Loading...
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~)