HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrisco Plan Amendment INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
FROM:
C. A. NO.:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board of County Commissioners
Krlsta A. Storey, Assistant County Attorney/~
87-624
July 29, 1987
Znformattonal Memo on Proposed UDAG Project by The
Briscoe Company
The County Attorney's Office and Planning Department have
been contacted by representatives of The Briscoe Company and Hank
Rtegler regarding a proposed Urban Development Action Grant
(UDAG) project in the vicinity of South 25th Street, Edwards Road
and the FEC Railroad Crossing. (Staff is unclear at this time as
to exactly wh/ch parcel the developer is considering.) The
proposed multi-family development would be partially financed by
UDAG monies allocated by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development. A minimum of 20% of the units must be
rented to families with low to moderate incomes.
Since St. Lucie County is not UDAG-eligible and the proposed
property is located in the unincorporated area of the county, the
City of Fort Pierce, who is UDAG-eligible, would have to apply
for the grant. According to the developer, the relationship
between the County and City for purposes of the grant Would be
outlined in an interlocal agreement. The developer has indicated
that one UDAG requirement for such a "3oint venture" would be the
pledging by the County of 51% of the ad valorem taxes generated
by the project to the City for a period of time.
There ate two parcels available in the area describe~ bY the
developer. One parcel is zoned for single family residential use
with a land use classification of low density residential. The
other parcel is zoned commercial general with a commercial
general land use classification. The developer contempl
developing the parcel at a density of 13 to 14 units per
Accordingly, on either Site, the proposed pro3ect would
plan amendment to high density residential and a rez~
multi-family. Since the pro3ect is not a small
development, the Plan ~nendment may only be considered
of the twice a year hearing cycles. The next
transmittal hearing is December 10, 1987, and the next ~
amendment hearing is May 23, 1988.
· The developer has said that he is facing a IIDAG applica~
deadline of early 'September, 1987. In view of this, The Brts.
Company has suggested that the Board consider this as
"emergency,. under Section 163.$187(1)(a)' Florida Statutes. Su
a determination WOuld allow .a plan amendment ou.tside of the
a year ltm/tation imposed by Section 163.3187(1).
Section 163.3187(1)(a) defines emergency as any occurrenc
or threat thereof whether accidental or natural, caused by man
in war or peace which results or may result in substantial injuj
or harm to the POpulation or substantial damage to or loss ~
PrOperty or public funds. The Brtscoe Company is suggesting tha~
the emergency exists due to the eminent loss of public funds if!
the September application deadline is not met.
Section 163-3187(1)(a) further provides that in the 6ase of
an emergency, Dian amendments may be made more than tWice a year
if the additional Plan amendment receives the approval of ~ of
the members of the local gOVerning body. Thus, a 5-0 vote WOuld
be required for approval.
According to the Department of Community Affairs (] DCA
has accepted three emergency plan amendments. One invol
Site for the proposed Martin County 3ail, one involved a
Pr°3ect in' West Palm Beach and one involved a "3oint
UDAG.between Palm Beach County and Belle Glade built on
Owned property and With a loan from Palm Beach County.
DCA's Position is that the initial decision as to an
emergency exists is a policy decision of the local
body. If the Board decided to authorize the Dian amendmen.
emergency, DCA WOuld require a record of the au.
setting forth the facts and Circumstances 3ustifyi:
emergency. DCA WOuld also be looking for consistency wi.
c°mDrehensive Dian and whether the proposed prO3ect sat~
goals, ob3ectives' and Other policies of the comprehensive
In add/t/on, DCA WOuld require the Board to verify the
loss of the federal grant if the
immediately, amendment was not proc.
Staff has
status of the UDAG application.
Department, discussions between
not been completed.
contacted the City of Fort Pierce to determine the
According to the Ctty,s
Planning
the City and
have
If YOu have any questions,
KAS/sls
Please feel free to contact me.
Cop/es To:
County Administrator
Community Development Director
Planning Administrator
Dennis Murphy
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBOECT:
/
Brlsco PA /Rezone Project File
Planning Administrator
3uly 22, 1987
Proposed UD~G _ St. Lucie County
On Tuesday, 3ul 21
urphy to diSCus
~o deve]~ .... s.~ p~uposaz fro _.~-~ ~core an
Count~ '~ ~_~eSZdential UD m B~zsco Develo y d
n,,~..-~L_ ~s. Storey and AG pruject pro os ~me~t~
~y Den wl ~ ~ - Mr. Murphy s ....... P ed .in St
Summar~,~ ~ ~ ~e~resentatlve .... '~:~zzed thezr me
~u phone c . ~or the C e
The pro~ec~ ........ alls recezved ~, .... ompany. Th~
of the ~na% %~uzo actually be a ' -~,,, C.u~
~ pany represen~
propose~~ ~rogram. The
density off 14 un~ ~a:uu zs a residential o~
ts pe~ acre and location n
intersection o~ 29th Street and Edwards Road. At the
o~ our discussion, it was decided that Z Should call Dou
off the City o~ Fort Pierce to confirm the City,s
Support ~o= the Project. In response to ou~ earlier.
regarding the feasibility
project under the "emergency,, P~Ovisions in the law,
reported on a discussion wlth Rhoda Glascow, Esq.,
Glascow indicated that DCA would entertain such an apPlicat
On Wednesday, 3Uly 22, I spoke to Doug Ballard, Com
Development Director off the Clty o~ Fort Pierce. M~. B
indicated that the Brisco Company was a legitimate develo
has done UDAG projects throughout the State. They have a
reco~d o¢ SuCcess with the Department o¢ H.U.D. Mr.
indicated that the City had Participated in several meetin{
B~isco to dlscuss a project in Fort Pierce. Fort Pierce
that the proposed location (29th Street and Edwards Road
poor one. They wOuld be in favor or a P=oject location
would contribute to their total redevelopment
In response to my quest/
Clty~ould not be Onno~ .... ohs,
the county. A~ ~^~ ~u uu a UDAG nr~ .... ~-uzcated thai
~ -~ as an interl~u:uc zn a good locatic
would be that the developer Should be required to Provide s~
~:z agreement, his atti
ag=eements. There apparently must be Ad Valorm Tax Sba
(City receiving ~1~ of tax =evenue), according to
regulations. I ~as not ~amilla~ with tSls last provision; ir
experience wlth DAG's previously.
ude
my
0
JUly 22, 1987
Page 2
Nr. Sallaro inQicateo that he woulo Oe nappy to diSCuss this
Company,s Proposal w/tn the County C°mmissloners,
TLH/mg at our request.
cc: COunty Attorney
Snort Range Planner
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
i
Bri$co Pg/Re~one Project File
DJM
July 19, 1987
Proposed UDAG Development - Unincorporated St.
Lucid County
On Wednesday, July 8, i987, County AOministrator WelOon
Lewis, Assistant County Attorney Krista Storey and I, met with Mr.
Allen Scnnier of the Lennaro Brisco Development Company and Hank
Riegler, a local architect, to discuss a proposed multi-family
development at the intersection of South 25tn Street and the
Florida East Coast Railroad. This project is con~emplateo to be
oevelopeO at a Oensity of 13 to 14 units to the acre and woulO De
constructed with partial financing through the Urban Development
Action Grant Program (UDAG). Several problems exist with t~is
proposal·
At this time, the subject property is zoneO for single
family Oevelopment. While a reclassification to allow
multi-family Oevelopment is not out of the realm of
possibilities, a change to High Density Residential (RH)
is not politically likely at tnis time. The developers
were advised that even politics aside, it was not likely
that we could recommend in favor of any nigh density
proposal in this area unless it was as a part of a PUD
application, and even then we were offering no guarantees.
St. Lucie County is not eligible to participate in the
UDAG program· we just don't qualify for the program. It is
the intention of the developers to propose that a joint
inter-local agreement be made between the City of Ft.
Pierce and the County that would allow the City to act as
administrative agent for the project. The County would be
obligated to commit to the City, 51% of the ad voloram
property taxes on the property for a period of 20 or so
years to retire the debt for this project·
The development is not a classlc low lncome development,
but the Oeveloper must set aside a mlnimum of 20% of the
unlts for people who are conslOereo to be of low or
July 19, 1987
Page 2
Suo~ect: Lennard B~isco
moderate income. In explaining this issue to us, Mr.
Schnier indicated that this does not mean that the units
w111 De subslOizeo, but that they, the developer, must
set aside a certaln number of these unlts for people in
tnls economlc class and if they can afforo to pay the
rents, they can live in the project. I Oidn't follow all
of the loglc in tnls, but we can get a more detailed
explanation later.
The most critical element in our discussion dealt with the
land use and zoning designation on this property. As
indicated above, this property is currently zoned for
single family resiOential uses. To achieve what the
Oeveloper is looking for will require a change in zoning
and land use. Under our Plan Amendment review.,¥scneoules,
the earliest that we can expect the Board of County
Commissioners to entertain a land use change on this
property woulo be May of 1988. This.was not satisfactory
to the Oeveloper. They wOuld like us to consioer this an
Emergency Plan amenoment ano begin the process now. In
fact, they would like us to nave everything reaOy and in
place for them by September 15, 1987.
In doing a similar project in Palm Beach County, t.ne
developer told us that the City of Riviera Beach just
calleo the amendment a necessary emergency and did it. In
a similar situation in Belle Glade, the developer
presented a resolution from the Palm Beach Board of County
Commissioners that indicated what we took to be a formal
commitment to change the zoning of a piece of property
even before the comple{ion of the public hearing process.
The developers indicated that they wOuld like it if our
Board could ac~ in a similar manner for them. Apparently
the Federal Government requires that all zoning be in
place before they will even consider the project proposal
and tn.e deadline the developer was trying to achieve was
mid-September.
The developers were advised that despite what Palm Beach
County ano Riviera Beach City officials may or may not
nave ~one, we were not going to recommend that our Board
Od anything that woulo imply prior decision, violate what
we understand to be the laws of the State of Florida, or
Od anything that would give the impression of favorable
treatment not available to someone else. The absolute best
that ne could nope for woulo be some type of nonbinainA
statenent on the merits of the project.
July 19, 1987
Page 3
Subject: Lenna~d Brisco
In regard to the desire to "ram rod" a plan amendment ano
rezoning through the Oeveloper was advised unless he
coulO proOuce a written statement signeo by the Governor,
State Attorney General and Secretary of the Department of
Community Affairs saying that we could begin the plan
amendment process for this property outside of our normal
schedule, we would only process this application through
regular channels.
I Od not think that we have hearo the last of this project.
8ut I Od not believe that it will move as fast as the developer
wants. In closing this meeting, the Oeveloper inOicateo that they
woulo De in contact with State officials about this Oevelopment
and the plan amenOment process.
OOM/djm
8RISC0(8~)