tLxe,:u tire l)irector t rearu re st. lucre plannln council November 18, 1991 Mr. Robert Arredondo Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2740 Centerview Drive The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: St. Lucie County Draft Local Government Comprehensive Plan Amendments; ReferenCe #92-1 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 Statutes; 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. ' 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suite 205 - p.o. box 1529 palm city, florida 34990 phone {407] 221.4060 sc 269-4060 lax {407) 221-4067 ~-' ~ ' Si~cLerely, Daniel M. Cary Executive Director DMC:lb Enclosure BOARD OF COL-.'NTY COMMISSIONERS 240I $.E. Monrerex' Road · Smart, F/or/da 34996 COUNTY OF' MARTIN STATE~ OF' FLORIDA CO-92-MH-40A November 6, 1991 The Honorable Havert L. Fenn Chairman, Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 NOV 1 lggl 'i'~RE COAST REGI~ PLANNING COUNCIL RE: Proposed Land Use Map Amendments Nos. 91-003 and 91-004 Dear Hr. Fenn: Attached please find a copy of the Hartin County staff report regarding the above referenced Land Use Hap amendments. Hartin County is greatly concerned with Amendment No. 91-003 in light of the possibility that it may lead to'a development approval which would increase~traffic volume on Uutchinson Island, a situation Hartin County is strongly trying to avoid. Because of the potential impacts to martin County arterial roads such as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SR A1A, the County goes on re:cord as opposing this proposed amendment. The County Con~ission noted the specific concerns for Hutchinson Island regarding hurricane storm event evacation needs for residents on both sides Of the County line. *The martin County Comprehensive Growth management Plan limits new development to single family residences (Policy 4-4, A.§.b., Page 4-37) and hopes-that St. Lucie County will recognize in a similar fashion the maximum density for new development is set at two (2) units per acre (see Traffic Circulation Element. Page 5A-40. Policy g.). With a reduction of the density to maximum density of 2 upa. the joint County concerns for hurricane evacuation time standards would be adequately addressed and martin County would not have the same objection as results with the St. Lucie County proposed density of 5 upa. With regard to Amendment No. 91-004, 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 this Land Use map amendment. 4--' The Honorable Havert L. Fenn November 6. 199] Page 2 '~: Thank you for the opPortunity to comnent on these t~oortant land use lssues. Through contt nul ng Intergovernmental coordl natlon, our regt on ~d l 1 achi ~ve a hi gher quality of life for all its residents. Sincerely .--: =__ ,.,,:'.,. -; .- wi.~ ~.-' .:"~ · ~ .- ' ..,.-~. -' -.,.o ,- ~ - , -' ~ Chairman, Board of County Coeelssloners MH/PE/gg: [3293h] Attacl~nent cc: Board of County Contnlssloners Sue B. Whittle. County AUministrator Local Planning Agency Harry W, King. Acting Growth Management Director Kevln J. Foley, Chairman. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council MEMO RA NDU.~ To: From: Council Members Staff AGENDA ITE ] 7B1 Date: Subject: November 15, 1~91 Council Meeting Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;: DCA Reference #92-1 Introduction Pursuant to the. provisions ~f..the Local Government Comprehensive planning?and Land uevelopment Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), provided an o~ort.._= ..... . the Council must be . ~m ~auy to- review and comment on seeking Council,s comments. '**** ,u~;, which in turn is u so~e~ew of .th? information provided by the DCA is .' ~-n~ consas~e~cy of .t~.e proposed amendments with ~he Regional Comprehensive Poll~ ~=~ ,~ .... pursuant to Section ~86.5o- ~-~ -~: %n~=r; uevelopeu :l' I --'' r'U' A written report, containi~ any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements amendments, or St. Lucie CoUnty 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 acres',,, and proposed 'changes in land use designations are summarized in Table I which follows: Amend. Approx. 91-003 5.5 91-004 9.0 Current Land Use Desi~natio~ TABLE 1 .... ST. LUCIE COUNTY DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMEN-~MENTS Proposed Land Use Desi~natio~ .APproximate Location Commercial Residential Urban--5 dwelling units per acre Res~%ential South Hutchinson Island, Urban--5 dwelling ~ miles north of Martin units per acre ounty line, adjacent to Normandy Beach Access. Residen~ial West of So~thU.S. 1 and Hedi~m---9 north of Saeger Avenue. dwelling.t%nits per acre Amendment 91-003 t r nt~ ~ro~p?rty ~ 5.5 acres in size and is · ~e. property ls currently undeveloped .and contains an~ good condition native habitat', including both coastal strand and coastal hammock co--unities. Significant stretches of land immediately north of the property (east of S.R. AIA) remain' undeveloped and in their natural =tare. To the So%th lies a beach access walkover and parking area (Normany Beach Access) r--..some additional vacant land zoned for residential 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 elevations which exist on the property, and the narrow width of Hutchinson Island in this area, the property wodld 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 '"'~n 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 large areas of land designated for residential development and, therefore, is ~. logical 2 ? P y Xs ~etter lo~-*~ ~ ..... se ~eas. The fa~ to ~e ~ercla~ roe ' parce ' ?-%TE' and Y ~e ~ - ~ist~g 417 approved, Up to 1,014 more =s ~e poss~le based on ~i~ ,. wi~ ano~er land use al~ough o~y ~out 64 ~cent ~e likely to prove build~le). centrally located co~erci.~ .... ea.st some degree of assume that toda . . cn servxces will ex' · Y,. some t~me ~n ~ ..... xst, if not i ' .~.= zu=~re.. From a planning perspective, it would not be a ood i - · Co~ercial land us ' · - g ~..~ea to el~nate the unti e desxgnatxon on unxs ~ i another em,all~ w-~ ~ ..... . parcel unless and such use that wo~ld=-' =serve=~A Au=a=eo parcel was designated for residents of this area. the needs of existing and future 'development on ~rrie~-u~r~--~=_ =o_ ~.i?co. urage residential high h4zard coa-~tal are~~'_ ae_siuent, ial development in ca~ create a d-~-J~ -~-~ _ people a~.~ p.roperty at risk pro] ects, and · __ expe. xve meacn renouris complxcates evacu · hment than would certain + ..... = _ atxon, _to a greater extent policy discou~a-es _~{~=~. ~ =o. mmercial activity. Council w aaa ~Ut water dependent U~es in su ~area.s, although commercial servi ............. ' ch · ocal needs -~ wuuAu De allowed to meet Although_not a major problem, commercial uses adjacent to the existing public access may be more compatible than would residential development types. The proposed land use change could create more traffic and negatively impact levels of service on S.R. A1A. This could occur both because residential is being added, and because potential for commercial services is being eliminated. By eliminating commercial uses, a higher percentage of traps generated by as many as 2,000 units may be lengthened. Conversely, if the right kind of commercial services are encouraged, trips would be shortened. While there is presently an acceptable level of service on S.R. A1A adjacent to this property, a Level of Service (LOS) E (and projected LOS F) at S.R. A1A and Jensen Beach Boulevard/Causeway in the vicinity of the Martin-st. Lucie County line is of great concern, especially since the Jensen Beach Causeway is the main evacuation route from the island. -The County staff report indicates that the County,s evacuation concerns led to a recommendation of the lower residential density which was approved. A recent letter from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) increasea ':'-~evel~-~ ..~, ..... ~PP n to any Hut~on Isi ~sPo~tion lssu~ on ~_ ~__ ~ ~- . ~ ~aft letter ~d staff re ~ ~o~ azso ~ciuae --- po~ from voi~ on H~t~~ T--~=C~nc~. ~O~t ~creased traffic The County ~caff report indicates that the Count · South Hutchinson Island as - =-' ..... Y considers (:z ~l~n priorit wastewater facility. Unti~ .... ~ ..... ~y ~.or a regional Se tembe ~ ~ o~u e zacliacy as o e ( P r 1994 at 'the e--~: .... P rational · =~usc, accordi~ report), historic Problems o~ --: ..... g .to the County in this a~ea ~. ~-~_~.. 2,_~ ~ew.e.~ ncea~ment and disoosa~ apparently would be all~,~,-~ ~- _~?__~nue.. This development waste water tre-~=-*_~_~,~ --~--~..~= ---- . .c~ an on-sate, package such -1ants - ~.- - _ 'l'ne con=Lnued prolaferatio .. P nas causeu problems and ' ' : n of Regional KS inconsistent with .1.1.1 and 17 2.1.4,W, hlc~.' recognize the need ' services for ~rban density ~e~elopment (over two per acre) the ' and problems caused by the proliferation ~mali' facilities. · ~_a_s_~n_o~ted .in.the introductory paragraph *~-- and is sUb4~- ~- -- e.~.y Wi_thin the 100-year floodDl~ ; ~ ~ CO ilOOt~lng . ~ro~l the storm ~- .... ' SUre of a Category T hurricane. Perhaps as much as two-thirds of the propertYcontrol Line.lies seaward, of the 1988 Coastal Construction In summarY ,r .the. County demonstrated use of sound _-logic and planning P ~nclples in the 1984 Settlement Agreement by recognizing the need for commercial land use in this location-._on the island. Commercial land uses located in conj unction with residentia 1 uses, among other positive results, lessen the need for travel from the barrier island to the mainland. The limited access between the island and -T-he mainland generates concerns about traffic level of service, air pollution, and other quality of life' factors. The County should continue to recognize -that commercial land use is needed in the immediate area. Amendment 91-004 The proposed land use designation (Residential Urban) would increase the maximum allowable residential density on this parcel from five to nine dwelling units per acre. Such an increase is consistent with the regional plan and may allow for the type of mixed appropriate in the U.S. ' use . .development which would be regarding impacts of the'd~c-O--r~l~°r'- Th_ere are some concerns ~veiopmen~ of this a ~n ~4 .... ~ commercial parcel on _~S._ 1, ?hlch as presently operating at a "backlogged,, Level oz ~ervlce. A backlogged facility has a Legel of Service (LOS) E or lower and has no scheduled improvements. A local government should not p6rmit any 4 signif$~cant deterioration in current operating conditions under the ~maintain and improve,, criteria established by the FDOT~'"~The'S~ Lucie County staff report suggests that while no improvements' are presently scheduled for this area of U.S. 1, the .increased traffic would be within an impact of five percent of 1990 volumes, permissible 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. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments Amendment 91-003 A. Objection 1. None B. Comments The County's. present land use designation of commercial for_ this parcel appears appropriate and necessary, given the present and projected amount of residential development in the immediate vicinity. The redesignation of this land to residential, without the change of another parcel in the immediate area to commercial 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, there 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 wa 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 e opportunity (than detached single-family dwellings at- a density of five ~nits per acre) to protect the environmental values of the site. If the County has determined that it is essential to remove the commercial designation from this parcel, another parcel in the"immediate 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 par6el 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 owerall 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 egacuation 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. Plan calls for urban development (inClUding residential development at densities of two dwelling units per acre or higher) only where necessary ~rban services and facilities are available concurrent with development (Policy 17.1.1.1). It also indicates - (Policy 17.2.1.4) that the proliferation of small wastewater facilities should be prohibited. The County indicates that development on this parcel willY-be served either by a new regional facility by or a package treatment plant. Given past problems and environmental concerns, the County should permit development on this property only when a regional system is available. 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 Development 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 any landscaping. 7 ......... . ~=-~ ~ oz a very n~gh density. Such a high. ~'d~nsity of develo~.ent is co~/~ter to State and ~1~n~l co~e~s rega~g ~e prote~ion of coastal resources, ~e conce~ for loss-of h~n life and ~ct~al d~a~e fro~ sto~, ~d ~e difficulty of . acua=~ng c~=xz~s ~n ~e event of a natural or C~___.t' .~ ~euuce o~l=les ~0 ~ntensities on the ~ler 1silo so ~at developm~t which is to occur more in t~e wi~ ~e scale and ~e scope of ~e sensitive reso~ces which help to define coastal areas. ~aenclment 9~.-004 A. Objection 1. None B. Comment 1. Development f. ' density wil~ the. property at the proposed l~nd use 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 this section of U.S. I is 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 an opportunity to capture some trips and to shorten others. ' ~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 8 0 W 0 0 ! ~J 0 I SHINN .~NNRANOE LINE SNEED RD LAND USE C~EZ NOUS GROVES CHEZ NOUS GROVES RU- JOHNSON k OWEN i-E~I~AY CORP CO MOT'fA ] RODI 500' Legend RU: Residential Urban COM: Commercial LOUPE HAYSL I P PROPERTY DWNER LINE PUGL.TES[ WANNALANC_'. TEXTILE CC D &R ASS KEATING ASH EASY S SAEGER ROAD St. Lucie County Future Land Use Map 10 N Am~ndmen t 91-003 R CPUB R R CON Legend R : Residential., CPUB: Conservation-Public U ' Utilities COM : Conunercial CPUB St. Lucie County Generalized Future Land Use .Map 11 COM Martin CounTy COM. --U Palm Beach Urban Office -: .. 3111 South Dixie Highway, 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 Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed FutureLand Use Plan'Amendment Ft. Pierce Land Trust File No. PA-91-004 ownerTt%Departmentwas recently notified as density a public hearing on the proposedan affected property Residential Urban (RU) amendment from-low property located aDD .... =_~ , t_°_~sidentialMedium-(RM% ~u~=e-~y b30 f~%t w~eSwte - ,for the north of Saeger. Avenue. We regret t _o_f s~u_th SR-5/US-1 our comments . . ~re unable to sub~it prior to the hearing. We ask that you include these in the file~f°r reference as the amendment moves forward. Even though the proposed amendment seems a minor one, the development of this property in accordance with the residential density the amendment would permit would potentially result in another 8-900 daily trips on SR-5 which is already operating at a less than satisfactory level of ~ervice in the impacted segments. Since this section of SR-5 is backlogged the LOS is "maintain and improve", which means that the local government should not permit any significant deterioration in Current operating conditions. The co~u~itment to "maintain', the operating LOS on a state ___ ~acility may include some limited additional development traffic. However, it is recommended that the County not approve the land use amendment until and unless it can be assured that the traffic impact will not further degrade the operating conditions on SR-5/US-I~ Since the Department considers maintaining the operating condition as a negotiated measure, FDOTstaff is avilable to evluate potential impacts and to assist the County with the facilities.C°°rdianti°n of levels of service on this and _other' state 12 Mr. J.p. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our Understanding that your staff recommendation is that the amendan~nt not 1~ approved at tl'~s time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked. When site planning begins, we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue ~nd Oleander or 1:~ 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 conv~,.ient access to SR-5/HS-1. JWA/mg Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office cc: Gustavo Schmidt 13 Palm Beach Urban Office 3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 112 West Palm Beach· Florida 33405 Telephone: 407-837-5290 Mr. j.p. Ter~ening, Chairman Local Planning Agency St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue " Fort Pierce, Florida 34982_5652 Attention: Nancy Munshaw Dear Mr. Ter~ening: August 30, 1991 RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment .RO--er L. Tof~olon File No. PA-91,003 The ~De~p._~ar~.t~e~t was recently not' ' . - owner of a PuDlic heari~ ...... 1fled as an ad~---- (COM)' to . --~ ~ ~ne proposed .... ~___~y~ng property Residential _ ~igh Density' (R~) of the propert~ located SR-A1A. We regret i that we were unable to ~-=~,,=n~ from Commercial to the hearing, on ~e ask that you includ~ubmit our comments prior reference as the these in the file for amendment moves forward. We are-~concerned a~out the amendment impact it ,and perh.aps sUbsequent amendments would have on ~utchison · primarily ~ecause of the t~o~aafdfIsland'ic ~VSnneratht-~gn~t~Sicd~e~ra).a barrier island, and on, SR-A1A,.a.s proposed,the island,Smay result°nly arterial: _ _. any intensification o- -'- iai in this locatio~ ,..~ ___ ~n less. '""" '-,~"=,L= lS tO~ay. Traffic on SR~A1A is s ' - - ' "- ~lclnlty of the ~ro ..... till wi_thin accept~b - - ._ . however ~ ~_~ . _~ ~=~uy proposed fo . le limits in ~he · a~ ~,u 3us~ nor r redesl at' caDa~ .... , th of th~ - ..... gl] Ion [LoK n% . ~_~u3 _zor a twoi ~ _~ 'utzuln Count 1' - ~': standard + ...... : ane road at L .... ~ - Y lne it has reacb~--' ~ d ullno~ ~_~ . ~ ~v~./ OI S,=,~-~.4---- -- ------ ~power. Plant and ~, ~e.rlai- The area lm -~--~ ~' the State ~raffic impact o~eX~%nd~s~ 1. nto Martin Count~vPa~c~ted~ lies south of the .... ,= ~a~e Highway Svs~, ~j~,~e. nsen Beach. The. ..... ~o~1 is to SR-A1A, SR- 707 and SR-7~2 (Jensen Beach Causeway '~nd Boulevard traffic, based on projections· indic ) Future :0z0 :the of. Jensen B aff O ra.t .g conditions in construction oz additional lanes on S~-A~A in the ~d - Beach area There are no pro3ects in the current . . ,-~.=z_ -improvements -.:.... FDOT Five-Year Work Program to do so. 14 Mr. J.p. Terpening 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. ~f'f°~We~op understand the County through its ta~taWle~nce~t-_~Luci_e County and Marti~MPO is proposing a joint So~th Hutc~'~ w~l=~ .~.o.r_fut.ur_e land use County to develop and "'x--~= which will recognize .and transportation on both the potential and concernthe limitations, to dev. elopment in this critical area of state We strongly Urge the County to disa rove amendment at this time and othe~ --' '-- .~_ this Proposed development on HUtchison Island Prior to the adoption of the plan for South Hutchis_on Island. --- sazn~lar to bt.which may intensify cc: Gustavo Schmidt · Sincerely, A~__. .'. . ~, or., A.I.C.p. ~u~=~_sr-rator, Palm Beach Urban %~ ~ce 15 BO. .D OF COMMISSIONERS 18/t0 25~ $~t, V~o ~ ~ 32960 ]e}ephone: (.~rZ) 5&7.-8000 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 County 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 Use 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 TO: OCT-31-19'31, 12:B~ P-RDH?' ~IN CDLlxrTy ]~CC TO ~ D AFT CD-92-HH-40A November 5, 1991 The Honorable l~avert L. Fenn Chairman, Board of County Commissioners'* St. Lucte County 2300 ¥trgi nia Avenue Fort Pi erce, FL 34982-5652 RE: Proposed Land Use Pap Amendments Nos. 91_003 and 91-004 Dear Mr'. Fenn: Attached please find a ~copY of the Martin County staff report regarding the above referenced Lan(t Use Map amendments. Parttn County ts greatly concerned with Amendment No. 91-003 In 112ht of the possibility that tt may 1earl to a development approval which would increase traffic volume on Hutchinson Zsland. a situation llartin County Is strongly trying to avoid. Because of the potential impacts to Martin County arterial roads such as the 3ensen Beach Causeway and SE A1A, the County goes on reco~ as opposing this proposed amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 91~-004. tt is the oplnton of County staff that the tncrease tn density on thts nine (9) acre parcel will not have a significant impact on Mart~n County public facilities. Therefore. the County ts not opposed to this Land Use Pap amendment. Thank you for the opportunity to ~nt on these important land use issues. Through cont~nulng Intergovernmental coordination, our region wfl~ achieve a higher quallty of life for ali its residents. si ncerely. I~aggy Hurchal 1 a Chairman, Board of County Commissioners MH/P£/gg: [3293h] Attachment CC: Board of County Commissioners Sue B. Whittle. County Administrator Local P1 annlng Agency Harry W. King. Acting Growth Management Otrector Kevln ,1, Foley, C~atrman, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council ~8 f~o The Pr w~ 11 ha Tenets. OnCerr~ Oensen j ' o-~ce~ by -~Ptl- - ec~ ~ ~",alrea~~ the ~' ~un~ ~ calCUl~ ~ . U~nho~_ .. ~n~ ~ ~r~s ~e~t Age~Y- ura~: ~nnfn~ _zn lfah~ll pn~.'?e~fo use LO~'~n Nove: Reso~.~gencv-;[. o~ r._Vv~de ~Z ~ar~s~g~a~fOn 5Oncer =~ the j~t the ~.~raft RZ' ~o t -,r e nex~ ~eg to ~.~P~f~ l~e s ~o - I Plannfn~= , ue ,on ~ oF ~ ~ st~egUle~~ng . ~ ~ Lucf..~ar~..°~ St . Oeve O~e~X the c~etfng~. that 2~. thfs ~_ ~1.~ ~ LPA. ~nSpo~,~ tne,~ ~ on th~ce~n o~ the Lucle ~11 ag~ '~ use ch ':' 'ne ~n~ o~'~ Zn ~ ~Utch~' one ~1~3 ~Wer pl~ the f.~ange, f~ -,,~t ~ fs lett~ ro~ th~ ent, Ha~cenSe ~.- ~o~-~ *- o~. '~._"~ s~ _ ~ ~..-cVe]o~ -ea. ~,.. the ~ugust ~ reaso~unty o~"ent th~~ re~ . -u, 1991"~ nOte~=~ on r.~~ alre '~ the ~or~ a~ ~°r~a ~e ~ 1_ [3293h] LAND U~E AMENI~EtfT NO. 9t-004 ST. LUCIE COUNTY Thts lan~ use ~n~l~nt mn~rns a ntne (9) acre parcel locate~ ~,'est of US .25 mile north of Saeger Avenue, approximately slx (6) atles north of the Marttn Counto, line. The ~ndmnt calls ~or a change tn' lan~ use Residential/Urban (ftve (5) du/acre) t~-Restdentlal/Medtum (ntne (9) clu/acre). Martin County f s responding to tht s request because o potential tmpacts on US 1. Ho~ewr ,4 .... f _the parallel nature of --:. ~,,,,~.? thts proposal does not tm~act object to the proposal by St. Lucte County. -2- 2O ~. ~1 ie mettng is ~ Planning and Zoning ~ on Se~e~er 5, 1~91. t~ agency ~Ps e~ssea ~nce~ ~ to t~ con~t~atton of Oeve~o~nt aD~vais for ~e~s 1o~te~ on t~ ~ton of t~ Ju~tsd~ct~on o~ st. ~c~e ~: ~e ~. t~ ~en~ ~s ~ed t~ foTJ~ Nrtions of t~ leo,ted ~reNnstve G~h ~g~nt Pl~ are ~Plt~ble ~ ~ c~rd~tion aevelo~nt a~ la~ plannt~ ~ ~t~tnsm Islam: a. dtrecttng ~ ~t~1 ~latlon gr~h ~ fr~ D1s~ter Prem~t~ Planntng c. limiting ~ ~elo~nt ~ ~ s1~le ~y res~aence~ on to assure ~t ~afftc c~acl~ Ii--rations re~nizeO In t~ Hutchinson Isla~ Res~r~ ~lanntng a~ ~nag~nt Plan are not ~rsene~. k. ~fore ano after ~ n~ral ~t~a~ter. ~e Hurr~nt~a~ral Dl~ster Pre, ration Planning Study li~Its aevelo~nt ~t Place~ m~ ~r~ons a~ l~v~nts at risk ~ ~r~c~ a~ ot~r ~tural : ~un~ to r~uce t~ all~ rul~ential density on properties ~outh of t~ Flort~a ~r & L1g~t ~r plant a~ to revisit any Oevt]o~nt o~er t~t ~c~s null ~- 1t~ltln~ the reOevelo~nt of Parcels In ~rtln ~n~ on ~tCh e~sting O~elo~nt ~s ~en ~ged by m~tal hazaros to t~t ~i~ of ~t ext~t~ previbui}y on ~lt~. a~ ~R~AS. t~ls Agen~ ~s note~ t~t St. ~cie ~nu t~ require~ ~ER~. ~tfl ~nttes ~ve ~opte~ s~ct~tc ~er l~]~nd ' - Oevelo~nt r~gulatlons to i~l~nt t~ provlilons of ~-'~tc~lnson lslan~ "'~ Resourct Plan tn~ ~nig~nt Plan. DRAFT 4--' [31~8h3 D AFT ~*~:. :' : lelEREAS, the Evans Crary 8rlage segment of SR A1A from the to Se~ll,s POint ts ltsted as a ll~-~tnta~n traffic faclltty tn the aOooteO Traffic Circulation Elint, ano PO]toy, Sectton ~5, 8.].g.. ~i~ts ,utchtn~on 1siam n~ resldentlat ~eve]o~nt to st~le f~t]y r~;l;ence; ~enstty of ~(2) units pe~ up]an~ ~c~e ~re addt-tto~] trafftc i~cts on Evans Crary Brt~ge a~ ex~cte~ ,HER~S. there are no existing p]ln$ to add another brlOge to Hutchinson Islam In ett~r ~rtln or St. ~cte ~untte; ~tch ~u]~ a]ievi~te tr~fftc co~es~on a~ ~vel of Se~tce deft cS enct es . a~; ~ER~. Hut~on [slan~ Is P~vt~e~ access by three (3) brt~ges fr~ t~ ~$n]and and ~ (2) of t~se a~ located tn ~tn County. but ~orttYst. Lucte°f~unty;NUtch~ns°nand Islam ~esl~ents ~o a~ creating ~e traffic ]1ye ~, thts ~ency ~s advts~ t~ ~r~ of ~unty ~tssionens tn the Past on ]a~ deve;o~nt issues aM con,ms relative to t~ Intensity of ~evelo~nt takt~ Place ~ ~thln a~ outslee the 3u~tsdt~t.0n of ~n County. ~:"'~EREFORE 8E ZT RESOLV~' t~t ' ' " '' deve]o~nt aPP~vais by St. ~cte ~un~ on thts ~en~ ~tes t~t fu~t~r- t~ ~tton of Hut~lnson under the Jurisdiction of St. Lucle County ts Inconsistent ~th P]ann~ ~n occupancy of a ba~rJe~ island and that this ~ency rec~nds that the ~ard of ~unty C~tsstoners fo~ard a letter tO the ~i~n of the St. ~cte County ~lsslon unde~ t~.~t~n,s signature ~ ~ndtcate the degree of ~nce~ for this ~tter tn Ha~ttn ~unty. DULY P~S~ ~ ~ THZS ]~ ~y ~ 0~. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY HARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: EO~Ed~ HATHE~)N, OUuTR~U~ APPROVED AS TO FOR~ AND CORRECTNESS: BY: ~ZCNARO APP~C~LLO 22 DRAFT ~ann~ 5~uOy. ~s Pe~ca?ly ~- Policy: ~a~r~er ~s1~ deve]o~n~ ~gula~ons sba?? ad,-ess ~t a mfn~um: fl) ~x~m reSfde~ll ~ns~tfes; ~tlane P~servatlon; sho~l fne ~5) floo~ d~a~ Preve~on; endange~d S~cles ~bf~t (6) ~tabte Sfte design Standard; (8) ~at~on a~ o~n space fg] t~Po~tfon sta~ards; · flO) Pub]~c ssfe~ s~ar~S; an (1]) sto~ wat~ ~alf~ ste~a~. ~blfc ehe c~s~al ?an ~ ~qu~r~ng ~t untfl "~h -- d ~.~.~ Pla~ng..an~ Hanag~nt- not ~sted shall ~ at--ted ~ single f~ly ~nag~nt lan ~11 i =PP~ve P s P~epa~ ~ua~ PP~Pr~ate ~u~e ~ by ~ Governor --- .... ~ Ch~p~er ~0 FI~-, .... P _n~n9 and ~easu~: The Cou~y ~11 aSsu~ ~t a?l I~il P~vts~ons o~ Zsland ResouKe Plann~ a~ ~n barrier fsland~~,~_ian~ d~elo~nt'~a Dy ?e ao~e~r and ~art~n County shaT1 P~tKt hfstoricil ~u~es tn tM C~ f~ the 8y Jul~ Ig90, ~rtln Cou~y's Lend 0evelop~nt Rqulat~ons s~11 P~c~u~s to ensu~ that aT1 public and private ~velo~ and ~e~lo~nt P~sals, including ~o~ for fnfrast~c~ a~ ~vtMd for t~fr u~n htStor~c ~SOu~e;.· 4-37 23 "~.~ndlan St. SR ?~. us ~ 24 Should con-~ue D~CtOr on ~ho should .~u ena ats~ evacuate, h~ ~ evecue~ ~na avl~ll~le fo~ ~ p~ull~on ~n ~ ~rr~clne. ~e -4. ~ Post-~s~ste~ R~evel~ T~ es~l~s~nt of ~sC-dJs~ste~ P~edu~s for ~e~e ~evel shaH, I~r aa~Cton of t~ c~~P°~t'~sester R~ove~ Tas~ Fore (1) ~v~ and ePP~ve, o~ d~, ~y ~ldJn9 ~; coordJna~ ~th f~e~el e~ s~ offJcJals ass~.s~ce ~PlJcatj~s; [2) (4) P~pa~ a ~t~l~ plan: a~ Local Peacet~ ~~ Plan e~ o~r ~prla~ Policy: Cl~nup a~ R~1~ ~t~tJec Z~Jate cl~nup and p~or~y (~h~n-~ ~s ~ ~ s~m event) tn ~.?n~ aecSsSons. T~ ~tlo~ J~lu~ tM f011~: (1) (2) (3) (4) ~frs t~ potable ~mter, w~steweter and ~r facilities; ~val of ~b~s a~ tns~tton for h~ardous ~terJals; st~lli~ttm or ~val of st~s ab~t ~ ~ll~se; ~nt~l ~ pal~ ~ ~ke Mllt~s ~bt~ble: a~ ~n en~i~n~l es~sm~ by t~ ~in C~ E~t~l ~lth Unit. 8- SS ?.?.5 uns t0r ~bu{ldina ~fl ..... ~, rot t~ose -- '-~-- ,: T~ devel~nt.~ -~ ~a,=c access, P~tect g. Policy: R~uflt St~c~. If ~fl:, ~~s ~tch suffer excess o~ttt~ ~ent a~t~tr I~rat~ valw s~11 ~ ~bu~lt Co ~e: al~ cu~entst~ctu~.~t~ncs, tKludtng. ~ ~c~ stye ~n~t~ctton Pm~ ~ ~ge. V ~ f~ t~ sc~ (3) Jud~ CM uCflf~ ~ ~ la~ for ~bllc access; and (4) e~ese~w~t~s, fo~ ~mtstttofl ~fl ~st?~Sas~e oP~fltties k. --. I~ ~ enfo~tng the (2) Afar a ~tcaM or Ot~r d~ll~ ~1 ~SCer, any I~ved " de~l~ ~r ~ ~htnson Zsll~ alt tlttt~ h roll,trig 8-66 26 ~ P~si~a2 (~v~ent$'on-sfte t~t*~ve ~n constructeo nave v~l ~. P]~n d --_ --.u.e~,~ ~ 1s - ~ nt a}proval that evelo~ ~ ~ R~ T4~k Fo~ec°ns~stent ~h t~ t. P011Cy: Res~ntill Density ~ ~S~den~f~l ~Y. T~e ~nstttes ~uth of ~ FP ~- -, ......... ~uc~ng m~ A~r. e ~ca~ or oc~r 5. ~TZYE In t~ 2~0 Trans~ton S~, const~tton ?all ~ given ~ us~ t~ 13.5 {1 )~lche teh-yearf{11 ~Sts~fncl~ee~ntia P~C~tfveand ~ high e~gh ~ p~vent finding (2)yeabeeChrs. ~urtsMnt P~ts sMT1 M~ a Mstgn 11fo ~ at least f~ve for ~evel 4~op~U leyel$ of ~rvtce for ~e%sm~ ~bltc fmctltttes ~s s~ted tn the 8-57 27 November 8, 1991 .rcg gnal p ann .n,g council Terry L. Virta, AICP Director, Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject: St. Lucie County Local Government Draft Comprehensive Plan Docu/nents; Reference #92-1 Dear Mr.~ta: Council staff has completed its review of the St. Lucie County draft amendments in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and has prepared comments for Council consideration. These comments will be presented to Council at its next regular meeting on November 15 , 1991. You are invited to attend the meeting and address the Council if you wish. Enclosed are staff's recommended comments and the agenda~for the meeting. Following the meeting, the comments as finally approved by Council will be forwarded to the State Department of Community Affairs for transmittal to your governing body for consideration before final adoption of the amendments. If you would like to discuss ~--- ~=~ report om~ Council procedures for plan review, please do not hesitate to call me. Terr~y. Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH: lb Enclosure 3228 s.w. marlin downs blvd. suite 205 - p.o. box 1529 palm city, florida 34990 phone [407] 221-4060 sc 269-4060 fax [~4071 221-41]167 me 2. 3. 4. Se TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL Agenda Friday, November 15, 1991 - 9:30 a.m. Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge U.S. Highway One, Stuart Roll Call Agenda MinUtes Project Reviews A. ICR Log Developments of Regional Impact A. Boca Raton Downtown - Proposed change to-the Development Order. ~B'~.~.~ ~ ~ Proposed Change to~the ~ ..... A. Delray Beach DoWntown Core B'~Riviera Beach c°mmunitY~Redevelopment Area C.' CityofWeStpalm Beach'Downtown Core D. Westgate-Belvedere Homes Community Redevelopment E. Palm Beach International Airport Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan/Local Government Comprehensive Plans Be De Consistency of Local Government 'Comprehensive Plans with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan Plan Amendments - Draft St. Lucie County City of West Palm Beach Plan Amendments - Adopted 1. City of Delray Beach 2. Martin County 3. Town of Orchid 4. Village of Palm Springs 5. Village of Royal Palm Beach Palm Beach County Urban Form Study TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Staff AGENDA ITEM 7B1 Date: November 15, 1991 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Draft Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #92-1 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Council must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which in turn is seeking Council,s comments. Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is to focus on the consistency of the proposed amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP) developed pursuant to Section 186.507, F.S. A written report, containing, any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45 calendar days of receipt of the plan elements amendments. · or St. Lucie County 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 acres and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized in Table 1 which follows: location of commercial services needed I~and future residents of these areas. The 'is better located than other commercial properties farther to the south to serve approximately 1,761 units expected to exist at build out, both north and south of the , there are 688 417 Up to 1,014 more land use although only about 64 percent are likely to prove buildable). assume today, .,7.61 are equivalent to the number of unitsthat 1 towns served by at least some degree of is to demand for such services will time in the future. From it Would not be a good designation on well located. ~erve the needs area. if not the unless and for and future Designation of this land as residential would also be onsistent with efforts to discourage residential on barrier islands. Residential development in coastal areas puts people . demand for expensive , and complicates evacuation, to a greater extent Certain types of commercial activity. Council policy discourages all but water dependent uses in such commercial services would be allowed to meet A1 res a major problem, commercial :uses adjacent to access may be more compatible than would types. ad- Bou Be The [~ land use change could create more traffic and ne Ls of service on S.R. A1A. This could o( residential is being added, and because for commercial services is being eliminated. By eliminating commercial uses, a higher percentage of trips generated by as many as 2,000 units may be lengthened. Conversely, if the right kind of commercial services are en~ ~d, trips would be shortened. While there is pre an a~ceptable level of service on S.R. A1A ~n= to this property, a Level of Service (LOS) E (and ~ted LOS F) at S.R. A1A and Jensen Beach in the vicinity of the Martin-St. Lucie iis of great concern, especially sinCe the Jensen seway is the main evacuation route from the island. report indicates that the County,s led to a recommendation of the lower :ial ty which was approved. A recent letter Flo Department of Transportation (FDOT) 3 significant deterioration in current operating conditions under '~'le "maintain and improve,, criteria established by the however, suggests that the County should 'not permit any significant deterioration in current operating conditions. Amen4ment 91-003 A. Objection 1. ~mer~U~ uY ~s present land use desi n ' clal for thi - g etlon of · s parcel a ea · necessary, glven the ~re~ ~-P2 rs appropriate and residential de~elo~e~t ~*~t~u ~o~cted amount of The redesi~nat~o ...... _ ~ i diate vicinit without the~han~ o~_~n~!~ ~and~ to residential, ~ ~nuuner parcel in the immediate area to Commercial would not result in a balanced, compatible and complementary mix of land uses consisten~ with Regional Goal 16.1.2. As the ~nformation in the evaluation indicates, there are a ±arge n~er of residential units · b~ilt in the immedia~ ...... ' which have been · · = ~u ~ a ro ' significant numD~ .... ~n~un~ .... nave ~ pp xlmatety 700~,, yet to be built 'a-~ro ' . ~ ~n approved but have numb --=~- { pp xima~ely 400 an ~ er ~nlcn may be buil~ ~5 i~), f .d a very large · and u ~ ~n =ne ru=ure, based on se and zoning designations er all units are.bull~ ~L .... (P .haps 1,000). If CO · . ~ . -, ~=~= WOUld be _~m~.~clal/retall uses ~,,~ __ i~clear need for uudlti°nal re ' . , __~_~ ~n unclear need .... sldentlal l=nd ~ ~ .... for ~OllCy 9.1 i ~ ..... u__. ~'ne ~eglonal Plan - ~; u~s for a d ...~ ~ · .. l~mlt on future evelopment on barrier islands to t . are ~resource de~-~ -~ ihose uses which ~h~slcal' and enVi~%~'~1 ~ar~Pa~b!e~erls~ics of Withbarrierthe islands, or those uses which can oCcur without degradation of important environme interference with ~,,~ ...... ntal values or a . ._ ~~ ~ucess ~o De~ _ ~r~ residential struc~,,~o .... n aches. Not only PUt they are more 1~u~ ~uu resource dependent i . z~=xy Enan co ' ' nterfere :_ mmerclal u · With publxc ac :~ sea to adjacent ]o~:__ _ cess to beaches Give · . ~ ~u~on of ! - n the facility, a co~_~_:_~ the County beach access than a '- may De more co resldential ........ mpatible opportunity (than de=~ ~nu~ p~ovide more of an u~uneo single-family dwellings at a density of five units per acre) to protect the environmental values of the site. 5 e e It 25 consistent Given past problems and environmental concerns, the County should permit development on this property only when a regional system is available. 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 du~ing storms and high · consideration should be given to preserving a of the vegetation on this parcel. is not clear, from the County plan, if the would be required to prese~v~ a ~aximum of of the ~tural habitat found on site with the RCPP. The County's Land Code (Section 6.02.01 C) may prohibit on this parcel if it is considered an sens No information however· to that such an has been made. Ideally, development of this site should be in the area nearest the road, which has been Y impacted by clearing activities. The design of a single structure with parking beneath it woul!d minimize ~he 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 any landscaping. Much of the existing development on the south end of Hutchinson Island is of a very high density. Such a high density of development is counter to State and regional concerns regarding the protection of coastal resources, the concern for loss of human life and structural damage from storms, and the difficulty of evacuating citizens in the event of a natural or other disaster. St. Lucie County is encouraged to continue to reduce densities and intensities on the barrier island so that development which is to occur is more in tune with the scale and the scope of the sensitive resources which help to define coastal areas. 7 U.! ~HINN' RD HEADER CANAL RD SNEED RI] 0 0 I 9 0 0 I .~x~, xRANGE L.TNE RI) .Amendment 91-003 R CPUB R R CO.M Legend R : Residential CPUB: Conservation-Public U : Utilities COM : Commercial CP UB CPUB COM~ COM St. Lucie County Generalized Future Land Use Map 11 R Martin County COM. --U Mr. J.p. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our understanding that your staff recommendation is that the amendment not be approved at this time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked° When site planning begins, we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue and Oleander or by 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 cc: Gustavo Schmidt Sincerely, Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office 13 Mr. J.P. Terpening 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 MPO is proposing a joint effort between St. Lucie County and Martin County to develop and adopt a balanced plan for future land use and transportation on South Hutchison-Island which will recognize boththe potential and the limitations to development in this critical area of state concern. _- We strongly -,urge the Count~ to disapprove this proposed amendment att his ' . tzme and others similar to it.which may intensify development on Hutchison Island prior to the adoption of the plan for South Hutchisgn Island. CC: Gustavo Schmidt · Sincerely, , Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office 15 OCT-~B-1991 FROM ~?~,~Martin Co. Attornew TO 9-~221-4~? P. O1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT County. Administrative Center~- 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 (407) 288-5495 TO: Anne Cox - Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council FAX NUMBER: 223-4067 DATE: October 30, lggl TIME: 2:20 p.m. NUMBER OF PAGES: ll pages (EXCLUDING TRANSMITTAL TAG) DIRECTIONS: Per your request, this is the packet on the St. Lucie County Land Use Amendments to be presented to our Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 5. It has not been approved by the Board and is subject to change. FROM: Paul Ezzo FAX NUMBER (407) 288°5432 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (407) 288-6495 i7 0CT-30-1991 [3293h ] 1'7:19 FP-~M~-~Mar'~in Co. ~:rc~orney TO ..... 9-221-4867 P. 04 , DRAFT STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED ST. UJCZE COUNTY LAND USE NAP ANENI3qENTS NOS. 91-003 AND 91-004 LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. 91-003 This amendment concerns a 5.5 acre parcel located east of SR A1A on Hutchinson Island. approximately three (3) miles north of the Martin Count), 11ne. The amendment calls for lessening the Intensity of use on the property by changtng the.!and use from Commercial to Residential/Urban (fiVe (5) du/acre) The applicant originally sought a land use chart e 1' ' Residential/Nigh (15 du/~rr~ ~_ ,_~ _':g [~ C~erclal to to devetop the land at aless intense density constru~1ng between 25 and 30 ~--,. .,e In:eh:Ion or the aPplfcant, however, ~as toga] units. St. Lucle County staff rec~ended that ~he ~en~ent reflec~ a land use change fr~ C~ercial to Residential/Urban (ftve C5 du would allow the also keeping i. ~~n~.~ ~71~ ZS. to 30 uni:s ~. the 5.5 cre/~; -h~ch "'""""v -~n :ne eeve~o~ent ph~losop~ of the St.'[~ ~h~le County C~prehens~ve Plan. The pr~nc~oal concern Hartln CounW has regardlng th~s ~nament ~s the traffic generated b~ the potential develo~nt and the effect such traffic w~11 have on already ~macted Mart~n Count~ artertal toadies su ~ensencalculat~onsBeach. Cause~ and SR A1A. ACcord~ ng to St. LucJe Count~?s astraf~cthe ~f the land use ~s changed from C~erctal to Restdent~al~rban. potential da~l~ tr~ps (assuming max~m bu~ldout at each 1aha use) would Oecrease ~r~ 6,0~ ~a~:l~ trt~s as a c~erc~al land use to 1~-~80 ~esldent~al/Urban land use. The 1~ ~a~l~ tr~ps ~gure reflects an attached townhouse aes~gn, ~hLle the 280 f~gure represents a detached s~ngle ~1~ hous~ ng des~ gn. ~h~le ~t ~s evident that such a change tn land use Oes~gnat~on ~utd result lower :r~ps generated ~n a build-out scenario. Mart~n ~unt~ Js concerned an? development approval ~h~ch w~11 provide for an ~ncrease ~n traffic vol~e on Hutchinson Island. In l~g~t of recent a~scuss~ons hel~ b~ the ~art~n Coun:y Local Planning kgenc~ (LPA), staff has been ~rected :o bring the ~t~ached draft Resolution Number LPA 90-9.1 to the next regular ~et~ng of the Agency on November 7. 1991. Th~s ~ra~t Resolution states the concern of the Local Planning Agent? about the ~ntens~t~ o~ develoment on the Hutchlnson Zsland area under the Jurisdiction of St. Lude County. In their letter of August 30~.-~-t991. Flor~Oa Depar~nt of Transportat~ on expressed s~m~ 1ar concerns to the St. Lucre County LPA. The ~endment ~s no~ before the Re¢onal Ptann~ng Council. Because th~s lan~ use change. ~f approved, m~ result ~n a residential project that w~11 ado to the Intense deveto~ent that alread~ exists south of the Lucre Po~er Plant, Hart~n County goes on record as opposing ~n~ent No. ~1-003 for the s~e reasons noted ~n the Florida Depar~n: of Transit:at, on lea:er of Augus: 30, 1991. - 1 - 19 ...... J148h] 17:2~ FR~ ~r'cin ~. ~ttorneW DRAFT ~IN COUNTY, FLOR]:DA RE$OLUTZON NUHBER LPA-90-9.1 [RESOI.UTTON REGARD[NG THE C(~CERN OF THE* LOCAL PLANNTNG AGENGY ABOUT THE: ZNTENSITY OF DEVELOPHENT ON THE HUTCHZNSON ZSLAND AREA UNDER THE 3URISDICTZON OF ST. LUCZE COUNTY] HHEREAS, ~fh~te meeting as the Planfltn9 and Zontng Board off September 5, 1991, the Agency members expressed concern as to the contlnuatto~ of develol~ent aPPrOValS fo? pro~ect$ located on the PO~tton of the HUtchlnson Island b&rTle? ~sland located to the north of Hasten County and utth~n the ju?lsd!ctton of St. Lucle County; and HHEREAS, the Agency has noted the follmitng Po?tton$ of the adopted Comprehensive Growth I~nagement Plan are applicable to the coordination aevelopment and land planning on ftutchlnson Z$1and: 1) Future Land Use Element, Sectton 4-4, E.S. Pollctes - a. directing any addqtton~l population grouch auaY from the b&r~ier ~$1and$ consistent ~th the flurrtcane/N&tu?al Dtsaster P?eparatton Pl&nntng StuOy; b. ?ecogntztng the I~nd aevelol~aent regulations needed to 1~tt the publlc expenditures for unnecessary fac111ttes ~tthln coastal htgh hazard areas and assuring the 11nfltatlon of impacts on natural resources on the lslan~: c. ltmtttng ne~ development to the s~ngle famtly ?e$1dence$ on Properties not covered by some vested ?tqhts determinations to assure that traffic C&Pac~ty limitations recognized the Hutchinson Islan¢ Resource Ptanntng and gan~gement Plan are not ~orsened. 2) Coaita~ ttanag~nt Ele~nt. Section 8~. B.~. ~o1~c~es - k. ~efore anO after any n~tur&] disaster, the Hurr~ cane/Naturai D~ saiter Prepar&tton P! arming Study ilm~ts ~evelol~aent that places ~re persons and l~rove~nt$ at r~$k to hurricane and other natural hazard destruction; 1. Pet~tton of the Board of County Co~sstoners of St. Lucte : County to r~uce tt~ all~ res~ent$&l density on properties south of ~he, F~or~da Pmver & Light power plant an¢ to revisit any develolxaent or~er tt~at beco~s nu~ and void; m. 11mit~ng the re~eve]o~nt of parcels ~n ~arttn ~unty on ~ch extsttng deve~o~nt has been daged by c~sta] hazarOs to the ~$m~ of ~t ex~st~ prevfously on stte. and ~HER~AS, this Agency ~s note~ that St. Lucte County ~s requtre~ to adhere to the s~ require~nts of ~the Hutchinson Island Resource P~anntng and Hana~emnt P]an as ~s Hartin County and; ~HEREAS. ~th Counties have ~dopted s~c~f~c barrier Island develo~nt regulations to tmp~nt the pmvt~on~ of the Hutchinson Resource Plan an~ ~anag~ent Plan. an~; m mm m a. ~.olicy: Land development regulations and suggorting urOan infraStructvre tmp~vements shall be coordin~t~ to assure t~t development on codst~i barrie~ islands and othe~ high hazard coastal e Concentrations of ann-1 tin...w ___: ..... ~aS ~sult fn gruaent ._._ a ....... u =x~na~ure or ~ubltc and p~ivate funos cons(stent with the Martin County Hurricane/Natural Disaster P~eDaration ~lanni~g Study, ms ~riodicmlly updated. ' b. Policy: Barrier island develo~nt regulations sh~ll address et e minimum: (1) ~ximum residential densities; (2) wetland preservation; (3) s~oreline ~tection; (4) flood damage ~eeventton; (5) endangered s~ies ~bitat ~tectton~ (6) potable water and wast~ater r~ir~nt;; site design standards; (8) recreation and o~n s~ace s~ndards; (9) trans;ortation sta~ards; (lO) public safe~ s~nUards; a~ (l l) sto~ wa.t~ ~ality standards. The mjor ~urpose of ~e develo;~nt regulations ~ll ~ to limit ;ubltc ex~ndttu~s and direr population co~entrattons ~ f~ the coastal high ~za~d area. c. ~oltcy: The Cou~y s~ll continue ~ t~l~ ~ findings and ~co~ndattons of the Hu~htnson Island kesou~e Planning and Manag~nt ~lan by requiring ~at until such tt~ as Ms.tn Cou~y and St. Lucie COunty have a~teU a ;lan to i~rease traffic ca actt ~ Hu Island ~ assure futu~ ;n~ ~ ....... P ~ ~hinson n ......... -~, ~,m~ ~w aeveiog~ O~ t~ Island ~i Js o~ vestea sna~) ~ limited to single f~ly ~side~es. c~ 6. ~dECT)VE Martin County shall coordinate ~t~ all aP~rtate ~u~e ptanntng and ~nage~nt p~ans P~e~a~d pu~uant ~ Cha~ter ~0, Florida Statutes and a~proved by t~ Governor and C~bi~t. ' Measure: The County ~11 assu~ ~at all l~al p~Vtstons of ~ ~tchinson.~ v~u)ne~, are ~ntea as )and devetop~nt regulations s~ific to t~ barrier island ~ July, lggO. ~. G~L (HI~ZC RESO~CE PROTECTZ~) Martin County shall ~t~t historical ~u~es in t~ County f~ the a~verse impacts of develo~. 1. O~ECTIVE 8y July lggO, ~rttn County's Land Develo~nt R~ulattons s~ll establis~ P~ceUu~s to ensure that all public and private develo~nt and redevelo~nt p~posals, including ~ose for infrast~c~, a~ ~vt~d for t~tr i~ct u~on historic resou~es. 4-37 Df~cto~ o~ ~ s~u~d evacuate, h~ to evacuate ~- ~4.ECTZVE P°st'Oisaste~ R~ve~ T~ establ ~ s~nt of post-d~Sastee P~edu~es fo~ f~d~ate and Tong ~esPonse ~ a hula, cane o~ natu~] d~saste~ ~nc]ud~ng c~eanU~ an~ ~e~ e. Policy: Post-Dts~ste~ R~ove~ T~sk F C~issten ~fla] --:-- o~p. Zn 1 p : o~h Nan4 ~ ask Force to ~ubl~c Yorks 0t ' 9~nt.D~to~ p _ . nc~ude . ~ctor and , ublJc Safe ' ~ISSq fl Ot~r ~ers at ty OlreCtor, ~,~ un ~e TIS~ Force. · ~ '~ ~] ~ aepir~ts Kose ~f~ectors b. Po;fCy: ~st-O~saster P~edu~s. T~ PoSt-D~saster R~overy shaT1, a~Ce~ adoption of t~ C~he = Task Fore t~ fo11~tng P~edures ~: ns~ G~h Maflagemnt Plan, Prepare (1) ~vi~ and 4PP~ve, o~ de~, ~ncy ~fldfng (2) coo~dfna~ ~th federal and sta~ offJc~als ~ p~pa~ ass1 s~aflce ~pl fcat~s; (3) aMlyze 4fid PK~nd ~ t~ Coufl~ C~fss~ofl Mza~ ~lg~°Pti°fls ~bl1~ludf~ic flcfll~°Wnt'Jt~es; ~oflst~c~fo~, oP ~l~at~on (4) P~P~ a ~devel~flt plan; and ~cwnd ~en~nts ~ the C~nslve G~h Manag~nt Plan, Coca1 Pe/cetf~ ~eKy Plan i~ ot~ app~prta~ plans. c. PoT~cy: Cl~nup ~fld R~at~ P~o~ftfes. Z~tate clHnup and actions n~G~ ~ ~ t~ puD]lc h~lth i~ safe~ shall ~ce~ve prlorlty (~thffl ~ ~s of t~ scorn event) tn ~rgefl~ ~ect$tofls. T~ acttons t~]ude t~ (2) ~va; of debris a~ fns~tJon for hazardous materials; (3) stab~fzatt~ or ~va] of st~s about to '(4) ~flt~ ~ pitts ~ ~ke ~]]~ngs ~bt~b;e; and (5) Un,an teflv~n~]. 4sses~nt by t~ Harttn C~n~ EnvironS] ~a]th 25 0CT-~-1991 (a) ~/3 or less of the physfca] tmp,-ov development Order a ...... ements re ,,~ completed; commi~ted to ~b) the de~eJopme, t has ~ot had six ~oflths, and any active construction For a Period the physical Improvements'on.site that have been ConStructea nave sustained damage fn excess of fifty Percent (SO~ of their aPPrafse~ va I un. If the develOl~ment Order ts determined shall be re~ufred to submit a new to be null ann voicl. ~c.o_mplfes w~th current rea ...... Petition for d _ the 1. - --- ~vr~e. t..~ ~eueve;opment : Policy Res~dentfal Density Reduction Petition County sh res~defltf~9_~_e County. The above. "- ~?~ Power Plant_ =,,d ...... reduc ~ ng ..... maop: Do] tCy ~/ k $- OBdECTZ~E Cop stdt 1 Infrast~uctu~- serv~ceafter plena~sadOpt~ofl,and shell~tflpha~C~fl~arid ~f fltajShall ~tfl~ffl establf s~ ]eve1 s of service and adequate public f n tflf~$t~u~, tn order to a residents and v~ acfl~ttes end ~rVt~s are evaflebl +. --4 .... ssure that s~to~ ~ t~ c~s~1 a~ of Ne~fl C~nty. · w ~ta~]flg ann P~ted a. Policy: Level of facf]it~e~'~'=~ ~ tn~~l~ level of set. ce (L~) standards G~h Nana~n~ Plan fo~ public and tM ~dJt~ ~nda~s u~ee this ~d~t~ve shall ~ app]tee by the Maettn C~nty G~h Nanag~nt ~par~ k~ne~r develo~nt orders or ~ts are re,est,. Zn the 2010 TPans~tto~ shal~ ~ gtven ~ ust~ tM 13.5 evacuation const~t~on Policy 8.3. a. as ~ ~ttto~1 cleaea~e tt~ establfs~ Hurricane YulneelbflJ~ Zone. level of see~ce sta~ae~ for shall · ~ch ~u~s~nt P~J~ts ...... ~ ,eve~ or ser~~ard$: f~) ~ach~ a ten-~eaeffT1 mststom~ncludee~nt:a P~t~ttveand ~m h~gh enough to P~vent (~)~earsbeach. ~urts~nt P~J~ts s~Tl ~ve e ~stgn lffe of at least five c. ~ ~ce GuSdel~nes ~o~ ~ gore1 ~'ca ~Lev,l of S~ ~~'ts ",~t,n County for ~evelo~flt In t~ c~s~l zo~ d~flstre~ t~t t~ P~J~t ~f71 c~ly ~th the adop~cep~l Zmp~v~ntslevels of ~rvlceEle~flt.for ~essa~ p~11c ficJlltles as stated ~fl the 8-57 27 BOARD OF COUNTY D V6LOPM6NT COMMISSION6RS D IR( CTOR TERRY L. VIRTA, 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, 1991 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 CC: CommUnity Development Administrator Land Development Manager Planning Director Michael Houston File HAVERT L FENN. Distr~t No 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-t 553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 £ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '~2 18 19 2O 22 · ~ 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTI ON NO. FILE NO.: PA-91-004 Do~ A~'~p Doc T~x tnt l'~x 91-183 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 DOUG[AS S:. Lucie Counly Clerk Circuil Cou~ Deput~ 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, presented a petition for a change in Land Use from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Luci e County P1 anning 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 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 proposed amendment will preserve the internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 163. 3177(2), Florida Statutes. 4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public hearing 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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 32" 33 official consideration of this until September 24, 1991. request to transmit was delayed 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 use designation, 'filed by Ft. Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael On September 24, 1991, this Board held a public hearing of County Houston, is hereby approved Department of Community Affairs 163, Florida Statutes. for transmittal to the Florida for further review under Chapter After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Havert L. Fenn Vice-Chairman 8~m M~n!x ABSENT AYE Commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner 8ack. Krieger Commissioner R. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this AYE Dale Trefelner AYE ....... 24th day of September, .~ . %o . .,?.-._..-?~.~.:~ ~ .. BOARD OF COUNTY ST. ~UClE COUNTY, FLO~A-~..L~.?~ A~AOV~D AB NO gO~ AND .... ~'.-.- CO~RECTNE S S: '.' COUNTY ATTOR/~EY T~e N 1/~ of the SW 1/4 of the NE ]~/4 of th~ SW ~4 of ~~ lO. ~ip 36 ~. ~e 40 ~t. St_ ~e ~. Flori~. 1~ righ~ff for ~~e ri~f~y for ~c r~ ~ ~i~ ~ l ~_ ~ ~ ~2 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 6f ~~ 1~. ~ip 36 ~. ~ 40 ~t. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ of ~ ~ ~{of 1137 55 October 16, 1991 r'eg onal pla nin9 council OOT I 7 Terry L. Virta, AICP Director, Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Subject: St. Lucie County Local Government Draft Comprehensive Plan Documents; Reference #92-1 Dear Mr./~a: This is to notify you that the Regional Planning Council has received a request from the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA). for comments on the following comprehensive planning documents: Draft amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan Council staff will review the documents in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It Ks anticipated that the report and recommended comments will be presented to Council at its meeting on November 15, 1991. Prior to the Council meeting, the meeting agenda, report, and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to you. You or any representative of your local government are invited to attend the meeting an~ will be a~forded an opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council meeting the adopted comments will be transmitted to DCA. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Anne M. Cox Regional Planner AMC:lhb 3228 s.w. ma~in downs blvd. suite 205 · p.o. box t529 palm city, florida 34990 sc 269-4060 ~ ~9~ BOARD _OF _COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST__ .LUCI E COUNTY~ FLORI DA ~EGULAR MI NUTE$ u ,t - 2 Date: September 24, 1.991 Tape: 1 convened: 9:18 a.m. adjourned: 10:40 a.m. Commissioners Present: Vice Chairman, Jim Minix, R. Dale Trefelner, Judy Culpepper, Jack Krieger, Chairman, Havert L. Fenn (absent for medical reasons) Others Present: James Chisholm, County Administrator; Danny Crew, Asst. County Administrator; Ed Fry, Director Management~& Budget, Rick Howell, Utilities Director; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Clifford Crawford, Le is ute Services Direct or; Ronal d Brown, Public Works Administrator; Charles Bicht, Central Services Director; Nancy Munshaw, Planning Administrator; Robin Ennis, Recycling Manager; Linda Childres s, Finance Director, Larry Perretti, Personnel Director; Ron Eskesen, Sheriff, s Dept. Clerk , A. Mi!lie White, Deputy Resolution No__ 91-183 Reference was made to memorandum from P1 anning Director, addressed to the Board, dated August ~8, t991, subject: Resoluuion No. 91-183, a resolution approvin9 the application of Ft. Pierce Land Trust be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs as a Proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 LAWTON CHILES Governor CENTERVI EW DRIVE TALLAHASS EE, FLORIDA 32399 October 7, 1991 WILLIAM E. SADOWSKI Secretary Terry L. Virta, AICP Community Development Director St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Mr. Virta: Thank you for submitting copies of your proposed comprehensive plan amendment(s) for our review. We have conducted a preliminary inventory of the plan amendment package pursuant to Rule 9J-11.006, F.A.C., to verify the inclusion of all required materials. Our 92-1.reference number for this amendment package is St. Lucie County The submission package appears to be complete, and your proposed plan amendment will be reviewed in accordance with pro- cedures contained in Chapter 9J-11, F.A.C. Once the review is underway, you may be asked to provide additional supporting docu- mentation by the review team to ensure a thorough review. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Conger at (904) 487-4545. RP/pcr Sincerely, Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ~GENDA' REOUES~ DATE: March 18, 1992 REGULAR: 3/24/92 SPECIAL: REQUEST PRESENTATION: CONSENT: PUBLIC WORK HEARING: XXXXX~ SESSION: ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEV~,?.OPM~.NT - PLANNIN(~ Consider Draft Ordinance 92-18 granting approval to the petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael Houston, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie Count~ Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). LOCATION: 600 feet (+/-) west of South US #1 about 1/4 mile north of Seager Road. ' RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance 92-18. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED) ' ~MMUN ' EV. ADMIN. CONCURRENCE: U~yS V. CHISHOLM C ADMINISTRATOR (AGENDA24) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION DATE: 3/24/92 Approved as recommended. ~ ~ / ~ames V. Chisholm TO: ~ /~nty Administrator Please proceed as approved by the Board. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS September 24, 1991 D6V6LOPM6NT DIR6CTOR TERRY L. VIRTA. AICP Mr. Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 34399-2100 Dear Mr. Pennock: Enclosed are ten (10) copies of staff reports describing t~o proposed amendments to the future land use plan map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, which are transmitted to you for further review in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The transmittal hearing was held by the Board of County Commissioners on September 24, 1991. As required, ten (10) copies of the entire element are enclosed also. As required by Rule 9J-11, the following information is provided: 1. The proposed month of adoption of these plan amendment submittals is March, 1992. 2. stateThe proposed amendmentSconcern, are not located in an area of critical 3. The proposed amendments do not apply to the Wekiva River Protectfon Area pursuant to Chapter 88-393, Laws of Florida. 4. The proposed amendments are not exceptions to the twice per calendar year limitation on the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 5.planningThe proposed:'amendmentSagreemeht~: are not to be adopted under a joint 6. The contact person for the local government who is familiar with the proposed amendments is Terry L. Virta, Community Development Administrator, St. Lucie County, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL 34982, 407-468-1590. HAVERT L FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULPEPP£R. DisrriCrCouni. yNO. 2Adminisrroror · JACK KRIEGER._ JAMEsDiStriCtv.N°-cHiSHOLM3 · R. DALE I'REFELNER. Disl'ricl' No. 4 · JIM MINiX Disl'rtct No. 5 2300 Virginia Avenue e Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 Please let me,know if you have ~°~~i~Y ~velop~ent any questions. Administrator TLV/NCM/dlj A:\WP\TRANSMIT.LTR MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney Nancy C. Munshaw, Planning Director~ September 24, 1991 Res oluti ons Attached for signature, recording and return of copies to office are the following resolutions: No. No. No. 91-178, Indian River Club (site plan extension) 91-182, Roger L. Toffolon (Land Use Amendment) 91-183, Ft. Pierce Land Trust (Land Use Amendment) this MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney Nancy C. Munshaw, Planning Director~pf~/ September 24, 1991 Res ol uti OhS Attached for signature, recording and return office are the following resolutions: of copies to this No. 91-178, Indian River Club (site plan extension) No. 91-182, Roger L. Toffolon (Land Use Amendment) No. 91-183, Ft. Pierce Land Trust (Land Use Amendment) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTION NO. 911.-183 FILE NO.: PA-91-004 A RESOLUTI ON 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, PLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent Michael presented a petition for a change in Land Use (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Lucie County Planning and Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing 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 proposed amendment will preserve the internal consistsncy of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes. of St. Lucie Houston, from RU for the property Zoning on the 4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public_, hearing 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 13 14 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 official consideration of this until September 24, 1991. request to transmit was delayed on the petition to transmit the proposed plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land use designation,- filed by Ft. Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael Houston, is hereby approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. On September 24, 1991, this Board held a public hearing After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as f ol 1 ows: Chairman Havert L. Fenn ABSENT Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger AYE Commi s sioner Judy Culpepper AYE Commissioner Jim Minix AYE Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 24th day of September, ATTEST: 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: DEPUTY CLERK PA91004. RES(RESLS) COUNTy ATTORNEY ~ q£XHI~IT A: A G E N D A R E Q U DATE September 1'8, 1991 REGULAR SPECIAL CONSENT REQUEST PUBLIC WORK PRE SENTATI ON HEARING 09 -24- 91 SESSI ON ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Consider Resolution No. 91-183, Application of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent: Michael Houston, to Amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential, Urban - 5 du/ac) to RM (Residential Medium - 9 au/ac) Hearing continuea from September 10, 1991. Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue RECOMMENDATI ON: Staff recommends that Department of Community Comprehensive Plan. this application be forwarded to the Affairs as a proposed amendment to the FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER ~kr~ Vi r~A CONCURRENCE: // ~/\ ~/ ?..C, isholm C~ Administrator BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION Approved as recommended ~' DATE:~//~ 9/24/91 / Ja es-v. C. isholm TO: Terry Virta {Coh~_nty Admlnis trator please proceed as approved by the Board. A G E N D A R E Q U E S T DATE_. September I'8, 1991 REGULAR SPECIAL CONSENT REQUEST PUBLIC WORK PRESENTATION HEARING 09-24-91 SESSION ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Consider Resolution No. 91-183, Application of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent: Michael Houston, to Amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St.~ Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential, Urban - 5 du/ac) to RM (Residential Medium - 9 du/ac) Hearing continued from September 10, 1991. Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue RECOMMENDATI ON: Staff recommends that Department of Community Comprehensive Pla~ this application be forwarded to the Affairs as a proposed amendment to the FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER PRESENTED BY:~DEPARTMENT'~'~'~//-'""//~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONCURRENCE: Jam~ V. Chisholm County Administrator BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SSI ON ACTI ON DATE: James V. Chisholm County Administrator BOARD OF _COUNTY COMMI$SIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA _REGULAR MEETING Date: September 10, 1991 Tape: 1 convened: 9:16 a.m. adjourned: 9:40 a.m. Commi s s ioners Pres ent: Chai rman, Havert L. Fenn, Trefelner, Jack Krieger, Jim Minix, Judy Culpepper Was hi ngton ) R- Dale ( absent i n O~hers Present: James Chisholm, County Administrator; Danny Crew, As s t. County Administrator; Dan Kurek, Publi c Services Admi nis trat or; Tom Kindred, As s t. County Admi nis trator; Dan Mci ntyre, County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Manager; Ronald Brown, Public Works Administrator; Morris Adger, Port Director; Nancy Muns haw, P1 anning Admi nis trat or; Donna Trudo, Purchas ing Direcuor; Ron Eskesen, Sheriff: s Office; 3%. Miltie White, Deputy Clerk Petition Ft__ .Pierce Land Trust Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to the Boa~, dated August 28, 1991, subject: Application of Ft. Pierce Land TrusE by Agent Michael Houston for a change in Future Land Use Designation from Ru to RM. Staff advised the Board that the petitione~ requested this item be tabled for continuance on S~ptember 24, 1991. It was moved by Com. Minix, seconded by Com. Krieger, to approve tabling this iEem until September 24, 1991 at 9: 00am or soon thereafter; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. A G E N D A R E Q U E S T D A T E September 4, 1991 REGULAR Sept. REQUEST PRESENTATION 10, 1991 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT WORK SESSION ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Consider the Petition of Ft. Pieroe Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) Location: RE COMMENDATI ON: Approximately 630 feet west miles north of Saeger Avenue of South U.S. staff recommends that this application be forwarded Department of Community Affairs as a proposed amendment Comprehensive Plan. 1, 0. 25 to the to the FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER PRESENTED Terry~. Virta ~ Community Development CONCURRENCE: James V. Chisholm County Administrator BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION DATE James V. Chisholm County Admi nis trator COMMISSION REVIEW: September 10, RESOLUTION NUMBER: 91 - !83 MEMORANDUM 1991 To: From: Board of County Commissioners Planning Director Date: August 28, 1991 Subject: Application of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RU (Residehtial 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. - 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 DES I GNATI ONS: OVERVIEW 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 Medium) - 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/ac) zoning is located to the north and the west. 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 ~s 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. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: No additional right-of-way will be required. 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 in traffic 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 this area include: in August 28, 1991 Page 3 CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 Roadway Expansions: Palmer Expressway (U.S. / 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 .the current RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/ac) designation. To date,-the applicant has ~0~ 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. Development of these properties would be subject to all standards of concurrency upon the approval of the site plan for the PrOposed development. The 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. 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 proposed 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 Page 4 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 ComprehensiveP°licies withinplan:the following elements of the St. Lucie County 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- of this element. In accordance with Policy 1.1.4.1, this amendment will result in urban development that is within the Planned Urban Service 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. e Traffic Circulation 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 of South U.S. 1 as a corridor for future mass transit. August 28, Page 5 1991 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 4. 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. Se Housing Element The proposed amendment has been d~termined to be consistent with this element. 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 mn an increase -the availability of land suitable for medium intensity. development. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The proposed amendment'., has 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 into 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. Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not conflict with this sub-element. to 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 subject property shall 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 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 capacity 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. 10. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict~with this element. This property is not located within any o~ the areas, specified lin Section 3..D of this element, which are subject to coastal flooding and require evacuation in the event of a hurricane. Access to this property will be along South U.S. 1 which is not identified in this element as a critical link for hurricane evacuation. .11. Cons ervation 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. 12. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. Existi-ng 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. Luci'e 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 proposed Future Land Use 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. - Intergovernmental Coordination Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. 14. 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 .established within policies of this element. In reviewing this petition, Count Staff the proposed amendment ~ ......... Y .~ has determined that ~ uu~uasuent with · Land Development Code ~n~ o ...... the St. Lucle Count exiting and ~ro~osed ~iii /y?r?nenslve Plan, is consistent wi y excessive imn~* ..... an the area, wall not re environment, and represen = ~c~_~lltl~s ~r the natural pattern. Additionally, staff .......... orderly development = . .~uu~s ~na~ the proposed amendment will further the goals, objectives, and 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. If you have any questions on this matter, office, please contact this August 28, 1991~' Page 8 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 SUBMITTED: Nancy ~. Munshaw Planning Director CONCURRENCE: T~rry ~. ~irt~ Devel o~ment Admi ni s trator County Attorney Commission Secretary Michael Houston Press/Public File PA91004. MEM(RESLS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26- 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 RESOLUTION NO. 91-183 FILE NO.: PA-91-004 A RE$OLUTI ON 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: i. Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Mi chael Houston pres ented a peti ti on for a change i n Land Us e from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) for the property described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The St. Luci e County P1 anning and Z chi 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 pr6Perty 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 proposed amendment will preserve the internal -consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant 'to Section 163. 3177(2), Florida Statutes. 4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public hearing 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida:' The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land use designation, filed by Ft. Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael Houston, is hereby approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 After motion and second, follows: the vote on this resolution Chairman Havert L. Fenn XXX Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger XXX Commissioner Judy Culpepper XXX Commissioner Jim Minix XXX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCiE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: bEPUTx CLERK COUNTx ATTORNEY PA91004. RES(RESLS) WaS as EXHIBIT A: 6¸6 ~620' VICINITY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST 0 0 0 EASY STREET SAEGER AVENUE LAND USE CHEZ NO, gROVES PU;It,.ZESE UO'iTA PROPERTY CO A W,~"JALANCI'T TEXTILE CO O & R ASSOC KEATII~ __~_ PETITION OF FORT PIER CE LAND EASY ST TRUST ZONING T { PEIIFI OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST EASY ST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY UNOFFICIAL-- SUB.IECT TO PLANNINt~ & ZONING COiV]~IS$iON APPROVAL MINUTES AUGUST 22, 1991 BOARD MEMBERS 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 PRESENT: Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director; Jo Frances Haywood, Planner II; Luis Serna, Planner I, Diana Waite, Planner I. I NVOCATI ON The Invocation was given by Mrs. Enck-Wesloski. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge 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 DECemBER 5, 1991. Unanimous approval - no vote was taken. TO PUBLIC HEARING FT. PIERCE LAND TRUST - FILE NO. PA-91-00~ Luis Serna Presented staff comments. He stated the subject property is located approximately 600 feet west of South U.S. Highway ~1, one quarter mile north of Saeger Avenue. He stated the petition requested a change in maximum density permitted on this 9 acre parcel from 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding this parcel are vacant land 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 units per acre.. Access to this possible future deVel°p~ent would be. 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~ser~..ation of capacity in this area. Mr. 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. ! and i. 1. 3. 3 which encourage urban development to be within the mixedPlanneduseUrbandevelopment.Service area and encourages, clustered housing and Mr. Serna further stated that regardin th amendment would result in a~ ~'-- - g e Housing Element, this · ~ ~crease 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 zncome 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 stated at this point the petitioner had no plans for development 11 but is putting the property residential and meeting forward. There were no appearances petition. in position for higher concurrency requirements dens i ty before mOving Mr. Sattler made a motion, petition be forwarded to the recommendation of approval. Mrs. Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Skidmore, Mrs. Enck-Wesloski, Mr. Sattler, Mr. McCain, Ms. Calabrese and Chairman Terpening voted "Aye". Mr. Flowers was absent. Chairman Terpening advis.,ed the agent for the applicant that the petition .would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. in favor of or in opposition to the seconded by Ms. Calabrese, that the Board of County Commissioners with a 12 AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ?UESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 9:00 A.M. Petition of Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described Property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: ApProximately 630 feet west of South U.S #1 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue). - , If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time'to time. Please note that all proceedings.her°re the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made bythe Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the. proceedings is - made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which' the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing Will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received hearing will also be considered. in advance.~ of the public Prior to this public hearing, notice of the all ad3acent property owners on August 23,.1991. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 30, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN FILE NO. PA-91-004 same was sent to The N 1/2 of the SW //4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Secti~ lO. To~hip 36 ~. ~ 4~ ~t. S~ ~e ~. Flori~. 1~ righ~f~ for ~~e ~ ~M ~lic ~. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~~ 1M, ~~ 36 ~, ~ 4~ ~t, 1~ ri~f~y for ~c r~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~4 of ~~ 10. ~p 36 ~. ~ 4~ ~t. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 Of ~ ~ ~4 of ~id ~~ 10. St_ ~ie ~, Flori~ IICHAEL HOUSTON :/o URBAN DESIGN STUDIO ;00 E OCEAN BLV ~ FL 34994 ., 31 /~EZ NOOS GROVES INC ~) BOX 125 .~PITER FL 33468 ~'~ERTYj C~NNERS IN PETITIONED FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST GARY L. K~ ESQ 1400 CENTREPARK BLV WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED 2 ~Y CORP c/o 1ST AMERICAN BANK #010527 PO BOX 3146 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33402 "A",6,7 2992 FRENC~MANS PASSAGE PAI~ BEACH FL 33410 ~ V PUGLIESE III 2500 MILITARY TRAIL SUITE 200 BOCA RATON FL 33431 ROVE CC~MUNITY ASSN INC 4~00 S. FEDERAL HWY T PIERCE FL 34982 1 ,'12 ' & R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE ~O INC 503 ~ ST T PIERCE .FL 34982 5,16,17,22 HOMAS&LOUISE DEAL EFFERY & DErAINE FURST )03 YORK CT PIERCE FL 34982 5 PO BOX 152 LOWELL MA 01853 13 ROBERT KEATING NINA KEATING HOBBY & SHEIIA EGGERT 222SMALL~C~DAV FTPIERCE FL 34982 18,20 FRANK&MARIELOUPE 384~YTER PORT STLUCiE FL 34983 8, 9 ;10 GEORGE & LISELOITE PETRIE LISA ANN PETRIE 5989 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 14 JERRY & BONNIE ASH 6070 S US #1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 19 HAROLD&CARRIEiOUPE 6009 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 TERLOUPE ~ LOUPE 39TORTUC~MAV PIERCE FL 34982 23,24 HAYSLIPIANDSCJkPE 6147 S US #1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 25 PHILIP RODI JACQUELINE BALDWIN 6406 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 mLIAM & LORRAINE BALOW~N )8 OLEANDER AV PIERCE FL 34982 27 i~fLLIAM& BETTY FULLING 64O40LEANDERAV FT PIERCE FL 34982 28 RALPH & ELVIRAMOITA 6400 OLFJUN~ERAV ~T PIERCE FL 34982 L B & FRANCES ~ PO BOX 3324 FT PIERCE FL 34948 v30 HESLEY JOHNSON 6300 OLEANDER AY FT PIERCE FL 34982 ROADS STATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT JOHN ANDERSON FDOT 3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112 ~VIAILBOX 12 2 ~EST PALM BEACH FL 33405 CCI XO~II~ NOS~ON~ NHO£ [86~f 'I~ ~J~ZId g.~ A~f ~Z~O 00~9 NOSN~OP X3~iS~H 8~6~£ q~ ZDt{ZId J~ O~ 6~' FLORIDA LAW'FON CHILES GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Palm Beach Urban Office 3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 112 West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Telephone: 407-837-5290 WATTS SI~CRETARY 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 Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment Ft. Pierce Land Trust~ File No. PA-91-004 The Department was recently notified as an affected property owner of a public hearing on the proposed amendment from 'low density Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Medium (RM) for the property located approximately 630 feet west of south SR-5/US=i 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 for reference as the amendment moves forward. Even though the proposed amendment seems a minor one, the development of this property in accordance with the residential density the amendment would permit would potentially result in another 8-900 daily trips on SR-5 which is already operating at a less than satisfactory level of service in the impacted segments. Since this section of SR-5 is-backlogged the LOS is "maintain and improve", whichmeans that the local government should not permit any significant deterioration in current operating conditiofis. The commitment to "maintain,, the operating LOS on a state facility may include some limited additional development traffic. However, it is recommended that the County not approve the land use amendment until and unless it can be assured that the traffic impact will not further degrade the operating conditions on SR-5/US-1. Since the Department considers maintaining the operating condition as a negotiated measure, FDOT staff is avilable to evluate potential impacts and to assist the County with the coordiantiOnfacilities, of levels of service on this and other state Mr. J.p. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our understanding that your staff recommendation is that the amendment not be approved at this time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked. When site planning begins, we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue and Oleander or by 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 cc: Gustavo Schmidt Since. ely, A~cSetrator, Palm Beach Urban BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCI E CO~N~.V~ FLOKI DA ~REGULAR MEETING Date: August 27, 1991 Tape: 1, 2, 3 convened: adjourned: 9:18 a.m. 3:20 p.m. Commissioners Present: R. Dale Tre fel net, County Business ) Vice Chairman, Jim Minix, Judy Culpepper, Jack Krieger, Havert L. Fenn (absent, on Others Present: James Chisholm, C°uCnty Administrator; Danny Crew, Asst. County Administrator; Dan Kurek, Public Services Administrator; .Tom .Kindred, Asst. County Administrator; Ed Fry, Director of Management . & Budget; Rick Howell, Utilities Adminis trator; Dan Mci ntyre, County Att orney; Heather Young, As s t. County Attorney; Terry Vi rta, Communi ty Development Director; Ronald Brown~- Public Works Administrator; Nancy . Muns haw, P1 anning Admini s trAtor; Frank ~%Evans, Mos qui to Control Director; Ron Eskesen, Sheriff, s Department; A. Miltie White, Deputy Clerk Michael Houston, for a change in Land Use from RU to RM. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ......... Pubti c ~ The.Beard'_ approved the request to adxrertise the following petitions for Public hearings_._ to be help on September .10, 1991. PA-91-004_ Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by Agent NON-CONCURRENCY AFFIDAVIT I, Michael Houston, do hereby affirm that in connection with my application for Ft. Pier~e Land Trust, I have elected not to request or receive reservation of capacity in public facilities for which a Concurrency Test is required. I acknowledge that St. Lucie County can make no guarantee that adequate public facilities will be available when I apply for Site Plan Approval. I further acknowledge that according to Section 5.01.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, no Site Plan Approval can be granted unless capacity in those facilities is available at that time. Michael Houston STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE Before me, the undersigned who upon being duly sworn, authority personally appeared deposes and day says Sworn to and subscribed before me this RY -PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE My commission expires: NOTARY PUOLIC STATE A G E N D A R E Q D A T E September 4, 1991 REGULAR .Sept. 10, REQUEST PRESENTATION 1991 SPECIAL CONSENT PUBLIC WORK HEARING XXX SESSION ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Consider the Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent MiChael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) Location: Approximately 630 feet' west of South U.S. 1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue RECOMMENDATI ON: Staff recommends that this application be forwarded Department of Community Affairs as a proposed amendment Comprehensive Plan. to the to the FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER BUDGET S (SPECIFY IF ~ PRESENTED BY CONCURRENCE:~ t ~_~ Administrator BOARD OF COUNTY ~COMMI SSION ACTION To be continued 9/24 TO: Terry Virta Please reagenda this item by the Board. REQUI RED ) DEPARTMENT Community Development DATE 9/10/91 for September 24 as directed A G E N D A R E Q U E S T D A T E September 4~ 1991 REGULAR Sept. REQUEST PRESENTATION 10, 1991 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING XXX CONSENT WORK SESSION ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Consider the Petition of Ft. Pieroe Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. 1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be forwarded Department of Community Affairs as a proposed amendment Comprehensive Plan. to the to the FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER PRESENTED BY Terry~. Virta\ CONCURRENCE: James V. Chisholm County Administrator Community Development BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION DATE James V. Chisholm County Administrator COMMISSION REVIEW: September 10, RESOLUTION NUMBER: 91 - 183 MEMORANDUM 1991 TO: From: Date: Subject: Board of County Commissioners Planning Director August 28, 1991 Application of Ft. Pier0e Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RU (Residehtial Urban) to RM (Residential Medium) On Tuesday, September i0, 1991, you will be requested to revlew 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. OVERVIEW LOCATI ON: EXI STING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PROPOSED LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PARCEL SI ZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE DE S I GNATI.ONS: 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 Medium) - 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/ac) zoning is located to the north and the west. COM (Commercial) is located to the east and the south. RU (Residential Urban) is located to the north and the west. August 28j I991 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. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station %6 (White City) is 1.5 miles away. approximately 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. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: No additional right-of-way will be required. 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 in traffic 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 this area include: in August 28, 1991 Page 3 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 Sto Lucie to Buchanan) 94/95 CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: 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 the current RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/ac) designation. To date, the applicant has not submitted an application for a change i n 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. Development. of these properties would be subject to all standards of concurrency upon the approval of the site plan for the proposed development. The 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 proposed 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 Page 4 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 policies within the following elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan: 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 of this element. In accordance with Policy 1. 1. 4. 1, this amendment will result in urban development that is within the Planned Urban Service 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 Circulation Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. 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, wouid promote an efficient use of land through the concentration of residential development, assisting in the establishment of 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 det'ermined to be consistent with this element. 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 amendment.has 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 into 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. SOlid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not conflict with this sub-element. to Drainage and Aquifer Reoharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this sub-element. In accordance with Objective 6C. i. 3 of this element, stormwater management on the subject property shall 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 e 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 capacity to 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. 10. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. This property is not located within any of the areas, specified in Section 3. D of this element, which are subject to coastal flooding and require evacuation in the event of a hurricane. Access to this property will be along South U.S. 1 which is not identified in this element as a critical link for hurricane evacuation. 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. 12. Recreation and Open Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. Existing recreational facilities and open spaces in the vicinity include the following: Indian River states Park (neighborhood park); Savannah reserve (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 proposed Future Land Use 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. 14. Capital Improvements Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. This amendment.will not result in a reduction of the Level of Service standards which are .established within 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 excessive impacts on public facilities or the natural environment, and represents a logical and orderly development pattern. Additionally, staff notes that the proposed amendment will further the goals, objectives, and 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. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact this office. August 28, 1991' Page 8 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 SUBMITTED: Nancy ~. Munshaw Planning Director CONCURRENCE: cc: County Attorney Commission Secretary Michael Houston Press/Public File CONCUq~RENCE: PA9t004. MEM(RESLS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. LUOIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. County, Florida, has made the following determinations: Lucie 1. 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 attached Exhibit A. 2. 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 subject 26' 2'7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 property, and has recommended that the Board hereinafter described request for change in Land (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). approve the Use from RU 3. The proposed amendment consistency of the Comprehensive 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes. wi 11 pres erve the int ernal Plan, pursuant to Section 4. On September 10, 1991, this Board held a public hearing 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the St. Lucie County, Florida: The petition for a plan amendment to change the future land use designation, filed by Ft. Pierce Land Trust by agent Michael Houston, is hereby approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 3§ 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 44 47 48 49 50 ~2 After motion and second, .fol 1 ows: the vote on this resolution was as Chairman Havert L. Fenn XXX Vice,Chairman Jack Krieger XXX Commissioner Judy Culpepper XXX Commissioner Jim Minix XXX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCiE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: DEPUTY CLERK COUNTY ATTORNEY PA91004. RES(RESLS) EXHIBIT A: -~ ' - The N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the ~W 1/4 of ktioo 1~. Township 36 Sooth. ~-ge 4~ ~t, St. Ducie Coonty, Florida. less rights-of-way for ~--~n~l_~ ~ p~b~c roads. ALSO descr~ a~ the North 5 acres of t~e SW 1/4 of the NE /14 of t~e SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~. Township 36 So~th. Range 4~ East. la~ rights-of-way for poblic roads and d~aina~e ~ South 1/2 of the S~ //4 of t~e NE /14 of the_ SW 1/4 Of Sectioo 1~, Towaship 36 South, Range 4~ East, ALSO descrif~d as the_ So~th 5 acres of the SW //4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW //4 of said Section 10. St. Lucie County, Florida VI ClNITY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST SAEGER AVENUE EASY STREET LAND USE O.EZ NOUS GROVES O-1EZ NOUS GROVES HEU~Td~AY I~ORP PUGL1T. SE - ~ --' 500' AOJACENT PROPL:~TY 3~IE.R~L':UVE -"Tr- .... , ASH I EASY ST PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST ZONING ~ NOU$ SRO~ES 500' ADJ~ CXEZ NOUS GROVES RS -'2 HE~N~AY OORP PUOLIE~ CG WANN,eZ.~CZT TEXI'1'~ CO A OEAL/FRA~ZN/FURSTi_~ I~ KE~T~ EASY ST ?ETITION' OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY UNOFFICIAL- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL ST. LUCIE COUNTY MINUTES AUGUST 22, 1991 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jo Ann A1 len, 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 PRESENT: Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director; Jo Frances Haywood, Planner II; Luis Serna, Planner I, Diana Waite, Planner I. I NVOCATI ON The Invocation was given by Mrs. Enck-Wesloski. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led 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 DECEMBER 5, 1991. Unanimous approval - no vote was taken. PUBLIC HEARING PIERCE LAND TRUST - FILE NO. Luis Serna presented staff comments. He stated the subject property is located approximately 600 feet west of South U.S. Highway ~1, one quarter mile north of Saeger Avenue. He stated the petition requested a change in maximum density permitted on this 9 acre parcel from 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding this parcel are vacant land 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 units per acr~. Access to 'this possible future development would be 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 reservation of capacity in this area. Mr. 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 encourages clustered housing and mixed use development. 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 stated at this point the petitioner had no plans for development 11 but is putting res i denti al forward. the property and meeting in position for concurrency requirements ...... & ZONIN higher density before moving There were no appearances petition. in favor of or in opposition to the Mr. Sattler made a motion, seconded by Ms. Calabrese, that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mrs. Allen, Mr. Carman, Mr. Skidmore, Mrs. Enck-Wesloski, Mr. Sattler, Mr. McCain, Ms. Calabrese and Chairman Terpening voted "Aye". Mr. Flowers was absent. Chairman Terpening advisDd the agent for the applicant that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 12 AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 10. 1991 9:00 A.M. Petition of Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue). If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all p~oceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by. the BOard of County Commissioners with _respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners on August 23,.1991. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 30, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN FILE NO. PA-91-004 The N 1/2 of the SW !/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sectioo 1~, Towushfp 36 South, ~nge 4~ East, St. Lucie Gounty, ~lorfda, less rights-of-way for draisage _~n~l_~ ~n~ public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of t~e NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Township 36 South, Range 4~ East, less rights-of--way for public roads a~ drainage c~n~]s. The_ South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE /14 of the_ SW 1/4 of S~ctio~ 10, Township 36 South, ~ange 4~ East, ALSO described as the_ South 5 acres of the SW //4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Sectio~ 10, St. Lucie County, Florida ~rCHAk~. HOUSTON :/o URBAN DESIGN STUDIO )00 E OCEAN BLV ,~TU~RT FL 34994 ~EZ NOUS GROVES INC BOX 125 TIPITER FL 33468 p~OPERTY O$~qERS IN PETITIONED ARE~-~. FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST GARY L. KORNFRI;) ESQ 1400 CENTREPARK BLV WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED 2 H~MINk~Y CORP c/o lST AMERICAN BANK #010527 PO BOX 3146 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33402 "A", 6,7 STEPHEN SPATTER ROBERT 2992 ~S PASSAGE PALM BEACH FL 33410 ANTHONY V PUGLIESE III 2500MILITARYTRAIL SUITE 200 BOCA RATONFL 33431 ,8OO S. FEDERAL HWY T PIERCE FL 34982 5 P~A%IAI2~NCITTEXTILE CO PO BOX 152 LOW~rIJMA 01853 8,9~'10 G~ORGE &.LISEIOITE PETRIE LISA ANN PETRIE 5989 S FEDERAL H~ FT PIERCE FL 34982 1,12 & R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE CO INC 5O3 EASY ST T PIERCE FL 34982 13 ROBERT KEATING NINAKEATING HOBBY & SHEIIAEGGERT 222SMAT~OODAV FTPIERCE FL 34982 14 JERRY & ~ONNIE ASH 6070 S US ~1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 5,16,17,22 ~(kMAS & LOUISE DEAL ~RRRL¥. & JUDITH FRANKLIN EFFERY & DELAINE FURST 903 YORK CT T PIERCE FL 34982 ETERLOUPE RANK LOUPE 039 ~AV T PIERCE FL 34982 18,20 FRANK & MARIE LOUPE 384 GREENWAY TER PORT ST LUCIE FL 34983 23,24 HAYSLIP LANDSCAPE 6147 S US #1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 19 HAROLD & CARRIE LOUPE 6009 S FEDERAL 5rWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 25 PHILIP RODI JACQUELINE BALDWIN 6406 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 6 ILL/AM & LORRAINE ~N 408 OT.P. DLNDER AV r PIERCE FL 34982 27 WILLIAM& BETI~f FULLING 6404 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 RALPH & ELVIRAMCYI~A 6400 OLEANDER AV FT 'PIERCE FL 34982 2~ L B & FRANCES OWEN PO BOX 3324 FT PIERCE FL 34948 3O HESLEY JOHNSON 6300 OLEANDER AY FT PIERCE FL 34982 ROADS STATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT JOHN ANDERSON FDOT 3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112 .MAILBOX 122 ~EST PALM BEACH FL 33405 MAS XMHMIXIQ J130~ NY)SttZONtfNHOF g86kE ~ MO~lZId J~ AY tlZ~O 00E9 NOSNHOC XM~ISZH ~z6P[ ~4 ZDHPtId J~ 65 FLORIDA '- DEPARTMENT ~WI'ON ~IL~ GOd. OR Palm Beach Urban Office 3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 112 West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Telephone: 407-837-5290 OF TRANSPORTATION BEN G. WATTS SECRETARY 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 Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment Ft. Pierce Land Trust~ File No. PA-91-004 The Department was recently notified as an affected property owner of a public hearing on the proposed amendment from low density Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Medium (RM) for the property located approximately 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 for reference as the amendment moves forward. Even though the proposed amendment seems a minor one, the development of this property in accordance with the residential density the amendment would permit would potentially result in another 8-900 daily trips on SR-5 which is already operating at a less than satisfactory level of service in the impacted segments. Since this section of SR-5 is backlogged the LOS is "maintain and improve", which means that the local government should not permit any significant deterioration in current operating conditions. The commitment to "maintain" the operating LOS on a state facility may include some limited additional development traffic. However, it is recommended that the County not approve the land use amendment until and unless it can be assured that the traffic impact will not further degrade the operating conditions on SR-5/US-1. Since the Department considers maintaining the operating condition as a negotiated measure, FDOT staff is avilable to evtuate potential impacts and to assist the County with the coordiantion of levels of service on this and other state facilities. Mr. J.P. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our understanding that your staff recommendation is that the amendment not be approved at this time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlocked. When site planning begins, we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue and Oleander or by 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 cc: Gustavo Schmidt Since~.ely, . . oerson, dr., AICP Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 10,~1991 9:00 A.M. Petition of Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue). If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to,ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners on August 23, 1991. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 30, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN FILE NO. PA-91-004 The N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, To~r~ip 36 South, Range 4~ East, St. IAIcie (DOUllty, Florida, less rights-of-way for dra{~age canal.~ aud public zoadso ALSO descr~ as the North 5 acres of the SW 1/4 ~f the NE /14 of the SW 1/4~ of Section lffi, Tow~hip 36 South, Rauge 4~ E~t, 1~ rights-of-way for public roads a~] drainage The_ South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE /14 of the_ SW 1/4 of Section lffi, Township t~e NE. 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 10, St. Lucie County, Florida FLORIDA % DEPARTMENT 2-,--= Palm Beach Urban Office 3111 South Dixie Highway, 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 Mr. Terpening: RE: Proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment Ft. Pierce Land Trust, File No. PA-91-004 The Department was .recently notified as an affected property owner of a public hearing on the proposed amendment from low density Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Medium (RM) for the property located approximately 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 for reference as the amendment moves forward. Even though the proposed amendment seems a minor one, the development of this property in accordance with the residential density the amendment would permit would potentially result in another 8-900 daily trips on SR-5 which is already operating at a less than satisfactory level of service in the impacted segments. Since this section of SR-5 is backlogged the LOS is "maintain and improve", which means that the local government should not permit any significant deterioration in current operating conditions. The commitment to "maintain" the operating LOS on a state facility may include some limited additional development traffic. However, it is recommended that the County not approve the land use amendment until and unless it can be assured that the traffic impact will not further degrade the operating conditions on SR-5/US-1. Since the Department considers maintaining the operating condition as a negotiated measure, FDOT staff is avilable to evluate potential impacts and to assist the County with the coordiantion of levels of service on this and other state facilities. Mro J.P. Terpening August 30, 1991 Page 2 It is our understanding that your staff recommendation is that the amendment not be approved at this time and we concur. It is noted that the parcel is now landlockedl When site planning begins~ we encourage access to SR-5 either via Saeger Avenue and Oleander or by 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 cc: Gustavo Schmidt Sincerely, Administrator, Palm Beach Urban Office BOARD OF COUNTY D6V£LOPM6NT COMMISSION(ERS D I R¢CT 0 R TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP August 23, 1991 In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Fort Pierce Land Trust has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. LuCie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue) The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on this petition at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September 10, 1991 in St. Lucie County Commission Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal ~is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1705, and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898, and then ask for extension 1705. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _ST,,./ LUCIE COUNT~, FLORIDA HAVERT L FENN District No. 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District County Administrator JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 The N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~, ~ip 36 South, ~nge 4~ Fz_~t, St. Lucie COunty, Florida, less rights-of-way for drainage c~mls aud public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of the NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36 South, Range 4g East, less rights-of-way for public roads a~d drainage c~n~]-~. T~e South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of t~e NE /14 of the_ SW 1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36 South, Range 4~ 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 1~, St. Lucie County, Florida LAND USE v-- PJW RU E~ ~ A [- ,d:) 8 17 PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST BOARD OF COUNTY D6V6LOPM( NT COMMISSION£Rs DIR6CTOR TERRY L. VIRIA, AICP k-'AX # : (4;07) TI:~ANSM_~ $ $ __r ON 468--3l_ 735 COV~I~_I~ DATE: TO: # OF PAGES SENT (INCL. COVER) SENDER: --__ HAVERT _ FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER District No. z~ · JIM MINtX. District No. 5 CounW Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO_ (407) 878-4898 FORT P~ERL~ [NLE! B ~ 41 E ROAD Publish Date: August 1, 1991 August 14, 1991 of Martin County Line, 1 1/4 miles south of Sand Dollar Villas; 1 mile north of Ocean Towers Condos. uth U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue. NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners proposes to change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held before the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, September 10, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., in the County Commission Chambers, St. Lu¢le County Administration Building - Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to consider comments and recommendations of the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency and determine whether or not to transmit the proposed land use plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency reView in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 Florida Statutes. Copies of the proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan a~e available for inspection in the Office of Community Development, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce Florida, during normal business hourS~ ' Ail proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. At the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during the hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during the hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /S/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Roger L. Toffolon (Shown as "A" on map) PA-91-003 From COM (Commercial)to RH (Residential, High): Located on South Hutchinson Island, 3 miles north of Martin County. Line, 1 1/4 miles south of Sand Dollar Villas; 1. mile north of Ocean Towers Condos. Fort Pierce Land Trust (Shown as "B" on map) PA-91-O04 From RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium): Located approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue. ' Publish Date: August 30, 1991 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map REGULAR A 'G E N D A R E Q U E DATE Auqust 21, 1991 SPECIAL CONSENTAugust 27, 1991 REQUEST PUBLIC WORK PRESENTATION HEARING SESSION ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING (permission to advertise) Consider authorizing a public hearing on September 10, 1991 to review the petition of: PA-91-003 Petition of Roger L. Toffolon for a change in Land Use from COM (Commercial) to RH (Residential High). , 2. PA-91-O04 RECOMMENDATION: Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston, for a change in Land Use from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium). Authorize the scheduling of the requested public hearing. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER 151000 (SPECIFY IF BU~NDME~T~S REQUIRED) - /~'.s--~_. Chisholm unty Administrator BOARD OF COUN~Fy COMMISSION ACTION DATE: August 27, 1991 ApJ~roved as ,presented . --TO: Terry-- Virta, ~ty Community Developme ~dmC________torih~l~m cc: County Attorney COMMISSION REVIEW: AUGUST 27, 1991 CONSENT AGENDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Commission Community Development Administrator August 21, 1991 Permission to Advertise Below you will find an identification of a series-of public hearing requests that are ready for presentation for final review. Staff would request that authorization be Given for advertising so that these petitions may be presented on September 10, 1991, at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. If you have any questions, please let us know. PA-91-003 Petition of RoGer L. Toffolon for a change in Land Use- from COM (Commercial) to RH (Residential, HiGh). Location: South Hutchinson Island, 3 miles north of Martin County Line, 1 1./4 miles south of Sand Dollar Villas; 1 mile north of Ocean Towers Condos. PA-91-004 Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust, by AGent Michael Houston, for a change in Land Use from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). , Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue. TLV/NCM/ep SCHDMEMi(BCC) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Planning Director petition files Agenda I tern: File Number: MEMORANDUM PA-91-004 To: From: Date: Subject: Local Planning Agency Planning Director ~ August 14, 1991 Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust by Agent Michael Houston for a Change in Future Land Use Designation From RU (Residential Urban) to RM (Residential Medium). LOCATI ON: EXI STING ZONI EXISTING LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PROPOSED LAND USE DESI GNATI ON: PARCEL SI ZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONI SURROUNDING LAND USE DESI GNATI ONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: WATER/SEWER SERVI CE: 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 Medium) - 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/ac) zoning is located to the north and the west. COM (Commercial) is located to the east and the south. RU (Residential Urban) is located to the north and the west. This property is surrounded by vacant land and some single-family residences. To the south there is a commercial nursery. Station 96 (White City) is 1.5 miles away. approximately Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) water is located approximately one-half August 14, 1991 Page 2 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-O04 (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 GH T - OF - WAY ADEQUACY: No addi ti onal ri ght- o f -way wi 11 be required. 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 in traffic 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 Coun=y Capital Improvements this area include: in Roadway Expansions: Palmer Expressway (U. S. 1 to Lennard) Lennard Road .(E. Port St. Lucie to Buchanan) 94/95 94/95 CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Non-Concurrency Affidavit August 14, 1991 Page 3 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 the current RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/ac) designation. To date, the applicant has not 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. Development of these properties would be subject to all standards of concurrency upon the approVal of the site plan for the proposed development. The 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 proposed 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. 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 policies within the following elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan: 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 of this element. In accordance with Policy 1. 1.4. 1, this amendment will result in August 14, 1991 Page 4 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 urban development that is within the Planned Urban Service 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 Circulation Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. 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 of South U.S. 1 as a corridor for future mass transit. 4e 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 determined to be consistent with this element. 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 August 14, 1991 Page 5 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 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 amendment has 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 into 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. Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to 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 subject property shall be consistent with the standards of the Land Development Code, and shall include the maintenance of natural drainage features. Potable Water Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this sub-element. In accordance with Policy 6D. 1.2. ! 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 capacity to 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 August 14, 1991 Page 6 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 maximum density permitted under the proposed Future Land Use Designation. 10. Coastal Management Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. This property is not located within any of the areas, specified in Section 3. D of this element, which are subject to coastal flooding and require evacuation in the event of a hurricane. Access to this property will be along South U.S. 1 which is not identified in this element as a critical link for hurricane evacuation. 11. 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. 12. Recreation and O~en Space Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. Existing recreational facilities and open spaces in the vicinity include the following: Indian River Estates Park (neighborhood park); Savannah Preserve (open space); and Heathcote Botanical, St. Lucie County Sports Compl ex, St. Luci e County Ci vi c Center, St. Lucie County Library, the Old Fort Site (special facilities). Development of the subject property to the maximum density permitted under the proposed Future Land Use 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 Coordi nati on Element August 14, Page 7 1991 Petition: Ft. Pierce Land Trust File Number: PA-91-004 The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. 14. Capital Improvements Element The proposed amendment has been determined to be consistent with this element. This amendment will not result in a reduction of the Level of Service standards which are established within 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 excessive impacts on public facilities or the natural environment, and represents a logical and orderly developmen~p~ern. Additionally, staff notes that the proposed amendment~ll fur~h~r the goals, objectives, and 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 petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. We recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this petition for further State review. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact this office. Attachment LNS/ctm PA91004(LNS-P&Z) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Michael Houston Pres s/Publ i c Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial change in Future Land Use of is requested MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF FT. PIERCE LAND TRUST FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM). MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSI DERI NG THE TESTIMONY PRE SENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF FT. PIERCE LAND TRUST FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM) BECAUSE... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] VICINITY MAP: FT PIERCE LAND TRUST EASY STREET SAEGER AVENUE LAND USE ~W PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST ZONING PETTT:[ON OF FORT P]:ERCE' LAND TRUST THURSDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AUGUST 22, 1991 7:00 P.M. Petition of Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue). Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur- pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all ad3acent property owners on August 7, 1991. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in Sro Lucie County, on August 1, 1991 and August 14, 1991. FILE NO. PA-91-004 T~e N 1/2 of the S~ 1/i of the NE !/~ of the S~ 1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36 Soath, I~ ~ ~-t, St. Lucie Co~nt~, Florida, less rights-of-way for drai~acje casals and public roads, i~LSO described as the North 5 acres of t~e S~ 1/4 of the NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Section t~, To~ship 36 So~th, Range 4~ East, less rights-of-andy for public roads and drainage canals. The_ South 1/2 of the H~ 1/4 of the NE /i4 of the_ S~ 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Township 36 South, Range 4~ East, /tLSO clescr~ as the_ So~th 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the S~ 1/4 of said Sectio~ 10, st. Lucie-County, Florida ifa" MICHAEL HOUSTON c/o URBAN DESIGN STUDIO 900 E OCEAN BLV STUART FL 34994 1,31 CHEZ NOUS G~OVES INC PO HOX 125 JUPITER FL 33468 PP'~PERTY OWNERS IN PETITIONED AREA "a" FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST GARY L. KORNFELD ESQ 1400 CENTREPARK BLV WEST PAIxM BEACH FL 33401 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED 2 HEMINWAY CORP c/o 1ST AMERICAN BANK #010527 PO BOX 3146 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33402 "A", 6,7 STEPHEN SPALTER ROBERT S~DGE 2992 FREN~S PASSAGE PALM BFACH FL 33410 ANTHONY V PUGLIESE III 2500MILITARYTRAIL SUITE 200 BOCA RATON FL 33431 4 GROVE ~ITYASSN INC 5800 S. FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 5 ~%NNAI2~qCITTEXTILE CO PO BOX 152 LOW~X. MA 01853 8,9,t0 GEORGE & LISELOI~E PETRIE LISA ANN PETRIE 5989 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 11,12 D & R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE CO INC 1503 EASY ST FTPIERCE FL 34982 13 ROBERT KEATING NINA KEATING HOBBY & SHEILA EGGERT 222 S~i~nT~ AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 14 JERRY & BONNIE ASH 6070 S US #1 FTPIERCEFL 34982 15,16,17,22 ~ & LOUISE DEAL DARRELL & JUDITH FRANKLIN JEFFERY & DELAINE FURST 1903 YORK CT FT PIERCE FL 34982 18,20 FRANK&MARIELOUPE 384 GREENk%YTER PORT STLUCIE FL 34983 19 HAROLD& CARRIE LOUPE 6009 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 21 PETER LOUPE FRANK LOUPE 1039 TORTUGAS AV 5TPIERCE FL 34982 23,24 HAYSLIPLANDSCAPE 6147 S US #1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 25 PHILIP RODI JACQUELINE BALDWIN 6406 OLEANDER AV FTPIERCE FL 34982 26 WILLIAM & LORRAINE BALDWIN 6408 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 27 WILLIAM& BETTY FULLING 6404 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 RALPH & ELVIRA MOTTA 6400 OLPANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 L B & FRANCES OWEN PO BOX 3324 FT PIERCE FL 34948 30 HESLEY JOHNSON 6300 OLEANDER AV Fr PIERCE FL 34982 ROADS STATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT JOHN ANDERSON FDOT 3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112 MAILBOX 122 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33405 §O~£E '-I,_q HD~krl~fd~ gSI XO~q~ ~ NOSMM~MSfNHO£ g869E ~ MDMMId J~ A~HM~O 00~9 NOSNHO£/~_~ISMI4 8~6~ 'I~ MDHMId J~ ~gE~ XO~Od S(15fO~ OE 6U NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency proposes to change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. A Public hearing on the proposal will be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Plannin~ency on Thursday, August 22, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in Room 101, St~'~Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners WOuld then' be requested to determine whether or not to forward the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review under the requirements of Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Copies of the Proposed amendment to the St~ Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are available for inspection in the Office of Community Development, 2800 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce Florida, during normal business hours. , Ail proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, he Will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. At the request of any party to the proceedings, indiv' wran~ea an opportunity. ~ ..... ~ ~ uu ~ne prooeedin . during the hea~i ..... ~_~ uzos~ examine any indivi~,,=~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY /S/ JAMES p. TERPENING, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Rogert L. ToffoIon (Shown as "A" on map) PA-91-003 From COM (Commercial) to RH (Residential, High): Located on South Hutchinson Island, 3 miles north'of Martin County Line, 1 1/4 miles south of Sand DOllar Villas; 1 mile north· of Ocean Towers COndos. Fort Pierce Land Trust (Shown as "B" on map) PA-91-O04 From RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium): Located approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue. Publish Date: August 1, 1991 August 14, 1991 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map THURSDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AUGUST 22, 1991 7:00 P.M. Petition of Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: See Legal Description Attached (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue). Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur- pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all ad3acent property owners on August 7, 1991. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 1, 1991 and August 14, 1991. FILE NO. PA-91-004 The N 1/2 of the SW 1/i of the NE 1/4 of the S~ 1/4 of Section lq, Township 36 South, l~ange t~ East, St. [acie County, Florida, le~s rights-of-way for drainage C~a~-~l~ ~rl public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of t~e NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Township 36 So~th, Range 4~ East, less rights-of-way for imablic roads a~d drainage The_ South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the N~ /14 of the_ SW 1/4 of Sectiom 10, Township 36 South, Range 40 East, ALSO ~ as the_ South 5 acres of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Sectio~ 10, St. LUcie County, Florida MICHAEL HOUSTON c/o URBAN DESIGN STUDIO 900 E OCEANBLV STUART FL 34994 1,31 CHEZ NOUS G~OVES INC PO BOX 125 JUPITER FL 33468 ~OPERTY OWNERS IN PETITIONED ARE~,~ FORT PIERCE IANDTRUST GARY L. KORNFEI/)ESQ 1400 CENTREPARK BLV WEST PALMBFACH FL 33401 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED 2 HEMIN~AY CORP c/o lST AMERICAN BANK #010527 PO BOX 3146 WEST PAt~ BEACH FL 33402 "A",6,7 STEPHEN SPALTER ROBERT SEI/)OMRIDGE 2992 FRENCHMANS PASSAGE PALM BEACH FL 33410 ANTHONY V PUGLIESE III 2500 MILITARY TRAIL SUITE 200 BOCA RATON FL 33431 4 GROVE~ITYASSN INC 5800 S. FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 11,12 D & R ASSOC OF ST LUCIE (I) INC 1503 EASY ST FT PIERCE FL 34982 5 kUkNNAIA/~CIT TEXTILE CO PO BOX 152 LOWELL MA 01853 13 ROBERT KEATING NINA KEATING BOBBY & SHEIIA EGGERT 222 ~ AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 8,9,10 GEORGE & LISELOTTE PETRIE LISA ANN PETRIE 5989 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 14 JERRY & BONNIE ASH 6070 S US #1 FT PIERCE FL 34982 15,16,17,22 THOMAS & LOUISE DEAL I1ARRELL & JUDITH FRANKLIN JEFFERY & DELAINE FURST 1903 YORK CT FT PIERCE FL 34982 18,20 FRANK&MARIELOUPE 384 GREENM~YTER PORT ST LUCIE FL 34983 19 HAROLD& CARRIE LOUPE 6009 S FEDERAL HWY FT PIERCE FL 34982 21 PETER LOUPE FRANKLOUPE 1039TORTtk?~AV FTPIERCE FL 34982 23,24 HAYSLIPLANDSCAPE 6147 S US #i FT PIERCE FL 34982 25 PHILIP RODI JACQUELINE BALDWIN 6406 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 26 WILLIAM & LORRAINE BALDWIN 6408 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 27 WILLIAM& BETTY FULLING 6404 OLEANDER AV FTPIERCE FL 34982 28 RALPH & ELVIRA MOTrA 6400 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 29 L B & FRANCES OWEN PO BOX 3324 FT PIERCE FL 34948 HESLEY JOHNSON 6300 OLEANDER AV FT PIERCE FL 34982 ROADS STATE OF FLA ROAD DEPT JOHN ANDERSON FDOT 3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112 MAILBOX 122 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33405 BOARD OF COUNTY DCVCLOPMCNT COMMISSION£RS D ! RCCTO R August 7, 1991 TERRYL. VIRTA, AICP In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Fort Pierce Land Trust has petitioned the Local Planning Agency to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) for the following described property: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED (Location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1 0 25 miles north of Saeger Avenue) ' ' A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 PJ.M. on Thursday, August 22, 1991, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the.public hearing will also be considered. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any d~cision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1705 and referencing the File Number found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898 then ask for extension 1705. ' Sincerely, LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUN~TY, FLORIDA ~. ~p. T~~airman FILE NO. PA-91-004 HAV£RT L FENN, District No. I e JUDY CULPEPPE R. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 ~(~, ~k3~ Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 ,~\ Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 ~ae N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, To~ 36 Soath, ~-ge 4~ m~t, St. Iacie Oxy, Florida, less rights-of-m~y for canals and public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 a~res of the SW 1/4 of t~e NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36 So~th, Range 4~ ~t, less rights-of-way for pablic roads ~ drainage The_ South 1/2 of the SW 1/~ of the NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio. 1~, 36 So~th, Range 40 East, ~[-qO described as the_ So~th 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 ZONI.NG PETITION OF FORT PIERCE LAND TRUST BOARD OF COUNTY DCVCLOPMCNT COMMISSIONCRS D! RCCTO R TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP August 20, 1991 Mr. Michael Houston Urban Design Studio Suite 126 900 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, FL 34994 Subject: Petition of Ft. Pierce Land Trust for a Change in Future Land Use Designation Dear Mr. Houston: Pursuant to Section 5.01.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are required to address the issue of capacity for the above reference Preliminary Development Order. 'As agent for Ft. Pierce Land Trust, you are authorized to complete the enclosed Non-Concurrency A~davit or request a reservation of capacity. Since no reservation of capacity has been requested, we are sending you a Non-Concurrency Affidavit. Please note that this form must be completed and returned to this office prior to the hearing of this petition before the Board of County Commissioners. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Nancy C. Munshaw, AICP Planning Director NCM/LNS/dlj NONCONC(LNS-3) HAVERT L FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No, 4 · JIM MINIX. District No_ 5 County Administrator _ JAMES V. CHISHOLM 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 ST. LUCIE COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE _, do hereby certify that as Agent for the St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners on the fo]lowing described property: ~ west0f So. US #1 ~mile north of Saeger Avenue I did on ~, 19 CJ erect in a property the following notice: conspicuous place on this PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER A PLAN AMENDMENT ON THIS PROPERTY FROM RU TO RM__ .WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE, ON ~ BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD, ROOM 101, AND ON ~ BEFORE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 3RD FLOOR ANNEX, COMMISSION CHAMBERS PETITION AVAILABLE ROOM 201. Signature Date TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Director Planning & Zoning Secretary July 24, 1991 Posting of Public Notice for Petition of: Fort Pierce Land Trust to amend the future land use classification of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code from RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium) The above Petition is scheduled hearings on the following date(s): BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS for public 8/22/91 9/10/91 Please implement the posting of public notice by Public Works BEFORE August 7,1991 at the following location: Approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Saeger Avenue NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency proposes to change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. A Public hearing on the proposal will be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency on Thursday, August 22, 1991, at 7:00 PiM., in Room I01, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposed land use plan amendment and forward a recommendation to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners would then be requested to determine whether or not to forward the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affair.s for further review under the requirements of Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Copies of the proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are available for inspection in the Office of Community Development, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, during normal business hours. Ail proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning AgenCy are electronically recorded. If a~person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. At the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during the hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during the hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY /S/ JAMES P. TERPENING, CHAIRMAN (INSERT MAP BENEATH THE TEXT) (THE INFORMATION BELOW GOES UNDERNEATH THE MAP) Rogert L. Toffolon (Shown as "A" on map) PA'91-003 From COM (Commercial) to RH (Residential, High): Located on South Hutchinson ISland, 3 miles north of Martin County Line, 1 1/4 miles south of Sand Dollar Villas; 1 mile north of Ocesn Towers Condos. Fort Pierce Land Trust (Shown as "B" on map) PA-91-004 From RU (Residential, Urban) to RM (Residential, Medium): Located approximately 630 feet west of South U.S. #1, 0.25 miles north of Seager Avenue. Publish Date: August 1, 1991 August 14, 1991 18 point type for heading 1/2 page block ad with map MEMORANDUM FROM: ELLEN Please submit to me a written location on this petition. Also, briefly describe the reason for this requested petition if different than desoribed on the application. Thank--You..VeryMuch-!~!~! ....... LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: July 3, 1991 MS. Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director Dept. of CoranunityDevelopment Planning Division St.~Lucie County, Florida County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ro~m 203 Ft. Pierce, FLorida 34982-5652 RE: FT. PIEBCE~T~UST+/- 9ACRE~~E~_~~. ~5~131.~2 Dear Ms. Munshaw: We are proposing a change to the future land use classification of the above described property which is generally located on the west side of U.S. Highway One and north of Easy Street in St. Lucie County, Florida. The current designation on the subject site is Residential Suburban (RS), we are proposing a change to Residential Medium (RS). Please find enclosed the following materials in regard to this request: Application for Change in Future Land Use ClaSsification (Five copies). Filing fee in the amount of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars . Agent Authorization Letter 4. Site location map (Five copies). 5. Copy of Official Zoning Map with detailed site location (Five copies). Please review these materials at your earliestpossible convenienc~e~. If you need any additional copies or have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~DESI~STU~IO Michael Houston, ASLA Principal MH/dna 6025-M cc: Gary Kornfeld O Urban Design Urban Planning Land Planning Landscape Architecture Communication Graphics 900 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 126 Stuart, Florida 34994 407.283.0022 West Palm Beach, FL 407.689.0066 Newr~ort Beaoh, CA 714.642.1090 ST. [//~IE~ APPLICATION FORC~IANGE IN FUTURE LA~)USE~IFICATION NOTICE: IN (X)MPLI~ WITH Ct~%PTER 163.3187 FLORIDA STA~dTES THIS APPLICATION CAN (]~SY BE PRESE~fED FOR FINAL GGI~I~ISSION REVIEW/ TWICE EACH CAf.~)AR YEAR. PLRASE CONSULT WITH T~E ST. LUCIE G0f~'~Z ~NG DMSION TO DETERMINE APPBOPRIATE DEADLINES ~OR REVI~. Applicant's Name: Fort PieroeLa~d Tr~st Gary L. Kornfe/d, Esq. Levy, Knees, Boyes, Wi~z, Goldstein & Kor~feld, P.A. Applicant's Address: 14~gCe~treparkBoulevard West Palm B~zh, Florida 334gl 4e7-478-47~ I (We) do hereby petition the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission and the St. Lucie County Board of CountyCommissioners to change the Future Land Use Classification of the following prope, rty fremReside~tial~(R~to Legal Description: T~eN 1/2 of the SW1/4 of the_NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 1~, To~ak~hip 36 South, l~ 4~ East, St. Iacie County, Florida, less rights-of-way for ~ai~e ~ls ~ ~lic r~. ~ d~i~ ~ ~e ~r~ 5 ~ of ~ ~ 1/4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ ~ ~4 of ~ion 1~, ~h~ 36 S~, ~e 4ff ~t, 1~ ri~f~for~lic r~ ~ai~e~s. ~ ~u~l/2 of ~1/4 of ~~4 of~ ~1/4 of~i~ 1~, 36 ~, ~e 4~ ~t, ~~~ ~ ~~ 5~ of ~~4 of ~ 1/4 of ~ ~1/4 of ~id S~i~ ~, St. L~ie~, Flori~ Pro~rty Tax I.D. 9: ~1~-7~2~~/6 341~-7~2~5~/3 Our reason for m~king this request is to provide for a more a~grogriate la~d use desig~ation (a~d subscript development pr~) relative to t_he_ surrounding ~ uses/designations and c~i~ ~ature of the area. Agent authorized by the Applicant to represent the Applicant, if any: Name_: Urban Desig~ Studio, Michael Address: 9gg E. Ooea~Bl~d. Sh,art, Flori4a 34994 Phone Number: 497-283-g~22 Page Two Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. 1. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? Xes. The subject property is bounded on its east ar~ south bour~ary by commercially designated lam] uses. In a~itio~, the ~ to the ~orthe~st a~d southeast of the site is c~-,ercial as well. West of the property is a previously platted subdivision which is made up of fifty-b~o (52), 5~' x 14~' lots az~ has an approxlm~te density of 5.2 du/ac. Per Chapter 1, page 48 of the St. IA]cie County Gc~pr~ive Plan "the l~esidential Median (~M) ]a~ use category is to be applied to those areas that are within or planned to be within areas of central c~,.,-~,_gity services.., medi~ density residential land uses can act as a transition be~eeu the lower intensity 1~] areas am] the more intense lar~ use designations.- We believe the proposed ~ use designation will act as an appropriate trausition in this What conditions affecting the future land. use designation have changed since the adoption of the Ccmprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. In 1989, as part of the preparation of the ~ew Land Use El~men_ t, this property was studied by st. Lucie Cou~ Staff for purposes of cletenaining whether a ccsmercial ~ use designation would be appropriate. The Board of County Cc~missio~ers decided against a o--,-,~rcial designation but did ~ot evaluate its appropriateness for a Residential Medi~w, designation. Develoia~ent patterns along U. S. 1 continue to be c~m~ercial in uature generally linear which is consistent with the Lar~ Use Map. The area in ge~-ral, continues to mature a~] in-fill as St. Lucie Oounty a~d Port St. Lucie's urban service areas grow (Page 1-4~ and 1-41 amd objective 1.1.4 of the Future La~d Use Element). As stated above, this site is bou~led on its east ar~ south property li~e by cc~,m~_~cially designated property imcl~]ding the Lupo parcel which ~s rezo~ed fr~n RS-2 to (~G in mid 199~. Ail public facilities appear to be above minim~ level of service (LOS) s~a_~ards with the possible exception of roads (U.S. 1). Improv~m_~nts, however, are plamme~ in the area road network which will allow develoiam_~nt of the parcel to proceed in the near future. Page Three. Where are the nearest public or investor-owned water and sewer services Who is the service provider? Is the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? If private facilities are proposed, describe the capacity and type. of water and wastewater services to be provided. Utilities: Water and se~z se~ic~ for the site is available from Ft. Pierce Utilities which has existing lines currently exteixled to the H~i auto dealership, approximately one third of a mile north of the site. The subject property is within the utilities plara~ed expansion area and five year (although, no for,~l district boundaries exist) and at the present time has calmmcity to adequately serve the proper~ (Page 6-A-6, and 6-A-7 of the Sanitary Se~er FA~a?nt). No private facilities are proposed. If a change to industrial land use is proposed, explain how water and wastewater systexns meet proposed Policies 1.1.5.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan (found in Exhibit B of Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and dated August 28, 1990). N/A What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what general approach to stormwater management would you anticipate if the requested land use change is granted? What effects would the requested land use change have on the volume and quality of runoff? Drainage: The general drainage pattern in the area is a system of small canals aud creeks (local ~ secondary network) that flow into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (primary network) and are collectively known as the North Fork Basin (Page 6-C-1~ ar~ 6-C-12 of the Drainage Element). This basin includes the North St. Lucie River Water Control District. The general approach to sto~n~ater manager anticipated for this property would satisfy all applicable requir_~ag_nts for St. Lt~ie County and the South Florida Water Management District (Sfl~)) and ~ould include retaining the first iIlch of runoff and designing the peak discharge rate during a 25- year store event not to exceed SF~I~)or other retaliatory agency guidelines. An on-site lake or dry detention area will likely be used to provide storage area as ~11 as to generate fill a~d provide a~enit~ views. Base~ om the above noted r~, the proposed land use ch~e should have little or no effect on the volt~ae or ~ualit~ of runoff. Provide a projection of the averaqe'dailv volumes of solid waste that would be generated if the land use changes. Page Four If built out at the maximin density of 9 d~elling uaits per acre, the sobject parcel would consist of 81 multi-family units which is 63 units more than the 18 single family homes alloi~d there under the current land use/zoning desiguation. As indicated in our recent phone conversation with Mr. Harold Hopkins, Ft. Pierce Utilities, Solid Waste Department, a multi- family unit generates approximately 5~ lbs. or less per m~ek ar~ a single family unit generates approxlmtely 62 lbs per ~ek. Based on the above, the average daily volume of solid waste would be calcttlated as follows: e M~lti-famil¥ $ingle-f~mil¥ 81 du's x 7.1 lbs./day = 575 lbs./day 18 du's x 8.9 lbs./day = 16~ lbs./day 575 lbs. - 16~ lbs. = 415 lbs./day What de, hands for recreational facilities will be created by development in accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? ~l~!z~eatio~al Facilitim: Although, demand for recreational facilities exists m~er the present laud use designation, that demar~ will likely increase with the number of multi- family residential units. The St. Lucie Oounty ~r~ive Plan establishes desired outdoor zecreatiou standards (Table 9-5 & 9-6, pg. 9- 17) for regio~a], c~mmunity and neighborhood recreational facilities which i~clude the minimum facility size, its service area radius, the n~r of persons serviced and the level of service star,lard per 1~ population. Based on a population of 2.1 pexso~s per multi-family unit, the site will have approx~mtel¥ 17~ residents eventually, which would require .85 acres of regimlml and coa~unity park respectively ar~ .15 acres of neighborhood park. Per Table 9-9, pg. 9-24, of the St. Lucie Comty Omprehe~sive Plan, l~creation Elsaent, a s~-pl~s of neighborhood aud regional parks is listed through 2~15 aud a surplus of (x~munity parks is listed through 1995. ~hile no specific site plans have hccn prepared, it would be t~pical to find sc~e type of limited recreational facilities offered on a site of this size, including such uses as a basketball, te~mis, or shuffleboard court (s), a co. inanity pool a~l/or a s~all pa~k with play equil~aent. .Recreational facilities aud open spaces in the vicinity iuclude the following: Indian River Estates Park (l~eighborhood Park), Savam%ah Preserve (Regional Park), Pepper Beach, White City Park (Cc~mmity Parks), Sa~ Pz~ (Open Space), Heathcote Botanical, St. Lucie County Sports C~?lex, Civic Center, Library, the 01d Fort Site (Special Facility which are listed on pages 9-3 thr~h 9-6 in the Recreatioo~] Element. 10. 11. Page Five Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Are~ Boundary? If you answered "no" to question 8 above, will the property be used for "urban develo~ent activities', as defined in Policy 1.1.4.1 (proposed Policy 1.1.5.1)? Check 'which urban development activities apply: residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity If any item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the Boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: A. Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided> If so, please provide doctm~entation. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? If changing from an agricultural category (AG-5 and AG-2.5) to.a non- agricultural category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions. De How is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? How will remaining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non- agricultural uses you propose? Please provide documentation of the soil type(2) and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil'Survey. Describe how the proposed land use designation is suitable recognizing site-specific land characteristics? ' 12. N/A Page Six How does the proposed land use designation relate to other nearby development plans that are approved or now being formulated? How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban development? Please provide any information and drawings that you have developed as a concept plan for the property, including type and size of project, proposed roads and roadway improvements, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, development schedule, and proposed tenants or purchasers. No s~_~ drawings or de~eloi~e~t proIx~sal information cuzre~ltly ex!'sts for the s~bject site. Page Seven I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee simple all of the above described property and have legal ~ight to request a change in Future Land Use of said propezty. I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee simple that portion of the above described property for which a change in Future Land Use is requested, described as Ge r~aindez of the property described in paragraph ~1 above for which change in Future Land Use is requested is owned by and tha----'-~t I" (W~) Certify that the a~ve legal description submitted by me (us) represents the property I (we) wish to have r~class~ lied. I (We) understand that I (we) must be present at the hearing or will be represented by my (our) agent 6025-M LE~Y, JAYNE REGEBTER BARKDULL WILLIAM E. BOYES* ALEXANDER D. DEL RUSSO*** MARC R. GOLDStEIN~ JEFFREY D. KNEEN GARY L. KORNFELD**** LEONEL R. PLABENCIA DAVID J. WIENER~** MARK WILE NSKY LAW OFFICES K~EEN, BOYES, W~E~E~, GOLDS:rEz~ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SUITE IOOO 14OO CENTREPARK BOULEVARD WEST PALM BEPxCH~ la~ORIDA 33401 *ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND NEW JERSEY BOARD CERTIFIED IN ESTATE PLANNING & PROBATE **ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND NEW YORK ~**ADM ITTED TO PRACTICE IN PLORIDA AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ****BOARD CERTIFIED IN REAL PROPERTY LAW July 2, 1991 I~ORNFELD Fi IRWIN LEVY OF COUNSEL TELEPHONE (407) 478-e,-700 FAX NO. (407) 478-5811 M~. Michael HoustOn urban Design Studio 9~0 E, Ocean Blvd. Stua=%, Florida 34994 Fort Pierce Land Trust - ~ 9 Acre U. S, Dear HE. HOUStOn: As T~ustee of the above mentioned property, I hereby authorize U=ban Design studio to act as agent aQdconsultant for the proposed!ar)duse amendment request with St. LucieCounty. Since~el¥~ FORT PIEI/CG Site Location Map 0 I f 1 Midway Road Ft. Pierce Land Trust Pal;cel Easy Slreet . .~~,~ 3._ ~a !,!a Bivd _~~ '' PORT ST. ZUGiE Site Location Map il I ! I I I 4 N I I m LI... Z July 3, 1991 Ms. Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director Dept. of Community Development Planning Division St. Lucie County, Florida County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203 Ft. Pierce, FLorida 34982-5652 RE: fT. PI]~CE~T~ST+/- 9 ACRE~ USE~-~~. ~5~B1.02 Dear Ms. Munshaw: We are proposing a change to the future land use classification of the above described prope, rty which is generally located on the west side of U.S. Highway One and north of Easy Street in St. Lucie County, Florida. The current designation on the subject site is Residential Suburban (RS), we are proposing a change to Residential Medium (RS). -Please find enclosed the following materials in regard to this request: Application for Change in Future Land Use Classification (Five copies). Filing fee- in the amount of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars o 3. Agent Authorization Letter 4. Site location map (Five copies). 5. Copy of Official Zoning Map with detailed site location (Five copies). Please review these materials at your earliest possible convenience_. If you need any additional copies or have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~ DESI(~] STUDIO Michael Houston, ASLA Mil/dna 6025-M CC: Gary Kornfeld Urban Design Urban Planning Land Planning Landscape Architecture Communication Graphics 900 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 126 Stuart. Florida 34994 407.283.0022 West Palm Beach, FL 407.689,0066 Newport Beach, CA 714.642.1090 APPLICATION POR CHANGE IN LM/~URE LAI~) USE ~SIFICA?ION NOTICE: IN (I)M~L~ WIT}{ ~ 163.3187 FLORIDA ~ THIS APPLICATION C~N (]~Y BE PRESENTED ~OR FINAL (/~[ISSlON REVIE~ ~ICE F2H2H C~[.F~W)A~ YEAR. P~.FASE CONSDLT WITH T~E ST. LUCIE (]0~NT~ ~NG DMSION TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE DEADLINES POR ~EVIE~. Applicant's Name: Applicant's Address: Fort Pie~ ~ Trust Gary L. Kornf,_ld, Esq. Le~f, _Fu~-~-m, Boyes, Wiener, Goldstein & Kornf~_ld, P.A. 14~gCentzeparkBoule~ard West P~]mBeach, Florida 334gl I (We) do hereby petition the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission and the St. Lucie County Board of CountyCommissioners to change the Future Land Use Classification of the following property fzo~ ~esidential Sub~zban (~S) to ~sidentialMedim (~M). Legal Description: ~ne N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the_NE 1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36 So~th, ]Z~e 4~t, St. LucieCounty, Florida, less rights-of-m~yfor drainage canals a~d public roads. ALSO described as the North 5 acres of th~ SW 1/4 of the NE /14 of the SW 1/4 of Section lg, Township 36 South, P,a~ge 4~ m~t, less rights-of-way for public roads an~ drainage ca-~ls. The_ South 1/2 of the SW1/4 of the NE/14 of the SW1/4 of Section 1~, Township 36South, ~ange 4~ East, ALSO described as the South 5acres of theSW1/4 of the NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of said Section 1~, St. LucieCounty, Florida Property Tax I.D. 341~-792--~54--~/6 341.~-7~2--~55-~g~/3 Our reason for mking this request is to provide for a m~re a~gropriate ~ use designation (am] subsequent development proposal) relative to the surrounding la~d uses/designations a~ changing ~ature of the area. Agent authorized by the Applicant to represent the Applicant, if any: Name: Urban Design Studio, Michael Houston Address: 9~ E. Ocean Blvd. Sbm~t, Florida 34994 Phone Number: 4~7-283-~B22 Page Two Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. 1. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? Yes. The subject property is ~ on its east ami south bomx]ary by am-ercially desig~mted ~ uses. In addition, the la~ to the northeast a~ so~t]least of the site is oc~m~ercial as ~11. West of the property is a previously platted s~bdivision which is made ~p of fifty-t~ (52), 5g' x 14g' lots ar~ h~s an approximate de~sit~ of 5.2 du/ac. Per C~ 1, page 48 of the St. L~cie Cx~mty Comprehensive Plan "the Residential Medi~ (1~) la.d use category is to be applied to those areas that are within or P~ to be within areas of c~ntral cc~mmity services.., m~di~, density residential land ~ c~n act as a tra~sitiom ~ the lower intensity 1~ areas and the more inte~e ~ use designations.- We believe the proposed land use desig~atio~ will act as an appropriate ~itio~ in this What conditions affecting the future land use designation have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. Oo~itions: In 1989., as part of the preparation of the ~=~ Lar~ Use Element, this property was studied by St. Lucie Comity Staff for p~rposes of determining whether a c~-~_.rcial ~ use designation ~ be appropriate. ~ae Board of Co~mty fkm~missio~exs decided against a commercial desig~atio~ b~t did mot evaluate its appropriateness for a Residential Medium designation. Development pat~ along U. S. 1 conti~ae to be c~mercial in ~ature ge~ally linear which is co~iste~t with the Lar~ Use Map. The area in general, c~nti~ to matn~e a~d in-fill as St. Dacie Comity a~d Port St. Lucie's urban sexvice areas grow (Page 1-4~ a~ 1-41 a~d objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Element). As stated above, this site is on its east ar~ south property li~e by c~,.,~rciall¥ desig~mted including3 the Ia~po parcel which was rezo~d fr(mm RS-2 to OG in mid 199~. All public facilities appear to be above minim~ level of service (LOS) star~a~ds with the possible exception of roads (U.S. 1). Improvements, however, are pla~l~d in the area road r~b~)rk which will allow develo[~mt of the parcel to proceed in the_ ~ear future. e Se Page Three Where are the nearest public or investor-owned water and sewer services Who is the service provider? Is the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? If private facilities are proposed, describe the caPacity and type of water and wastewater services to be provided. Utilities: Water and se~e~ service for the site is available fr~m Ft. Pierce Utilities which has existing lines currently ~ to the ~i auto dealership, approximately one third of a ~ile north of the site. The subject property is within the utilities planm~ expansio~ ares and five year (although, .no for~_l district boundaries exist) and at the present time h~.~ capacity to adequately serve the property (Page ~-A-6, and ~-A-7 of the Sanitary Sewer El_~en_ t). No private facilities are proposed. If a change to industrial land use is proposed, explain how water and wastewater systems meet proposed Policies 1.1.5.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan (found in Exhibit B of Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and dated August 28, 1990). N/A What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what general approach to stormwater management would you anticipate if the requested land use change is granted? What effects would the requested land use change have on the volume and quality of runoff? The general drainage pattern in the area is a system of s~all c~m]s a~l creeks (local and secondary network) that flow into the North Fork of the St. nucie River (primary network) and are collectively know~ as the North Fork Basin (Page 6-C-1~ and 6-C-12 of the Drainage Element). ~his basin includes the North St. Lucie River Water Control District. ~he general approach to stonm~ater manager anticipated for this property would satisfy all applicable requirements for St. Lucie County and the South Florida Water Management District (S[~I~)) and would include retaining the first inch of runoff and desig~ling the peak discharge rate d~tring a 25- year store event not to exceed ~ or other regulatory aqencv quidelines. An on-site lake or clrv detefltion area will likely be used to provide storage area as ~11 as to qenerate fill a~t ~rovide a~e~it~ views. Base~ o~ the above noted resDor~es, the proposed land use ~e should have little or no effect on the vol,~,e_ or c~mmlit~ of zt~noff. Provide a projection ofthe averaqe daily vol~nes of solid waste that would be qenerated if the land use chanqes. Page Four SolidWaste: l~lti-family Single-family 81 du's x 7.1 lbs./day = 575 lbs./day 18 du's x 8.9 lbs./day= 16~ lbs./day 575 lbs. - 16~ lbs. = 415 lbs./clay What demands for recreational facilities will be. created by development in accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? _l~creatio~al FaCiliti_~: Although, c]~,~d for recreational facilities exists mxler the present ~ use desi!~ation, that d~_ ,d will likely ixrease with the ,.-mar of ~alti- family residential units. The St. Lucie Oounty Cx~pr~ive Plan establishes desized outdoor recreation staudards (Table 9-5 & 9-6, ixt. 9- 17) for regior~l, c~mmmity ~ lleighborhood recreatiollal facilities which illclude the mimi,~_v, facility size, its service area radius, the ntmmber of persons serviced and the level of service standard per 1~ population. Based on a population of 2.1 persons per multi-family unit, the site will have approxi-~_tely 17~ resi4ents eventually, which would require .85 acres of regional a~d ~ity park respectively and .15 acres of neighborhood park. Per Table 9-9, pg. 9-24, of the St. Imeie County Ca~prehensive Plan, llec~eation Element, a surplus of neighborhood aud regioaal parks is listat through 2~15 and a surplus of ~anity parks is listed through 1995. I~mile no specific site plans have ~ prepared, it ~ be typical to find s(~e ~ of limited recreational facilities offered on a site of this size, i~cluding such uses as a basketball, tera~is, or shuffleboard ~ourt(s), a cc~anity pool and/or a small park with play equipment. Recreational facilities aud open spaces in the vicinity iuclude the following: Indian River Estates Park (Neighborhood Park), Savannah Preserve (~egioual Park), Pepper Beach, ~i~ite City Park (Cr-~mity Parks), Savau~ahs Preserve (Open Space), Heathcote Bo_P~_~ical, St. Lucie Oounty Sports C~plex, Civic Center, Library, the Old Fort Site (Special Facility which are listed on pages 9-3 through 9-6 in the P~c~eatiom~l e 10. 11. Page Five Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary? If you answered "no" to question 8 above, will the property be. used for "urban develol~ment activities" as defined in Policy 1.1.4.1 (proposed Policy 1.1.5.1)? Check which urban development activities apply: residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity __ any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity If any item in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the Boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided> If so, please provide doc~entation. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? If changing from an agricultural category (AG-5 and AG-2.5) to a non- agricultural category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions. How is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? How will r~-~aining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non- agricultural uses you propose? Please provide documentationof the soil type(2) and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey. Describe how the proposed land use designation is suitable, recognizing site-specific land characteristics? Fe Page Six How does the proposed land use designation relate to other nearby develol~uent plans that are approved or now being formulated? How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban develo~ent? 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you have developed as a concept plan for the prope, rty, including type and size of project, proposed roads and roadway improv~nents, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, development schedule, and proposedtenants or purchasers. No such drawln~3s or (~=vel~t proposal information curre~_tlyexistsfor the subjectsite. Page Seven I ~e) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change in Future Land Use of said property. I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee simple that portion of the above describedproperty for which a change in Future[and Use is requested, desuribed as The r~ainder of the property described in paragraph ~1 above fox which change in Future Land Use is requested is owned by and that (we) certify that the above legai descrlptl ~% submitted by me (us) represents the property I (we) wish to have r~classi fled. ! (We) understand that I (we) must be present at the hearing or will be represented by my (our) agent 6025-M July 3, 1991 MS. Nancy Munshaw, Planning Director Dept. of Community Development Planning Division St. Lucie County, Florida County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203 Ft. Pierce, FLorida 34982-5652 RE: FT. PIEBCE~ TR~ST+/- 9 ACRE~ USE AM~DMf~T- O[]RREF. ~5~131.02 Dear Ms. Munshaw: We are proposing a change to the future land use classification of the above described property which is generally located on the west side of U.S. Highway One and north of Easy Street in St. Lucie County, Florida. The current designation on the subject site is Residential Suburban (RS), we are proposing a change to Residential Medium (RS). Please find enclosed the following materials in regard to this request: Application for Change in Future Land Use Classification (Five copies). Filing fee in the amount of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars . Agent Authorization Letter 4. Site location map (Five copies). 5. Copy of Official Zoning Map with detailed site location (Five copies). Please reviewthese materials at your earliest possible convenience. If you need any additional copies or have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, URBAN DESIGN STUDIO Principal Mil/dna 6025-M CC: Gary Kornfeld JUL. 3 -t991 S~ Urban Design Urban Planning Land Planning Landscape Architecture Communication Graphics 900 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 126 Stuart, Florida 34994 407,283.0022 West Palm Beach, FL 407.689.0066 Newport Beach, CA 714,642,1090 NO~ICE: IN (J~MPLIANCE NITH C[I~PTER 163.3187 FLORIDA STATICES THIS APPLIC~TION CAN ONLY BP. PRI~ENTf~ FOR FINAL (I14~$$ION RgVll~t~ ~[ICE E~CH C~L~II~It YII~R. PF.~ASE CD~IS[]LT WITH ~ ST. I/]CIE O00NT~ Pr2t~l~I~ DMSIO~ TO DETEI~MI~IE APPI~0PRIATE DEADLINES FOR EEVI]~. Applicant's Name: Fozt Piezce [am] Trust Gary L. Kornfeld, Esq. Levy, ~, Boyes, Wielder, Goldstei~ & Koznfeld, P.A. Applicant's Address: 14ggCentreparkBoulevazd West Palm Beach, Florida 334gl 4g?-478-47~ I (We) do hereby petition the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Cora~ission and the St. Lucie County Board of County Com~issioners to change the Future Land Use Classification of the following property fr(m~ Residential Suburban (RS) to Reside~tialMedim~ Legal Description: T~eN 1/2 of the SW1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW1/4 of Sectio~ 1~, Towuship36 South, Range 4ME asr, St.~ucieCounty, Florida, less rights-of-way for drainage canals a~d public roads. /K~O~i~_~ the North 5 acres of the SW1/4 of the NE/14 of the SW1/4 of Section 1M, Township36 South, Range 4M F~mt, less rights-of-way for public roads a~ddrai~ageca~als. The Southl/2 of the SW1/4 of the NE/14 of theSW1/4 of Sectionl~, Township 36South, Range4~ East, ALSO descri~as the~th 5 acres of the SW1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW1/4 of said Section 1~, St. LucieCounty, Florida Property Tax I.D. #: 341~-792-~54-~/6 341~-7~2-~g55-g~/3 Our reason for ~aki.g this request is to provide for a more afgropriate lar~ use designation (and subsequent develof~ent proi~sal) relative to the surrounding la~ uses/designatio~ and changing rotate of the azea. Agent authorized by the Applicant to represent the Applicant, if any: Name: Urban Design Studio, Michael Houston Address: 9~ E. Ocean Bl~. Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone Number: 4E7-283--~E22 Page Two Please answer the following questions that are relevant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers that refer to specific policies and page numbers from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. 1. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? Xes. ~he subject proper~ is boun~ed on its east and south bour~ by ~a~iall¥ clesiguatad la~ uses. In acl~itio~l, the l~nd to the northeast SO~t of tl%e site is o~.mercial as well. a ~P~r.e,viousl¥ platted sulxlivisiou which is --:- We~t_.o_f_ the property is x 14g lots a~l has ........ 4 ,~u~ up or titty-t~o (52). 5g' r~.~ aQ ~ ~ .... ~l u[~rox~mate ae~ity of 5.2 alu/ac (I~M) la~ use categozy is to be applied to those azeas that are within plarmed to be within areas of centzal cc~.ani~ services.., medi,., densit~ ~esidential land uses can act as a t~ansition be~,~-~ tim lower inteesity RU areas ~ the more intense ~ use designations.- We believe the_ area.Pr°P°Sed la~l use desiguation will act as an appropriate transition i~ this e What conditions affecting the future land use designation have changed since the adoption of the Ccmprehensive Plan on January 9, 19907 Describe any changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. In 1989, as part of the preparation of the new Lami Use_ Element, this property ~as studied by St. Lucie County Staff for purposes of determining whether a c~__rcial laud use designation would be appropriate. The Board of County C~ssioners decided against a co~-~cial designation but did sot evaluate its apPrupriate~ess for a Residontial Madi~ designation. Development patterns along II. S. 1 contip~ to be c(m~xcial in nature amd ge~=~rally linear which is consistent with the Land Use Map. ~he area in general, continues to mature ~ in-fill as St. Lucie Gounty and Port St. Lucie's urban service_ areas grow (Page 1-4~ and 1-41 a~d objective 1.1.4 of the Future Lar~ Use glem~lt). AS stated above, this site is bou~led on its east aud south property line by cx~maercially designated property i~cluding the Lupo pa~c~/ which was r~ fr(~n R~-2 to CG in mid 199B. ~ excepuon o~ roaas (U.S. 1). however, are plauned zn the _ . _ Improve. eh_ ts, of ~ -- ...... a.r. ea road netl~ork which will allow devel-~ parcel to pzoceea in the near future. e Page Three. Where are the nearest public or investor-owned water and sewer services Who is the service provider? Is the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? If private facilities are proposed, describe the capacity and type of water and wastewater services to be. provided. Utilities: Water ar~se~ersezviceforthe site is available fz~mFt. Pierce Utilities which hasexistingli~escurrently~totheHyur~ai auto dealership, .approximately o~ethird of a milenorthofthe site. The subjectpropexty is within the utilities plan~ed' expar~ion area ar~ five year plan (although, no fonmal district bourz]aries exist) ar~ at the present time has capacity to adequately serve the pro~ (Page 6-A-6, a~ 6-A-7 of the Sanitary Sewer Element). No privatefacilitiesare proposed. If a change to industrial land use is proposed, explain how water and wastewater systems meet proposed Policies 1.1.5.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan (found in Exhibit B of Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and dated August 28, 1990). N/A What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what- general approach to stormwater management would you antici ate if . requested land use chanqe is oran~a~ .......... P ' the land use change have on~t~ .7~'~FiL~LLL ~,~.e~cts wou±~ the requested ,,~ vu~,,~ ~ quallty or runoff? ,Drainaqe: The general drair~ge pattern in the area is a system of small canals a~d creeks (local am] secorz]ary network) that flow into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (primazy network) and are collectively know~ as the North Fork Basin (Page 6-C-1~ and 6-(2-12 of the Drainage Element). This basin includes the North St. Lucie River Water Control District. The general approach to stormwa_ ter management anticipated for this property would satisfy all applicable requirements for St. Lucie County and the South Florida Water Management District (~) am] would include retaining the first irish of runoff and designing the peak discharge rate during a 25- year storm event not to exceed S~ or other re~latorv agency quidelines. An on-site lake or dry detention area will likelv be used to provide storage area as ~_ll as 'to ~e~erate fill and provide amenity views. Based on the above noted responses, the proposed land use change should have little or no effect on the vol~ne or ~ualitv of runoff. Provide a projection of the averane daily vol~nes of solid waste that would be generated if the land use chanqes. Page Four Solid Waste: If built o~t at the maxim~ de~sibl of 9 d~elli~ mits ~ acre, ~ ~j~ ~z~ ~uld mmist of 81 ~lti-f~ly ,,,i~ ~a is 63 ~ ~re ~ ~ 18 s~le f~ly ~ ~1~ ~e ~ ~ ~rr~t 1~ ~/z~ ~i~tion. ~ i~i~t~ in ~ r~t ~ ~~tim ~ ~. ~rold ~i~, Ft. Pi~ ~tilitis, Solid ~ ~r~t, a ~ti- fmly ~it 9~S ~rox~t~y ~ ~. or l~s ~ ~ ~ a sidle f~ily ~t g~a~ a~roxim~ly 62 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ve, ~ av~e ~ily ~1~ of ~lid ~ ~ld ~ ~1~~ ~ folly: e ~llti-family Single-family 81 du's x 7.1 lbs./day = 575 lbs./day 18 du's x 8.9 lbs./day = 16~ lbs./day 575 lbs. - 16~ lbs. = 415 lbs./day What de, hands for recreational facilities will be created by development in accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. If you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the Vicinity? l~x_eatioml Facilitim: Although, d_~m2nd for recreatioual facilities exists u~ler the present land ase designation, that 4~,~i ~ill likely i~-rease with the n,--her of multi- family residential units. The St. Lucie Ommty Oompr~ive Plan establishes desired outxloor recreation stamclar~ (Table 9-5 & 9-6, pg. 9- 17) for re, iota], cx~amunity ~ ~eighborhood recreatio~ml facilities which illclude the mi~ facility size, its service area radius, the n~t~_r of persons serviced and the level of service standard per 1~0 population. Based on a population of 2.1 persons per multi-family unit, the site will have approximately 17~ residents eventually , which ~tld require .85 acres of regior~l and c~,.aa~ity park respectively a~] .15 acres of neighborho(ld park. Per Table 9-9, pg. 9-24, of the St. I~¢ie Camty C~mprehensive Plan, l~ecreation El~-en_ t, a surplus of neighborhood ~ regional parks is listed through 2~15 and a surplus of c~amunity parks is listed through 1995. ~hile no specific site plaus have l~.cnprepazed, it~o-ld be tl~pical to fifty, me--of lim!tedrecreatioual facilities offeredona site of this size, i~cltldir~3 ~ uses as a basketball, temlis, or shuffleboard court(s), a cu-~sanitypooland/or a-~r~-llparkwithplayequipment. Recreational facilities a~t open spaoes in the vicinity] iacl~le the follOWi~]: I~tian River Estates Park (Neiglt~rho~d Fark), Savannah Preserve (Regional Park), Pepper Beach, lilaite City Park ((k~mmity Parks), Savannahs Preserve (Open Space), Heathcote Botanical, St. Lucie County Sports C£~plex, Civic Center, Library, the Old Fort Site (Special Facility which are listed on pages 9-3 through 9-6 in the Recreational 10. 11. Page Five Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary? If you answered "no" to question 8 above, will the property be used for "urban develolmnent activities" as defined in Policy 1.1.4.1 (proposed Policy 1.1.5.1)? Check which urban development activities apply: residential development in excess of two units to the gross acre any non-agricultural con~nercial activity any non-extractive, non-agriculturally related industrial activity If any it~n in #9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the Boundary is needed and you propose a change to a residential category, please refer to Policy 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: Does the subject property lie contiguous to a residential land use classification? Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban infrastructure and services can be provided> If so, please provide documentation. To what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? If changing from an agricultural category (AG-5 and AG-2.5) to a non- agricultural category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions. How is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? How will r~naining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non- agricultural uses you propose? Please provide documentation of the soil type(2) and suitability for urban use found on the subject parcel, according to the St. Lucie County Soil Survey. De Describe how the pr.posed.~ land use designation is suitable, recognizing site-specific land characteristics? Page Six How does the proposed land use designation relate to other nearby development plans that are approved or now being fonnulated? How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban develo[xnent? 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you have developed as a concept plan for the property, including type and size of project, proposed roads and roadway improv~nents, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, develo~nent schedule, and proposedtenants or purchasers. No such drawings, oz develol~ent proposal infor-~tion currently exists for the subjectsite. Page Seven ne) ~ hereby certify ~at ! (~) on in f~ simple all of ~e a~ve ~scri~ p~o~ and have l~al right to r~est ~ang~ in Fu~e ~ Use of said ~at .f ~rtion of ~e~ve de~ri~proper~ [o~ ~ich a ~ange in ~tu~e ~ Use is ~uest~, describ~ as ~e r~ai~er of ~e pro~rty descri~ in ~rag~aph ~1 ~ve fo~ ~ich ~a~e in Future ~ Use is r~est~ is o~ by a~ ~at I (w ~u~ttg ¥ m (u~) represents ~e pro~r~ have r~lassi[i~. I (We) ~ersta~ ~at I {~) m~t ~ p~esent at ~e heari~ or will ~ represent~ by mF (our) ~ent 4 6025-M