Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
A Duda & Sons Inc
AG = RED SU = GREEN IH = BLUE X = ?.URPLE RL = YELLOW [PSL) x~x"~"x~= PETITIONED AREA: AG TO RL ;'"'"~'~' 10 ..~:,N<.= PETITIONED AREA: AG X 04 / 08 / 09 / 10 / 1,5 / 16 / 17 / 22 / 23 - 37 - 3'9 FOR PETITION OF A. DUDA & SONS BY AGENT: CHARLOTTE E. GILLIS iCNANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLA~SSiFiCATiON FROM AG TO RL FROM AG TO X BOARD Of COMMISS February A. Duda & Reynolds, 6737 Scut] This lettE County Co~ land use c residentia side of Enclosed ST. LUCI E Judy Culpe. JC: tk Encl. HAVERT L. FENN. District Nc DJrec~ COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ON£RS DIRECTOR TERRY L. V]RTA 7, 1989 ons, Inc. BY AGENT: ~mith & Hills ~oint Drive So. ~50 e, FL 32201 C.E. Giilis oner: is to confirm that on December 14, 1988 ithe Board of ~issioners approved your petition to amend the future assification from AG (agricultural) to RL (low density and X (interchange) for property located at the west erstate 1-95, at Gatlin Blvd. Interchange !area. a copy of Ordinance No. 88-101 adopted by the Board. yours, ~NT¥ COMMISSIONERS C DUNTY, FLORIDA )er, Chairman JUDY CULPEPPER Distric~ klo. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R DALE TREFELNER District!No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 County Administrator -- WELDON BE LEWI~ 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 OF THE PORT (MORE ORDINANCE NO.: 88-101 PA-88-009 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESI( DATE AND STA~E AND County, Floz the future County Grow- described be 2. T holding a p~ -was publ£she( all owners c notified by r amend the LuCie County~ to RL (Low EAS, the Board of County Commissioners o~ St. Lucie ida, has made the following determinations: A. Duda & Sons, Inc. presented a Petition .to amend set forth in the St. Lucie Management Policy Plan from AG (Agriculture) to RL Residential) and X (Interchange) for the propert-y owo ~e St. Lucie County Local after on July 12, 19'88, of which due notice at least seven (7) days prior to said'hearing, and ~ property within five hundred (500,) feet were ~il of said hearing, has recommended that;the Board ute land use classifiCation set forth in the St. ~rowth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agriculture) nSity Residential) and X (Interchange) for the ibed below. special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and or parts thereof, in conflictlwith thi.s ordinance:are hereby supersededby this ordinance to tBe~ extent of if: .anY portion of this ordinan. to be unconstitutional ding shall not effect the rema~ If this ordinance or any pro' be inapplicable to any such holding shall not eff perSOn, property or circumstan¢ shall be applicable as st HE DEPARTMENT Oi G. The Clerk be and hereby is dir of this ordinance State, The capitol, TallS The County Attorney shall [nce to the Department of e is for any reason inoperative or v°id, ~ing P°rtions of this ,ision thereof shall be erson, property, or ect its app%icability to ~ted in paragraph A. STATE-- ~.cted forthwith to send a the BUreau of LaWS, hassee, Florida' 32304: this Rhyne Low Densit~ Residential (RL The south one-half of Section 4; the eas~ one-ha]f ol Secti-on 8~ ti half of Section 9; the smJth one-half off the SOuth o e-half of Sect excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95- and the north one-half of the southwpst one-quarter o Section Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the s Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of sec west right of way line of Interstate Route 95 Townsh East, St. Lucie County, Florida. · t or of Iht on 23 l~ one- er Interchange The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of the west right.of_way line of interstate Route 95; that ,less the SOuth one-half of the south ~ l!,~e ~ Interstate Route 95; th'e one-half iyin9 wes half of the southeas northeast one-quar. ca - t one- Ua - st,.St. Lucie r ...... q rter of Section 16, To~nsh. ~uuncy, Florida. D~ S~ OR ction 10 l~ portion of C of the wes :er and the P 37 South ~f AR-1 = RED AG = GREEN IH = BLUE U = PURPLE CN = ORANGE IX = BROWN YELLOW (PSL) - BR OWN ~//~ (?SL) BROWN~ (PSL) PETITiON:ED AREA: AG TO RL ~E~'I] [ONE,[ A'~'EA: AG TO X 04 _/ 08 ~/ 09 ? 10 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 22 K 23 37 PETITION OF A. DUDA S NS BY AGENT: CHARLOTTE E. GILLIS FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CL~.SS~FICATION FROM AG TO RL AND FROM AG TO X Date: Tape: December 14, 1988 No. 1 & 2 Commissioners Present: Chairman Judy Cu Chairman Havert L. Fenn (as noted); Jim Jack Krieger. Others Present: Dan McIntyre, County Community Development Director; De~ Administrator; Hazel Harriman, Sherif~ McMahon, Deputy Clerk. convene( adjourned: Wi ni x; R. i Attorney; Lni s Mu~ s Of fi The purpose of this meeting is to hold following petitions for a Change in L', Zoning. Proof of publication was Pres following petitions. (Chairman Judy Culpepper was absent duril on this item. ) he Us e dis cuss 2. (1-0625) (a) ~ i__~n Land Us~e Reference was made to memorandum from addressed Eo the County AdministraEor, Co December 13, 1988, subject "Petition of A. Duda & a Change in Land Use from AG (Agricultura.) to X and RL (Low Density Residential) .. Acres. ) · - (Approx (Chairman Judy Culpepper arrived at the me~ ting at thi: Vice-Chairman Fenn passed the gavel.) Todd Deming, agent for the petitioner, s present approval of this petition. It was moved by Com. Krieger, seconded b adopt Ordinance No. 88-101, an ordinance a County Growth Management Policy Plan, Ord changing the land use designation of the pr west side of 1-95, west of Port St. L Com. Lg the at Boulevard Interchange Area (more particula descri! from SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low Density Residenti~ (Interchange) making findings; providing fo making changes on the St. Lucie County Zoning '~ las; conflicting provisions and severabilit¥;Ii r°viding with the Department of State and Department of Communi and for a~ effective Date and Adoption; nd, as a delete SU (Semi Urban) wherever that a e ~ ~, mo~lon cSarra~e~ una~ (Agricultural); and, u~on roll ~ --~.PP d~to 7:'00 p.m. 9::57 ~.m. en j~ NEWS TRIBUNE P.O 30X 69 For~ Pierce. St. Lucie County, Florida 34954-0(369 STATE OF FLOR[DA COUNTY OF ST. LUCtE DavidBef°reT. the undersigned authority personally appeared Rutledge or Kathleen K. Le.C, lair, who on oath NdwsSays-that, r~he/Shea ~t,..is publisher, publisher s secretary of the '-r.~,une, ~,a,,y newspaper published at Fort Pierce · .~?~?.~;~-: in St. Lucie County, ~Ftorida; that the attached copy of ~e advertisement, be~ga ~ublic notice m ~e matter of Change in L~'n~' '~'; ............ '- was published ~ said newspaper in the issues of ... .................. 12/6/.88 ...... Affiant further says ~at the said News Tribune is a newspaper published a~ Fo~ Pierce, ~ ~id St. Lucie and ~at the saidnewspa~r has ..... m~ mater at ~, St. Lucie for ~li~on of ~e ~ n~ nei~er per~ fi~ or ~ ~r~ ~ me This...~.~'h.., day~-of. De~. -- :_ ~-{,.-. ;'.: _._ : :-._:. .- _ -.. ..~: .. ... . "-~ _ -- . :'. _: -' Board of i NOTICE OF CH propose CHANGE iN tisem~nt.The'St: LurCie C°Un~y Board of Court ,ty Com..~ssion~rs A 1988, at 7:00 Avenue. Ft. land, A · From ; FrOmRL From Su (Semi Urban) to From From From AG West Ol The St..~Lu~ie County tisement. A public hearingon the 1988, at 7:00 P.M., in. the Avenue, Ft. Pierce Plannin Please note tha'~all decision made bythe record of the pro dividuals dividual Comm;~,r0ners propo.~ss to chan.~]a ~,~e use of lend within, .~ area sho~n~it~!the map in this adVer- of From From RI From RL From SU From :, I .! acre tract1 I and FEC 1 end~ From FFA From From ( West of F COMMISSION REVIEW: DECEMBER 14, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: ~ - a FILE NO.: PA-88-£09 ORDINANCE NO.: #88-101 M E M O R A N D E M TO: County Administrator County Commission FROM: Planning Administrator DATE: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Petition of A. Duda & So!s, Inc ..... Land Use from SU (Semi - Urban) to x and RL (Low Density Residential) On Wednesday, December 14', 1988, yo~ will be as a petition on behalf of A. Duda & S~ns, inc. for a a Change in (Interchange) use from SU to X and RL for property lo( 1-95, west of Port St. Lucie, at Interchange. This petition was presented to the Planning Agency on June 23, 1988. At ~ Planning Agency voted unanimously to re¢ County Commissioners consider approva issuing that recommendation, they urged the Florida Department of Community At agency review in accordance with Chapte On July 12, 1988, this Board concurred and forwarded this matter for further re, On September 16, 1988, the Treasure Council reviewed this proposed Land Use with the development policies of the Plan. The comments of the Council are documents. This petition is reference~ material as Item #4. On October 15, 1988, review commen- Lucie County from'the Department of Co~ to this petition. This particular iten Department as generally consistent with of the St. Lucie County Growth Man~ requirements_of section 163.3177, Florid~ effect prior to October 1985. ked to review St. Lucie hat hearin ommend that 1 of this ] that it be ~fairs for r 163, Flor with that z ziew. Coast Regi~ ~endment fo: 'reasure Co found in- in the Tr~ ~s were re- ,unity Affai was deter~ the develop[ ~gement Pi~ Statutes, west side of n Boulevard County Local ], the Local the Board of )etition. In 'forwarded to the required ida Statutes. scommendation )hal Planning consistency ~st Regional :he attached ~asure Coast arned %o St. rs in regard lined by the ~ent policies ~n, and the ~ich were in :ated on the the Gatli change in land December 13, 1988 Petition: Dud Page 2 File No.: PA- County staff continues with its o~iginal recol support for this petition. Although ~e acknowle~ may indeed be certain impacts associated with the this property that will need further review, we that these impacts will be satisfactorily address~ Development of Regional Impact review p~ocess. Attached for your review is a copy of our o~ report and the minutes of the previous meetings c Consistent with Board policy, attached you will f Draft Ordinance #88-101, which would grant appI requested change in land use. If you have any questions on this m~ CONCURRENCE: Terry L. V~rta q Deveiopme~t Director a & Sons Inc. 88-009 ~mendations of .ge that there ~evelopment of are confident ~d through the ~iginal staff n this issue. ind a copy of 'oval to this ~,~let us know. DJM/DBS/la Attachment DUDA6(S4) cc: County Attorney Carlotte E. Gillis Commission Secretary Press/Public ORDINANCE NO.: 88--101 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PL2 NO. 86-01 BY CHANGING THE LAND OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ON THE WE PORT ST. LUCIE, AT THE GATLIN BOUL~ (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBEi URBAN) TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTI2 MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR ~ CHANGES ON THE ST. LUCIE COUN~ PROVIDING FOR~CONFLICTING PROVISIO} PROVIDING FORFILING WITH THE DEPt DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFA] EFFECTIVE DATE AND AI WHEREAS, the Board of County C~ County, Florida, has made the following 1. A. Duda & Sons, Inc. prese the future land use classification set County Growth Management POlicy Plan f~ (Low Density Residential) and X (Inter described below. 2. The St. Lucie County Local holding a public hearing on July 12, was published at least seven (7) days all owners of property within five h~ notified by mail of said hearing, has - amend the future land use classificati Lucie County Growth Management Policy P1 to RL (Low Density Residential) and property described below. 3. The Board held a public hear~ after publishing notice of such hearin¢ Tribune on December 6, 1988. NOW. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Flori4 A. C_~GE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLA: , LUCIE COUNTY ~, ORDINANCE uSE DESIGNAWION ST SIDE OF 1-95 mST OF NTERC U GE HEREIN) FROM SU (SEMI - kL) AND X (INTERCHANGE) ~ING THE NECESSARY !Y ZONING ATLAS; IS AND SEVE~BILITY; ~TMENT OF S ~ATE AND iRS AND FOR ~N }OPTION. )mmissioners determinati( nted a peri forth in ' om SU (Semi change) for Planning A 388, of whi~ rior to sai ~ndred (500 ,~commended t mn set fort ~n from SU ( ( Intercha mg on Decem in the Ft by the Boa }a: ~SIFICATION. The future land use classificatJ.on set for' Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan for t described as follows: of St. Lucie )ns: tion to amend 3he St. Lucie Urban) to RL the property gency, after 3h due notice d hearing and ') feet were hat the Board h in the St. Semi - Urban) nge) for the 3er 14, 1988, Pierce News sd of County h in the St. ~at property SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" owned by A. Duda & Sons, Inc., be, and t from SU (Semi - Urban) to RL (Low De (Interchange) B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY. This Board specifically deter~ change in the future land use plan policies and objectives contained in th( Management Policy Plan. C. CHANGES TO ZONING ATLAS. The St. Lucie County Community hereby authorized and directed to cause' the St. Lucie County Zoning Atlas ar reference to the date of adoption of thi D. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. Special acts of the Florida Leg to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie Cou] County Resolutions, or parts thereof Ordinance are hereby superseded by this such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordins ~held or declared to be unconstitutiona such holding shall not effect the rem~ ordinance. If this ordinance or any pr( held to be inapplicable to any circumstances, such holding shall not ef] any other person, property or circumstan~ F. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable as st~ G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF The Clerk be and hereby is dire( certified copy of this ordinance to Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahs he same is ~ nsity Resid ~ines that is consist, St. Lucie Development :he changes Ld to make ordinance. .slature ap lty, County in conflJ )rdinance tc Lereby changed ~ntial) and X the approved ~nt with the County Growth Director is to be made in notation of )licable only Drdinances and ct with this the extent of nce is fo~ any reason 1, inoperative or void, ining portions of this ~visi6n thereof shall be person, p~operty, or iect its a~pli~abi~Yty to .ted in Para(;raph A. STATE. ~ted forthwi the Bures ssee, Flori~ th to send a u of Laws, Ia, 32304. H. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT The County Attorney shall send ordinance to the Department of Commu] Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallah; I. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect acknowledgment from the Office of Secr~ ordinance has been filed in that office. J. ADOPTION. After motion and second, .the vo as follows: Chairperson Judy Culpepper Vice-Chairperson Havert Fenn Commissioner R. Dale Trefeln( Commissioner Jack Krieger Commissioner Jim Minix PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 14t~ ATTEST: BOARD OF CC ST. LUCIf CLERK BY: APPROVED COR] COUNT' COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. a certifie~ copy of this lity Affairs, The Rhyne ss~e, Florida, 32399. upon recei ~t of official ~tary of St~ite that this re on this Drdinance was XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX day of Dec ~NTY COMMISi COUNTY, FL( CHAI~ RS TO FORM ECTNESS: f ATTORNEY ~mber, 1988. ;IONERS )RIDA WE] )NESD~ ~ AGENDA - BOARD OF CC NTY COMMISSIONERS DEl 7:~ Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Gillis, to amend the Future Land Use Class Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan to X (Interchange-Oriented Development) an( Residential Development) for the following (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRt! (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin Bi~ Please note that all proceedings befo~ Commissioners are electronically recorded. to appeal any decision made by the Board o~ with respect to any matter considered at st he will need a record of the proceedings, a purpose, he may need to ensure that a verb proceedings is made, which record includes evidence upon which the appeal is to be ba~ of any party to the proceeding, individuals hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the granted an opportunity to cross-examine an~ during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice o all adjacent property owners November 21, 1 published in the News Tribune, a newspaper in St. Lucie County,. on December 6, 1988. BOARD OF ST. LUCI /s/ Jack FIkE~b~CL .~EMBA 14, 1988 )0 P.M. Lgent: Charlotte E. Lfication of the St. from AG (Agricultural) RL (Low De described p~ 'TION ) ~d. interchai 'e the Board If a perso] County Co~ ch meeting ~nd that, fo. tim record the test imo ed. Upon tl testifying proceed in g individual f the same v 988. Legal of general COUNTY COMP E COUNTY, F1 Krieger, C~ ~A-88-009 ]sity _~operty: ]ge ) of County decides is s loner s )r hearing, such f the ~y and [e request during a will be test ifying ~s sent to notice was irculation ISSIONERS ORIDA airman _ow Density Residential (IL) ~ / The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-hal~of Section 8; half of Section 9; the smith one-half of the sout~one-half of ~ excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the northwest and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section Nort'heast one-quarter and the north one-half of th Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right- 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of s west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, Tow East, Ss. [ucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; less the south one-half of the south one-half lyin way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast one half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, T~ East, St. Lucie County, Florida. e southeast o of-way of Iht( ~ction 23 lyir ~ship 37 South, Range 39 the west one- ection 15 one-quarter 6; the e-quarter of rstate Route g west of the ~f Section 10 Tying west of that portion ~f Section 15 west of the ~est right-of- quarter and tte north one- wnship 37 Soulh, Range 39 BOARD OF COUNTY .ST- LUCIE COUNTY[ REGULAR MEETIN Date: July 12, 1988 Tape: #1 - #3 Commissioners Present: -Chairman Jac Havert L. Fenn; Jim Mini×; .R. 'Dale Tref, noted)- Others Present: Weldon Lewis, County Assistant County Administrator; Dan Mc Krista Storey and Heather Young, Assist; Virta, Community Development Director; Administrator; Jeff Ketteler, County Public Works Director; Lew Eng] Administrator; Walter Smith and Evar Office; Jane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk (d) A. Du,da and Sons~ Inc. (2-1911) Reference was made to memorandum from /addressed to the Board, dated July 6, 19 A. Duda and Sons, Inc., to amend / Classification of the St. Lucie County L/ Plan from AG (Agricultural) to X (In Oensity Residential Development),, It was moved by Com. Fenn, seconded by this petition to the Florida Department review and comments; and, upon roll unanimously. conve adjour SSIONERS ORIDA < Krieger; ~lner; Judy ~dministrato :ntyre, Cou mt County A Dennis Mur~ ingineer; H, and, Acti~ Costopoui, Planning 88, subject the futur~ Growth Maria terchange) ned: 9:08 a.m. ned: 3:25 p.m. Vice-Chairman Culpepper (as r; Dan Kurek, lty Attorney; ttorney; Terry ~hy, Planning ~ward Kimble, lg ~' Property ~s, Sheriff's ~dministrator, "Petition of Land Use lement Policy and RL (Low to transmit Affairs for ion carried Com. Minix, of Communit call, mot COMMISSION REVIEW: JULY 12. 1988 AGENDA ITEM: 14 -. D FILE NO.: PA-88-(t09 M E M O R A N D [ M TO: County Administrator County Commission FROM: Planning Administrator DATE: July 6, 1988 SUBJECT: ~ti~'ion of A. Duda & SDns, Inc., Future Land Use Classification of County Growth Management Policy Plan - Urban) to X (Interchange) and RL Residential Development) On Tuesday, July 12, 1988 you will be asked petition on behalf of A. Duda & Sons, Ir~., for a c use from SU tO RL for property located on the west west of Port St. Lucie, at the Gatlin boulevard Inte This petition was presented to the St. Lucie Planning Agency on June 23, 1988. At that heari Planning Agency voted unanimously to recommend that County Commissioners consider approval o:~ this petit it be forwarded to the Florida Departmemt of Commu] for the required agency review in acco~Tdance with Florida Statutes. At this time, staff would offer a p~'eliminary r~ of approval. However, County staff wou~ amend this recommendation pending compl required agency comments. Attached for your review is a copy report and the minutes of the June 23 Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission meE If you have any questions on this mai office. to Amend the :he St. Lucie from SU (Semi (Low Density to review a mange in land ~ide of 1-95, rchange Area. County Local ng the Local the Board of ion, and that lity Affairs Chapter 163, =-commendation .d reserve the right to ~=tion and r=~view of the of our or:.ginal staff . 1988, Lo(:al Planning ting ter, please contact this DJM/DBS/meg- Attachment DUDA2(B-DEC88) cc: County Attorney Charlotte E. Gillis AGENDA - BOARD OF ~COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., b Gi!lis, to amend the Future Land Use Clas Lucie County Growth Management Policy Pla to X (Interchange-Oriented Development) a Residential Development) for the followin (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCR (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlim B Please note that all proceedings bef Co~issioners are electronically recorded to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at he will need a record of the proceedings, purpose, he may need to ensure that a verl proceedings is made, which record include: evidence upon which the appeal is to be b~ of any party to the proceeding, individua: hearing will be sworn in. Any party to t! granted an opportunity to cross-examine a~ during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice all adjacent property owners November 21, published in the News Tribune, a newspapeI in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988. BOARD C ST. LUC /s / Jac FILE N( 'EDNE ' A! ~ECEMB~R 14 :00 P.M. · 1988 Agent: Charlotte E. sification Of the St. n from AG ( nd RL (Low g described IPTION) lvd. interck pre the Boar If a pers f County Co ~uch meeting and that, f ~atim record the testim sed. Upon _s testifyin ~e proceedin~ ~y individua of the same 1988. Lega: of general COUNTY CO~ IE COUNTY, k Krieger, PA-88-009 ~gricultural) ~ensity property: ange) d of County on decides nmissioners or hearing, Dr such of the Dny and the request during a will be testifying was sent to not ice was ~ ir culat ion ~ISSIONERS 'LORIDA lhairman ~ Low Density Residential (RL) - The south one-half of Section 4: the east one-half of Section ~: the west half of Section 9; the south one-half of the south one-half of Section 15 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 9~; the northwest one-quarter and the north one-half of the southwest one-quart Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, To East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half the-~est r~ight-of_way line of Interstate Route 95 less the south one-half of the south one-half lyi way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast on~ half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, East, St. Lucie County, Florida. er of Section he southeast -of-way of Iht ection 23 lyi ~nship 37 Sour of Section 10 that portion g west of the -quarter and ownship 37 So one- 16; the ne-quarter of erstate Route ng west of the l, Range 39 lying west of of Section 15 west right-of- he north one- th, Range 39 TO: FROM: DATE: S~'BSECT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GMPP: PROPOSED GMPP: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: M EM OR A N O U Local Planning Agency Planning Administrator June 16, 1988 Petition of A. Duda & Charlotte E. Gillis, to Am Classification of the St. Management Policy Plan from (Interchange Development) Residential) West side of I-~ Lucie, at th, interchange area. AG (Agricultural) AG (Agricultural) RL (Low Density (Interchang~ Deve] Approximately 4,3C See Comments St. Lucie Co. - AG ~genda Item: rile Number: )ns, Inc., end the Fub Lucie Co~ AG (Agricul and RL ;5, west o Gattin Residentia opment) ~ 0 acres PA-88-009 and AR-1 Port St. Lucie - The area is primar are some single fa 95 located in t Lucie. Station #10 ( RS-4, OSC, G~ ily undevel( ~ily homes ~e City of )alton Cir approximately 3.25 miles away. by Agent: re Land Use nty Growth tural) to X (Low Density f Port St. Boulevard -) and X and IH ped. There ast of I- Port St. :le) is WATER/SEWER SERVICE: See comments. June 16, 1988 Page 2 Petitior File No STANDARDS FOR REVlE In reviewing this' application for p: Growth Management Policy Plan, the Local consider and make the following determinat Whether the proposed amend, all elements of th.e St. LL Policy Plan; The proposed change in land the Residential .Developme Interchange Development R Management Policy Plan. 'support of this petition a #26 and #37. (See Commen Whether and the extent amendment is consistent wit land uses in this area; The with area· proposed amendment is the existing and prop( (See Comments) Whether there have been'ch~ require an amendment; See Comm~ Whether and the extent tc amendment would result i~ facilities, and whether or t the proposed amendment woul of such public facilities limited to transportation facilities, water supply school§',-~and emergency medic See Comme : A. Duda ~ Sons, Inc. : PA-88-009 oposed amenc Planning ions: ent is consi cie Growth use is cons it Policies )licies of Specific p ;e #11, #14, which th existing a generally sed land us~ Lnged condil nts ment to the ency shall stent with Management istent with and the the Growth cliches ~n #16, #17, proposed proposed consistent rs in this :ions .that which th( demands , o the exteni d exceed th{ , includin facilitie , parks, al facilitiE nts proposed n public to which capacity but not , sewage drainage, s; June 16, 1988 Petitim: Page 3 Rile N .: A. Duda & Sons, Inc. PA-88-009 5. Whether and the extent o which ti amendment would result an orderly I development pattern, specil'ically iden~ negative effects on such p~.ttern; 'The proposed amendment has been deterf an orderly and logical development part area· COMNENTS The petitioner, A. Duda & Sons, Inc., is proposin¢ the future land use on approximately 43,000 acre~ holdings in St. Lucie County. This property is more located west of 1-95 in the area of the GatlinBoulev Port St. Lucie. The attached vicinity~map will provi¢ reference fo~ your review. The petitioned prOperty is within a deszgnated area of Critical State Co~cern. Th does not qualify as a small area or emergency plan under Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes and is not p~ adoption under a Joint Planning Agreement pursuant 163.3171, Florida Statutes. As mentioned, this petition encompass, of property, and does not include the enti our understanding that at this time it is the petitioner to develop this property. R to begin the long term planning proces ~evelopment of this property. Over the pa has been working closely with the petit apprising them of the local community's de: in this area. Nost of the planning effor broad brush concepts, but have been bas, transportation planning efforts as well completed as a part of the revisio~ comprehensive plan. well over e Duda hole not the ir ~ther, they _for the ~t year, Co ion,rs' repr ~ires and e :s to date ~d upon th as the s to the Utility services, and other community s~rvices will provided to this site as it is developed. Since the p under one ownership~..~planning efforts sl~ould be ma property owner that will permit the development of a service system, or provisions should be ~de to conn, ~p~blio-system ~hat may exist at the time o devetopmen: Clearly, the size of this proper y indicate~ Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review will be ~e proposed ~nd logical :ifying any ~ined to be :ern in this to change of their articularly rd exit in e a better not located is property amendment oposed for to Chapter ~,000 acres ings. It is rent,on of are¢ opting successful Jnty staff ~sentati'ves ~pectations have been CountY's ~ork being County's have to be :operty is ~e by the :entralized :t to any that a required. June 1~, 1988 Page 4 Petiti)n: File N,).: Staff would advise the petitioner that as finalized, every effort should be made tc the local government and Regional Plann compliance with applicable laws. Under the requirements of Rule 90-11,. Code, the State of Florida requires a rec Agency, as well as staff, prior to Commissioner,s consideration on whether t¢ for further agency review. At this time, that the Local Planning Agency forward -~approval for this petition and that it rec County Commissioners that this petition State of Florida for further agency review Although staff is offering a prelimin~ approval, we would advise the petitioner County Commissioners agree to transmit thi: review, St. Lucie County reserves the recommendation pending completion and re~ agency comments. If you. have any questions on this matte office. DJM/DBS/seb ATTACHMENT DUDAl(B-DEC88)a cc: County Attorney 'Charlotte E. Gillis A. Duda & Sons, Inc. PA-88-009 development schemes are coordinate ng Council Florida Ad~ ommendation the Board transmit tt staff woul~ a reoomm~ 3mmend to ti 3e transmit't amd commeni ~ry recomm( ~at should t ; petition f right to iiew of th please c with both to ensure ~inistrative from this of County is petition recommend ndation of e-Board of ed to the ~dation of ~e Board of )r further ~mend this required ntact this SAMPLE MOTION: MOTION TO TRANSMIT: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRE HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO TI COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG (AGRICU - ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT) AND-RL (LOW C APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE DI AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRES~ HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF .COMMENTS, REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, S' ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE Sl PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE ;T. LUCIE CO ~T. LUCIE CI IE BOARD ~. DUDA & SO! TURAL) TO X ENSITY RESI£ RARTMENT OF EVALUATION STATUTES. SENTED DURING THE PUBLIC AND THE STANDARDS JNTY )UNTY OF IS, INC. FOR INTERCHANGE ENTIAL) BE COMMUNITY UNDER THE COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF A A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG (INTERCHANGE - ~.ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT) RESIDENTIAL), NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO T OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER REVIE THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163, BECAUSE... ~NTED DURING AND THE ST~ · LUCIE COU1 · LUCIE CO~ BOARD DUDA & SON iAGRICULTURA AND RL (LI ~E FLORIDA AND EVALUA FLORIDA OF ZONING LOCAL COUNTY THE -PUBLIC ~NDARDS OF ITY ZONING INTY LOCAL IF COUNTY , INC. FOR ) TO X W DENSITY DEPARTMENT TION UNDER STATUTES; AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY JUNE 23, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of A. Duda & Sons, by Agen : Charlotte E. Gillis, to amend the Future Land Use Classificatior Growth Management Policy Plan from AG ( change-Oriented Development) and RL (Lo' Development) for the following described (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DES( (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin Please note that all proceedings be Agency are electronically recorded. I'f appeal any decision made by the Local P1 respect to any matter considered at such will need a record of the proceedings, a: pose, he 'may need to ensure that a verbal ceedings is made, which record includes dence upon which the appeal is to be 'bas any party to the proceeding, individuals hearing will be sworn in. Any party to granted an opportunity to cross-examine during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice all adjacent property owners June 1, 1988 published in the N~ws Tribune, a newspape in St. Lucie County, 6n June 2, 1988 and FI~ of the St. Lucie County gricultural Density Re proper t y: RIPTION) lvd. interc] fore the Loc~ ~ person ~nning Agen~ meet lng or ]d that, for im .record ~he testimon ~d. Upon t~ testifying he proceedi ny individ u~ of the same Legal not of genera/ ~une 15, 198 ~E NO. PA-88 to X (Inter- idential ange) 1 Planning ides to y with hearing, he such pur- l the pro- f and evi- request of uring a lg will be L1 testifying was sent to ice was circulation 8. -009 Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one- half of Section 9; the south one-half of the s excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route and the north one-half of the southwest one-qu Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half o Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the ri 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter west right of way line-of Interstate Route 95, East, St. Lucie County', Florida.~ Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-hz the west right-of-way.line of Interstate Route less the.south one-half of thesout-h one-half way line of Interstate Route g5;-'~thenortheast half of the southeast one-quart~,:'of]Section 1( East, St. Lucie County, Florida. half of Sectiqn 8; the west one- outh one-half,of Section 15 95; the nortUwest one-quarter arter of Sectilon 16; the f the southea~ ght-of-way of ~f section 23 Township 37 f of Section 95_; that porti t one-quarter of Interstate Route lying west of the" )uth, Range 39 10 lying west of on of Section 15 ying west of the west right-of- one-quarter an the north one- Township 37 South, Range 39 SU : :GREEN [.H : BLUE X = PURPLE RL = YELLOW (PSL) ~--'~'"~'~? = PE TI TI ONE ;::.':::::: = P E T I T I 0 N E I Oq / O8 / 09 16 / 17 / 22 / PETITION OF A. DUDA & S( BY AGE_NT: CHARLOTTE E. G] FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CL FROM AG TO RL AND FROM AG TO X AREA: AG TO RL AREA: AG TO X / 10 / 15 / 23 - 37 39 NS LLIS ~SSIFICATIO~ N .At~-I ~ AG' = GREEN IH = BLUE U = PURPLE = ORAIIGE IX ': .BROWN t~S-q : YELLOW (PbL) H I : BR OWN SU = BROWN~ (p (PSL) SL) A: AG TO RL ~: AG TO X 04 / 08 / O! / tO / 15 / 16 I 17 I 22 23 37 N PETITION OF A. DUDA & BY .AGENT: CHARLOTTE E. FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE FROM AG TO RL AND ONS ILLIO CLASS!FiCATIO FROM AG TO X PUBLIC HEARING: FILE NO. PA-88-009: Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Agent: Charlott to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St County Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricu] (Interchange Development) and RL (Low Density Resider velopment) for property located on the west side of ! Port St. Lucie, at the Gatlin Boulevard interchange ~ Mr. Todd Deming presented the petition. He said the~ working with County Staff for two years planning out priate project. They feel the AG portion of the pro~ inappropriately designated. The request for land ch~ based on land use activity in the area. Mr. Deming ¢ drawing as an exhibit to show what is being requested of access, there is one interchange and one proposed The County has expressed interest in extending Gatli~ through A. Duda & Sons, Inc. property, to which there objection on the part of the petitioner. Because the area is becoming developed, the petitioner feels AG J appropriate. Approximately 4300 acres out of 10,000 requested for land use to RL and X. The petitioner ~ more appropriate land use transition between high in~ terchange commercial uses and agricultural uses. A zoning request is not planned at this time. Mrs. Fawsett said she met the property manager, Mr. Black, on the County tour of the property. She ques the sod farm is located. Mr. Black and Mr. Deming s~ located south, and off Gatlin Blvd. The citrus is cE three areas. Mr. Black indicated on the drawing whe~ is located. Mr. Sciturro questioned if a certain area is already Interchange. Mr. Deming said the existing land use ~ desig~nate that area as Interchange; however, the req~ a change in configuration of that Interchange area, square shaped rather than diamond shaped. Mr. Demin on the drawing where the RL land use is being reques Regarding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy said Staff will work closely with the petitioner in the formulation ¢ for this project. At this point in time, Staff recon val of the petition and recommended transmittal to t~ further review. After considering the testimony presented during the ing, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of in Section 5.3.300, St. Lucie County Zoning Ordinanc made a motion that the St. Lucie County Local Planni~ recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. for a change in land use fron cultural) to X (Interchange-Oriented Development) an~ Density Residential Development) be approved and tra~ the Department of Community Affairs for further revi~ uation under the requirements of Chapter 163, Florid~ Mr. Skidmore seconded the motion, and upon roll call voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioner's agent t tion will be forwarded to the Board of County Commis a recommendation of approval. E. Gillis, . Lucie rural) fo X rial De- -95, west of rea. had been an appro- erty ~s ~nge to RL is ffered a In terms interchange. Boulevard is no surrounding s no longer acres is eels RL is a ens fry in- hange in harlie ioned where id it is ntered in e the citrus designated ~lan does .est involves ~aking it ~ indicated ed. continue to ~f the plans ~ends appro- .e DCA for public hear- eview as set · M_rs. King g Agency the petition AG ( A~ri- RL ( Low smit ted to w and eval- Statutes. the Board at the peti- tioners with Duda. prolect near PSL Susan Burgess News Tribune Writer The first steps are being taken toward a new south county residential and commercial development nearly the size of St. Lucie West. A. Duda& Sons Inc., owner of about 10 square miles of agricultural land just west of Port St. Lueie, between Interstate 95 and Range Line Road, is asking sT ,,,u lane use designa.~ tions on 4,300 acres to. low- density residential and a com- mercial mix category dea/gnated as "interchange.,, The company, with head. quarters in 0viedo, Fla., is star- 'ting the long-range planning pro. cess for conversio~ of a sod farm and citrus groves to residential Project nors say. That means it will have to undergo a lengthy, expe~ve and extensive review process that involves local, regional and state government agencies. d__T.he D.u_da co..mmunity win be es~gnea lop residents ~ the mid- dle to high-middle income and - commercial land uses, acl- cording to Mac Hamilton, ex~- ecutive director of the Growtl~; OpPortunity Team. ~. Hamilton met Thursday With d representative of a real estate company who is Working with Duda. valuable in five years," H~,,,_ . ,, ~,,,,~on said They' ' alw. ays been Ions .... £' · ~ ve~ Th~s will event~;l;Z~ee. Paia~.meer~;~ . ~.se projeet,,nearty as large as .~f ucie West ,-,~ ....... ~- , ~,~cn Is seven Square miles. So this makes Duda's pro~ jecta major development in our county.,, The project will have to be ~ development of regiOnaI impact because of its size, county plan~ Turn to Project' on page Al0 be part'of the city, too, Hamilton sa/d. "Port St. Lucie America. We are ~, is:i:middle strong.middle.income b~ding a group and 'that Will help our service- oriented economy,,,. Hamilton classification, Hamilton S~id. said. Duda.'s maps show plans for Duda officials c0uldn~t b general commercial property reached for ela~ ..... ~ ~ .. e ' o,,aa~z0n on tlleir plans, but a county official said around the 1-95 intercl~a~ at- the el~ange in land use would 'ust Gatlin Bo~vard, .general ~ffice Property to the west. of the allow the company ,k ~' J ? ared to act more. general com~mercial land,' and for de~,~] .... :. :~.~:,,~ marlce~ rea/dent/al property surrounding .... p-~en~ m ~l~ere. those two classifications. : The project should do qttite Maps also show 100 acres next well, said Commisa/oner D~le to large mall. But who is a partner in a firm. They already have change with,, 1-95 there an inter- Boulevard, Trefelner at Gatlin said. "I can pretty well predict that within some Period of t/me Port St. Lucie will expand out to Since the land is now u~d for Range Line Road. I think this productive ,agriculture it has a . helps to show that some da S t'educes i~ property taxes, the eommua/ty. ,, said. Trefelner noted that in recent inthe yea~ large re~dentiaI eom. mumttes seem to he the thing t° Prehena/ve/and'plan won,t affect develop in this that exemption unless,: the the-recent ones of ~gricultural production is i/a/ted., and S~i Lueie ' ,said he believes: the theast of · the nor- . and West Capron Trail in "I tion 'of the sec- ~e downtown ~here ill is St. already has mg because of the number of been l~ i~to the city of people moving, to this. area.',- Port St. et' While the' DUda now in the. unin: -Twrees~e~we~:~id.l' I think St, Lu~le of/he county,, it · ' " p aris 18,000'.d . - · it will 'one day mg .u~.its) will be devoirs2., well rapidly than ...... : ~¥=u more ·,,,~uae reanzed~ ,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS November Mr. Todd Deming, AIA Reynolds, Smith & Hills P~O. Box 4850 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Subject: Department of Community Affairs - Package - A. Duda & Sons Dear Mr. Deming: As you requested, enclosed please fin~ comments we recently received in regard to & Sons, proposed amendments to the St. Management Policy Plan. If you have any that I can help you with, please let me kno DJM/la DUDAl(B25) cc: County Attorney PA-88-009 P1 anning Adl HAVIERT L. FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPIER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-, Director: (407) 468-1.590 · Building: (407) 468-1550 · Plann Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enforcement: ('407) 4 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1, 1988 Plan Amendn a copy of your clien- Luc±e Cou] ~uestions a W. linist~ttr ~tEFIELNER. District No. 4 ~652 rig: (407) 468-157, 68-~571 ~ERRY L. VIRTA ent Review the review :s, A. Duda Lty GrOWth bout them, JIM MIND( DJstria No. 5 2740 STATE OF FLOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMU C E N ~,' E R V i E W D R I V E T A L L A H A BOB MARTINEZ Octob Governor Mr. Jack Krieger The Chairman, Board of County Commission~ St.. Lucie County - 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to sections 163.3184 and 1 Statutes, the Department of Community Af proposed amendments to the St. Lucie Cou The review indicated that the propo 88-008, 88-006, 88-009, 88-014, 88-001, 88-004, 88-011 and 88-013 are generally requirements of section 163.3177, Florid effect prior to October 1985. Please note the comments of the Tre Planning Council and the Florida Depart~ concerning amendments 88'-007, 88-008, 88 88-013. Amendment 88-010 is inconsistent wi Growth Management Policies 14, 15 and 22 land should be zoned for commercial use adequate public services, e.g. fire pro~ roads etc., available .... " Policy 15 encourage only the types, amounts, and ment that are consistent with road capa indicate a lack of sufficient roadway cf land use. Policy 24 states t~at "neighborhoo~ from adverse influences of blighting an, heavy traffic volumes and incompatible EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPME[~ DA t' ITY AFF SEE, F L O r 11, 1988 ~.rs 53.3187, Ftc flairs has re 3ty Compreh~ sed amendmer 88-002, 88-£ ~iRS IDA 32399 THOMAS G. PELHAM rida viewed the nsive Plan. .ts 88-007, 12, 88-003 consistent ~,ith the a Statutes, which were in asure Coast ent of Tran~ -006, 88-00~ th St. Luci~ Policy 1 "only when~ :ection, wat ~tates that .ntensiti~s :ities .... ~pacity for s...should unsafe fac on-resident · RESOURCE PLANb Regional ~portation , 88-014 and County states that here are ~r and sewer, "the County will Df land develop- '' Staff comments the proposed be protected tots such as ial uses." lNG AND MANAGEMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF 2 7 4 0 C E N ", E R V I E W' D R i V E BOB MARTINEZ covern(~- OF FLORIDA COMMUNITY AFFAIRS T A L L A H A Octob Mr. Jack Krieger The Chairman, Board of County Commission St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to sections 163.3i84 and 1~ Statutes, the Department of Community Aff proposed amendments to the St. Lucie Coum The review indicated that the propos 88-008, 88-006, 88-009, 88-014, 88-001, 8 88-004, 88-011 and 88-013 are generally c requirements of section 163.3177, Florida effect prior to October 1985. Please note the comments of the Trea Planning Council and the Florida Departme concerning amendments 88-007 88-008 88- 88-013. ' · Amendment 88-010 is inconsistent wit] Growth Management Policies 14, 15 and 23. land should be zoned for commercial use adequate public services, e.g. fire prote( roads etc., available... - Policy 15 st~ encourage only the types, amounts, and in~ ment that are consistent with road capaci~ indicate a lack of sufficient roadway cap~ land use. Policy 24 states th'at "neighborhoods. from adverse influences of blighting and u heavy traffic volumes and incompatible non EMERC;ENCY MANAC;EMENT., HOU$INC; AN D COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT · SEE, F L O r 11, 1988 .~rs 3.3187, Flo airs has re~ ty Comprehel ed amendmen~ 8-002, 88-0] onsistent wJ Statutes, % lure Coast ~t of TransF )06, 88-009 St. Lucie Policy 14 nly when th :tion, water Ltes that "t ~ensiti~s of ~ies... " .city for th, -.should be nsafe facto -residentia ESOURCE PLANNING IDA 32399 THOMAS C;. PELHAM Secretary ~ida riewed the Lsive Plan. ~s 88-007, 2, 88-003 th the 'hich were in egional ortation 88-014 and County states tha~ ~re are and sewer, ~e County will land develop- ~taff comments proposed protected ~s such as uses." ND MANAGEMENT Mr. Jack Krieger October 11, 1988 Page Two Staff commenYs point to the "d · redesiqnation ...... ~ . etrlmental , ~_~_ r ~u nave on t~- - - · · effect ths ~n~ th~ Intrusion of co~r~t~ng and future cmosed for your use d,~ ~± ±an~ uses. Age U ..... ~ nne amendment proce pon completion of the adoption protl ss, the De- requests a co~y of the amended plan and dop~ion pursuant to S~ction 163.3187(3), Florida~tatutes. For further information (904) 487-4545. · please contact Mr Joh t the residential ncy conuT~ents ss. )artment lnance Healey at PRB: j hr Enclosures cc: Divisi¢ and ~ Treasure Coast Regional Planning Court n anagement ;il ~e Plannil Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2740 Centerview Drive The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: St. Lucie County Local Governm, Documents Dear Mr. Hook: 3228 s.w. morttn clowns blvd. suite 205 - P.O. box ~529 Pursuant to the requirements f he Local ComPrehensive Planning and Land 2~vel p~ ment ~egu Chapter 163, Florida Statutes~ the T easure Coai Planning Council reviewed the amendments!to the Futu Element of St. Lucie County Comprehensi e Plan at meeting on SePtember 16, 1988. Pleas excuse ti getting the comments to you. ~he ~ollowing comments were approved b~(oun : no the State Denartme~+ -~ ~ .. Y cll for Sections 163~3-t-~-~.-(1~.~ ~=uo.m~_~nlty Affairs (DCA) consideration by ~he'6o~nt~u . (2)f Flori,~a Statute~ Y prior to adopt.ion of the d EvalDation The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Elemen. reviewed in accordance with the requirem~ents, of Ch Florida Statutes, Council,s review proc(~dures, and adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a. copy of ti agenda item as presented to Council. Coancil,s act~ adopt the comments and approve their transmittal However, the following additional comments lre also to 1988our transmittal, meeting: based on Council action at the Sep- Based on additional information P~'esented at Council meeting, there are potential c~nflicts wit Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan rel~tive to pro Plan Amendment PA-88-D13. · .-- Jim mlnJx ~c ;ire Plan Government [ation Act, ~t Regional re Land Use its regular e delay in transmittal pursuant to and for ocuments. : have been apter 163, Council,s e complete on was to to DCA. be part of 5ember 16, the the posed Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning September i6, 1988 Page Two Enclosed is a copy of the transcript of the comm~ relative to this item. The petitioner ( and owner) providedfor a response, with a copy of the comments fr~m the meet~ If you need additional information or haSe any quest do ~ot hesitate to call. Iy, / Executive~ir~ctor DMC:lb/ Enclosures nts received will also be ng and asked ions, please TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PI2kNNING COUN( ~IL M E M O R A N [ U M To: Council Members From: Staff Date- September 16, 1988 Council Mi Subject: Local Government Comprehensi~ Thirteen Amendments to the St Future Land Use Element Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Loca Planning and Land Development Regul~ Florida Statutes, the Council must be p review and comment on comprehensive ~lan amendmE their adoption. St. Lucie County ~as submitt amendments to the State Department of Community Aff~ turn is seeking Council,s comments. Council,s review of the information fo of Community Affairs is in the context o proposed amendments to the regional pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida S' with adopted plans or policies is i, planning agency is to specify any o] ~ecommendations for modifications. informal comments to the local governmE cooperation, and technical assistance om proposed amendments. These advisory providing coordination between the comprehensive plans. St. Lucie County is considering 13 ame~ Land Use Element. The locations of consideration are shown on the accompany~ of acres and proposed changes in land sunumarized on the following table: eting Plan Revie Lucie Coun Government tion Act, rovided an c warded by the relati, policy pl~ ~a ~ tutes. ~entified, )j ections a] Council al ;nt through matters re[ comments local an dments to t the prope~ ng map, and use desig~ SEND^ ITel 5D Comprehensive Chapter 163, pPortunity to ~ts prior to d proposed irs, which in ~e Depar~ment )nship of the ~n developed [ a conflict ~he regional ~d may make so provides a spirit of .ated to the e aimed at ~ regional heir Future 'ties under the number ~ations are 0 (CC) (~ C) ! I ! U 0 C k ~E 0 C 0 0 CD 0 (iD I I I CC CC ~ CC o~ o C In order to assist t'~ Council in definitions from the St. Lucie Cou included: LAND USE CATEGORY DEFIN ST. LUCEE COUNTY COMPRI AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas citrus, vegetables and o4 forestry, cattle and stock rai direct agricultural uses. Dwe one per acre and la developments. SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refer development (less than one generally housing, that does character of the area. RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPME that allows for residential d an overall density of up to fi% Evaluation ~eir review ]ty Comprehe ~IONS FROM ~PiENSIVE PLA~ used for th, :her produc sing, dairy lling units rge-scale, to very lo dwelling un ~ot prevail IT: A devel¢ ~velopment 'e dwelling the fcllowing nsive Plan are ~E ~ production of e, nurseries, farms and other ~t a density of self-contained density urban it per acre), over the r~rat ,pment category rojects having .nits per acre. The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accor requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, co procedures, and Council,s adopted RegionaI Compre] ~g~gw The following comments are offered as a %esult of that Many of the parcels under consideration a , with native pine ..... ~ r · ~anwoo~s 'e~etation properties have the potential fo - ' dance with the Lncil's review ~ensive Policy Reserve rge area density at the ~ulevard ~ to be ;hopping greater higher 'opriate proposed for commercial land use, are propose use~ for a resort hotel (40.5 ac'es a center (30.3 acres). ) nd a The proposed land use changes would result in a intensi~y of development, therefor ener traffic volumes All ~ ...... t g atlng ~ - uid±i1c impacts and appI ectly to Th~ I). The 1~ ! for low [ler parcels ima Vista B -008. and ~ r containin~ ~ndangered. ite plans ed species as possible listed as rare, threatened, or encourages the development of sensitive to the needs of any list preserve as much native vegetation Items 1 2 and 3 ~PA-88-007 PA These three parcels are related di~ Development of Regional Impact (DI (1,400 acres) is being propose~ residential development. The sma future interchange of 1-95 and covered These species Council hat are nd which miLigative measures to maintain L ~vel of Se-~vice C/D on the regional roadway network wi .1 be addre sed under the DRI review process. Since these parcels are part of land use changes Would need to b DRI approvals, when they are rend Based on the information pfc amendment does not appear to inconsistent with the policies Regional Comprehensive Policy complete analysis of consistency the completion of the DRI proce report and recommendations may hay proposed land use changes. Since complete, a Complete assessment of premature. It is recommended the use be considered until Council assessment report. Because this may address proposed land use ch with its review of the project. Item 4 fPA 88-0094 This amendment involves a (apProximately 4,300 acres) of south of the 1-95 interchange at Ga~ west of the City of Port St. Lucie County staff, it involves a land of approximately 3,000 acres to residential), and the addition and apProximately 1,300 acres of "Int~ The Interchange category provides require a high degree of access access highways. the DRI, th ~ consistent ired. ~' zided, the be in con contained Plan. Ho~ is impossit ss. The a: some beari: )RI review i: consistency t no change has complE .s a DRI, th anges simul~ ,ery large ~nd lying w :lin Bouleva: - According se reclassi RL ( 1 ow reconfigurs rchange,, la: 'or land use: bility to The petitioner/owner, who actually holds a tc i0,000 acres at the site, has indi(:ated that more appropriate land use. ' , . . a~ea. The actual . given activity,, citrus groves and ~Sseo~a~rm~ prope~y at presen~ consistentThe redesignation of this tracta~a proposed with the Regional Comprehensive Policy, nor does it appear to be co msistent wit planning practice. The proposed ch nge should t to upgrad approved for the following reasons: 1. The ability of local governme perceived development potenti~ therefore, its market value by g ~ land use designation gives loc~ power to min~ a form of cu~ 1 of land :anting chan, ~l governme~ ency. No proposed with the proposed 'lict or in the ~ever, a ,le until ;sessment ~g on the ; not yet would be in land ~ted its e County aneously tract est and ~, just to the !ication density tion of ~d use. which .imited tel of L is a n this is as s not arming n good lot be e the and, res in the local government shoed give away assurance that in ~eturn the will also benefit. To do so The owner of thi~ property land use be ~hanged from Ac .{4,300 acres) ko Low Densii acres) and Interchange Orien .acres). Nothing is heine of~ in return for TILis land~ use intelligent, w~l 1--conceived To grant the requested substantially market va/ development Potential of requiring that in return for that curren citizens o would not b a~ re~este¢ r~cultural 2Y Residenti ted Commerc ~ered to the change· not ~lan for de~ lange would ue and the land· that added development potential, the landowner do for the c/~iz~ns of t~e area--n: demonstration that developmen, could inte occur at the r~u/uested density without impact. Until such time a~ government has suffic to assure the public that th~ change is interest and that neg~ ~ive fie( environmental i~p~gts will n. t occur, th should no~ be ~e. Granting the prc~Dsed change ~e P~%~ng of an /mporta~% f ln:e±~igerrt, comprehensj ~; because, as men.~- --~ government,s n:_~_~:ti°ned co ...... - ~=~==mng pow~ ~pmum!se~ prior to a plan b 2) because the ch~a~ge would en of what now is a very large tract .of i single ownership (20,000 acre~ ). Many ~ techniques wh/~h can assur~ intel!ige~ positive growth are difficult to implemen- multiple ownership occurs. By way of illustration· a compmahensive eva of this property might conclud ecological or agricultural impo:e that due that development should ideally a two-mile tad/us of the int~ entire 10,000 a~res is single o% ~overnment is in a position to in the form of a mixed use, com' provides futur~ residents a pla live, work, and shop without having to c excessively long distances, in return f '~egreement that remaining portion,s of the pr are dedicated to ecological P]~eserve area :Y ~ithout the area prudent. ~ that the >roductive al (3,000 al (1,300 community even an elopment. enhance perceived without ;alue and anything )t even [ligently negative ent data in their ~1 and a change ;ould interf.~re with uture growth area in .ye, and '~ositive :ur for two i~easons: above, the local r would ha~e been ming developed; and courage thetbreakup [and in lanning ~t and where uation to th e --tance of the land· occur only I within :rchange.~f the ~ership · th~ local pprove development act community that ce where th=_y can ommute ~r Dperty s, as agricultural areas, or some Essentially all future d combinatic ~opment righ. transferred into eve the 2one that appropriate for development, and development potential Would be added tc to the extent necessary to make t~e ded remaining land acceptable tc the community created func somewhat independent place happy because the market been enhanced considerably; because land !s set aside agricultural pUrposes, and results is well planned; an the n~w community are well ~a P nned potentially wont Such opportunities may be enhanced on one portion of considering the future of Instead, the enhanced port could be sold-and any opportl development rights from one is less likely if not imposs~ Approval of the proposed cha effect the value and developm, that should be encouraged red-ycleped prior to open development. By way of examp] area that has tremendo~ redevelopment, but which s not iii redevelop if Uses we would ike to see Pierce are made excessively a])undant else~ less expensive land. Likewise , Port St. L~ very large amounts of ~nde';eloped la~ should be encouraged to devel¢~, thereby the cost of services. InfJll will nc rapidly if new areas are ¢:ontinually development potential. Sta~e and Regional Comprehensi~;e Plans dis Urban sprawl and encourage the infill of e connmuni~ies. For reasons sta~ed above g of the proposed change will' discourage Approval of development potential in this a~ this time, would and sprawl, encourage leapfrog deve Responsible growth management r~quires tha governments understand fully the cos~ providing infrastructure and services t development and demonstrate an ~bility to d services concurrent with need, prior to n of both. ~s Would be was most additional that zone ication of ~ the owner ~nd to make tion as a' ]~ixed use, - The la~downer is alu, of his land has the citizens are happy for ecol 'icai ~ the commu future residents because th have a ~erful place to live. lost if lan~ use is ~the propert~ withou~ the entire ~roperty. [on -~ of~ the (proper~y lnity for tr~sf&r o~ )roperty to the other 9le to negotiate. ~ge would negatively. ~nt potential of land ~o ~e deve~ped~ lng new areas to or e, Fort Piemce is an s potenti~ll for :ely to · n Fort ~ere on ~cie has ~ which :educing : occur granted courage ~isting ~anting [nfili. rea, at .opment local .s of new ~liver taking action to encourage development approvals th~ date in Port St. Lucie is clear that substantial necessary to expand the exi: Just to support approved dev~ additional east/west roadway needed and many existing rc substantially expanded. To ~wt~.prior to determining ~zec~lve method of Paying would not be prudent and increase per capita costs b needing to be served. Generally, large blocks of si acres of residential) should mixed use encouraged. Pla people opportunities to live reasonable proximity allevi~ costly road systems and pre efficient delivery of infr~ blocks of low density, pure require people t~ get in thei: essentially every need. Se~ today blamed for the traffic like Los Angeles and Dade Cour follow the methods of der, created the kinds of problems areas would be to ignore his~o future of this Region. The need for more than 600 Interchange Commercial at th: unclear and needs to be considE comprehensive effect and surrounding areas prior to appm both the City of Port St. Luci, such study has been proposed. The redesignation of land use this time (for reasons unnecessary. Although not r review package submitted, t. already been granted 600 acr oriented potential and the exi Productive category allows for ccnLained development. The onl obtain such use would be approvi development plan. Since reasons al!oca~ed, it is not clear why agree to upgrade substantially potential in the absence of apl deve.opment. Based on ave to be granted to St. Lucie County, it expenditures will be ~ting roadwaF system. lopment it appears an or expresswa ads will ne encourage ~ ~n efficient for existi would po expanding y will be ed to be ~ven more and cost ng needs zentially the area ~gle use (i be discour uning that . work, and ~tes the vides for astructure. iy residenti r cars and ~aration of problems ~ty. To con: ~lopment th that exis= ry and glue ~cres (exis~ .s one loca: red in terms -~-, 3,000 aged and provides shop in eed for :he more Large .al land ~ive for uses is ~ places :inue to it have .n these ~way the lng) of :ion is of its relationsh .p to oval. According to and the county, no ~s inappropriate at oted above and epresented ~is propert ~s of inte] sting Agricx .arge- scale, · thing requ~ i of an acc~ ble use is a the County land devel ~n the Y has :change [ltural self- red to ptabte lready should opment The owner of this prope~ alerted that a DRI review receive development auprov Since the OWner has indica~ noL to be developed at thi~ land use designation Would at the time of DRI review. 8. Approval of the project effect that would encoura¢ entitlement increases prio] answered regarding the best Undeveloped portion of the C~ 9. The proposed change could ne County (see attached co~ment~ If the State of Florida and this their goals, we must insist on be taken Place to date statewide. done for this property, and no therefore warranted at ~his time. Item 5 (PA 88 01~ This large tract (3,000 acres) is Cut-off Road (C.R 709) wes (C.R. 609) The c ~- t · Urrent land use assigned to the land are agricultl[ uses are agricultural, with one roe The redesignation of this tract t use category is not consistent Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor dc consisten= with good planning prac change should not be approved reasons: rty has already been ~ould be re~cfuired to al on this~ pro~e~, rd tha~ ~. ~ ~. ' t' u une property is lme, changes to the see~ more ~ppropriate )uld create e other rec ~ to questf future for )unty. ~atively eff~ from Martir legion are t ter planning No planning land use ¢ located alor a domino uests for phs being :he entire ~ct Martin County). achieve than has has been hange is g Glades )f Range Line Road ~nd zoning categories ~e.. ~he actual land m~ning oPeration. ~ a semi-urban land with ~egional the ,es it appea rice. The ] for the The tract lies at an isolated the west of any urban dev services in St. Lucie County; In the absence of any plan of d be assumed that the propose constitute the type of scatter~ low intensi=y single use dev~ proved to be a great burden o~ in the Region and the State · both Regional and State Plans~nc Generally, large blocks of sing] e use (i.e. acres of residential) should ke discouraq mixed use encouraged. Plann~.ng that pr people opportunities to live, Work, and location, elopment or evelopment, land use ~d, "leapfro( ~lopment whi ~ther corem is discour; r to be )reposed ~llowing ~ell to urban it must Would ~," and ch has lnities ~ged by 3,000 ~d and ovides ~ep in reasonable proximity alleviates~i, the need for costly road systems .nd roy' efficient del? ...... ~i ~ ides for the m blocks of. ] ..... ~ .- ~ -n..rastructure La require peonle ~ .... ~' Pu..ely ~eslde~tlal essentiall,.=ev_hO ~en ~n th,!ir cars andl drive today btamea ~ ..... ' paratlon o~ u~= like Los An u~..c problems in follow thege~:~h~ D~o qc,un~y. To ~ u~Velopment ;hat created the kinds of proble~ areas would be to ignore his' future of this Region. No assessment has been dc methods of providing transpo] supply, park, drainage, facilities to this part of ~ presently no services in th~ fire/emergency medical serv~ miles away; Responsible growth management governments Understand ful s that exis' :ory and giv in the away ue of the costs ration, sewage, school, or ~e Coun=y. Phere are ~ area.- Th, nearest .ces facili~ is 14~ requires local ly the c,)sts of service to new providing infrastructure ard development and demonstrate services concurrent with ne. action to encourage devel¢ development approvals that ha date in Port St. Lucie and St. clear that substantial exp necessary to expand the exis- Just to support approved dew an additional east/west roadw~ be needed and many existing r~ deliver taking on ~nted to ~, it is 'ill be system. appears zay will substantially expanded. To growth prior to determining an effective method of paying would not be PrUdent and ~ould increase per capita costs by needing to be served. an ability ~d prior pment. ve to be gr~ Lucie Court1 enditures lng roadway lopment, it z or express~ ads will ne~d to be ~ncourage even more efficient and cost existin¢, needs subst~ ntially expanding t ~e area The area is presently relativel can be reached only via Glades the north, and with a connectio] Road provided by Range Line R Ail roads are two-laned. provided to address the serious deficiencies which already exi: St. Lucie Coun=y; and F inaccessib Cut-off Ro~ ~ to Glades oad to the No assessm~ east/west c~ t in this a ;elf in the use communi- the size ~ange promot~ While this property may lend it to the development of a mixed- literally to a new town given tract.), the proposed land use c~ Le. It .d from -hat-off south. nt is pacity ~ea of future :Y (or f the :s the 9 development of the tract at cal! for a very inefficient se~vices (less than one dw~ The t}~e of single use s~ o~er is counter to pri~ ~ianned development. A mixE is essential, Pa~.~ticularl~ location. a density and costly ~n9 unit rawl propos, ]ciples d ~ariety in such hich wouild elivery of manner and in avoiding the pitfal ~nptanned growth are clear. Each da~ land use remote The redesi~nation of land use ' · this tim~ /fo- -- ~s ~nappr¢ ~ ~ ~asons no Unnecessary Th ..... ted a~ -~' ~ eXls~ln Ac~ · category alt ...... g %rlculturai I con '-= =~uy allows fo talned develo~.+ -. ~ large,sca] obtain such use ~-~_~ne qnly thing re ~ ~e approval of an a development plan. Since reasonable~ use i ~ed, ~I is not clear .w y the Co~ potential i +~_ _~ ~ %ly land agree to Upgrade substantia n ~ absence of aplan The owner of this~ promert:~ has alre~ ~elve ~eve]~ ..... ~¢uld be re~ ~r~ed ~hat a DRI revi~ Since the o~-~*~=~'u. approval on this -~ nas indicated that the prg not to be developed at this ~ime, change: land use designation would seem more appropriate at the time of DRI review. 6. Theu proposed~see attachedchange coUldcommentsnegatively affec~ Martin Th- Co_nty from Martin County). ~n~ r~vlew materials indicate that the develop~r/owner ln~en~s to develop this property at a density of one number of potential uni~- .. ice of the tract~nd t~= dwelling unit per acre. The s' a DRI. Given that ~ ~%~1 {~~ consideration - ~ w~ De required, the a~propriate time for the cons' . · yj h approvals, f? rat on conc ~Pre-suDmlssion) , the o- ~e .preparation of ~evelop a pro ~eCt ,..~:-= wn~r will be es (llvln~ w~-,_= . ns thevarletv e~vlronments) whic~ .... ~= nopplng, and recre~ or a true com~,,,~ --~u contribute to th~ provide fo- -ii .... >3- 'l~e advanta~e~ o~ =~. ~ ~ervlces and .... =-~ ~ being zaclii~ies in an efJ is experien{ ' local gover e the unpaid ly. in the Treasure Coast Region must fac of sprawl which has occurred previous The approval of the land Use changes and the previous <#4) amendme~ announcement by the local governm, partial responsibility to provi infrastructure in this area. The c, priate at ,ore and 'roductiye e, quired cceptable s alreadyl ~dy been uired to ,roperty. perry is to the proposed represen ~nt of at de the )sts of pro% !0 this an least ~eeded 'iding rrently the DRI ~ed to mix of ~tiona! -vement ble to ~icient :ed by nments costs that infrastructure in an area w removed from existing urban faci characterized by sprawling, lot e×tre~ety high. Fina!2y, Council recognizes that ~he proposed category appears to allow litt2.e or no diversi~y in land use types and densitie existing land use category should be retaine, it allows for large-scale, self-contained deve while the proposed use appears to be more lim could result in single use sprawle~ ~evelopmen Mar~in County staff has expressed concerns re the impact of this and the previous land use that County,s plan policies and activities development as ~roposed would be . · in conflict Martin County Land Use Plan (see a~tached lettl Based on the information prov2[ded, the amendment appears to be in conflict and incc with the policies contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Item 6 (PA 88-001k This' amendment is for a 22 ~cIe arcel lmme~iately west of U S - - -~ ~ P ~nd tw · ~- . 1, betwe~ ~ o mobile home na~ - · a ~hoppln ~ne petitioner inten~f 2?-' c~n~ staff stat ~o develop a Pla~e~° ~?~so~ld~e parcels ~ m~n-resi~ · (PNRD). The proposed =~- ..... ~:~ntlal Dev~ necessa~, t- --f ~ .~uu~rla~ Light (IL) in the ~v-~ =uc~mmo~a=e wholesaleac~iv~ 3 . exopmen~. Publ' __ .ltles site, but nubile -- _ lc ~ater 1~ available ~ ~ o=wage trear_ment ~acilities a The County will want to evaluate the associated with this parcel prior to any deve approvals. Also, the County may wan to take a ~ the opportunity, in conjunction wit2 this proj~ provide access between the mobile l~ome parks a shopping plaza. Ail opportunities such as t~ reduce stress on UiS. 1 should be ca ·efully cons~ Based on the information provid ~d, the amendmen= does not appear to be in confli inconsistent with the policies :ontained Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Item 7 PA 88-002_ This amendment involves a ll4-acre petitioner in~ends to develop as a community. The manufactured home property is development parcel whic manufactured adjacent to ar and lies alone ~ich is not only well lities, but is to' be densities will be land use dditional s. The 'because opments, [~ing and ating to :hange on Urban with the proposed nsistent Regional ~f land g plaza es that n order lopment use is planned ~t this ~e not. atlands iopment look at ct, to nd the ~is to dered. oposed rt or the the home other the 11 Florida Turnpike. Given the size of this parcel and its relative isolation, the developer should be encouraged to request some limited commerci~ land use to be Used for neighborhood serv ce type use~ Based on the information pr amendment does not appear to inconsisten~ with the policie Regional Comprehensive Policy Pla Items 8 and 9 (PA 8~_~_r_~and PA S ,vided, the be in .co] contained ~-003~ These parcels (14.5 and 10 0 along St Luc' m~..~ .... - ac.es respecti - le ~u~evara C R · the St. Lucie Co,,-~ ..... ( .. ~ 6 t8) in the vj immediately west o~ ~_ lon~.i All-port. approach/take-off ~_~ ~ _ a~ rport in ~ ~ ~e - Alt (sewer and wate~ ..... hough public they do lie i~ %~e ~l~n~~ ~e~ available in ~ ' ' ~ ~ervic~Area for Fo Utzlztzes. / Commercial and industrial uses ~ill probab prevalent in this corridor. Impr¢~vements to Boulevard have been programmed by ~e County. Based on the information prov amendment does not appear to inconsisten~ with the policies Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan~ Items 10 11 and 12 PA 88-( These three parcels all lie betw Dixie Highway in the northern pot The County has a previously adopt~ this area to contain the effects of men~ primarily to U.S. 1, rather Highway. County staff takes exceptJ citing access problems and feared e Highway. No such concerns are ex~ which lies immediately east of a center, nor Item 11 Where commerc proposed by the Harbor Bra Institution, Inc. All three petitioned properties ar Coastal Ridge. Some of this ridge sand or otherwise disturbed, espec There are no Public facilities (sewe able to any of these sites. All wi on-site facilities. [ded, the be in con contained 94 PA 88-~. ~en U.S. 1 :ion of the ~d policy r~ commercial than on O1~ on to petitj ffects to O] ressed for proposed s ial developn ~ch Oceano~ proposed flict or in the 12 ,ely) lie cinity of Both lie a main services lis area, ~t Pierce ~ become it. Lucie proposed lict or in the 11. and and Old County. ~garding [evelop- ~ Dixie on 12, ~ Dixie Item 10 ~opping ent is ~raphic a on the A':lantic sas been mi~ed for [ally on It~m 11. r or water) avail- [1 have to utilize The property associated with mature sand pine scrub habitat. by q~alified personnel for the mint, a federally endangered pla~ population is known to exist on near the subject parcel. Because tau is becoming extremely rare · encourages the preservation of as possible. These comments also 11 if scrub habitat exists. Prior to development a traffic prepared for each site and sub] Engineer and Florida Department analysis should address impacts (U.S. 1) in order to define signalization, turning movements, Based on the information proviC expressed above, the proposed amen to be in conflict or inconsiste~ contained in the Regional Comprehel Item 13 (PA 88-013~ This parcel (12.5 acres) is locat~ of the 25th Street/Midway Road rapidly evolving into a major inte~ County. The intersection and programmed for major improvements. of the intersection area now have This amendment would quadrant, make an expans A traffic Study should be submitte~ approval of the County Engineer. address traffic impacts on South 25t Road. Both roads will be heavily i~ West and The Reserve. Mitigative proposed to maintain acceptable le, the applicable roadways and intersec The St. Lucie River (North Fork) 1 the east. There have been fre~ management problems in this area. A Underway on how to manage such pro] Fork drainage area. ~m 12 is co It should presence ~t species iy in a few sand pine n the Regio] much of th apply to It, analysis itted to Transporta~ nearby int~ roblems re] and median ~d and the 9ment does n, t with the ~sive Policy ~d immediate ~tersection ~ section in S both roadw Ail four :ommercial ~ [on to the n, for the re~ The study h Stree~ and pacted by S~ measures sh ,els of se~ ~ions. les immedi a~ ~ent storm study is cuz ~lems in the County staff supports the petition, citing the lo developing a compact core to the co~]ercial area recognizing the environmental constraints and pot, conflicts of c~ntinued c°mmerciali~ation reflecting the ±ong standing commun~ ' P~ .ty oppositi vered with surveyed Lakela-s ose entire locations crub habi- t, Council is habita= ~ms t0 and ~hould be ]e County ion. The rsections ating to uts. concerns )t appear policies Plan. lY north ;hich is t. Lucie ays are aadrants ~d use. )rtheast iew and should Midway - Lucie )uld be 'ice on ely to water 'rently North ~ic of while ~ntial ~rhaps on to 13 commercial development in this al agency voted five to one to deny There are environmental constrain property. However, the exa~ us the way in Which these cons%rain local government consideraticns. Based on the information pro' amendment does not appear to inconsistent with the policies Regional Comprehensive Policy Pia~ Rec~mmendatio~ Council. should~ adopt the comments ou their transmittal to the State Departme~ fulfillment of the requirements of Chap~ Attachments ea, the loca the petitior 5s which ap~ -: for this t ts are cons/ ;ided, the be in co~ contained zlined abov~ ~t of Commun :er 163, Flo~ planning Y to this arcel and dered are proposed fl i ct or in the ~ and approve .ty Affairs in 'ida Statutes. 14 : 0 u 123 13 '12 --- ;,r COUNTY OF MARTIN STATE :IF FLORIDA August 29, 1988 Hr. Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Coordinator Treasure Coast_Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 1529 Palm City, Florida 34990 RE: St. Lucie County Land Use Amendment for PA Dear Terry, 'F. and PA 8( I apologize that we will not be able to ~rtin. County Board of Countv r~__~ agenda.tt subject items · J ~v,,,,,,~oners prior o September l one Interim, I am supplying these comment ~epartment. The Boar _ ~_frOmo~e Communit D Council meeting d may have more specific c ents for ~ure 1. !MPAC~iCiES AND 'CTIVtTI~: a. ~e~j~.~rope~a1 in PA 88-009 is to ch ....... ~--- ~~ ~ ??ge. approximate - ~-~:u ~anas to in~e c · er han e or en , ~RL 1-5 upb). ~hiJ'may t significant impacts on Martin County's plaJls, policies ar activities. The applicant is not proposin, l a specific d~ ~his time and the existing Agricultural zooming (AG) will cultural zonin, If this chang, type deve)opm( ~ntact. This complicates the existing agr- Hartin County in proximity to this parcel. it will set the stage for a potential urba agricultural areas in Martin County. The second proposal which will have an imp~ PA 88-014. This amendment request is to ch acres of Agricultural (AG) to Semi-Urban (SI there are no urban concentrations in this a) rural and agricultural. The application in( change will not provide any increase in dens Semi-Urban and Agricultural land use cate~or a maximum density of one dwelling unit pe~ This property is located between the Eas[ C ct on Martin Cc ~nge approximat )) land uses. 'ea which is co licates that th ~ty, since bot les permit dew cre. asr Railway Li -014 before the ), 1988. In /elopment ~eptember Y 4,300 acres d development ave celopment at -emain in areas of is accepted ~t abuting unty is ely 3,000 Generally, nsidered land use the topment at e and Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, i988 Page Two CR 609 (Range Lin~ ~oad) approximately County line. Land uses to the south in County would remain agricultural. Also. Department of Corrections facility is o~ south of the County line wes~ of CR 609. These changes would be incompatible with Plan and may lead to potential adverse tl environmental degradation to A1]apath Fl~ given to the placement of east-west rout~ thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area, the Major Thoroughfare Plan then developE be concurrent with development of these c. Th~'potential impact of urban developmen interchange at 1-95, the potential wideni developement of major thoroughfares in th coordinated with Martin County at the ti this property. The magnitude: of traffic this land use change, was not envisioned Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year coordination that exists between the two jeopardized. 2. IDENT~y AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT- The current land use designation amendmen. development plans, is not expected to hay social, economic, or environmental impacts an urban type development occur in this ar~ County and surrounding areas will have to I trust that these comments will assist your revi, amendment. Should you need additional information contac~ me. S!ncere~y~ Harry ~. King, Planning Administrator HNK/ER¢/dlw [0t46] cc: Board of County Commissioners Nm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Henry ller, Growth Hanagement Plan, Appointee EuIa R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Deve Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie wo miles north both Hartin am please note ti erating immedi the Mar%in Col 'affic impacts Its. Considera ~s connecting t tf these are mnt of these r~ nd surrounding west of the G; ng of CR 609 ar is area will h~ m~ of developmer which could be in the developm !005 Transporta :ounty's plans without any sl any immediate on Martin Cou~ ~a, the impact ~e closely eva of this land please do noi ~velopment Dep [opment Coordir of the Martin I St. Lucie lat the Florida rely to the nty Land Use and tion should be ~ major proposed on )adways should properties. ~tlin Boulevard d the ve to be t review for produced by ent of the tion Plan and nay be ecific significant ry. Should on Martin uated. hesitate to rtment ator Pat Ferrick: My name is Patricia Fer~ick,! 4802 SI.! 25th Street. St. Lucie county. I am appearing this morning only behalf of ' couple of organizations in th .......... ~ . a before 7 ~--~ ........ ~.a~a ~'~ p±an ame]lament 88-013 ~ ~=gm~ ± woula like to give you some handouts. ' ' Cary: That is Item #9 on the list of i' Mini×: We are going to do 1, 2, and 3 Kenny: You want to do 1, 2, and 3 firs Minix: Pat, we are going to do 1, 2, has a conflict on those 3, so we are those passed so she can then discuss on' interested in discussing PA 88-07, PA 8 the 3 that we are taking up at this comment is there any... Kenny: Mr. Chairman, it is my unders' conflict with the Regional Policies amendment can be crossed simultaneously way it is? I move staff comments on it~ Lucie County Proposed Comprehensive Plan Eggert: Seconds. Minix: Okay, we have a motion and a sec discussion? Marcus: 1, 2, and 3. Kenny: 88-007, 88-008, 88-006. Minix: Any further discussion? Ail signify by saying aye. Oppose no. Moti( Minix: Now Pat, you may come up. Pat Ferrick: Again, for the record my n I reside at 4802 S. 25th Street, Fort Pi~ I am appearing this morning on petition r like to give you those handouts. Cai-y: That's 12.5 acres which is cu residential being proposed for commer( discussed on page 13 of the report. Ferrick: I wan~ to thank you all for morning before you. I have some comme] prepared a packet. The packet that I han~ Minix and Executive Director, Dan Cary, h; 5ems. ~irst. nd 3 first [oing to do the rest of 8-08, PA 88- time. See :anding the: and that · with the DR] ~m 1, 2, and Amendments Dnd, is the in favor o )n carries. ame is Patr: rce in St. umber 88-01 rrently at ial general letting me ~ts on 88-O led to both ~s copies ol )ecause Dagney those and get them. Anyone · 06, those are lng no public :e are not in ;he land use · is that the 3 of the St. any further the motion .cia Ferrick, ~cie County. and I would low density - That is appear this 13. I have Commissioner information that was provided to DCA and it had be requested the information be transmi~ looking at the package you received I little information and the maps are so getting a true picture of the problems states, "Dear Treasure Coast Regional pi inconsistencies and adverse impacts upon were identified and documented in pack~ Lucie County Commissioners, and the Affairs.,, And I hope they had been Planning Staff and Council, but I don' Therefore, I am going to, can you hear I leave the podium. The particular property in question is Once you come in for a commercial lan, feet, you will look on your maps that back to approximately this point. At St. Lucie County to do this, the regula~ say that they must have had a conceptual they came in this property showed that plant on a conceptual, I have a copy of ~ would like to see it. Back here in this which is adjacent to the river you are is part of the overaill package and you part of your decision, even though it admissible. This property, here has wetl~ intend to put multifamily quadplexes, tr~ ~n my under~tanding I had ~ted to this board, but notice that mall that y, that we hay anning Coun( adjacent.p] ~ts sent to Department sent on to believeth e? I guess ~his propert use a~end! [ have provj he time th~ ions of St. sent to the on-site sew~ ~he conceptu~ portion and you had very )u are all not e. My letter :il, potential ~operty owners the LPA, St. of Community tk, e Regional ey have been. you can't if f right here. ent from 900 .ded you with y came in to Lucie County board. When ~ge treatment ~1 if you all this portion ~ot seeing today, but it come to the irreverent is not! su~,posed to be ~nds on lit in here, they [plexes, and duPlexes in this particular section. They intend an ingress and egress, this multifamily complex off of Midway Road, ~ two-lane the aquatic preserve. There are no shou].ders hardly down here to allow egress and ingress of this propel brought along a picture to show you, if ]'ou Will pas The pictures will indicate the areas in question a~ indicate on the bottom serious flooding ~hat has occ~ particular area--1985. My property adjo~[ns this paz this property colored on this map here in green. I o' 125 feet of these parcels of property. ~our staff St. Lucie County staff comments say that this will urban core in this particular vicinity. At the there are already 60 acres zoned in a commercial c area. Ail of these colored in red o]~ the map commercial general. They're only appl-oximately utilized of this commercialism in this interslecti present time. I read with interest the comments ti ye.ur staff report, particularly the on~ s t planners s v ~ .~_~ ~ . hat sai~ ~ ...... a=~ ~ w~n ±oca± governmen~ s i re ~u~u~ oi ±an~ Dy ~ranti~ ]=~ ...... nc ~ase __~ t.~urm o~ currency. It does the ~nu aglow a s~ec~--~-- - - ~ u~]xn~ ~wnen p u~dtlVe Land develoDmen t constraints on the ~]~ ~ .... - o come If you will notice %%~_~%~u~d_a~eas ~this parti~ - =~,= nanoouL ~ have g'ven yo~ on page shows the flood pIain area. This pro~.~rty in flood hazard zone A6 in st. Lucie Country'. Thisis~ who is oad opposite to the road · ty. I have ~ it around. ~d they will ~rred in the 'cel. I own ~n the north :omments and complete an resent time )re in this are now in ;even acres Dn at this ~at were in i, regional the market is power to you change in with no ~ular area. the second lly located one of our prime concerns and it is also a prime concern of your regional plan. There are certain sections in your regional plan that say this should be addressed prior to devei~pment. Thi is not bein~ the case. Florida Statutes 187 ~hich is l~Tou~ Florida Comprehensive Plan, says in several instances tha~.j these things should be addressed. In particular, l~here about five elements that require addressing of this in the State pla not been addressed, because when t~ey come ~.n ~set~~ particular changes, all they come in is w~th a con¢~eptual and it does not show, allow you all the availability tc see what is exactly in that area nor unfortunately provided when you get this. You don't you don't see that the fact that on her. of the river, we have serious drainage ] the present time the positive drainage ends right here. The water at that p either goes this way to the river or street, head south, and then east into t potential problems before and it has development in this area will increase ten-fold. At the present in St. approximately 2,508 acres zoned commerc That amounts to approximately 827 equal for each man, woman, and Child in St. problem keeping the buildings we now ~ centers are half vacant, and this is some to increase. Again, I will go back comments and they say on another is: government should give away that currenc in return the citizens of the area will do the maps see but a it abuts )roblems~ in for this p~ ~int comes tries to ~e river. now.. If a these poten Lucie Cou [al in St. ~e feet zon ,ucie ~ve ~thing that ~ to, referrJ ~ue, it sa F without also benefi~ advises. Well, I am sorry to say this the citizens of St. Lucie County, it is for the adjacent property owners. If ye have copies of it, but Mr. Cary and Mr. petition of opposition from the White Cit the North FOrk property owners, and you a 26 signatures from all the adjacent pro~ 500 feet who were notified of this c~ commercialism in the area to qualify for own area and not bringing adjacent traffi, the problems that I have seen over the interested in zoning since I moved to St ago. I found out that I had got zoned o~ ~me is not c going to cre~ ~ will inote Minix have ~ ImproVemez leo have a ~ erty oWners ange. We keeping our into our a years and Lucie Cou] in Ft. La' I bought property that had zoning on it agriculture. My property has been zoned came into being and prior to that it was of classification I guess when it was giv State of Florida. One of the faults I fiz is in planning concepts. Right now in pla have been advising against urban sprawl. into consideration which causes urban sp caused in part by the planners themselv~ emphasize this? Urban Sprawl is cause. which allow too much encroachment ~hich I need~ ~griculture ~ in an agric] mn to t~e d with diff~ nning conce] Planners ha~ ~awl. Urbal s. You as} by plannii f commerci that you are mall portion, he North Fork the area. At ~rcel of land Dackwards and o across the t has created ny amount of zial problems ~ty we have 5ucie County. ~d commercial · We have a new shopping ~e don't need .ng to staff fs no local :surance that ~, the report oing to have ~te a problem · you do not copies of a ~t Club, from ~etition with here within have enough area in our rea. One of I have been ~ty 20 years ~derdale and ~d which was ~ince zoning ~ltural sort by the ~rent things ~ts planners ~e not taken sprawl is , why do I ]g concepts ~lism into neighborhoods. This in turn forces the eople that neighborhoods to move away from all the adverse imps wlt~ them--the incompatible land · · ~ uses tn~ve increas~ pollution, and increased crlme. Whir do these These people move to progressive and in ative deve as The Reserve or other developments best of housing types and activities to sections commercialism aspects to the fringes nc,w placing street corner and behind every nice subdivision. time subdivisions in this area have houses that quality of homes and they sell anywhere .n the neigh $200,000. The north side of Midway Road, which is ti and this is S. 25th Street, has m~inly people who and bought property zoned agricultural. They bought liked the rural , they have farm animals, they for their planting, so they have plenty of open children. They moved there to protect t:heir li did indeed move there from other areas f~)r this not want to move again. Urban Sprawl is caused do not want to live there and this is cau~ not the fact that is something good a something that is not good for a ne. TAPES - #1, SIDE 2)...the thing that i~ not consideration under State rules is the fact that "well, I don't want to live next to a bar, I don, live in those cts it brings ~d noise, the people ~ove? topments such which limit restricting hem on every : the present have a good )orhood up to ~is road here ~ed in there because they .ave tractors ce for their and they They do People sprawl, it is ..(CHANGE taken into can't say: next to an adult place;,, but these commercialism. People do not want them they do not want to develop.these prop~ their neighborhood. Right now, if you will noti~ properties to the north of 25th Street, several mil road bordering the North Fork of the St. Lucie River is a potential development, if we star commercialism complete without a road, that is all w to have. No one is going to want to live next commercialism. That is what causes urban sprawl gentlemen. Planners, they can say all they want, a to confine your activities to a general area so th control your infrastructure, so it is corcurrent and with State policies, but are themselves causing ur because people don't want to live there they want quiet, they don't want adverse impacts and they developments that can control these things This is main reasons that I appear here this morring. We h~ problem, Midway Road, which is this road right here, been several comments in your DRI, previo'~s DRIs, wh~ the Sharrett Development, which concern T]~e Reserve, concern the projects of the McCarty Bros., and thes( before any development occurs in their areas, that M has to be improved. Well, attached to the )ack that Mr is a letter from the Engineering Departmen~ that appea News Tribune. It states in there that i; order to development, Mid~ay Road will not be able t be develop of State standards unless you go to,~nd culverts take and you put a retention pond to run ye,ur water, e: to live things allowed in in their neighborhoods, rties when are in all the ~s down the Now this bringing ~ are going :o straight ladies and ~d you want at you can consistent ban sprawl peace and move into one of the ve another there have ch concern which will say that idway Road - Cary has ~ed in the facilitate ed because or if you ~cuse me I am getting feedback here, to run your '~ater into that retention pond. There is no available land there at the P~esent time run water in and purify the water because as you~ow in III waters the State,s very particulaI. Class iiI waters directly across the street from this Pr~)ject on portion Which is an aquatic preserve, and these regulations and this roadway cannot: be exorbitant costs being paid, not little costs, but big because they are not going to let it happen. D~velopment going to be hampered in all the areas I mentione~ because this. There has to be an alternative. If you wi] not on here, the way these roads come, 25th 'treet as pr~]als° have improvements and they're planning ~o four-lane 25th but it is going to be two-laned sections either roadway here itself can be developed, b~t we have this corner right here from Midway Roac Midway Road and get the lands necessary 40 feet of this brand new shopping cent~ torn down because they can't take tropic In orde to develop here woul on the as included in that letter in the News be putting a very bad curve in the road in order t from the aquatic preserve. Ail the land must be pu~ the north side of the road. These are Ploblems we a: our County, and unfortunately with the ~ you are all from different counties and'ackets you I am going rush them up because I know I am long ~inded and w into these things, we need to take care~ul look at allowing speculative development. We have no control will point out something else, just recently in 1986, here and this parcel here came before this board board for plan amendments and the St. L~cie County At that time, the recommendations were t¢ approve Just recently, because we have no contro2 over any or anything, this parcel here, 40 feet o~ right-of-wa~ Lucie County and the tax payers $200,0)0 because provision to get that right-of-way in ou~. County. here cost our County approximately an additional is tax payers money, we have this parcel here ..... n? control. There ' multifami~ ...... ~ ~nls parcel here ~ ..... ~s. no but ~ ~_~_~aln., it's not something' ~_i ~uw ~na~, . ~ ~= ~n overall ~ ....... --~ ~ou ~ant to look wgy. we are doing PfJn~i~%~' =~= is one f the fall~ Picture when these thin ~' ~ou are not seein ti commercialism b~__ gs come before you v .... ~_ or m~4 ..... =x~*g approached to ~,~ i~ ' ~ ~e o .. ~3~ ~r=erv in R~ ~ .... wuu un a road h~+ . ±lttle blan~ ~L~_ --. ~ucle County __ tv~ - ~ ...... ~ ~s mornin~ T ~--,~ .___, my mind ] ~uv= nag these ~r~___ ?' ~ uu~ u recall which ~ : oecis~ ...... ~ ~=ms in this Co~ ....... ~u ~s ~- --~j, u~, tnlS today, '~es -~ -- ~"~]' un,] instead o~ ~=_.pos~poned until o~ ~z. ,,u, · would think that t~a= there are impr~veme~UFj f~rt.tha} t~ey put in f, ~nere that there are also--~ M-uing-to. De ~ade to the xes that is true th~- ~ 9oin~ u~ De lmpro ements , live ~ ~ - . · ~3 nave trie~ -- -~ to t 9'ribune, bec;luse :o' stay :chase~ :e fac/ get, to t~ ~en why and, 000. control peaking~ at toA :les in le ove nly se~ is a ~as gone But making his ~taff )r dredge an area that drains into the aquatic prese~.e. gentiemen, I will close this morning and I will not allow this project it ~ ...... u a · xm wno±ly 1 the 100-ye or if you have tendencies to want to ~o it. postp ~ore decisions come forth and plans com forth to s is indeed going to be some improvement~tin the and be in compliance with both the StAte statute. Regional Plan. In my packet I have re are ~h~ch_~fect both the State and The ~f-~f~-~ ~-~. I63, 9J-5, and your own section ~unai go into those and bf~f~ -- 16~'113. Now I ~xaoor the point an tell you but your plans, the Regional Plan, ~nd the St~ indications that this project should no go forth u more restraints and you find out what is o' as you know, floodi~ ~- ~ =:- - _ ~ g lng to ] ~ ~o ~ ~ nazar~, it ma awhile but t +~ .... ~ .. ~ - ~ y occu] , . o ~,~= oz us 1~ nas occurred, it is d~ walked out in 1985 with water this hi¢;h because ' North Fork of the St. Lucie River· as y~u can see and I appreciate your concerns and I ~ould apprec this particular amendment not consisten~ : with any c this morning and I would ask that you ~eny this. much for your time. Minix: Let me explain something abo it how St. handles these things. The Planning and Zoning Boar first public hearing, and as you can se, that was f opposition. The County Commission ~utomaticall petition then to the State and when it omes back the County Commission will have a public hearing decision on it. So, at this point in time, in fact of all of these you will be hearing fro~ St. Lucie County Commission has not made a final d~cision on t Cary: I wish this information, what 'at has sai¢ true. The information that we get to base our revie% extremely limited. It may just say: "here is the pj here is what is proposed.,, To my know edge we di this report· did we Terry? Terry: No, we didn't. Cary: Based on a very good presentation Pat made to she raised some issues which suggested thais thing is with the comprehensive plan. That infornation was n to us when we made that recommendation. What's the timing on this? Terry: We have to submit our comments to DCA in the of days. Cary: Under that circumstance, in other words, we time frame. We have to get our comme]]ts to have anything to DCA within a certain time con~;traint. Ba I have heard, I am convinced that there is reason Ladies and mk that you do ar flood plans Due until some how that there d hazard areas and your own h the numbers zh is 187 and don't want to ~at they are, ~te Plan have ~til there are ~appen because ' only once in ~vastating. I live on the 'om my parcel, .ate you find f these plans Thank you so Lucie County ~ goes to the lye to one in Y sends the ~om the State and make a that's true County. The ~is matter. is exactly on is often .ece of land, ~n't receive ~ay, I mean, inconsistent )t available deal on the next couple ~re under a them mean sed on what to believe there is some problems with this and i' potentially, in fact is, inconsistent with the Regional Plan We ha%'en't had the opportunity to study this information but based on what hearing, any kind ofarguments,~ there there isn't room for drainage out th~ impacting, there are some pretty good situation like this when we have a ti( say is you need to base your recommen~ have heard and the total information redo an evaluation on this thing, if th do based on what you've heard and send complex analysis because these issues a all I can say is I have doubt in my m~ this thing is consistent and I have Council should support it. You may wa this report to make, I guess, staff co recognize and explain to them what's h~ comments. Pass on any recommendation with today and then bring those back t formal approval unless you are comforta this point. Eggert: Are you saying that you'd pass, the way it stands saying it is consis comments to that. Cary: I am saying you need to give us d on what I have heard, I have doubts abo is in fact consistent with the plan. information. Everything that Pat said m a lot of doubt in my mind. I am not st this, is a problem we typically get information. Minix: What we are going to do is contin I am sure there are other comments that then we will come back to questions and c and then we will make a decision based up. here this morning and what our executive thank you very much. Is there any other on this issue? Seeing no one in the publ questions and comments from the Council. Cary: Roger suggested something that mig thing we could do, is transmit the comment that a presentation was made at the Counc detail that has raised serious concerns a] fact consistent. Jochem: I found the presentation ex' e×~remely appropriate because it detailed that this proposal was in violation to an t) I think every comment we send to the should say Policy # is this, is in .s reason fo re to take issues brou rht time c!c lations to u ~vailable to at is what , it up there' re complica~ [nd at this doubt abou~ nt to direc~ mments. We ~ppened. Th :hat you fee o Council n, ble With th~ you would tent and th irection on whether We didn ~de sense t~ re what we into wit] ~e with pub[ we are go~ Dmments from )n what you ]irector has :omments fro. ~ am ~ concern. If place without ~ht up. In a ck, all I can ~ on what you you. We can 'ou want us to It will be a ~ed. I think, point whether whether the us to study can make DCA ~se are staff 1 comfortable ~xt month for position at ~end these up mn add staff this. Based :his proposal t have this me. It put have here is incomplete ic comments. .ng to hear, the Council have learned said. Pat, n the public .c, I will o'~en it up to bt be approDriate. One · with a cautionary note 11 meeting and we would )out whether this is in remety imp~ the particul I think tw State shou[ )otential v essive and ar policies comments: do that, [olation or in violation of that policy and I thin~ proceed; 2) I certainly hope someon~ because we are not hearing from the p been my experience that there may be ~ we should make sure if we are goin comments that we ask the petitioner if Minix: Is the petitioner, a represe] here today? Is there anyone here repre Dagney: And the third thing that I lo4 for from the staff comments, it says the petition and what you are saying th Minix: The County staff supports the ~ Zoning Board on five to one denied the formally decided by the County Commissil public hearing before the County Commi: the date right now, but in the very neax Dagney: After everybody speaks, I s~ follow Roger's suggestion and detail proposal is in potential violation and s and ask the petitioner for their comment Eggert: I have got some problems ~ith says this is consistent and making a ii sending you other information Tha together. Is there something to[ally ne information to follow, I would rather than have this is consistent go up, exce minds about this. Saberson: What we are really saying is by the staff based on the information thl was consistent; however, there was infer at the Council meeting which we are not judge the validity of at the present time as to whether the original recommendation Eggert: I am having problems sending forward with this kind of situation. Kenny:. It appears to me that items 4, 5, inconsistent with the Regional Policy addition to staff comments, in making an pointing out where it is inconsistent government that those land use amendmen. like to have some conversation on 10, 11, Mini×: Let's go ahead and finish this on~ Helm: Are these two roads mentioned 25th -are they regional roads? that is the lets the ~titioner. we sides to g to send they have sc ltative of ~enting the at which 2he County you'll... etition, th~ support. )n. There ;sion. I future. )gest a mo~ the polici~ ~bmit the la sending any1 ttle thing~ t never utral we ca lave someth~ ~t that we that the ~ staff had ~ation that really in a . That rais was correc~ this kind and now 13 Plan, and dditional c we recomme s be denied and 12. treet and ~ way we should 'etitioner know It has always the story and forward these me comment. lhe petitioner ~etitioner? s interesting ;taff supports Planning and has not been ill be a last not sure of ion, that we ~s that this dy's comments .hing up that ;aying we are ~ite arrived say further like that ~Y change our itial review indicated it was received position to es questions or not. ~f statement ~ppear to be I think in )mment on 13 d to local - I would idway Road- Cary: Midway is. Helm: Also with the St. Lucie Plannin five to one denying this, did staff kno% Marcus: There was some discussion abo. for 30 days. Cary: Technically to have our comment~ sent to the local government, they couple of days. What I said was, base, am inclined to think this is consisten. I think we can say this appears to provided at the Council meeting, it a aWithchancethe toRegi°nalstudy. Plan. The Councilca Marcus: So they can't postpone it? review any of the information, then statement about consistency out of there Elmquist: I think if we are compelled t{ constraints that rather than saying it dc should make a stronger statement that we it. Sometimes they don't get past the f Minix: Let me ask, I think we are pre here, I think it is just a matter o getting...Roger or Dan will you give us answers the concerns of the Council at th. Minix: The applicant isn't here and we of it. Foley: County Mini×: and Zoning board voting that? t us not .pc be incorpo 'e to be up on what I with the R e, based o] ,stponing this rated what is to DCA in a have heard, I egional Plan. )ears to information ~w%in conflict say that haven't had ~re is no opportunity to I agree t~ take that move forward due to the ms not appear I think we have rese~ations about irst line. .tty much a] f getting motion th~ .s time. haven, thea Your County staff recommended fo in this pi staff is very tough. If they favo~ something. Why is County staff recommending ~or this pro and at thi~ -~-~ · ~a~I in looking at ~hi- ~--=Y ~igdn~al~o e ~v~ ~ ~__ __~ ~%~0 W~s~t~ea~ng~'~e°th~dr ~e rezgningS~n~=~t~f~P~lon~ will ks add~%%%%~ ~nose considerations =~j ~__~fov~l process in St. Lu~ ~= x=Wlnlmate and legitimate co nts, but in ~ally not p we have a ~hin St. Luc being rev ~ss intense .ensity typj everybody who is associated with developme the comprehensive plan change, that is consideration. What we are looking at is cluster at the intersection of wi~ What is being, suggested here and w-~hat expansion in what is intended to be a transitioning down from a very high in~ 1 in attune ~ motion of t you think · d that side oject. Our ect. took into ~e proposal ~se, we are site plan as part of :ie County. ~cerns from terms with ~rt of the ~ommercial me County. iewed, the manner, a cally all purpose what we call general commel-cia this type use and then into residl transitioning that time Wise happens least from the information we have to t6gical sequence that is taking place, place in this location. Kenny: Do you have a basis for recomme~ ~ing more seems like you have a lot of vacant commercial area. Is there need based on future there SOme sort of projected publ~rOWth in ti commercial.., ic in=eres Virta: It's been considered, I have t admit Ia] conversed with all the aspects, hilt certain considered. This area. Kenny: Can you discuss why the LPA tut]led it down Was there discussion at the LPA hearing .hat... Virta: Certainly, there was a great d ~al of disc~ concerns of the adjacent property ownei~s, the imF could potentially have upon them. The concerns that maybe rather than being a transitioning of very intense commercial to a lesser to n(~n commercia it Wouldn,t be ....intense commercial just on a There were a lot of issues brought forwa~ . Minix: I think it Would be fair to say t]~at the same ZoningY°U haveBoardheardheard.today from Pat were probab, y what the Foley: Was it the Planning and Zoning cr the LPA. distinction in our County. A great distinction. happens to be our County Commissioners and the ot citizens our planning commission is our Roberts: The LPA is not... Virta: The LPA for St Lucie County is t le Planning Commission. - readingMinix: themDan CarYnow. has the minutes from thai meeting an Cary: Just to reinforce what we've heard. The only ti here and I admit I am skimming this as fast as I , aPPlicant is, the justification for the proposed chang~ ~erspective was the fact that the other '2hree cornel Intersection were already annexed commercial use. Everybody: It's not .~n the corner. to a less9r intensity of ntial. I~'s a vet and ove~ again use it appears th~ that is to take :his lat that not tha· five to! one ~ssion. act that ~pecial nd use ~ses~ things ~lanning We ~e, the ]er is and Zoning uh he is lng I see :an. The : in their -s of the Cary: They are pointing to the fact that,.~..anc the petitioner has received communicat:on from an of- town insurance company regarding leases fa They are trYing to change the land use so they can Jochem: I think we have SOme good in] information which puts us at a disadva is say that this parcel is a potenti~ policies of our RCPp which include traf drainage, whatever they may be, say ~ what it is. We know that SOmetimes sometimes you can't and we need to... Minix: You want to make that a motion Dagney: Yes. Move that is what wE potential conflict and send on the co~ today, ask the petitioner if they have send those on as Well to DCA. Minix: That's the motion, is there a 2r Horenburger 2nds. Minix: We have a motion and a 2nd there any further discussion~ ' ~ · All in fa, by saying aye. Motion carries. ~ormation an ntage, what ~1 conflict fic, the a~ ~otential b~ you can s )agney? say. Th~ lents that additional .is is only ~or of the me it says [ntereste~ lng this area. be... ~ some lack we need ~ with speci atic cause Five t there is ere pres comments, item 13. )tion signi ' DEF -.? ? TMENT OF' T $POI TA TION 780 Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837-5290 BU~ RES( Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of-Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Taltahassee, Florida 32399 Dear Mr. Hook: RE: Land. Use Amendments _ St. [u( tn accordance with the provisions Chapter 9J-11 FAC Interim Review Requirement FDOT to the proposed St Lucie County Land Us enclosed. ' If you or your staff have any quest comments, please feel free to contact me at 214 or John Anderson at (407) 837-5290 (S/C ~. Sincerely, .Gu~avo Schmidt. Ac~n!'n9 District District 4 GS:JA:mg Enclosure CC: Mr. Jim Scully Mr. Michael J. Tako Mr. John Anderson ~F_AU OF LOCAl2 }URCE PLANNING September 21 County. f Chapter 163 , the comment e Amendments ions concernin 305) 522-4244 ~5-5290). P. E. Planning Admit 1988 F.S. and of the re these ~xtension strator Amendment No. PA-88-007 - Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc. From SU (Semi-urban) to__~q_~_~Low Dens~t_~ Res~den~ The amendment is a part of the Reserve D~ Impact (DRI) now in review by the County and Tr~ Planninc Council. This Department's comments r the application have been previously submitted. have been with the location and design of the ir Vista/Reserve Boulevard with 1-95. Both locati, approved by this Department. Remaining concern: The 4000+ acre Reserve DRI of which this amendment is a part, represents a substantial co beyond the present FDOT Urban Boundary in St. L~ development. Substantial traffic impacts on th, and the potential state system, including Prima anticipated. These have been addressed only in developer's response to Question 31 of the Appli~ Approval (ADA) of the Reserve DRI. Another concern of this Department relates Corridors Planning Program now underway in the fj District 4. Prima Vista Boulevard from US-/ to i northwesterly along Reserve Boulevard, now propo~ street, has been preliminarily designated a regic corridor is anticipated to function as an outer c highway in the future St. Lucie County urban area northwesterly and northerly from Glades Cut-off R the general alignment of McCarty Road and SR-603 County and the Veto Beach urban area. It is anti corridor will interchange in the North County arei Florida Turnpike (SR-9t) and 1-95 (SR-9) in the v~ Avenue. The proposed development is the forerunner extending urbanization west of the present urban developed or programmed transportation system. The St. Lucie County Planning Department is updating its comprehensive plan and the Traffic C~ in accordance with the 1985/86 Growth Management I the St. Lucie County Metropolitan Planning Organiz~ part of this comprehensive planning efforT, is updi transportation plan for the St. Lucie Metropolitan conjunction with the St. Lucie County evaluating the present and future tranMPO' is in ti sportation nc County, Indian River. and Martin Counties using thc Urban Transportation computer model. A preliminar~ to be available by the end of September. ,elopment of'R~ ~asure Coast R~ egarding suffj Principle col terchange of )n and design are under dj [cres ~ional ~gional :iency of ]cerns rima ~ave been ;cussion. ~oposed land use mmitment of la~d =ie County to [rban state highwa~ system ;ista Boulevar~ are part in the :ation for Dew lopment to the Transportation ~e counties o~ [-95 and its e~tension ed as a private hal corridor. The ircumferential · extending Dad (CR-709) along into Indian Ri~,er cipated that this ~ with both th~ [cinity of Oral,ge ,f other proposals imits and the now in the prozess of mculation E1 ment ~gislation. lso, ~tion (MPO), a: a ~ting its Area. The FD )T, in ~e process of ~twork in St. ].ucie Florida State report is expected Amendmenl No. PA-BS-007 (cont'd) We cannot at this time and without addit onal informatJ determine the impact development traffic might have on state regional transportation facilities. The quest on of whether proposal would result in an orderly and logical development p~ will depend upon the public infrastructure -_ iLcluding trans facilities -- available, or programmed to serve it. It is recommended that any final action use amendments in the area west o~ 1-95 (SR-9) ] until the results of this study are available ~ facilities necessary to serve this and other s~ the West-Central St. Lucie County area can be d~ this and tel )e deferred at id the transpo] ~lar developmE ~termined. D~ ~nd the ~ttern ~rtation ~ted land least 'tation ~nts in Amendment No. PA-88-D06 - Callaway Land and Catl Fro~mSU~Q~em~-Urban> to C~ (General Commerciall See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007. le Co., Inc_ 30.3 Acres Amendment No. PA-88-008 - Callaway Land and ~rom SU (Semi-Urban) to CT ~ .... ~_~ ~ C~ytle Co., Inc. - ~~L ~ommercial~ - 40.52 Acre~ See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007. Amendment No. PA-88-009 A - Duda and Sons, From AG (Agricultural) to RL (Low Density Resi~ Development) _ -4z~300 Acres [nc. ential) and Z The state facility directly affected by is 1-95 (SR-9) which it adjoins on the east. interchange at Gatlin Boulevard and two propose Gatlin Boulevard and the Martin County Line. interchanges, one approximately in the cen~er c Section 23, 37S, Range 39E and another at approximately Par z Drive at the northeast corner of Section 35, 37, 39, are sho];n on the curr~ Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, Florida dated March, As with Amendment No. PA-88-D07, 006 cannot comment on the ~-~a-~ A~ ~. and .~08 this Depar ~..~ ~ uA ~n~s proposed l~.nd use amendme the State or Regional Transportation System wit out-more detai information, concerning traffic generation and a~ evaluation of impact of future vehicle trips on the existing and the propose Transportation Network. his proposed endment nciuded is th9 existing ] interchangestbetween Two proposed ?ownship · PA-88-007 wit] )f this impact The Department's comments on Amendment No to deferral of final action until an evaluation Highway Network apply to this petition as well. Since this proposal is a DRI, it would be use amendment to be withdrawn at this t/me and r~ conjunction with an Application for Develo m DRI, at which time a traf~- ~ . ~ ent be evaluated. ~xu analys~s in respons~ ~dvisabte for ~submitted in ~proval (ADA) to Question 3 ~nt 987. ) ment nt on led the future regard on the he land for the 1 can Amendment No. PA-88-014 - John M. McCarty, From AG A~.q~icultural} to SU (Semi-Urban} Sr., ~tal -_~_~0 Acres There are no state facilities directly im~ amendment, however, the same comments as were ms with regard to Amendment Nos. PA-88-007, 006, 0~ applicable to thls proposed amendment. The Department believes that there would b on the public transportation system and transpor should be included in the transportation plannin Lucie County MPO and Planning Department as well planning by the Florida Department of Transporta- acted by this de by this Dep 8, and 009, ar substantial Eation needs w process of t as overall :ion. There is a possibility that development ba,:ed o land use amendment would be ....... ' n the pro~ which would have to be ~=~ ~n~ae~ea a DRI, th,~ determinatior Council - · ..... ~ ~ne ~easure Coas~ Regional Pla ~ at such time as development as defined i Chapter 380. ~eSD~la~e~' ~.nsuffl~lent information has bee~lprovided this F=zumenu zor ~ to make a determination of the impact on the system or the state regional and local transport~iona~ network. proposed ~rtment Lmpacts ~ich ~e St. ;terns ~sed of ning 4F.S. state Amendment No. PA-88-00] - St. Lucie Investment Corp. From CG~eneral Commercial) to IL (L_~ht Indu:;trial} - 21.5 Acres US-/ (SR-5) is the state facility direct] proposed amendment. Property included in the. direct access to US-/ at this time, however, pi fronting on US-1 is part of the same ownership US-] (SR-5) is a Principal Arterial in ti Classification and Js a Statewide and Interregi Corridor in the Corridors Plan now underway now of District 4. Also, a detailed corridor stud~ from Hobe Sound north through Indian River Couz recommendations of that study in this location to a six lane divided facility. It is also re, possible frontage roads be provided within the corridor right-of-way. The proposed amendment will generate fewe] the area were developed to either general comme~ along the US-1 frontage or to multi-family resif this Department has no objection to the change The Department is concerned about the pre: service (LOS) on US-1. This facility is expectE increasingly higher volumes of traffic as develo rapid pace in Southeast St. Lucie County and the' t987 traffic counts south of the intersection of at approximately the site (Station 265) indicate vehicles -- an increase of 55 percent over the 2~ segment in 1985. According to the H.W. Lochner expected to carry 61,400 v.p.d, by the year 2020 US-/ is now operating at a LOS E. Under future , also .be operating at LOS E based on the assumptic more than 2.5 signalized intersections per mile. signals increases as a result of an expansion in traffic generating uses the LOS will be further r minimum acceptable operating LOS for US-/ in this It is strongly recommended that in any subs~ Applications for Development Permit a frontage roi require additional right-of-way), or a cro - interconnecting all Drone~+ .... ~ =_ ~ s~ acce? ~ ~ -~z ~u ueve~opmen~ on t~ between the entry to La Buena Uida Mobile Home Pal Square north to the entry to Spanish Lakes Riverf~ The design for access to the site or to t US-/ sho - . he fronts uld include correcting the intersection of Boulevard South with US-1 and the entry to the Hon Prior to any subsequent development review t meet with representatives of this Department (Traf~ well as the County Engineer concerning access and from US-1. Y affec~ed by ~nendmenl does operty to the e state Functj onal Transport in the five c has been don tY- The lre improveme~ ommended that ~xisting 200 f vehicle trip~ cial as now em ential. Ther~ n land use. ~nt and future d to carry )ment continue Port St. Luci~ Prima Vista ~ an ADT of 37,] 1,000 vehicles 2orridor Study in this segme~ :onditions it n that there a If the frequE the number of ~duced. LOS f area. ~quent review ( ~d system (whi¢ ;s drive be re( le west side of k and Mangrove out Developmen ge drive syste Mediterranean Center Plaza proponent s] tic Operations ~gress to the this not have East onal ~tion )unties on US-1 of US-1 ;herever ~t than if ists ~fore, level of at a area. ~levard ~00 in this US-1 is t. ,ill re no .ncy of uigh is the f :h may uired US-1 from ould ~ as :ire f~mendment. No. PA-88-012 U.S. Community, Inc. From SU_~_Semi_Urb~commercial General) - ]4.54 Acre~ This proposed amendment does not directly state facility. However, it is located on and Lucie Boulevard/lmmokolee Road (CR-608) which h designated a regional corridor ~n the Corridors underway in the five counties of District 4. St Boulevard/Immokolee Road lies midway between In Orange Avenue (SR-68) and will interconnect D~ 25th Street (SR-615), Kings Highway (SR-713). extending in the future from Kings Highway west to intersect with both 1-95 (SR-9) and the Flor: and to connect ultimately with the north-south ] Rangeline Road (CR-609A), which extends from In( (CR-615) to the Beeline'Highway (SR-710) in Marl existing and proposed alignments. St. Lucie is now a state facility (SR-608) from 25th (SR-5) and may be extended as such in a future classification as least as far west as Kings The proposed amendment lies at the int~ Boulevard/Immoko!ee Road and Keene Road which of Jenkins Road (CR-61I) to Kings Highway impact any pi will have acc~ Ds been prelim Planning Prog~ · Lucie ~rio (CR-614) i [e Highway and It is indicate along a new al ida Turnpike (~ 'egional corri~ ~ian River Cour lin County alo~ functJ (SR-713) of St. a logical · a designated local corridor. The existing on St. Boulevard/Immokolee Road ranges between 40 and 80 feet in wid~ segment between US-/ and Kings Highway in which ~he proposed ~ is located.. The adopted Thoroughfare Network, t. Lucie Count March, ~987 indicates a minimum right-of-way of~76 feet f~ a proposed six lane divided expressway. In view o~ the signific, the St. Lucie County International Airport now u~dergoing expa~ and the several points of intersection with stat~ interregional as well as regional and local corrj future designation of this facility as a state rcute, foot right-of-way should be protected for a six in a rural section. If an urban section is to b~ minimum of 130 feet should be provided for 6 lane capability at principal intersections. In addit] or at a minimum, cross-access drives may be requi service between intersecting streets and major dr abutting property. The same minimum right-of-wa the Jenkins Road/Keene Road Corridor. In a review of subsequent applications for County should obtain right-of-way protection for Boulevard/Immokolee Road and Keene Road. Future provide for limitation of access from St. Lucie location of access drives a sufficient distance w insure safety and a smooth operation of the inter: and St_ Lucie Boulevard at ultimate development. should be provided at principal drives and Keene ~wide and dors and pote~ a minimu~ ane divided fa ~ constructed s with dual le .on, frontage red to provide iveway access is recommend( ~evelopment pe ~th St. Lucie ~ite plans sho~ 9oulevard and st of Keene Re ection of Keen Right turn la oad. ~sent ss to St. [narily ?am nOW ~nd US-l, as .~gnment ~-91) .or, ty g .ee Road in the ]endment dated ~nce of sion tial 242 cility Et turn oads, land so d for ~it the lid ad to e Road ~es Amendment No. PA-88-003 - Heminway Corporation ~rom SU (S~commercia1 General - 10.02 Acres The comments on Amendment No. PA-88-Dt2 amendment as well with the exception that the extension of Keene Road is depeLdent upon airpc and the adopted policies related thereto by the of County Commissioners. The same right-of-wa~ are applicable for St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokot~ restriction of access to a safe location west o Keene Road, and right turn lanes at principal d connections to this site should also be coordin provide access to the US Community Site on the Boulevard. The County should give consideratic right-of-way for the potential northerly exten~ the southeast corner of this site. re applicable otential nor% rt development St. Lucie Cou ~ protection c¢ e Road, as wel the intersec rives. Drive~ ~ted with thos, ~outh side of ; n to reservati [on of Keene R~ :o this erly plans ntyBoard ,ncerns ~ as the tion of ay ~ which it. Lucie on of lad at Amendmen% No. PA-88-01t - Harbor Branch Ocean Inc. From RL (Low Denslty Residential) to CG 51 Acres This proposed amendment has direct acce (SR-5), a statewide/interregionat transportat~ in the Transportation Corridors Planning Progr, five counties of Districl 4. The proposed amc on Old Dixie Highway (SR-605). US-1 is curren lane divided arterial road. The US-1 Corridor Company recommended a four lane rural arterial stricn access control or with frontage roads. in this location according to state counts in ] volume of 18,800 v.p.d, at Station 107 north o~ amendment. Anticipated future volumes of tra Lochner report are 41,000 v.p.d, in the Year 2C today in this section is LOS C or better. If~ volumes are correct US-/ would have to be wider order to maintain a satisfactory LOS and signal be restricted to no more than two per mile. In the review of site plans related'to th~ (should it be approved) the Department recommen~ be restricted to approved median openings, and [ right turn drives that right turn lanes be provj together with sheltered left turns at median ope also be provided to Dixie Highway coordinated wJ Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution as is su report. The staff supports the St. Lucie County P1 their recommendation for a planned non-residenti for the entire Harbor Branch facility in order t, the dunes areas through environmentally sensitiv, protection of the capacity and the smooth and sa along US-1 and Dixie Highway. graphic Insti%utionr rcial General) - ~ to and impac' )n corridor de: im now underwa~ ndment also ha tty developed Study by H.W. in this secti¢ Current traff. 987 indicate the proposed [fic according 20. The LOS ~he projected t ed to six lane ization would is proposed ~ ~s that access .imited intermE ded at these ~ nings and thai th access to ggested in the inning Depar~ ~1 development insure prote design and ~ flow of tra 2s US-] ;ignated in the frontage s a four Lochner ,n with [c volumes traffic to the ~n US-1 faf f lc ~ in save to ~ndment to US-1 ~diate rives access he staff ~nt and (PNRD) .~t ion of !fic Amendment No. PA-88-010 - NCNB of Florida _RL (Low Density Residential~ to CH (Highway Co~ This proposed amendment fronts on and has Highway (CR-605) which is designated a rural ms Highway Functional Classification of April 15, has access to and will directly impact US-] (SR The same comments with regard to US-/ as No. PA-88-011 are applicable to this proposed ~ proposed application is approved access to the. be restricted. Median openings are indicated a south line of the proposed amendment s~te and ~ north. If approved the entire site including t US-1 should be included in a planned non-reside~ (PNRD) in snbsequent permitting in order to ins] sensitive design and adequate access control in protecting the traffic carrying capacity of US- ~ercial) - 23~34 Acres access to O1~ jor collector 1988. The -5). were made on ,endment. If ;ire from US-1 t approximatel ~roximatety 8( ~eproperty fr~ ~tial developmE re environment the interest c Dixie pn the e also ~nendment the should f the I0 feet )nting on nt ally f Amendment No. PA-88-D04 - Matthew and Marie :~chneider From RL (ResidentiaI Low Density) to CG (Gen,~ral Commercia ]4.53 Acres The proposed amendment does not direc~ .y impact any' facility, however, it lies only a short distance from US-] has frontage on Old Dixie Highway (CR-605). There is note¢ backup material furnishedthis Department that the proposed amendment is ~ ..... applican =~o nne owner of land fronting on US The same comments made by this Department with Amendment No PA-88 O1 ...... ~ ' regard Department lJ con - u are applicable toisthi proposal. ~ a-% . . cerned about the number of~p~lnts P~o~°~ ~f~na~i~t~na~table~u~ on j~ta~ develoDm~ nt should Contact and coord ...... permit the xna~e with this Depar'~ent and the County Engineer. This Department is concerned about the extensive co~ercial designation, zoning and the US-1 (SR-5) Old Dixie Highway Corridor fr County Line south. The H.W. Lochner Study re~ of marginal frontage roads or other similar ms right-of-way from encroachment and halt degrad (SR-5). We recommend that the County take ali subsequent reviews of applications for develop the maintenance of a high level of service for operations on that facility. mpact that fu levelopment w~ m the Indian ~ :ommends the d~ thods to prote ation of LOS o action necess nent permit to safe and effi~ .) - tare (SR-5) and in the for this to he ~ from US-] ~ity. owner :t. Lucie ther 1 have in iver ~elopment =t the US-1 ary in assure :lent Amendment No. PA-88-D13 - Thomas Zaydon From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Gene]-al Commercial ]2.5 Acres There are presently no state facilities proposed amendment. TwenTy-fifth Street on which this propo~ preliminarily designated a reqional corridor a Transportation Corridors Plan~ing now underway District 4. This corridor extends from US-/ Lucie Boulevard on the south via Hawley Road, Boulevard. From Port St. Lucie Boulevard the along Floresta and Riverbend Boulevard to and Becket and Murphy Roads. The 25th Street cor~ used extensively as an alternate to US-1 as the becomes more congested. The present rfght-of- this general location is indicated by St. LuciE The recommended corridor width is a minimum of urban arterial and 160 feet according to the Ma St. Lucie County dated March, 1987. Midway/Wh~ will continueto be a heavily travelled east-we US-/ and 1-95 lying at the north line of Port S Road/White City Road (CR-712) is also prelimina regional corridor in the Transportation Corrido development, minimum right-of-way width 120 fee right-of-way width is 80 feet. In review of the staff comments and the rE we note that the entire ownership tract comprise there are apparently 60 acres presently designal commercial at the intersection of 25th Street ar area presently designated if developed to its cc (assuming 30% land area coverage and single stoz result in nearly 800,000 square feet of commerci generating an estimated 28,000 (2,445 per peak h Roadway capacity is not now available or program projected volumes. This Department shares the concerns of the Planning staff about further extensions of comme] zoned land in this location due to the present 1~ LOS on abutting and nearby arterial streets as w~ of conserving new capacity as it is added. Shou amendment be approved, we recommend that it be cc subsequent development permitting, that site acc~ that right-of-way necessary for the 25th Street c directly impac fronts has ted by this )een a part of the in the five cgunties of n the north t~Port St. St. James Drive, Airosa corridor contiDues south [nto Martin Col~nty via idor is expect.~d to be ~ principal facility ~ay on 25th St::eet in ~ County as 80 feet. 120 feet for a 6 lane p~Thoroughfare Network, .re City Road Js and st corridor beEween t. Lucie. MiEway oily designate a ~s Plan now in ~- Current ~cord of publi, hearing ~s 24 acres an, that .ed and zoned d Midway Road. The mmercial poten :ial Y construct could al square foo~ ~ur) daily ned to serve St. Lucie Cou] ~cially design~ mired capacit. ~11 as in the Id this propos nsidered a PN~ ss be res~ric~ orridor be ob~ ~ty ~ted and 'and nterest D in ed and ~ined. Am~ndm~nt ~o: PA 88 004 , H.J. Ross and Associ ~es. Inc ~rom SU S~_Urban) to RL ~Low ...... ~ - ' ~ ~ u~nslty ~esideltial) _ 113.9 This proposed amendment does not directl or indirectt any state facility. The Department has no col~ent. Y Acres impact Florida Depa;'tment of Eni?iro me i al Regz lation. Tv~,in~,>: Mar~inez.TowerSGovernorOflSCe Bldg. ~ 2600 Blair Stone Road ~ 'ihllah~s~ec, Flori~ 32399-2400 I)ak- Txv~clm~nn. St~c~.turx.John Shcar~. Asmstam >ccrcrary September 16, 1988 Ms. Susan Williams Department of Community Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Managemen. Bureau of Local Planning The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, 'Florida 32399 De a r ~=-wS~q-i~ms: 38-007, PA- RE: Future Land Use Amendments File #PA- PA-88-014 I have reviewed the above referenced land use amendmE enclosing a letter from Marion Hedgepeth t:o the Trea Regional Planning Council, and ~a memorandum from Lou E Don White, which deal with the Reserve (D~endment File #] With regards to the McCarty and Duda proterties, pro potable water sources could be encountered lue to the aquifer water in this general area. All of the three parcels in question conta: n extensive areas. This will undoubtedly dictate extensive dra~ and/or wetland alteration to facili will likely be di ~o~a ~ - tare development ~ .. r .... ~ to the C-~ ~ ~ ~* - ' ~u Ene St. Lucie Estuary ...~_~ %~ ~.~-z~ ~anals, and · mpacts of a~io,,]~ .... ~=,_ ~xcn %s alreaay stressed d = ..... ~u~ax anu resiuential drliinage. Sa5 have been in the form of decreased salinities, incre loading, and additional nutrient loading. It is not known whether the wetlands containe,1 on these ~ are jurisdictional (with the exce tion pre-Henderson Act q,,~ ..... . ? . of the Reserve, fc 3u~u~CEl°nal Oeterminati~aWaS perfoi claims no jurisdiction). It appears from aerial photogr~ there ~ay be connections (ditches or drainage ways) wetlands contained on the Duda and McCarty roperties a of the State (C-23 or C-24). A 'ur' ' ' ~e needed at a fut ........ 3- lsd~ct~o t determin Involvement we might ~e u~te to ~urther de~ermine any 8-009, and nts and am sure Coast evillon to ~-88-007). blems with quality of low-lying nage work Drainage altimately ne to the d impacts ased silt ,roperties ,r which a med which phy, that between ~d waters ]tion may eventual /~s. Susan Williams September 16, 1988 Page Two The Department is vet infrastru' =~ ~, concerned abo - . = _ Cture a~d Ene ~A~, .... ut the ~mpact ~~~ of the 8,7~r~esW~oJ~a~e~e If I can be of further assistance please cLl.aU Richard W. Deadman Planning Manager RWD/Pph enclosures on crl in :he community ~ted by the these three ' Iorfda Z)ej artment of £nv ~y~~'~/ Southeast ~stricr. ~9oo S. ConclAve. Sui~ 8~ptember I,Z988 ~s. L Christine Befit= ~Treasure Coas~ Regional Planning Counci~ ~3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blv~ - 'P.0. Box 1529 -, Suits 205 Palm City, Florida 334~0 Subject: The Reserve Dear Chris~in~: i have reviewed the Sufficiency ResPonse (d~ referenced above and have the following !. The applicant stated that ~ new wells plant capacity which are Capable of Producin than tl~ose wells %este~ in the 1984 study. Department wi~h the new test Well data. Pie that applications for PumDs and raw Water mai ~u~itzed for any new wells.' ~ XVcs~ P-Am B~ch, ted July 1 ants: being adde higher ~lease prov: ~se keep in ns mus~ be 2. As the soils in St. Lucia County are all.m0st uniform rated as unacceptable for septic tank usage by the U.S. and Conservation Service, why are Saba! Creek Phases I, IV and Reserve Plantation Phases i and i! not proposed fo sewers (gravity or low pressure}? Riveria sa ~d is Ponded to 9 months annually in the proposed septic t ~nk area acc to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 3. If irrigation reuse cannot be utilized for we!lfieid recharge, when and Where is the R.O. industrial injection Planned to be built? Please explain how this project wi!] comply with the Pending requirement of Florida Administ~at Rule !7-40 which requires reuse in Wa~er !imit~d areas reuse wi!! cost mor~ than two times the cost o] the comb!n u~i!ity systems. to de the hind .ly :oil ! and r for 6 ~rding we/! ive ess TO: FKOM: DATE: SUBJECT: Don White, p.E. Program Administrator L.J. Devil!on ~'~ September l, 1988 The Reserve DRi The following comments are made relative to supply for the above Drojec~ and are made bag review of the DRi Sufficiency Report: - AssUming an average production of 60 gpm f water Wells proposed, total production may no meeting maximum day demands -of the water ~pcd or 300 gPd for each DU, maximum day flow as high as ~2.7 MGD. Total production of the Would be approximately 2.1MGD. _ ~ .( 24 hour flow X !50% X 150% = max. d The existing Water treatment Plant has :one,ruction Permit for -432 MGD using a filtration treatment system. To date this faci!i 'e!eased for service. Additional treatment c~ equ!red to meet the demands of the ultimate .pr n the ' raw water source ~ftsning/filtration may encountered, treatment be required. In the case smosisthe reject treatment, Water. COnSideration must be given to - APProPriate Plans, SPecifications and applic .ant expansion ShOUld be :igting submitted to the Depar Water trea~men~ --facility reaching a day equal to 80% of the Department rated f ility ac=~-eves°f athemaxeXpansi°n should begin bef 90~ . of the De~a--~- t aPProved ra~ed Plant ca~ ~e.-the 80% or 90% c--retie should be i~apPr°ving wet er distribution system ux=~ DePartment PUrsuant to Ch. 17-22 at,on for w~ tment upon finished wa )lent capacf )re or when 'Oduction eq] Dust cause apDlicazions.submi~ted water Irsory table !e of the po%abie ~ed on a c Dr the 25 pc be capak =m. Based on 100 [uirements may be 'oDosed we!l~ie!d been issu, d a lime eof re= lng/ =Y has not been ~Pacity wi] 1 be :jec=. Depending other than of reverse proper d!sp)sal the the ~re 'Or 5. At what flow on the wastewater management fauility is alternate means of efflumnt disposal/reuse proposed to b~ constructed? 6. Would the Reserve Utility agree to a waste~¢ater treatr plant expansion schedule based on the fo!lowi~]w: a. When flows (actual 3 peak month average of. permitted capacity, a consultant will have ~ i b. When flows (actual 3 peak month average ;reach 70% capacity, plans and sPecifications applications will be submitted. c. When flows (actual 3 peak month average construction shall begin and be completed pric reaching 95% permitted capacity. 7. I have enclosed further comments from the D~partment's Drinking Water Section (September 1, !9S8 memorandum). If you have any further questions regarding th~: Departmenl comments., please feel free to call me at (407).~64-9668 or SUNCOM #-221-5005. Sincerely, ~~ /~arion y. Hedgepet~ ' DRI Coordinator MYt{: mh: 88 cc: South Florida Water Management District, Li ~a Smith St. Lucie County, Office of Planning and Zo]~ing Pete McDonough, Team Plan /_nc. - John Outland, DER Tallahassee daily) rea~ been chosen daily) or.new perm daily) teac] r to flows the ~nt h 60 % t 75%, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS Septemb Oohn W. Anderson, A!CP Transportation Planning Florida Department of Transportation 780 SW 24th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 SUBOECT: Your Letter Dated September Dear Oohn: Thank you for your letter regard use plan amendments currently being re County. Unfortunately, you should have information [hat staff has access to requests. As you suggested in your let can develop any estimate of impact is assumptions and develop numerical esti~ tt~at basis. I am forwarding your iette my staff and ask him to send any addit might have. If you have further questions or further, Please let me know. TLV/seb cc: Planning Administrator MPO Supervisor Sincere! ~r 22, 1988 1988 .ng the thi] /iewed for virtually a for review :er, the onl to make s ates of im to Dennis onal infor if I can as Terry . r ~ Communit Oevelopment HAV'[RT L FENN D,srnc~ NO I e JUDY CULPEI>I~R. D~s~cr NO 2 · JACK K~£GER. D~smcr NO 3 · R County Adnmmsrroror - W~LDON O L~'~S 2300 Virginia Avenue e Fort Pierce. FL 34 Director; ('407) 468-I 590 · Building: (407) 468-1550 · [ Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enfcxcemenr: (4 DALE FREF£LNER. Disrnct ?82-5652 Ionning: (407) 46~ 07) 468-1571 · !V6LOPM6NT DIR6CTOR TERRY L. V]RTA teen land St. Lucie 11 of the lng these y way one 3me basic )act from 4urphy of ~ation we sist you Director JIM ;~JNIX D:str,G NO ~ 1576 780 Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837-5290 ~e ':>;i: imf. Terry Virta Director of Community Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Mr. Virta: RE: Traffic and Socioeconomic Data Pr__~osed Future Land Use Land Ame I was glad to have the opportunity to ~ -briefly at the St. Lucie County MPO meeting 1{ forward to working with You in the future on ! and related matters of mutual concern' Among my responsibilities other than cot .co~ent for District 4 on proposed future land . transmitted to Department of Community Affairs jurisdictions. We recently received from DCA ' amendments in St. Lucie County -- of which fly, a very s]gnificant impact on the St. Lucie Cou] network and the state system in the County as ~ reports on the three Reserve Land Use Amendmenl Duda Amendment (No, PA-88-009) and the MCCarty include the petitioner's and/or staff's eStima: units, population, and square feet or acres of or traffic impact analysis. These are essent~ the impact on the state and regional system as of proposed future interchanges with 1-95 (the assume numbers if they are not provided. If nc applicant, you may have developed these figures your evaluation of the impact of the proposal o] infrastructure. We would very much appreciate submittals or staff memos or reports which can ] information on the adopted Thoroughfare Network Florida. OF ,tember 9, 198; :dments ~et and talk w ~st week and I ransportation ridors is revj use plan amer (DCA) by loc~ thirteen (13) ~ have the poti ity transporta ~ part of it. is (N©. PA-SS- Amendment did e of future d~ commercial de, ~1 to our assei ~ell as the fe ~uda Amendment t provided byi in conjunctic Public copies of aU rovide us wit~ St. Lucie Co~ e? Lth you look corridors ew and dments proposed ~ntial of 2ion The staff )07), the not elopment ~sment of asibility ~e We with .icant ~ this ihty, Mr. Terry Virta September 16, 1988 Page 2 We would also appreciate clear and mot, proposals -- especially when a specific or d. been submitted as documentation supplemental change. Sin J~a/mg cc: Mr. Gus Schmidt Mr. Jim Scully explanatory Kaps of ~grammatic si~e plan has to an application for rely, sportation P1 nning BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS Septem~ 3ohq N. Anderson, AICP Transportation Planning Florida Department of '~ransportation 780 SN 24th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315-269~ SUBJECT: Your Letter Dated September Dear John: Thank you for your letter regarc use -plan amendments currently being re County. Unfortunately, you should have information that staff has access to requests. As you suggested in your let can develop any estimate of impact is assumptions and develop numerical esti~ that basis. I am forwarding your lette: my staff and ask him to send any addit might have. If you have further questions or further, please let me know. TLV/seb Planning Administrator MPO Supervisor Sincerel HAYERT L. FENN. District No. I · JUDY CUI. PEPPE'P,. District No. 2 · JACK KP, J£GER. District 1to. 3 · R County Administrator. ",~ELDON B. ~ 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 3. Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1550 · 1~ , ,, Zoning: (407) 468-1550 e Code Enforcement: (4 er 22, 1988 , 1988 lng the thi teen land viewed for St. Lucie virtually ~.11 of the for reviewing th~ese er, the only way one to make some basic ares of i~pact from : to Dennis']Murphy of lone1 information if I can a~sist EV£LOPMCNT DIR(ECTOR TERRY L. V]RTA J Zrta, AI Development DALE I~,[FELN£R. Disrnct 982-5652 tanning: (407) 461 07) 468-1571 Director No. 4 e JIM MINIX. District No. -1576 you we 780 Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837'5290 Sep~ Mr. Terry Virta Director o~Con~nunity Development St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Mr. Virta: Traffic and Socioeconomic Data Proposed Future Land Use Land Amen( I was glad to have the opportunity to me briefly at the St. Lucie County MPO meeting lag forward to working with you in the fUture on t~ and related matters of mutual concern. Among my responsibilities other than corr comment for District 4 on proposed future land transmitted to Department of Community Affairs jurisdictions. We recently received from DCA amendments in St. Lucie County -- of which five a very significant impact on the St. Lucie Coun! network and the state system in the County as a reports on the three Reserve Land Use Amendment~ DUda Amendment (No. PA~88-009) and th~ McCarty~ include the petitioner s and/or staff s estimate units, population, and square feet or acres of or traffic impact analysis. These are essentia~ the impact on the state and regional system as w of proposed future interchanges with 1-95 (the D assume numbers if they are not provided. If applicant, you may have developed these figures your evaluation of the impact of the proposal on infrastructure. We.would very much appreciate submittals or staff memos or reports which can pi information on the ~dopted Thoroughfare Network, Florida. and talk wi~ week and I ansportation h you ook orridors idors is revie~ and ~se plan amen~nents DCA) by local ]irteen (13) proposed have the pote]~tial of ~Y transportat~.on part of it. ~he staff i (No. PA,88-0(7), the mendment did rot of future dwslling ommerciai development · to our asses~:ment of sll as the feasibility ~da Amendment). We provided by the in conjunction with public copies of applicant ~vide us with this· St. Lucie County, .ember 9, 1988 Mr. Terry Virta September 16, 1988 Page 2 We would also appreciate clear and more proposals -- especially when a specific or ~been submitted as documentation supplemental t Change. JWA/mg cc: Mr. Gus Schmidt Mr. Jim Scully explanatory maps of grammatic site plan has o an applicat~°n for TREASURE COAST REGIONAL .M E M O RAN To: Council Members From: Staff Date: September 16, 1988 Council Subject: Local Government Comprehens Thirteen Amendments to the : Future Land Use Element Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Loc Planning and Land Development Re~ Florida Statutes, the Council must be review and comment on comprehensive their adoption. St. LUcre County amendments to the State Department of turn is seeking Council,s comments. Council's review of the information of Community Affairs is in the context proposed amendments to the region. pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida with adopted plans or policies is planning agency is to specify any recommendations for modifications. informal comments to the local gove~ cooperation, and technical assistance proposed amendments. These adviso] providing coordination between t comprehensive plans. Backqround St. Lucie County is considering 13-.~ Land Use Element. The locations consideration are shown on the accomp of acres and proposed changes in summarized on the following table: ?LANNING COUNCIL DU M AGENDA ITEJ'.I 5D (eeting Lye Plan Review - it. Lucie County al Governmemt Comprehensive tlation Act, Chapter 163, provided an opportunity to plan amendments prior to has submi~'t'ed proposed Community Affairs, which in ~orwarded by/~ the Department of the relationship of the ~1 policy Plan developed Statutes. i If a conflict identifiedi, the regional objections? and may make Council ~also provides nment through a spirit of on matters irelated to the ~ commentstl are aimed at he local ~i and regional Lmendments ~o ~their Future- of the prbperties under ~nying map,~iand the number and use d~Signations are In order to assist the Council in their review, the following definitions from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are included: LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINi ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMP~ AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Area~ citrus, vegetables and forestry, cattle and stock r~ direct agricultural uses. Dw one per acre and developments. SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refe development (less than one generally housing, that does character of the area. RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP~ that allows for residential an overall density of up to Evaluation The proposed amendments have been rev~ requirements of Chapter 163, Florida procedures, and Council's adopted Ret Plan. The following comments are o~ review. Many of the parcels under cons with native pine flatwoods [TIONS FROM THE EHENSIVE p~ used for the production Of ~ther produce, nurseries, ising, dairyl farms and othe~ ~lling unitsi at a density of ~rge-scate, self-contained ~s to very l~w density urban dwelling Unit per acre), not prevail! over the rural ~NT: A development category development ~projects having .ye dwelling units per acre. .'ewed in accordance with the Statutes, Council's review 'ional Comprehensive Policy fered as a result of that [deration are covered vegetation. These properties have the potential listed as rare, threatened, or encourages the development of sensitive to the needs of any~li preserve as much native vegetatio Items 1, 2, and 3 (PA-88-007, PA These three parcels are relatedd. Development of Regional Impact (] (1,400 acres) is being propos residential development. The s~ future interchange of 1-95 and proposed for commercial land us~ used for a resort hotel (40.5 center (30.3 acres). The proposed land use changes wou] intensity of development, theref( traffic volumes, All traffic im for containing species endangered. Council site plans that are ~ted species and which n as possibl~. ~8-008, and PA 88-006) [rectly to The Reserve )RI). The %arge a~ea ed for lo~ density aller parcels at the ~rima Vista 'Boulevard , are proposed to be cres) and a shopping d result in a greater ~re generating higher )acts and appropriate 3 government should give away that currency without assurance that in return the citizens of the area will also benefit To do So · would not be prudent. The owner of this proPertyl has requested that the land use be changed from Productive (4,30 to LOw Den~ acres acres) intell~ Ient, .well To sub~ V requ~ in develo' the for the c~ of that impact. :ial (3,000 (1,300 e community even an enhance perceived , without value and anything even :elligently negative Until such time as ~cient data to assure the public that I in their interest and that gative and environmental impacts will not occur, the change should .not be made. .Granting the proposed chang~ would interfere with the planning of an importan~ future groWth area in an intelligent, comprehensive, and positive manner. Interference would occur for two reasons: 1) because, as mentione( ~he local government,s ~egotiating pc have been compromised prior to a plan 2) because the change would of what now is a very la2 single ownership (10,000 ac techniques which can ass positive growth are difficu. multiple ownership occurs. By way of illustration, a col being developed; and encourage the breakup · ge trac~ o~ land in res). Man~ planning ~re intelligent and It to implement where lprehensive 9valuation lude that d~e to the Iportance oflthe.land,' llY occur Ohly .within~ .nterchange.~ If the °wnersh~p, lthe local approve d :velopment of this property might conc ecological or agricultural i~ that development should ides a two-mile radius of the entire 10,000 acres is singl~ government is in a position ~ t~ fo_r~_of a mi~ed use, Compactl comm,.nity that ~OVl~es ~u~ure residents a place where they can lye, worK, and shop without having t~ commute excessively long distances, in re~urn for an agPeement %hat remaining portions Of the property are dedicated 'to ecological preserve teas, as action to encourage development. Based on development approvals that have t© be granted to date ih: Pot6 St. Lucie~nd St' LUcie County, it is clear~ that substantia res wif! be necessary to expand roadway system. Just to support approved d it appears an additional east/West 'or expresswa~will.be existing roads w' 111 .need~ to be even more and cost needs would not~ be prudent potentially increase per capita costs ng the area needing to be served. GenerallY, large blocks of single use (ii.e., 3,000 acres of residential) discouraged and mixed use people op~ all and of blocks of low density, require people to get in essentially every today blamed for like LoslAngeles and:Dade follow ~e methods creel kinds areas be to i~ future of this Region. The need :for more than 60 Interchange Commercial at unclear and needs to be con~ comprehensive effect ar surrounding areas prior to s both the City of Port ~St~ Lu such study has been proposed The redesignatiOn of land ut that provides shop in .need for the more Large land drive for )f uses is in places :ontinue to that have t in these away the of is rms of its d to pproval, g to cie and the County, no ~e is inappropriate at this time (for reasons noted above) and unnecessary. Although 'n°t.~t'his'' property has review .package subm~tted~.~' represented in the orientedalready"beenp°tentialgranted!and 600the acres ~'of i~terchange Agricultural Productive category allows f~ scale, self- contained development. The ( thing r~quired to obtain s~ch use ~ould be apD] of an %cceptable developm6 ~t plan. Since re~ le use ~s a~ready allocated ~it ~is not clear Why the County should agree to ~pgrade substantially land d~velopment p6tential in the absence of ~ p~an. reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems and provides for the more efficient '.delivery of i~frastructure. Large blocks, of 1°w density, ~urety ~residential la~d require people to get in ~heir cars and drive for essentially every need. separation of uses is today blamed fore, the tral in places like Los Angeles and Dade follow the methods of created the kinds of probl areas would be to ignore hi future of this Region. No assessment has been methods of providing trans~ supply, 'park, dra facilities to this p. miles away; Responsible growth managem~ governments understand development and demonstrate services concurrent with~ action to encourage dew development approvals that date in Port St. Lucie and ~clear that substantial , necessary to expand the ex~ Just to support approved de an additional east/west road ?continue~.~to development that have sm.S that exist in these .story and g~ve away the lone ~of the costs or ortation, sewage, water school, or medical '. There are area. The nearest ~ices facility is 14 nt requires that local ~ily the costs of and servic~ to new an ability to deliver need prior to taking !lopment. Based on have to be granted to it. Lucie CoUnty, it is ~xpenditures will be [sting roadway system. ~vel°pment, ~iit appears way o~ expressway will be needed and many existing roads will ~eed to be substantially expanded° Te growth prior to determiningan effj t'eVenand mOrecost effective~method of payin¢ for i existing needs ~oulld not~ be pruden~~' Dn~ would substantially lnc~ase per capita, costs ;Y expandin~i the area needing to be served. The area is presentl.y retati, can be reached only via Gia, the north,: and with a connec~ Road provided by Range Lin~ All roads are two-laned~ provided to address the seri¢ deficiencies which already St. Lucie County; and While this property may lend to the development of a mi~ literally to a new town gi· tract), the proposed land us~ 'ely inacces ~es Cut-off ~ion ~to ~la¢ ~ Road.<.~to~ No asse~ ~us east/wes~ xist in thi ~ible. It Road from ~s Cut-off he south. sment is capacity area of itself in ~he future ed-use community (or ;en the sizD of the change promotes the that infrastructure in an are~ which is nlot only well removed from .existing urban facilities, but is to be characterized by sprawling, low densities extremely high. Finally, CoUnCil recognizes th tt the category ~appears t° : allow 1 .ttle diversity in land use existing land use categ¢ it allows be while the could result in single use Martin Cou] the impact that devel¢ Martin Count, staff has e this and the plan polici~ Use Plan Based on the information amendment appears to be in con with the policies Containe Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~Pa 88-001k This amendment is for a 22- immediately west of U.S. 1 bec and two mobile ' home parks. Col the petitioner intends to consol to develop a Planned Non-re (PNRD). The proposed Industrial 9ecessary to accommodate wholes~ an the. d~velopment. Public wate~ site, put public sewage treatmen The County Will want to ev associated with this parcel pri¢ approvals. Also, the County ~ay , the opportunity~ in conjunction. provide access between ~he'mobil shopping Plaza. All opportunit reduce stress on U.S. 1 should be ~sed on the information pro~ amendment does not appear to inconsistent with the policies Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan ~tem 7 (PA 88-0021 This amendment involves a 114-a¢ petitioner intends to develop as communi%y. The property is manufactured home development a will be land use ~dditional .The reta because d~velopments, iimit~ng and development. relating to e change on Urban with the ~ovided, th~ flict ~ in proposed ~cre parcel~ of land ~ween a shoDping plaza [nty staff '~ates that idate parcels in order sidential ~evelopment Light (IL) liand use is le activities planned is available at this t facilities are not. aluate the~ wetlands ~r to any development cant to takei'a look at ¢ith this p~oject, to e home parks and the ies such as this to carefully c~nsidered. ~ided;.. the.il proposed be :,in ~O~flict or contained in the re parcel which the a manufactured home djacent to another nd lies a~ong the 11 The property associated with Item 12 is !covered with mature sand pine scrub habitat It should be surveyed by qualified personnel for tlle presence of Lakela,s mint, a federally endangered pi population is known to exist near the subject parcel Becal tat is ' encourages the preservation of as possible. 11 if scrub habitat exists. Prior to development a traf~ prepared for each site and Engineer and Florida Department analysis should address, impacts (U.S. 1) in order to define Based on the information prov expressed above, the proposed to be in conflict or inconsis~ contained in the Regional Compre Item 13 (PA 88-013~ ant species !whose entire Drily in a f!ew locations se sand scrub habi- in tk. Council habitat .o 10 and .c analYsisi should be and ~e concerns not appear ~ent with the policies ~ensive Policy Plan. This parcel (12.5 acres) is located of the 25th Street/Midwa ..... immediately north rapidly evolvin~ in~o - -~ ~-intersection which is Cou ~ ~ major ln~.ersec · · nty. The int · _ t~on in St Luc' re ersectlon a]~d ~ - le P_ grammed for major im ......... both roadways are ~=~en~.. All foum quadrants of the intersection area now hay commercial! land use. This amendment would make an e a quadrant, xp n to the northeast A traffic study should be submit~ approval of the County Engineer address traffic impacts on South Road. Both roads will be heavily West and The Reserve. Mitigati~ proposed to maintain acceptable the applicable roadways and inters The St. Lucie River (North Fork) the east. There have been ~f management problems in this area. · underway on how to manage such p Fork drainage area. County staff supports the' petition~ developing a compact core to the c recognizing the environmental cons~ conflic=s of continued commercia reflecting the long standing com~ ed for the review and · The study should !5th Street and Midway impacted by St. Lucie e measures ishould .be levels of s~rvice -on ections. lies immediately to requent storm, water~. '-'A study is ~urrently ~oblems in the North citing the logic of ommercial area while taints and potential lization. : Perhaps unity opposition to 13 23 9 .J Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, 1988 Page Two Co CR 609 {Range Line Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin County line. Land uses to the south i both Martin and St. Lucie County would remain agricultural. Als,, please note that the Florida Department of Corrections facility is ,)perating immediately to the south of the County line west of CR 60!~. These changes would be incompatible wii Plan and may lead to potential adverse e~vironmental degradation to Allapath F g~ven to the placement of east-west rou thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie are the ~,iajor Thoroughfare Plan then develo be concurrent with development of thes( The potential impact of urban developmE interchange at 1-95, the potential wide~ developement of major thoroughfares in coordinated with Marti.q County at the t this property. The magnitude of traffi~ this land use change, was not envisione~ Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Yea coordination that exists between the tw~ jeopardized. 2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT: The current land use designation amendme development plans, is not expected to ha/ social, economic, or environmental impact an urban type development occur in this a County and surrounding areas will have to I trust that these comments will assist your rev amendment. Should you need additional informati contact me. Sincerely, Harry ~. King, Planning Administrator HWK/ERC/dlw [0146] CC: Board of County Commissioners Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Henry !ler, Growth Management Plan, Appointee ~h the Martin County Land Use traffic impact~ and lats. Consideration should be res connecting~to major a. If these are proposed on ~emnt of these roadways should and surroundimg properties. )t west of the Gatlin Boulevard ~ing of CR 609 and the :his area ~ill ihave to be me of development review for , which could ibe produced by in the development of the 2005 Transportation Plan and county's plans may be )t without any~specific e any immediat!e significant s on Martin County. Should rea, the impact on Martin be closely evaluated. ~w of this lan~ use ~, please do not hesitate to Development Department Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coord!inator Patti Tobin, City of Por~ St. Lucie 3 FRANK A. WACHA TOM HIGGINS THOMAS G. KENNY. III MAGGY HURCHALLA BOARD OF COUN'TY COM~ ISSIONERS 240I S.E. Monterey' Road · Stuart, Fl. WILLIAM ROBERT ALCO'rr · County Adrmnistrator COUNTY OF MARTIN C0-88-JH-315B September i3, 1988 Mr. Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 1529 Palm City, Florida 34990 -. RE: St. Lucie'County Proposed Land Use Amendment Dear Mr. Cary: At the September 13, 1988 Board of County Commiss referenced St. Lucie County land use amendments w~ following concerns were addressed: Potential Traffic Impacts. The change in lan~ land within a few miles of the County line fro Interchange-Oriented, Low Density Residential have a significant traffic impact on Martin Co development of such large tracts of land will I-9~, the Turnpike and CR 609, it will also cr east-west and north-south arterial lanes withi With the existing connections to Martin County amount of traffic from this area will invariab Martin County. The existing 1-95 route and pl Boulevard access to CR 714 will result in addi on CR 714 from the subject sites. CR 714, bei between CR 609, 1-95 and the Palm City-Stuart affected by development of the subject parcels The potential for large scale developments in build-out date, may create a need for roadway been previously Warranted.due to the existing Any future development plans should be careful coordination of future roadway corridors withi between Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Chairman JOHN W. HOLT. JR. O~stnct 5 rida 34996-3397 PHONE 288-5422 STATE 0F' FLO RI DA for PA-88-009 and pA-88-014 oners meeting, the above re discussed and the use of + 7,3Q0 acr.es of m AgricuTturalli to and Semi-Urban uses will unty. The potential not only increlase traffic on ,ate a need for additional n the project areas. , we feel thatI a significant ly be distributed into ~nned Port St.~Lucie tional and unplanned trips qg the principal route Jrban area, may be adversely :his area, with no specified improvements which have not 'ural/agricult~ral uses. ly monitored fbr the the project, as well' as Page 1 of 2 Mr. Dan Cary September 13, 1988 Page 2 of 2 e reimbursements for any Martin County facilitie increased development potential on the subject should be given to development agreements and/ to Martin County should these increased develo approval. Martin County requests consideration by St. Lucie County fop s that are impacted by the sites. Consideration or assignment Df impact fees ~ment potentiaqs be granted Coordination and monitoring of potential envir wetlands and existing agricultural uses in the closely. We trust that these comments will be helpful in th, use amendments. It is hoped that Martin County co) final review, will prove helpful to both counties. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these S i ncer/~ ly, John W. Holt, Jr. Chairman JWH/HWK/ERC/bw:O167h Attachments Board of County Commissioners Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting CDD Director Henry B. Iler, Growth Management Director Appo Harry W. King, Planning Administrator St~ Lucie County CDD~ Jack Krieger, Chairman, St. Lucie County BCC CC: ~nmental impacts on the area should be monitored evaluation of these land )ments,, incorporated in the ssues. i ntee 2401 S.E. Monrerex. Road · Stuar; Florida 34998 COUNTY OF MARTIN STATE OF FLORIDA August 29, 1988 Mr. Terry k. Hess, AI. CP, Planning Coordinator Treasure Coast Regidnal Planning Council Palm City, Florida 34990 RE: St. Lucie County Land Use Amendment for PA 8~)-009 and PA 88-014 Dear Terry, I apologize that we will not be able to agenda th~ subject items before the Martin County Board of County Co~issioners prior to Sept~er )3, 1988. In the interim, I am supplying these cements from ti e Co~nity Development Department. The Board may have mre specific cements for your ~Septe~er ' Council meeting. 1. IMPACT ON MARTIN COUNTY'S PLANS~ POLICIES AN~CTIVITIE~: a. The first proposal in PA 88-009 is to chan.)e approxi~te~ly 4,300 acres of agriculturally designated lands to inte~-change oriented develop~nt (X) and Low Density Develop~nt (RL ~-5 up~). This may have significant impacts on Martin County s ms, policies and activities. The applicant is not proposiml a specific develo~nt at this ti~ and the existing Agricultural zo~ing (AG) will remain intact. This co~licates the existing agr~ cultural zoning in areas of Martin County in proximity to this parcel. If this change is accepted it will set the stage for a potential urbaK t~e develop~nt abuting agricultural areas in Martin County. b. The second proposal which will have an impact on Martin Oounty is PA 88-014. This amend~nt request is to change approxima~tely 3,000 acres of Agricultural (AG) to Semi-Urban (sU) land uses. ~ Generally, there are no urban concentrations in this area which is cbnsidered rural and agricultural. The application indicates that t~e land use change will not provide any increase in density, since bo',h th Semi-Urban and Agricultural land use catego),ies permit development at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ~cre. This property is located between the East C ~ast Railway L~ne and Pltznnin~ · Zonin~z ,md Code ComNiancc . Building. Contractors' Licensing, Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, 1988 Page Two Ct CR 609 (Range Line Road) approximately t~Io miles north of the Martin County line. Land uses to the south in t oth Martin an~ St. Lucie County would remain agricultural. Also, please note t~at the Florida Department of Corrections facility is opt rating immediately'to the south of the County line west of CR 609. These changes would be incompatible wit~ ~h ' . e Martin County Land Use Plan and may lead to potential adverse t~affi~c impacts ~and environmental degradation to Allapath Flats. Consideration should be given to the placement of east-west route connectino thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. If these ~re1 pr~ed on the Major Thoroughfare Plan then develope nt of these rpadways should be concurrent, with development of these a~d surroundingiproperties. The potential impact of urban development west of the G~tlin Boulevard interchange at 1-95, the potential wideni~g of CR 609 aid the developement of major thoroughfares in th s area will h, ve to be coordinated with Martin County at the tim of developme) t review for this property. The magnitude of traffic, which could bt produced by this land use change, was not envisioned n the development of the Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year coordination that exists between the two jeopardized. 2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT: The current land use designation amendment development plans, is not expected to have social, economic, or environmental impacts an'urban type development occur in this ar, County and surrounding areas will have to I trust that these comments will assist your revie, amendment. Should you need additional information contact me. Planning Administrator HWK/ERC/dlw [0146] CC: Board of County Commissioners Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Henry Iler, Growth Management Plan, Appointee Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Patti Tobin, 2005 Transport(tion Plan and c~unty's plans may be without any specific any immediate, significant on Martin County. Should a, ~he impactton Martin e closely evaluated. of this land use please do no~ hesitate to evelopment Department ~'Co~nty Community Development Coordinator ~ Y'of Port St. Lucie BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS Ms. Eula Clark Martin County Planning Department 50 Kindred Street Stuart, FL 33495 August SUBJECT: DUDA Plan Amendment _ PA-88-009 Dear Ms. Clark: As per of St. Lucie your telephone request, encl¢ County with the Duda propert 88-009) designated. I have also enclo~ interchange and Residential Low Density the St. Lucie County Growth Management Pol If you have any questions free to contact this o~fice, about th/ Enclosure DS/la Sincerel Donna B. Assistan. HAVERT L. FE'NN. District No. 1 e JUDY CULP£PPER, District No 2 e ~ACK KRi£G-- " ---' "~'""~ng ~xt- 316 e --"v"~'' : · Zoning: Ext. 344 DE 24, 1988 sed please F (as descr, 'ed the def anduse, as cy Plan. matter, Scanlon Planner ELNER, District No 4 $ 07) 466-11 O0 Code Enforcemer V6LOPM6NT )IR6CTOR find a lease JI, I MINIX, D/strict ~. 5 Ext. 294 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS DIRECTOR Ms. Eula Clark Martin County Planning Department 50 Kindred Street Stuart, FL 3349~ August 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Large Area Plan Amendments - 198 Dear Ms. Clark: As per your request, enclosed please for PA-88-009 (Duda and Sons) and PA-88- al.). If you have any questions about thi free to contact this office. Enclosure DS/ia Sincerel Donna B. Assistar. HAVERT L. FENN. Disl'rict No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER. Distri¢~ No. 2 ® JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R~ DALE T, County Ac~ministraror. WELDON B~ LEWIS 2300 Virginio Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone Director; Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext 34, Find the staff reports 014 (John McCarty, et matter, please feel Scanlon Planner EFELNER D s" ~ ~,a 4 e~ j;!,' ~,~J';7~ D~srr,c No .5 (407) 466-I !00 · Code £nfa-cemenr. Ex; 294 si:. luCie AUgUst 4, 1988 The Honorable Jack Kreiger Chairman Board of County Commissioners St.~ Lucie.County 2300 Virginia.Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 33450 ' Subject: St. Lucie County Local -'~:~ Comprehensive-Plan Docum Dear Commissioner Kreiger: ernment ts This is to notify you that the Regi( Planning Council' has received a request from the State Department !~of Community planningAffairs (DCA) document: for comments on the following comprehensive Amendments to Future Land 7se Element (13) St. Lucie County Comp ;ive Plan Council staff will review the docum,~nts in accordance with .the 'requirements of the Local ~ CDmprehensiVe Planning and~Da~d~Devel~pment tion Act, ~h~Pt~er 163~ Florida Statutes. It is antic~ recommended comments will be meeting on September 16, 1988. d that thei report and to Council at its Prior to the' Council meeting, the age~da, report, and recommended comments of the sta will be transmitted to ~ou~_ ~ou or any representat~ ..... ~f ~v= ~ yo1 znv~e~ to attend the meetin ~r local government are opportunity ~ ~ ....... g, and will be ~fforded an ~ ~ ~u~==~ ~ne Council. Following the Council meeting the adopted comments will be ransmitted ~o DCA. If you have any questions regarding matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. . Si~ncerel~,/~ Planning Coordinator TLH:lb cc: Dennis Murphy, AICP 3228 s.w. martin clowns bivcl. suite 205 · p.o. box ~529 Pglrn city, l/orlda 34990 phone (407) 286-33t3 Jim mlnix chalrm~n ?'fflom~ g. keflny, III vice chmlm~n john acor daniel m. cary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION6RS July 9, lg88 Mr. Ralph K. Hook Division of Resource Management Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Subject: Transmittal of Winter 1988 Proposed Amendn St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy P1 Dear Mr. Hook: / Enclosed, please find ten (10) copie~~ Management Policy Plan scheduled for final of the t~ proposed Land Use Amendments to the St. Lucie Col 1988~ ~On TUesday, July 12, 1988,~ the St. review in Lucie 'Coun county Commissioners. after holding a Pilblic hear/ petition, voted unanimously to forward eac]l of these the Department of Community Affairs fc,r furthe accordance with the Statutes. requirements of Chapter 16 As cited in the staff reports for eac three (3) of the thirteen (13) proposed chi Development of Regional Impact submission considered to be a small area amendment und, Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; be 'emergency plan amendments; none are under a joint planning agreement pursuant Florida Statutes- and located withj of Critical Stat; Conc~? are Since three (3) of the submitted Land related to the submission of a Development o permitted, we WOuld appreciate an expediti Land Use Amendments associated with Calla Company,(ADA) is so that if the ApPlication for D~ completed, both the land plan proposed development order for this project HAVERT [ FINN Distnc~ No I · JUDYCULPEPp£~ D,s';,cr N'o 2 e .lACK K~£G£R D,srncr No 3 · R DALE 2300 V~rg~ma Avenue · Fo. P:erce FL 34982 5c52 · "~05;' 466.~ h of these J CK KRI6G6R CHAIRMAN, ents to the Lrteen nty Gr, Decemb~ :Y; BOar ng on lnges are rE Fhe Reserve~ ~r the requ/ one are con )roposed fo~ to Chapter n any desig Use Amendl f Regional ous review ~ay Land ar ~velopment amendments may be hea: RfFELN£R D,sm~ NO 4 Flor Petition lated to ; none a rements, ~idered adoptj 163.31 ated A~ ~ents ar mpact, of tho d Cart Approva[ and th( d at JiM M~NtX D~srno- Nc ~, 0~'~ ar,~,05~ 878-J~89~s July 19, 1988 Page 2 Sub3ect: Winter 1988 same time. As of July 14, 1988, this application by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and additional information requested. Zf during your review of these pr( any questions, Development please do not hesitate Community for assistance. ~:-'that~:'~of~f~ice..:to contact wo.uld::~e COmmunity Development When or Mr. De Administrator. your Agency returr St. Lucie County, Z WOuld appreciate it copies to Mr. Virta and Mr Daniel ~cZ well. . We appreciate the time you Will Petitions, and loo~ forward to rece&v requests. )pOSed amen( to contact Specific erry Virta ~n/s s its if YOu WOul tyre, Count, be Spend ng your ir Board 6f County Cc JK/DJM/meg TRANSl(B30) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Development Director Petition Files was de ~s insu AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Gillis, to amend the Future Land Use Clas~ Lucie County Growth Management Policy Pla~ to X (Interchange-Oriented Development) an Residential Development) for the followin9 (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRI (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin B1 Please note that all proceedings befo Commissioners are electronically recorded. to appeal any decision made by the Board o with respect to any matter considered at s' he will need a record of the proceedings, purpose, he may need to ensure that a verb proceedings is made, which record includes evidence upon which the appeal is to be ba~ of any party to the proceeding, individual: hearing will be sworn in. Any party to th~ granted an opportunity to cross-examine an~ during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice all adjacent property owners November 21, published in the News Tribune, a newspaper in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988. BOARD OF ST. LUCI /s/ Jack FILE NO W DNESDA~,, DECEMBER "i~, 988 7 00 P.M. Agent: Charlotte E. ification of the St. from AG (Agricultural) d RL (Low D~nsity described property: PTION ) vd. interChange) ~.e the Boardi of County If a pers~n decides County Con ch meeting ind that, fc trim record missioners or hearing, ~ sUch 0f the the testimo:~y and ~ed. Upon the request testifying~i during a proceedingi;i will be individual ii test ifying c~ the same Was sent to 1988. Legal notice was of general circulation COUNTY COM5 ISSIONERS E COUNTY, FI ORIDA Krieger, c~iairman . PA-88-009 Low Density Residential The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-hal~ of Section 8: the west one- half of Section 9; the south one-half of the sour one-half of ~ection 15 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95i the and the north one-half of the n. ..... ~or~hwes~ one-quarter s-_thwest one-quant r of ~ec~ion 16; the Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of t e so . . Section 17; all of Section 2 . _ ._ ~ . uthe~st o~e-quarter of · . 2 excepting the ri ht-ot-w ~ . west riaht of w~,, ~-~ ~ · .... ~ ~ne~quarter of section 23 lyi~Q w t nf fh~ 95,.that port,on of the southwes ~ ~ay o~ Int rstate Route ~ . o~ ,,,= u, ~n~ersta~e ~oute - _ ,~ es ....... East, St. Lucre County, Florida. 95, Towtsh~p 37 South', Range 39 Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half f Section 10 lying west of the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; that portion ~f Section 15 less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of the ~est right-of- way line of Inter. state Route 95; the northeast one-quarter and t~e north one- half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, Township 37 Soutlh, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS November 21, 1988 D6V6LOPM6NT DIR6CTOR In compliance with the provisions of the are hereby advised that A. Duda & . E. Gillis, has petiti ne~ ~- ~ ions, In~ amend the Future Land°Us~ ~_~?~ ?f Sou! ~ ' ~a~rlcation Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agrj change-Oriented Development) and RL (Low De Development) for the following described pr (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIP (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin Blv. A public hearing on the petition Wednesday, December 14 19°o · ~11 be he. Chambers th~~ =~__ ,~ oo, '~n St. Lucie ( 2300 · ~ ~xoor cz County Administrat2 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Lorida Statu~es, you :., by Agent,: Charlotte ~ty CommissiOners to ' the St. LuCie County cultural) tO X (Inter- nsity Residential operty: rION) interchange) d at 7:00 P!.M. on ~ounty CommiSsion .on Buildin9 Annex, All interested per- sons will be given an opportunity to be heal d at that time. Please note that all proceedin s be Commissioner . g fore the ?~ of St. Lucme Count = Board of Count recorded. ~ a .......... Y' Flor±da, are ~%~=?r ~ou~ty Commissioners wi~ha~1 ~ny decision made byYthe ~, zuere~ at such meeting or he- . =mp~cl t~ any matte~ nne proceedings, and that =- ~r>ng, ne will need a reCor ~nsur~ that a verbatim rego~r~u?~ purpose,he may needi tnd of ~ecor~ includes the testimo~ ~dn~$ipr°ceedSngs is madei; ~hich la to be based. Upon the request ~ ~nc~_~t'°n.which the appeal individuals testifyin§ during a hearing will -~ ~ ~ a~Y p~ly to the proceeding, party to the proceeding will be granted an o~ examine any individual testifying during a he If you no longer own property adjacent to the parcel, Please forward this notice to the new you should have any questions, additional inf obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1553. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Jack Krieger,X~/Chairman ~ FILE HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER District No. 3 · R. DALE TF County Administrator. WELDON B. LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 be sworn ~n. Any POrtunity to cross- aring upon request. above-descr~ibed owner. If )rmation may be NO. PA-88-009 FELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MIN/X. District No. 5 407) 466-1100 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294 LO~ Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-ha half of SeCtion 9; the snuth one-half of the soul excepting the right-of-way,of Interstate Route 9! and the north one-half of the southwest one-quart Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of t Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, To East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; less the south one-half of t way line of ~,~ ....... he south one-half lyin! half of the .... :->Ldce Route i95; the northeast one. southeast one-qua~rter of Section 16, East, St. Lucie County, Florida. f of Section h one-half of ; the northwe er of Section re southeast -of-way of ~ection 23 'nship 37 f Section 10 that portion west of the ~uarter and t ~nship 37 Sout , Range BOARD or COUNT REGULAR D Tape: #1 - #3 IONERS C( adjo Commissioners Present: -Chairman Jack Havert L. Fenn; Jim Mini'x;~R 'Dale Trefeln~r; Ou~y noted). . eger; Others Present: ASsistant County Krista Storey and Virta, Community Administrator; Public WOrks Administrator; Off/ce; Jane C. Weldon Lewis, County Adm. nistrat~ Administrator; Dan Mo Co Heather Young, ASsistan :ounty Development Director; Den ' Jef~ ~tt?ler, County ~gi~eer;~u1 WalterOZrect°r' tew England Jqt Smith and Evan Cg Ma sh, Deputy Clerk st°p°ur Reference was made to memorandum from P1 /~ddressed to the Board ~/_A. Duda and ~-- , dated Jul,, ~ ~oo~ a Classific~+~ o~ns, Inc.. ~ '_~, ~oo, Plan fr~?9 o~' the St ~u~~ ~me?o the um .AG (A ri ' ~u coun~ Gr · Density Re~ .... ~' cultural} t~ ~ .~ . ow ~-:~czaz Developme~t)~ ~ (Zn:erct It was moved by COm. Fenn, seconded by Com. this Petition to the Florida Department of Co review and Comments; and, unan/mously, upon roll ca1 g ubject future h Manag ange) l/nix, ~muni~.ty , moti .m. 3:25 P.m. (as ey; 'fy ng e, ty ~s ;trator, ion of Use Policy AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Gillis, to amend the Future Land Use Clas Lucme County Growth Ma to X (InterchanGe_Orie dential Development) f ( SEE A~ (Location: West side Please note that Commissioners are elect to appeal any decision i with respect to any mat' he will need a record purpose, he may need to proceedings is made, whJ evidence upon which the of any party to the proc hearing will be sworn Granted an opportunity t during a hearing upon Prior to this public all adjacent property published in the News Tr in St. Lucie County, on ]agement Policy Plat Ired Development) ar ir the following des 'TACHED LEGAL DESCRI f 1-95 at Gatlin B] 11 proceedings bef( tonically recorded nade by the Board o~ ~er considered at si the proceedings, ~nsure that a verb .ch record includes appeal is to be bas eeding, individuals Any party to the cross-examine any uest. hearing, notice o~ ~rs July 1, 1988. bune, a newspaper uly 5, 1988. BOARD O ST. LUC /s/ JaC FILE NO TUESDAY JULY 12, 1988 1:30 P.M. AGent: Charlotte E. ~ification of the St. from AG (AGricultural) ~ RL (Low Density Resi- cribed property: PTION) vd. interchange) ~e the Board of County If a person decides County Commissioners ich meeting or hearing, ~nd that, for such tim record of the the testimony and ed. Upon the request testifying during a proceeding will be individual ~estifying the same was sent to 3eGal notice was cf General circulation F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS fE COUNTY, FLORIDA Krieger, Chairman PA-88-009 ~ Low Oens~ty Residential (RL) The ~outh one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Section 8; the west one- half of Section 9; the south one-half of the south one-half of Section 15 excep~ting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the northwes~ one-quarter and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section 16; the Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of tl~e southeast one-quarter of Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right..of-way of Int~rstate Route 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, Toy East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; less the south one-half of the south one-half lyin~ way line of Interstate Route 95;.the northeast one] half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, To East, St. Lucie County, Florida. ection 23 lyiag west of the 'nship 37 South, Range 39 if Section 10 lying west of that portion Of Section 15 west of the west right-of_ quarter and the north one- wnship 37 Sou~h, Range 39 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS July 1, 1988 D6V6LOPM6NT DIR6CTOR In compliance with the provisions of the. ~lorida Statutes, you are hereby advised that A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Charlotte E. Gillis, has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie COunty Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricultural) to X (Interchange_ Oriented Development) and RL (Low Density Residential iDevelop- ment) for the following described property (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRI TION) (Location: West side of I~95 at Gatlin BI 'd. interchange) A public hearing on the petition will be held at 1:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 12, , 1988, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Admin- istration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce iFlorida. All interested persons will be given an opPDrtunity to ibe heard at that time. ' Board of County are electronically ' decision m~de by the o any matte~ 11 need a record of he may need to ings is made:, which pon which th:e appeal ~y to the P~oceedin , be sworn l~. Any )portunity to cross- ~aring upon request. above-described owner. If 3rmation may be Extension 344/41. FIL~ NO. PA-88-009 HA~RT L. F£NN, Distri~ No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, Disrri~ No. 3 · R. DALE F~FELNER, Distric No. 4i~ JIM MINIX. Distric~ No. 5 · : . 2300 ' . . Coun~Administra~or_ WELDON B. LE~s D~rector ~t 398 · B~rgjm~ Avenue · Fo~ p erce, FL 34982 5652 · Phon ulldmg. Ext. 344 · Plannin^. Ex .... - e (407) 466-1100 ~ ~. ,. o~o · Zoning: ~t. 314 · Code Enforcement: ~t. 294 Please note that all proceedings before the Commissioners of St. LuCie County. Florida, recorded. If a person decides tO'appeal an~ Board of County Commissioners with respect considered at such meetin or · the Proceedings a~~ ~ ~g hearing, he ensure th ~ =~_~*~ ~na~, for such ur r~ ..... a~ ~ v~uarim record ~ ~P pose, .~u~u includes the t~ ~ u~e PrOceed · s to be based U~~mony and evidence u individ ~]o ~._~u~ one request of a u~o ~lrying during a he.arin~Yw~ party to the proceeding will be granted an o] examine any individual testifying during a h~ If you no longer own property adjacent to th~ parcel, please forward this notice to the you should have any questions, additional in~ obtained by Calling Area Code 407, 466-1100, Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ac~ Krieger, C~airman: Low Oensjty ResJdentJa! (RL) The south one-half of S~ · . half of Section 9 .... -colon 4, the east exceptin~ ~- .., one south one-h-~' ~ u ~-e right-of-way oF ,~.?~J! 0t the sour and the north one-half of the southwest one-quart ~ - ~-cerscate Route 95 Northeast one-quarter and the north one-ha)f of ti Section 17; al) of Section 22 excepting the right. 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of west right of way line of Interstate Route 95 To East, St. Lucie County, F)orida., f of Section; h one-half of ; the northwe~ )r of Section )e southeast 'Of-way of ection nship 3~7 Interchange iX) The east one-half of Section 9: the west on~ half 0 the west right-of.way line of ' less ~he south one-h Interstate Ro S~ctlon 10 way l~ne of I-+ .... ~lf_of the south nno ~.~e. 95; ac ~ortinn ~ ha]f °"~-quarter of Sectijn ~°n~"~~arter and t~ · ,,~:vscaCe ROute · -,,~--a~r ~Yin w m ;F'' U of the southeast .~ _95, the northeast g ..?? of the w East, St. Lucie County, Florida. .u, ~oWnship 37 Soutt 't t~ of Of- one. The St. Lucia County Board of County come{. ,,ers proposes to change the use of land within I" ~r a IhOWD~ in' the map in this advertisement. : 4r J : . ' A public hearing on the proposal will be held before the St.' Lucia County Board of County Commlas Tuesday, July 12, 1988, at 1:30 P.M., In Room 101, SI. Lucia County Administration Building. 2300 Virgin' Avenue,; Ft. Pierce, Florida. The purpose o! this meeting is to consider the comments and recommendations of th~'~St, Lucia[ County Local Planning Agency and determine whether or not to transmit the proposed land use plan the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency review in accordance with the Chapter 163.3184 Florida Statutes. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners ere electronicall~ decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the lng will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an lying during a hearing upon request. Copies of the proposed amendments to the St. Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan are public review in the St. Lucia County Office of. Community Development, Building a~Id Zoning Division 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, during normal business hours. -~l I in.~reeted ParSe. Ds may appear and wilt be: ~iven an opportunity to be heard et that~im~. ' f ~ becomes necessaw, these public hearings ~ay be continued from time to time. ' ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNT'~ COMMIS: · - ~- /$/JACK KRIEGER CHAIRMAN , A MATTHEW J. end MARIE T. SCHNEIDER, et al: ~ Railroad 500 feet nort~'o~ .Tr.'~."_'_'~,;;~".. ,u .~.u_ ~-ommercial Gen~al)** Location. i ~ ,3 '.~- n--.~N u~ANCH OCEANOGRAP -- - .- ~,~.,u ~cres M H P ) HICINST~UTION, iNC.: ~ ' ' ' From RL (Low Den~ ReNdenflal) to CG (Commdrb~l G · · ~iphway, et the e=lsttng Harbor Bran ..... en~rel). Lo~at~n: ~ acres lus mi C NCNBOFFLO~IDA. chFacllitms.~O~D~x~Hignway P ,. nus,~nN~U.S. 1 From RL (Low Density Residential) lo CH (Commetcl~ HI h I : O e.l.~[nh~: S.COB~UNiTiEi, ~ and Old Dixtel~c.~HJohwav ........... ~, ~,~.. n_~=ueu, g wayJ: Locat~n: 11 ~ua, m~us ac~es, ~ng' From SU ISemi Urbanl to CG {Commercial GeneralJ~ Locat~n: i4:5 ~cms. lying at southw~l com~ of Road. E HEMINWAY CORPORATION: From (Semi Urban) to CG [Commercial Genera}): Location: 10 acres. ~ng along ~'~h ~ of St. Luc~ west of Keen R~d. ' .... ~'" : ~ ~ ~:'. ~ rFHJ'ROSSI H.J. ROSSAaaOCIATES, INC.:~ . "- . . ~ :.. . 4 '. . .: .... ~. ~. ~ ~ ~. ' ,.~ ~, . . : Market Avenue. · ......... : ,= acme. along t~e wast ~de of H THOMAS Zi YDON= From RL (Low Density Re,dent{al) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 11.2 acm ~atffslo~-: 6~ f~: no~h of West M~way Road. I ST. LUCIEINVESTM;NTCORP.: ' ~. From: CG (Commercial General} to IL [lndustriaJ Li~h't}: Locat;oR: 21.~ acres, I~ng W~t of South U.S. 1. op~te -neanBoulevard. ' I i i JANE W. TURMAI~ ., From SU {Semi Urban} to RL (Low Den~ty Reside,.;i~): Locat~n: ~ acres. ~mg at Lane. {He,our Ridge/Wide Waters) . :. - no,beast <FromCAL~WAY~ (SemtLANDurbanllnd ~ATTLE COMPANy; -: - . . , . . -. to RL {Low Den~ ~ ' - ~ . ' S,~ Re?de,flail, CT (Com~c~Tou~t) and CG (C~mer~l General ~ ' ' T,Eminu~H RESERVE.acres' lying between Interstate 95 and Glade~ Cut-Off~. :., Rp3d.. Petition. · pa~.~of .D~e~. pm~t of R~I ~m~ i} L~n- A DUDA A F~om AG (P~ducfive.Agrlcultural) to X (f~er ' " ' :' ':' : · .a.,ge Locatiom 3.~ pJus, minul ac~. ~ng south of G~des C~ff PLANNING AND ZONING LOCAL PLANNING ST. LUCIE COUNTY, REGULAR MEET] AND SPECIAL..REVIEW OF LARGE ARE. MINUTES OMMISSION .GENCY FLORI DA ~G PLAN AMENDB BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: J. P. Terpenin [, Mabel Fa~ Ferrick, Patricia King, Ralph Flowers, Joseph Scit Douglas Skidmore. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Carman - excused il Allen - excused, illness. ' OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant County Atto.-ney, Krista Planning Administrator, Dennis J. Murp]~y; Assistar Donna Scanlon; and, Assistant Planner, Ray Skorzev PRESS ATTENDANCE: Susan Burgess, News Tribune (f¢ the meeting) TAPES: 1, 2, 3, & 4 DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23, 1988 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: FILE NO. PA-88-009: Petition of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., by Agent: ~harlotte-E. to amend the Future Land Use Classification- ,f the St.. L{ County Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agriculturz (Interchange Development) and RL (Low Density Residentia veiopment) for property located on the west side of I~95 Port St. Lucie, at the Gatlin Boulevard interchange area Mr. Todd Deming presented the petition· He said they ha( working with County Staff for two years planning out an priate project. They feel the AG portion of the property inappropriately designated. The request for Land change based on land use activity in the area. Mr. )eming offer drawing as an exhibit to show What is being'r..,quested. I of access, there is one interchange and one PZ'oposed inte~ The County has expressed interest in extendi Gatlin Bou through A. Duda & Sons, Inc. property, to whiz there iS objection on the part of the petitioner. Bec use the area is becoming developed, the petitioner fei ls AG is no appropriate· ApProximately 4300 acres out of 10,000 acre.~ requested for land use to RL and X. The petit loner feels more appropriate land use transition between high intenSit terchange commercial uses and agriculturaI use . A change zoning request is not planned at this time. Mrs. Fawsett said she met the property manager Mr. Charli Black, on the County to6r of the property· Sh, the sod farm is located~.! Mr. Btac questioned located south, and of~<~& .... ~k and Mr. De{ ing said it three areas' Mr ~ ........ ~ ~' The citru.~ · · ~x~cK ~nG~cat~d on the drawi~ is located. · Mr. Sciturro questioned if a certain area is a] Interchange. Mr. Demin9 said the existing land designate that area as Interchange; however, th.~ request in a change in configuration of that Interchange a:.'ea, making square shaped rather than diamond shaped· Mr- ]~ming indic on the drawing where the..~ RL land use is being r~:quested. Regarding Staff commentS, Mr. Murphy said Staff will contiE work closely with the petitioner in the formula ion of the for this project· At th'is point in time, Staff recommends furtherVal of the review, petition and recommended, transmittal to the DCA After considering the testimony presented durin¢ the public lng, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of R.eview ENTS sett, Patricia urro, and lness; Jo Ann Storey; Planner, ~ki. a portion of Gillis, ~cie ~1) to X De- west of 22 been )pro- is to RL is -=d a ~ terms .'change. [eva_rd 1o 'ounding longer is RL is a Y in- in ~where is is centereg in' g where thelcitrus 'eady'desig~ated use plan dces volves it ated 2e to )ians ~ppro- 'or hear- s set :tio~ StL. UC~e of to Agenda Item: rzle Number: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE:- SUBJECT: Local Planning Agency Planning Administrator June 16, 1988 Petition of A. Duda & SOns, Inc., Charlotte E. Gillis, to Amend the Futu Classification of the St. Lucia Cou Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricul (Interchange Development) and RL (L~ Residential) LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GMPP: PROPOSED GMPP: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: West side of 1-95, west of Lucie, at the Gatlin interchange area. AG (Agricultural) AG (Agricultural) RL (Low Density Residential (Interchange Development) Approximately 4,300 acres See Comments St. Luoie Co. - AG-and AR-1 Port St. Lucie - RS-4, OSC, GU The area is primarily undeve!o are some single family homes e 95 located in the City of Lucia. Station #i0 (Dalton Cir approximately 3.25 miles away. PA-88-009 by Agent: ~e Land Use ]ty Growth :ural) to X ~w Density Port St. Boulevard ) and X and IH )ed. There ~st of l- Port S't. le) is WATER/SEWER SERVICE: See comments. June 16, 1988 Page 2 Petition: A. Duda File No.: PA-88-O0 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: In reviewing this application for Droposed amen Growth Management Policy Plan, the Local Planning A consider and make the following determinations: Whether the proposed amendment is cons: all elements of the St. Lucie Growth Policy Plan; The proposed change in land use is cons the Residential Development Policies Interchange Development Policies of Management Policy Plan. Specific p support of this petition are #11, #14 #26 and #37. (See Comments) e Whether and the extent to which the amendment is consistent with existing al land uses in this area; The with area· proposed amendment is generally the existing and proposed land us, (See Comments) Whether there have been .changed require an amendment; See Comments co-ndii Whether and the extent to which the amendment would result in demands c facilities, and whether or to the extent the proposed amendment would exceed the of such public facilities, including limited to transportation facilities facilities, water supply, parks, schools, and emergency medical facilitie See Comments Sons, Inc. nent to the ency shall stent with Management stent with and the he Growth )licies in #16, #17, ' proposed id proposed consistent s in this ions that proposed s public to which capacity but not sewage drainage, ; June 15, 1988 Page 3 Petition: A. Duda File No.: PA-88-O 9 Whether and the extent to which tie amendment would result in an orderly and development pattern, specifically ident negative effects on such pattern; The proposed amendment has been deter~ an orderly and logical development part area· COMMENTS The petitioner, A. Duda & Sons, Inc., is proposing the future land use on approximately 43,000 acres holdings in St. Luoie Oounty. This property is more pl located west of 1-95 in the area of the Gatiin Bouleva] Port St. Lucie. The at%ached vicinity map will provide reference for your re¥iew. The petitioned property is within a designated area of Critical State Concern. Th does not qualify as a small area or emergency plan under Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes and is not pr adoption under a Joint~ Planning Agreement pursuant 163.3i?1, Florida Statutes. Sons, Inc. proposed logical ifying any ned to be rn in this to change of their Lrticularly 'd exit in ~a better ~ot located s property amendment posed for o Chapter As mentioned, this petition encompasses well over ,000 acres of property, and does net include the entire Dude holdilngs. It is our understanding that at this time it is not the inttention of the petitioner to develop this property. Rather, they are opting to begin the long ter~ planning process for the successful development of this pbopertyo Over the past ~ea~, Cou'~ty staff has been working closely with the petitioners representatives apprising them of the 1.o9~1 community's desires and expectations in this area. Most of ~he planning efforts to date lave been broad brush concepts, but have been based upon the County's transportation planning completed as a part comprehensive plan. efforts as well as the of the revisions to the Utility services and other community services will provided to this site as it is developed. Since the pr under one ownership, planning efforts should be made property owner that will permit the development of a c~ service system, or provi~sions should be made to connec' public system that may ex!ist at the time of development Clearly, the size of this property indicates Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review will be )rk being County's ~ave to be ,perty is ~ by the 'ntralized to any that a required. June 16, 1988 Page 4 Petition: File No.: A. Duda & Sons Inc. PA-88-009 ' Staff would advise the petitioner that as development finalized, every effort should be made to coordinate the local government and Regional Planning Council compliance with applicable laws. Under the requirements of Rule 90-11, Florida Adm Code, the State of Florida requires a recommendation Agency, as well as staff, prior to the Board Commissioner,s consideration on whether to transmit th for further agency review. At this time, staff would that the Local Rlanning Agency forward a recomme~ approval for this petition and that it recommend to the County CommiSsioners that this petition be transmitte State of Florida for further agency review and comment. Although staff is offering a preliminary recommen approval, we would advise the petitioner that should th County Commissioners agree to transmit this petition fo review, St. Lucia County reserves the right to a recommendation pending ~oompletion and review of the agency comments. If you have any questions on this matter, please co office. DJH/DBS/seb ATTACHMENT DUDAl(B-DEC88)a cc: County Attorney Charlotte E. Gillis ~chemes are with both to ensure nistrative from this ~f County s petition recommend dation of Board of d to the dation of e Board of r further mend this required ltact this k SAMPLE MOTION: MOTIO~ TO TRANSMIT: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURINI HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE REVIEW AS SET INi SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COU ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE CO PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF A. DUDA & SO~ A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO X( - ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESiDt APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR FURTiHER REVIEW AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS OF CHAIPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES. MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING HEARING~ INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE ST REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUN ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCZE COU PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OI COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF A. DUDA & SONS A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL (INTERCHANGE - ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT) AND RL (LO~ THE PUBLIC ANDARDS OF NTY ZONING UNTY LOCAL 3F COUNTY , INC. FOR INTERCHANGE ~NTiAL) BE COMMUNITY NDER THE THE PUBLIC ~DARDS OF 'Y ZONING ~TY LOCAL COUNTY INC. FOR TO X DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE FLORIDA O~PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA S ~ , TATUTmS; BECAUSE... THURSDAY JUNE 23, 1988 AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY 7:00 P.M Petition of A. Duda & Sons, by AGent: Charlotte amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (AGricultura1 change-Oriented Development) and RL (Low Density Res Development) for the followinG described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: West side o:f 1-95 at Gatlin Blvd. interchiLnGe) Please note that all proceedings before the Loca. Plannin 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 pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of ceedinGs is made, which record includes the testimony dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the any party to the proceeding, individuals testifyinG ~ hearing will be swor~ in. Any party to the proceedinc Granted an opportunity ~o cross-examine any individua. during a hearinG upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same ~s sent to E. Giilis, to Lucie County to X (Inter- fdential such pur- the pro- and evi- request of lrinG a ~ will be testifying all adjacent property owners June 1, 1988. Legal noti published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of General in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988 ce was ~irculation FILE NO. PA-88-,)09 Lo~ Dens~t~ Residential The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Sect. ioq 8; the west one- half of Section 9; the south one-half of the south one-hal.f ~f Section 15 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the norlth~est one-quarter and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Sectio~ 16; the Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the southeasttone_quarter of SecTion 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right-of-way of I~terstate Route 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of section 23 1, west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, Township 37 So~lth, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of Section 1 the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; that portio less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of th way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast one-quarter and half of the southeast one-quarter Of Section 16 Township 37 S( East, St. Lucie County, Florida. ' ,lng west of the" lying west of of Section 15 west right.of- the north one- )uth, Range 3g IH = BLUE U : PURPLE CH = ORANGE IX ': BRDWN YkLLOW (PSL) BROWN~'/~ (PSL) BROW~~ (PSL) PETITIONED AREA: AG TO RL PETITIONED AREA: AG TO X 04 / 08 / 09 / t0 / 15 ~ 16 / 17 / 22 / 23 - 37 _59 N PETI~TION OF A. DUDA g SONS BY AGEiNT: CHARLOTTE E. GILLIS FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASS!FiCATIOI FROM AG TO RL AND FROM AG TO X SD : GREEN IH = BLUE X = PURPLE ~ = YELLOW (PSL) PETITIONED AREA: AG TO RL PETI'TIONED AREA: AG TO X 04 / 08 / 09 / 10 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 22 / 23 - 37 - 39 PETITION OF A, DUDA & SONS BY AGENT: CHARLOTTE E. GILLIS FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM AG TO RL AND FROM AG TO X N xx~xx~xxx~xYX~XXxxxxx~xxxxXXXXxX XX~XXX~xXXXXxXX~XX~XXX~xxxxxxx ~XX ~X~xxx~xxxxxxxAxxxxXXXXX~XX~ Xx XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXxXxxxxx Xxxx XXXXX~XK(XXXXXxXXXX(XXXXXXXxXxxKx) ~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~X) ;XXXXXX ~X~XX)X~X)XXX~XXXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXX} :XXX~XXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXX) ~XXXXXX XXXX~XX~XXXXX~XX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) :XXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXX~) ~XXX~XX ~XXxxxxX~xxx(xx~xx~xxxxxxxx~xxXX) :XXXXXXxXXX~xXXXXXXxxXXXXXXXXXXXXX) .X~XXX XKXX~XXXXXX)XXXXX~XXXXXAXXX~XXXXX) (XXXX(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXZX) :XXXXXXi XX XX ~XXXXxX~XXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXX~ XXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXX~X XXXX) xxxx×x~xX~x~XXAXXXXXXXX~XX~XXXXx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXxXXXXXX XXXX) ~KxXXX(xxx~xXXX~XXXxXXXXXXXXXXXX) :X~XXXXXXXX~XX~XY¥XXXXxx~x~XXXXX~) |XX~XX~ xx~x~x~xx~xx~xxxxxxxXXXXXxXXxXXXD :XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXX) :XXXXXX~ XXXX~Xx(XxxXX~XxXX~XXXXXXxXXXXXX) {XXXX~X×XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXX) :XXXXXX~ xXXXx~(X(x~xX~XXXX~XXXXXX~XXXXX~X~ {XXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~Y~XXXX~) :XXXX~X~ xx xx xxx~xx~xxx×xxxx~xx~xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx~xxxxxxxxxx~xxx xxxxx x~x~Yx~¥xxxxxxxxxxxyxxXxxxxxxxx xYxxx~xxxxxxxx~xxxxxx.xxxx~xxxxxx xxxxX ~x~xxxx(xx~xx~xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx~x) :xxxxxxx~xxx~xxxxxxx~xxxxxxxYxYxxxx) :xxxxxxx ~xxxxxx~x'~xxxxxxxx~xxxxxxxxyxxx~x~ (xxxx~xxxxxxxxxxxxxx~xxxxx~xx~xxxxx) ~xxxxxxx x×~xxx~xx~x~xxxxxxxxxx×xxxxxxxxxx)!~xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx~ [XXXXXXX ~XXXXXXX xxxxx&xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx×xxxxx) [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) [xxxxxxx 311 00~1 00C~2 ~0 MITCHELL~ LELA M RI ! HILLTOP THDMASVILLE~ GA ~]79~-97%5 000/7 30 O0 HUCK, d~q ~ 4 GL~S C~ K~REN B 13505 - UT OFF R0 ~329 Jl[ CCOO 000/7 O0 W&RD~ DAVID A (TR-~T AL) CIO GROVE MAN SER INC-NONDSCHEIN ~OOO SW 8? CT STE 218 MIANI~ FL 33176-228~ D~VIS, CLAUOE T ~355 5%gAL PALM M[AM[~ FL 33137-33~5 3334 310 O00l 0001~ O0 P~nCgC~ FRUIT &CATT[E CORP 21~3 ~e~ AV '4 STE 320 ~IN/5~ ~6~ FL 3279g-2365 ~231 Ill O001 0OO17 OO 0 P~ g~ S) XX :KXXXXXX'~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx XXXXXXXXXXX%XX%XXXXXXXXXX%X~ XXXXXXX~XXXX~XXX%XXXX~XXXXX% XKXXXXX~XKXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%XX% XXXXXXXX!XX%X%XXXX%XXX%XX~XX~ · XX XXXXXX%XXX%XXXXXXX~X%XX%XXX KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%~ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXX%) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~x) XXXXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXXXXXx%~ %X XXXXXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXX~%%% ~XXXXXXXXX%XXXXX%XXXXXXXX%~ (XXXXXXXXXXXX%XX%XX%X%XXXX%~ KXXXXXXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXXXXx~ (XXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~ (%XXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~ p[aco¢ 2i80 P · UaSSh FPST~I '-i~ CO FRUIT & CATTLE CORP ~RK AV N STE 320 PARKj, FL 327S~.,,-Z365 O0 0¢ ,~CC L;~ T v~ ~lC~,trL LLOYD~ VINCENT ~ P g ~X ~382 FT PIERCE, CL ~,]IS 2'3' C )Gl CO31~ COO1 ~3LO 211 CO0~ OOo/g ~3~3 211 DOg[ bCO/g UNION HOIPING CORP 21BO PAPK AV N STE !20 WI'ITEF' P&~K, FL 3278g-2365 0O Oe 315 ill 0002 O00l~ 0¢ ORelS~ GEORGE F {T~) 700 S DIXIE OCA R*TDN~ FL XX XX ~X~X~¥~XX~Y¥~XXXY~ZXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX~XXX~XXXXXXXXXXXX×XX 'Xxx~yxXX~YXXXXXXX~XXXXYXXXXXXXX~ XXXXXXXX~XX~XXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXX~ X~XXXX~XX~YXX~XXXXXXXXYXXXXXXX~XX-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx~XxxxxxxxxxxxxxXX)X ~X ~~XXXXX~XX~XXXX×XXXXX~ YYXXXXXXXX~XXXYXXX~XX~XXXXXXXXXXXX XX xYX~X~XX~X×XXX~X~XXXXXXX~XX~XX XXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXX~X~X. ~i XYX~¥~X×~XX~XXXXXXXXXX~XX XXXX~XX~XXYX~XXXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ~X~ ~X~¥X~XXY~XXX×Xx~XXXXXXXXXXXXX~XX XXXXXXX~XXXX~XX~XX~XX~XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX~ XX ×~X×X~X~XX~XX~X~XXXX. XXXXXXX~ XXXXXXX~XXX~XX~XXXX~XXXXXXX~XX~ X~XXXX~YXxXXX¥¥~XXX~XXYXXXXXXXXXXX XX~XXXXXXXXXXXX¥~X~XXXXXXXXXXX~X~X ~XXXX×X~X~X~XXXXYX~XXXXXXXXXXXX ~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX×XX~XXXXXXXXXXX'X~X ~xXXX~XXXxXX~X×XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XX ~XXXXXX~XXXX~XYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X~X~XX×X×Y~×X~XX×~X~XX~XXXX~XXXXXXX ×~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~XX~XXXXXXXXXXX~X ~¥~x~X~XXXX~XXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXX~Xk XXXXXXXXXX~XYXXX~XXXXXXXXXX~XX~XX~X 670 10910CC/O O0 34Z0 670 1097 CODI~ CO Gr~r~lL ~FVELPP~[NT COPP 1111 5 PaYSHOR[ O~ ~1~!~ ~L 33131-Zg10 ARNETT, THELt~A R 213 SUM.~ITT ST LEPANONs OH 45036-1o73 O0 PI'?F, F~F'~LIN J ~ PHILLIS ~iCOCOflCH£S, TX 75961-7431 3420 670 1100 00016 00 BROWN, RICHAPD F ~ LUANNE H 13192 FD~F~T DR BC~IE, ~n ?O715-~344 3&?O 670 lIO? OOClO WTLFY~ ~ICNAEI ~ PP6GTONF~ CHRIS INF ~ (ROS) 22?6 SF'BEIFVEDE~E ST P~PT ST LUCIE~ FL 3~?0 67P 1106 00CI8 00 0C 3~0 670 1103 00017 00 ~ACFARLANEe NANCY HAC~AELANE~ CHF~yL HaCFARLANF~ H~*TH~p 12~63 OO~SET CT SOUTHGATF~ ~I 48195-23]3 3420 670 Il0? 0001! 00 34 ;X)XXXXXXXXXXXX)XXX X~XXXXXXXX~XXXX~XX O0 X~XXXXXXXXX~xXxxxx~xx)X~ XX)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~X,X)XXX)X))~ ~XXX~XXXXXXXX~xXXXXxX~xxxx~xx~), XX) XXXXXXXX)X)~))XX~XXXXX)~)~)~ )*CILY~CCD, FL 33C21-301g 3' 20 670 1096 COO/, 34 ROBERTSON~ ~TLLIAM L JP ~ ARLENF 1 F~l 2503 LAVO~N~ CI~ 41: BOSSIER CITY~ la 71111-§~05 PO~ CO O0 670 1110 O00/q RUDE, FRANKLIN d £ PHILLIS G 3~05 BUCKTNGHA~ NACOGDOCHES, T~ 75q61-2431 I,E~E ~337 A)A Oc ~E, FRANKLIN d ~ PHILLIS C~ BUCKINGFAp COGO~CHE$, T~ 75~e1-2431 20 670 1101 CCC/3 OC CHARDSON, .LEC N £ EDITH 147 M~ ~5337-q538 0 670 lICE C00/2 E~AN, LE~ P £ ~&ROA~ET ~ 670 ll2C COC/? CC PUTCHEP, HAH ~ [ CAP(]LYN ~' Pl~Eilk~, HAf)Y D 101 SI3U~qPV)'F'~ AV 36 ~J~,aKE~' ,ST FAIPFIELD, CT 06q30-7~,36 PR~GEPORT~ CT 0660~-4032 3~20 670 llP700ClI FtPPFNCE, ~J OBSla~o312 3~20 670 113~ 0001~ CAPTw~[~HT~ THOMa~ L C~PTwP~HT~ MAnY,NH {~05~ ?547 ~VTS$~N FT e[VF~ GP~VE~ IL 60171-170q 3420 b70 1142 00012 ~AN a~IT~NID. TX 7R~lB-4107 1167 00C/3 CPOF~ ~¥CUNG YOUL £ YOUNG %UK TPFNTPN. NJ 0862~-2016 1243 OOC/O O0 OC O0 O0 O0 3t2C 670 I1~2 CCC/6 ENNIS~ RICH~PO F [ FVELYNE A 355 TWELVE OAKS TP BEAVFRCRFFK~ DH ~5385-5~73 3~20 670 1125 CC017 CO 36 DORITY~ EARL [ M~PIF H 1726 BELAIP D~ JUNCTION CITY~ KS 664~1-1825 3620 670 1128 000/~' JOI REILLY~, HENRY H 310 FAt LFP DR NEW MILFDPD~, NJ 076q&-2211 3420 670 1134 000~3 O0 342 GOMEZ~ ANGEL [ PHONDA R ARLINGTON HTS. IL 6000(-0000 3420 670 1157 00015 O0 CROSS~ CHa~[FS T 1~0~ ROOSEVELT AV SPRINGFIFED~ MA 01109-2l?0 3420 670 1163 00015 O0 log OUARVf PD SF ROCHESTEP. MN 55qo4-8~Oq 3420 670 I74~ 00017 C.O H INI~ I. t: ~ F~INCFS 3AC3 BIMIKI' [N APT O0 O0 PR ] CH~~ 3~20 KN r'S~ 3420 6q8 ! PCI~T 3420 PEPPEN AP Pt ET 3420 6 670 1122 COOl3 CC SCN~, STEPHEN D 6 PEhELOF:f F ]6 W 22 PI. )EN, CO 8C401-2112 170 1126 CC014 ~ CC ~DUS~ JAFE5 E & PAULINE H~M, IL 6262~-9739 1166 CCOlO OC 670 ll6C HOPES INC FL PORT ST LbClE PV LUCIE~ FL 34953-00CC ~ 3~ ~N, P~ 56208-g506 nPADTKE, JFANNINE F 120q W HBPNETT OC 670 1264 CCCI3 Cf ~AT~J, CA~FIE[D p E GER~LE[NF PF[ ~TP, M~ 342~ 62C 126~ OOC/O O0 GF~'PT, MICHEL B SP ~ F~NCFS X 3~,C4 N['~TH CUAY ~P COLIluBUS, G~ 31gcg-3617 3420 679 1268 COC/1 O0 RIEPFNH~F~, ~OLD C ~ MARGARET F ~33 H~WTHOPNE CT fNF[&W u~R~UR BCH~ FL 3293?-0000 3420 ~70 1465 O0 [¥WCQD, FL 33C23-5605 3420 67C 1469 OOP;O OC EVELYN P CEDAR LAKE CT ALEXA~r~IA, VA 22300-0000 3~20 670 1506 00CI2 O0 RUSSP, JPSFPH [ JOSEPHINE ]1] ALPrMARLE PO PP~Dgl YN, NY 112]P-0000 O0 CAPNEY~ ¢~W~D ~ ANNETTE ?& CYPRESS RD n['PLINGTPN, NJ 0~016-~124 3~70 67q 1~]4 ~0C/2 OO ~1 LIr~, ~r,:~v F £ 8EVFRI ¥ A 342C 670 1266 00017 O0 MEITNER~ STEPHEN A g SUSAN 0 RT 1 BX 137 FT PIERCF, FL 34950 3~20 670 1269 O001P CO ~OTH~ CARDtyN 733 ACADFMY LN PORT ST LUCIE, Ft 34984-C000 3~20 670 1466 O0 8YLOCK, ABRAHAM AL E CAROL B %230 SW 33 3%20 670 150~ 00018 O0 3~20 670 1610 00014 O0 IP~CK, KEVTN ~ GREEN VAtlFY PD P~ 248 3420 670 1615 O00/q CO NF~MI~G, ~al"a V HEF~IkG, J~CCUEt)~F S (PFS) 12~ 6r:Y 3~ 3~q2C 9~12 3420 RONK PO~GN ~AYGA 3420 SAWC7, 2C? ~E EY, JAMES C E KARLENF P SE 26 AV NTON BCE, FL 33A35-7626 670 1267 CeOi~ NALE~ ~E~RE d JR GLEN MIICHELL ~r :CKLEY~ PA 151~3-00C0 670 1505 COOLS CC JAMES ~ E HELEN t 670 I580 C0014 Ce L, CH~ISTI~F ~ H*~Y JR N~OMA, ~y 11779-0000 AY ST T~CK, CT C6770-3%27 70 161~ CC ~ICt~DtA5 d 3~PeA~6 L (RI'S) n~$~NC, JEFFREY V ~ JENNI~E~ L PRT ST LUCIFm Fl 34053-42~A 670 1635 00015 PC DIS~I, DICHARD d £ DIANE t 6420 F~TO 163~ 00016 0¢ DDLaNDC. EL 32~0e-1809 O0 rPUNC, pEDc., SHIDLEY L · ~O33 N [EAMINGTO~ ST 3HTCAGO) IL 60641-1479 3,q?C /,70 165.3 00C/7 0¢ 3~20 670 1~61 00016 O0 CHARLES IRgs) q~20 67~ 167R ~001~ O0 nLITLE~. ~AROIO t PUTTER, Dg~TLYN ~ JP~SJ lO]~ RT g§ CaPE ~AY~ NJ 08210 3~20 670 1~60 000/1 0¢ Mt~PL ~,~ C~AIr~ L OAVISCN, FLITAPETH DAVISONs CRAIG FK LENTZ 3218 w 32 ~V SEATTLE, wa gBlgg-O000 3~20 ~70 1636 00017 CO SIMPSON, KFNHETH I' E BLANCHE T 2A6 BROOKIAKE RD FLOPHAM PA~K~ NJ 07032-2~16 3~20 670 163~ ¢0013 CO PUSSELL~ HAROLD P E ELIZABETH aPT ~3 8X 12 JACARANDA CAY CT NEW SMYRNA BCH~ FL 32069-~320 3420 670 1651 00013 CO TYEj FLOYD P E ROSE D 351 ABERDFFN AV DAYTON, DH A5419-3205 34~C 670 1~5~ O00/A OD HARTMANNp RICHARD P ~ MARCIA q62 LINCOLN PaRK BV KETTERING~ OH 1542q-3551 3~20 670 1~62 0001~ OD GENTRYs RCBFRT K E DONNA RR ~ ~X lISA AUX ASSE~ MO 65731-g801 3~20 670 1683 ¢COle CO CASCAGNfl~ PAULINE GENNA~ F~CFS (RC~! 3g PROPSFCT PL FiT E HA.VE~!~ CT 06517-3742 3q2jC (70 1637 CCC/g CC PH 26 3~ HAR1 F~R1 113! LANO~ ~0 GaLLL 3420 .BRICK, CCNALC B £ DDRCTH~ P .AKE TRait E 4E, NJ C7tTC-liO~ ~70 16~3 CO0/~ CC LEY~ DARLENE L LEY, TIMETHY S (RCS) LEAF TREE L~ ~tlA~ CH ~5377-1726 070 1~80 C0015 OC ~TCHA~D ~ ~ DCRCTHY A ~FEE DCOGE ~70 108( CCC/? CC JCFNSIN~ PEL~I) J SR [ P~L~T[~E, JL 600~7-67~1 3429 A77 leg? OOC/q O0 aDD ~'Fl~ YL]~l(, NY Ogllq 34?0 ~7C 1P~7 90Olq O0 TO"LINSPN~ DALF RD I nY PHPEN[X, NY 13135-9801 lO0'1 000/1 O0 Illl 5 ¢t¥SHO~F 0~ ~I&M[, t 33131-2010 ~q20 670 loll 00614 O0 GRIFPIS~ MAeILYN M £ THD4AS t ENTERPgISE~ AL 3fi330-1130 3~20 FTP lq!6 00019 O0 llqll croA~ PASS DR HOUSTPN, TX 77077-4103 670 1921 00C/7 OC DEF~ J~ES g t855 RFL~ONT ST aOISF, lo ~3706-3112 3~20 670 1934 OOC/1 OC 3426 ~70 1P93 CO0/l CO ~'ILLAP~ TRICY ~ [Kt!tFFPA CITY~ OK 73121-2C36 342l ~70 1~95 CCC/5 CC EAST OF EDFN INC 1670 HWY 35 "IDDLETOWN~ NJ C77~8-!832 3~20 670 1904 00012 00 HELINAT, LUISF H ~EL INAT, ANNETTF p (ROSI STAR RT 524~ W~SILLA~ ~K 3420 670 1907 00013 O0 FADELEY~ KEn,IT f E PA~Y S 18517 STRCNGSV~LLF RV ~ STRONGSVILLF~ OH 44136-1592 CO CHEREF~ I~ONAIO P [ PARGARFT K 19 THE FAIl, wAY UPPER /qONTCLAIR~ NJ 07043-25~3 3~Z0 670 1930 OO01~ CO PENN, GLO~IA E 827 Nk 143 ST MIAHI~ FL 33168-3017 3420 670 lq36 OOOl~ O0 1555 ~ETFPSPN p~ ~,CL' 45~i ANC~ 342 JCNE JEkE B~YA AkCHI tEE, ITlO 3~20 WRIGN 1731 6650 G CCLDP~ Z, GAILY A E NIhFa P SAN I~CBEeTO AV Ot~AGE~ JK q950~'-27~,C 670 1~99 C0013 ' CC CC !ELLe F~EDSICK t E P~TIENcE 6 BECHA~OF RAGEs AR ~9507-1003 70 l~;14 ¢0C/-~ CC ~AYHOND S & LUCILLE F '~RK DR CA 70 1920 COO/O · C G~INN E VlC~I ~ UTH RD , LYNDEN T ~ BARBARA ~ iN CLUB IRJlL ~0 SPRINCS, CO 80908-3330 IOl? !PNC COVF ¢a[FS FKPPy, CT 0~'935-19te 670 1~700P/5 OC CRAWFQDO, HUGH C/D Dny DDOOKi jP STF 201 762q PDNFE DE [FFN PV CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-60,17 34?0 670 1950 OOC/q CC CR~WFOPD, HUGH 311 ~'g 54 ST "IAVl, FL 33137-?~3R 1954 00C17 O0 ]P~An Nw lC PL PTA~I, FL 33169-~860 3420 670 1958 00015 OC 1041 TUSCANY O0 DEACON, OEP, ROE E 35 SW 4 ~T HALL&~DALE~ FL 3300q-6335 O0 L 3316fl-3017 74?0 f70 1993 OOO/? OD 3420 670 lO~80CC/? CO FAZIO~ CaRlO 7711 270 %T NEW HYDE PaRK~ NY 11C40-]41~ 3420 670 lq55 POOl& CO KCEHLED~ CPPCTHY C 8860 Hid lC Pt IAMIs, FI -q3169-TPFo 3q20 670 lqSq 00012 CO GOSNELL, FUGFNE H £ CAROLE 1197~ W TEMPLE DP POPRISON, CO 80465-1630 3420 670 1963 000/3 O0 TANNERy PaPY A~A C PITMAN~ FAYE T MCALEER~ MARGARET T (ROS-ET AL) RT 2 8X q3-A HANSFL CHASTAIN RD THOMASVILLF~ GA 31792-962~ 3~20 670 1973 000/6 CO PETIX~ WINIFPED N 19 EDWARDS PL VALLEY STRFAM, Ny 1)58C--0000 3420 670 )gq! O001R CO PAYNF~ WJtT~a D 25C w SAMPLF ~P APT ~-723 POMPANO RCH~ Fl 3306~-0000 3420 670 lqq4 0001~ CO Ck{1SBY, DOiG[A~ H F, KaTHLEE~,~ G 9115 BtUFJAC~ iN ROSWE{& . 6-,~ 3007f,-3~-07 342 REE 342 CLIN 3420 MFITF FT P' 3~20 SEPAI~ 3420 B/ACK 3420 CHIApln 51 GAi~I 3420 61 SF~BE~¢ CCIOR~ 670 lq4q CCCI9 CC CAROL C W~LTER R AUDREY ~ (ROS) SW ~2 TERR FL 3317~-3755 670 1~52 COO/3 CC HBLRN, EDITH G BUTLER DR T£N, NC 28)28-2857 670 1960 CCO/~ CC ER, STEPHEN A [ SUSAN ENTNSUt ~ D~ LACE, FL 34946-0000 :HIK~ MICHAEL £ ANNa HENRY ST (, NJ 07036-5737 70 lqT( COOl5 CC ER~ DEXTER F E WINNIFRED . CTTY~ KS 661cq-~472 ?0 lq8q C0011 CC .ANZlO~ JOSEPH T £ ~TCIKT' :IELD AV I~ NJ C7940--2707 D SPRINES~ Cr 8C917-33~c 342C 670 266? ~LI~LI~Y, MICHAEL F 78,~5 SW 7~ ~ I.aMI, FL CO GREEN.,, RTCH~PD p £ CHRISTINF L ~728 S 25 ST FT PIERCE, FL 34q81-5007 XX THURSDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JUNE 23, 1! 7:00 P.M. Petition of A. Duda & Sons, by Agent: Charlotte E amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. L~ Growth Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricultural) change-Oriented Development) and RL (Low Density Resi Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin Blvd. interchal Please note that all proceedings before the Local Agency are electronically recorded. If a person deci~ appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency respect to any matter considered at such meeting or he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for s pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying du hearin§ will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same w~ all adjacent property owners June 1, 1988. Legal noti~ published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988 FILE NO. PA-88-~ }88 Gillis, to [cie County o X (Inter- .ential ge ) Planning es to with aring, he uch put- the pro- and evi- request of ring a will be testifying ~s sent to ~e was ~irculat ion ~0'9 Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Section l:; the west one- half of Section 9; the south one-half of the south one-half of Section 15 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the northwest one-quarter and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section 16; the Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the southeast ~ Section 17; al) of Section 22 excepting the right-of-way of Inl 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of section 23 west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, Township 37 Soutl East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of Section 10 the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; that portion less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of th . way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast one-quarter andetl half Of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, Township 37 Soul East, St. Lucie County, Florida. ne-quarter of )rstate Route lg west of the l, Range 39 lying west of )f Section 15 vest right-of_ ~e north one- :h, Range 39 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS June1, 1988 DEI In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Stat' are hereby advised that A. Duda & Sons, by Agent: Cha~ Gillis, has petitioned the Local Planning Agency to ~ Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie Count' Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricultural) to X (I Oriented Development) and RL (Low Density Residential ment) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: West side of 1-95 at Gatlin Blvd. intercha] A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 Thursday, June 23, 1988, in Room 101, St. Lucie Count~ Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort P~ Florida. All interested persons will be given an opp~ be heard at that time. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Pla] are electronically recorded. If a person decides to decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respe matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedii which record includes the testimony and evidence upon appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing wl in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an o~ to cross-examine any individual testifying during a h~ request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above~d. parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. any questions, additional information may be obtained Area Code 407, 466-1100, Extension 344/41. Sincerely, LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. _LUCIF~ COUNTY, FLORIDA J. . Terpening, Chairman FILE NO. HAVERT L. FENN. District No, I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, Di County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 46( Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code V6LOPM6NT )IR ECTOR ~tes, you .~lot t e E. nend the T Growth ~terchange- Deve lop- ~ge ) P .M. on Lerce, )rtunity to ~ning Agency ~ppeal any ~t to any need a he may ~gs is made, which the to the _11 be sworn ~portunity ~,ar ing upon ~scribed If you have by calling 'A-88-009 'ict No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 -1100 nforcement: Ext. 294 Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Section 8; the west one- half o~ SectiOn 9; the south one-half of the south one-half of Section 15 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the northwest one-quarter and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section 1 ; the Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the southeast on -quarter of Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right-of-way of Inte'state Route 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of section 23 )yin west of the west right of~ way line of Interstate Route 95, Township 37 South Range 39 East, St. Lucie CounTy, Florida. Interchange {X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of Section 10 'lng west of the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; that portion f Section 15 less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of the w~st right-of- way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast one-quarter and th north one- half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, Township 37 Soul , Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. __ NOTICE CHANGE IN LAN. The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners proposes to change the use of in the map in this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be'held before the St. Lucia County Local Pla~ June 23, 1988, at 7:00 P.M., St; Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia The purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposed land use plan ~mendments and to the St. Lucia County Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Comr~ quested to determine whether or not to forward the proposed amendments to the Florid; Affairs for further review under the requirements of Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically re to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect: to any matter cc hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, he may ne~ record of the proceedings is made, which reco~l includes the testimony and evidenc~ up based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a h party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individua upon request. Copies of the proposed amendments to the St, Lucia County Growth Management public review in the St. Lucie County Office of Community Development, Building and 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, during normal business hours. All interested persons may appear and will be given an'opportunity t(~ be heard at that 1 If it becomes necessary, these public hearings ma y be continued from time to time, ST. LO( Iai CH, COUNTY FLORI[~ MATTHEW J. and MARIE T. SCHNEIDER, et al: From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 11.3 acre tract lyin. Railroad, 500 feet north of Turnpike Feeder Road. (0 pposite Orchid Acres M.H.P.) HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, INC.: From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 50 acres plus, minus, b Highway, at the existing Harbor Branch Facilities, 5600 Old Dixie Highway NCNB OF FLORIDA: · From RL (Low Density Residential) to CH (Commercial Highway): Location: 11 plus, minus acres, Iy North U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway, at Wilcox Road. U.S. COMMUNITIES, INC.: From SU (Semi Urban) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 14.5 acres, lying at southwest corn Road. HEMINWAY CORPORATION: From SU (Semi Urban) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 10 acres, lying along the north sic west of Keen Road. H.J. ROSS & N.J. ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC.: From SU (Semi Urban) to RL {Low Density Residential): Location: 73.5 acres, at the southwest c Road. STUART. FT. PIERCE PARTNERS: From IL (industrial Light) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 15 acres, along the west side of Sol Market A venue. THOMAS ZAYDON: From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General): Location: 11.2 acres, located along 650 feet north of West Midway Road. ST. LUCIE INVESTMENT CORP.: From: CG (Commercial General) to IL (Industrial Light): Location: 21.6 acres, lying west of South nean Boulevard. JANE W. TURMAIL: Lane.Fram SU(Harbour(SemiRidge/WideUrban) to RLwaters).(Low Density Residential): Location: 20 acres, lying at northeast car CALLAWAY LAND and CATTLE COMPANY: / From SU (Semi urban) to RL (Low Density Residential), CT (Commercial Tourii~t) and CG (Commer¢ THE RESERVE. · p p t minus acres, lying between Interstate 95 and Glades Cut-Off Road Petition is art of Develo men A. DUDA & SONS: . From AG (ProductiVe Agricultural) to X (Interchange) and RL (Low Density Re-~idential): Location: 3, of Interstate 95 at Ga:lin Boulevard. JOHN M. McCARTY: From AG (Productive Agricultural) to SU (Semi Urban): Location: - 3,0~0 plus, minus acres, lying ~ of Range Line Road. land within the area shown ming Agency on Thursday, ~,venue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. forward a recommendation issioners would then be re- Department of Community corded. If a person decides nsidered at such meeting or ;d to ensure that a verbatim an which the appeal is to be ~aring will be sworn in. Any testifying during a hearing ~olicy Plan are available for ~_oning Division, Room 201, ires. LUClE COUNTY, FLORIDA :AL PLANNING AGENCY James P. Terpening MRMAN between North U.S. 1 and FEC ween North U.S. 1 and Old Dixie ng east of North U.S. 1, between of St. Lucia Boulevard and Keen of St. Lucia Boulevard, 200 feet rrner of Angle Road and Old FFA th U.S. 1,650 feet south of South he east side of South 25th Street, .S. 1, opposite South Mediterra- er of Gilson Road and Turnabout al General): Location: 2,700 plus, Regional Impact application for O0 plus, minus acres, lying west th of Glades Cut-Off Road, West THE NEWS TRIBUNE STATE OF FLOR!DA COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE Before the undersigned authority per~onalIv appeared James J. McMillen or Kath~,~ ~-? · ,~; - ' ,,~c, z~,. l~etlalr, who On says that he/she is Publisher. Publisher's Secretary oJ The News Tribune a da~lv newspaper publisi~ed'a~ I>or~ Pierce in St. Lucf~ County, Florida; tha: ~he actaChed copy of adverdsemenL bein~ a...n..?:~ ~e in tt~ema~terof. Change in Land Use " was published fn said newspaper in ~he issues of. .... 6/zS./.s.s Affiant further says that the said New~ Tribune is a nev, sp~qo~.r puhh..h,.d at Fort Pierce. fnsaid~t.i.ucieCounty Fl.r.!. .mithat :h,.~a:d n,,~p:~; ~r herrt~ff.r.i.,en . , ' ' . davand has heenenter,.das second cia<~ , .... ~ ma~t,.rat ,~,... [ , r~ P ;rep in said St. [.uch. ('ountv. Fl-r:!a. f.r a p~'ri,~ ,.f ,m,. t?.,t a*-x~ ceding th*, ~irst puM cation of t,qe attacM.d ~ .pt...f utJ~ err ~,'m,,},:, and furthersavsthathehasneith~rpaidnnrpnm~edanvp,.r~,,, r ....... c,:-; tion any discount rebate COmmN~i.n ,,~ r,-hind f-r- ,k,, ~""~'<e ,;~ tNs ad('ertisement for publication in t h Sworn to and subscribed before ha. -.-. s.~.d m'wspaper /. This 16th davoT June ~ ,. , L · --' / / ............... ~'-- . '"'.'-':.:,'.'- --,~t-..~. lin, under~'~n,,d ;mthorit, y persm~ Y nppeared .va 'l'rihum,, a daily n,'w.p:qn.r lmblisht d at Fort n St. l.uci~, Coun'ty I"lorid.: th.t the attached advcrli~emenl, liebig a not i CO mtter.f. Change in I,and t/se lisln.d in said m'wspnper m the issues of h/2/SS ....... ~V ~ ~ V,'~ · ~St. Lucia County Board of county Commissione' in t~ )ap in this adve~ment. A-~:btic hearing on the propo~l w~ ~ held ~f~g~e June ~, 1~, at 7:~ P.M., St. Luc~ C~nw Admtn~at The purpose of this m~ting is to consider the propo~ ~n~ to the St. Lucia Counw Board of Counw Commas. quest~ to determine w~ther or not ~ fo~ard the ~o~ Affairs for rusher r~w under the r~uiremen~ of Ch~ter ' Plea~ note that all proc~dings before the Lo~t P~g to appeal any decision made by the Lo~i P~nning Agency hearing, he will ne~ a r~ord of the Pr~din~, and record of the proc~gs ~ made, which record includ~ based. Upon the request of any pa~ to the proceeding, indi pany to the Proceed~g w~l ~ grant~ an op~unity to upon request. COPies of the propo~d amendments to the St. Lucia Co, public rev~w in the St. Luc~ Counw Office of C~muniW 2~ Virginia Avenue, Ft, P~ce, Flodda, during All interested pe~ns may appear and will be given an If it becomes nece~aw, these publ~ hearings may ~ cont A MATTN~IV J. ~Bd MARIE T. S&~NIDEB, et ,h From RL ILow D~m~ty Reeid~ntiall to CG ICommlN~al Ge~rall: RL {~w D~ ~!) ~ CG {~ ~1: to D ~. C~UN~, Pr~ SU (Semi U~n) ~ CG (~mm~ ~)~ ~: 14.5 E ~MWAY F~ SU (Semi U~) ~ CG (Comm~l G~l): L~,~: I0 ~t of K~ Road. F HJ. ~SS & HJ. ~S ASS~MT~, From IL (l~u~ ~t) m CG (C~ ~1): L~: ts K ~et A~e. H T~MAS ~Y~; F~: CG {Com~ ~11 m ~ {I~ ~: L~: 2~. ~n B~verd. J MNE W. TUR~ From SU (Semi U~) ~ RL (~ O~ R~M): ~: ~ ~. (Ha~ur K~/W~ W~). K C~WAY THE RESERVE. L ~ ~DA & F~ AG (Produc~ve A~ull~l) To X (Wc~n~el ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~;'~,,,. ~ Range Li~ R~. ~oses to change the use of land withi; t. Lucia County Local Planning Agen on Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fl ~ use plan amendments and forward a he Board of County Commissioners v. I amendments to the Florida Departme 63,3184, Florida Statutes. Agency ere electronically recorded. If ith respect to any matter consklered at rr such purpose, he may need to ensur testimony and evidence upon which t! viduats testif~ng during a hearing will 'oss-examine any indiviOual testifying ~nty Growth Management Policy Plan levelopment, Building and Zoning Div ess hours. ~tuni~ to be heard at that time. nued from lime to time. ST. LUCIE CO LOCAL PLANt /SI James P. , ~, CHAIRMAN COUNTY ~ation: -11.3 acre tract lying between No- ~ M,H.P.) plus, minus, between North a~;Jon: 11 pl~, minus acm, lying east of Nc :l~S, ~ It IO~ ce41te~of St. Lucia ell, ~ ~ the I~ ~ of St, Lucie Applicant,s Name: Applicant 'o Address: APpZican~,a ~hone Humberl A. Duda & Sons .o.,ox o r.+ Oviedo, Fl. 32765-0257 Date~ ~ ie 'Legal ~8crlptlona (~ or Print only la black Ink) on of the SEE A~ACHED ' (Our) ,,, cae comprehen ye Plan w ~ -,- ' ' . ~ silica inn ~u nere~ ear : 'Said .=_ff..-_~g request a c~--~=? prOperty Z {~e} do'hereby ee .. a/mple that rtl~y that Z (v nile ueoerlbed an '"M' ~ FUture Land-~:~e_p o~rtF --' -~ req eared, ~ ~e fem4~n4er o~ the ~fo~emt el above for which'--- -Y_ escrlb requested caange An ed. An io OWned'bY Future ~nd Uae /~graph deacriptlon.nd ~hat Z C~e)ou~/ttedeert/fZ that the ab~ ' (ua} e-,~elegal . Tax ID numbers for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Proposed Amendment in Future Land Use C]assification 4304-000-0000.000/5 4308-000-0000.000/7 4309-000-0000.000/0 4310-212-0001.000/2 4315-122-0001.000/1 4316-000-0000.000/2 4317-000-0000.000/5 4322-111-0002.000/6 SUBJECT: Land Use Amendment A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Section half of Section 9; the south one-half of the south one-half of excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95; the northwes and 'the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the southeast Section 17; alt of SeCtion 22 excepting the right-of-way of Irt 95; that portion of the southwest ~ne_qUarter of section 23 tyi west right of way line of Interstate Rout .· East, St. Lucie County, F)orida. e 95, Township 37 Soutl Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of Section 10 the west right-of-way line of IntersTate Route 95; that portion less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of the way line of InterstaTe ROute 95; the northeast one-quarter and half Of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, Township 37 Soul EasT, St. Lucie County, Florida. ~; the west one- Section 15 t one-quarter 16; the ne-quarter of ~rstate Route lg west of the , Range 39 ying west of ~f Section 15 vest right-of_ ~e north one- h, Range 39 '~?- LUCIE COU~fT Fee 8 Date PETITIO~ FOR CHA~B IM FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFIG ApPlicantes Names Applicant*o Addressl ~400 A. Duda& Sons __ P.O. Box 257 ~ [1.~.:~-- O~ Oviedo, Fl. 32765-0257 ApPlAcantts ~hone Nunberl I (lee) do hereby Petition the fit th, · "~ Pro~rt~z ,,- use c~aso/fLcat and' ',on of the and that Z (we) ...... -- description subm~[~c.z£~Y__that_tJ~.e above legal hearingZ (~e) understandor viii ~at Z (we)~~t e present t the R~be represent~m~. (our) get. Agen[ 'Legal Deecriptionz (Type or Print only in black ink) SEE ATTACHED o t ~ ,~spqn,d ' ,,,~r-~%b re~onsive housing~ficati°n o here~ certify that I ('e) ~n in fee Sidle all of the above deocr, lbed~property, legal'right to request achan ' have said property, ge in Future ~nd Use of "- ~.(~) ~p ~ereb~ certifY.that a~mpze_that ~rtlon of th _ X (~e)_owfl In. fee , for whicha cban· · above oescrl~a r d g in Future La P ~rey April 27, 1988 Attachment Tax ID numbers for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Proposed Amendment in Future Land USe Classificatqon 4304-000-0000.000/5 4308-000-0000.000/7 4309-000-0000.000/0 4310-212-0001.000/2 4315-122-0001.000/1 4316-000-0000.000/2 4317-000-D000.000/5 4322-111-0002.000/6 4323-223-0001.~000/6 Property Description: The south one-half of Section 4, the east one-half of Section 8 Section 9, the west part of Section 10 lying west of the west r' line of Interstate Route 95, the west part of Section 15 lying west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95, the north one-ha' 16, the northeast one-quarter of Section 17, all of Section 22, half of Section 23 excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Roul 37 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. , all of §ht-of-way ~est of the f of Section the west one- e 95, Townshfp Pee PETZTzoB FOR CRAig ill l~dl~-Bg LABD o~g Applican~*8 N~e~ A. Duda & Sons ApPlicant la Oviedo, Fl. 32765-0257 ~llcant,s Phone ~~ I (~) do ~e~ ~tltl~ ~e St. o 'Legal ~eacrLptlons (~ype or print only in black Ink) SEE ATTACHED Prop~rtM Tax Z,Do e __ SEE ATTACHED,., ._ From~ ~ To~ ~ (Our) reason £or making this request ls~ I~'Pr~er to to development activities in the area by providing land with a clas in the comprehensive plan Which allows for marke~ responsive housin( - ~X ,~ I (We) do here~ certify bh~b X (w · the above described le)~l right to re __ . ~o~rty, e ~said p~operty. ~ueat a change In Future h X (We) do hereb¥'cert/fy'-that X (ye) own in simple that Portion o£ ~he above described p for vhich a:'~hange tn Future Lan described as d Doe is req 'eSpqnd ;'~fication £ee nd have nd Use of £ee - - - - ' roper~ ~~ leafed, el above fOr which:: re, uss,ed is ovned.b~ange and that Z (ye) ee~tif) that tie above lefal ." 4emcrlption mu~itted Pro~t Z ~~ Z~X~ - PL~B ULY April 27, 1988 Attachment Tax ID numbers for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Proposed Amendment in Future Land Use Classification 4304-000-0000.000/5 4308-000-0000.000/7 4309-000-0000.000/0 4310-212-0001.000/2 4315-122-0001.00071 4316-000-0000.000/2 4317-000-0000.000/5 4322-111-0002.000/6 4323-223-0001.000/6 Property Descri pt i on: The south one-half of Section 4, the east one-half of Section 8 Section 9, the west part of Section 10 lying w west r line of Interstate'tbs~j$_e 95, the wes~U~ng ~ west right-of-way ~~'~rJ~ 16, the northeast ~'o~n~7~~e~n~°~r~t~_ne ha half of Section ~~, am~ o~ Section 22, ~~~[~nterstate Roui 37 South,~9 Eas~ St. Lucle County, ~C~. , all of i ght-of-way vest of the f of Section the west one- :e 95, Township ).uc E cp. SUBJECT: Land Use Amendment A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of Section 4; the east one-half of Section 8; half of Section 9; the~south one-half of the south one-half of Se excepting the right-of-way of Interstate Route 95;~the northwest and the north one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section 16~ Northeast one-quarter and the north one-half of the southeast one. Section 17; all of Section 22 excepting the right-of-way of Inter 95; that portion of the southwest one-quarter of section 23 lying west right of way line of Interstate Route 95, Township 37 South East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Interchange (X) The east one-half of Section 9; the west one-half of Section 10 1 ~he west one- :tion 15~ )ne-quarter ; the -quarter of ;tate Route west of the , Range 39 ing west of the west right-of-way line of Interstate Route 95; that portion of Section 15 less the south one-half of the south one-half lying west of the west right-of- way line of Interstate Route 95; the northeast one-quarter and thq north one- half of the southeast one-quarter of Section 16, Township 37 Sout~ Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. t,t. r'::CiD:.-Z C ] :--'EUE. ~' ACCT' F~T~:':} ~ 22 ~T272 E.',q.'_,L-'2~.,X _{ ~ BUILD-NG DEPARTME,~ T ~ FILE' COPY St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. Lucie EXPLANATION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~ AMOUNT RECEIPT No. N° 18760 St. Lucie ~i~t~=~.~ REC'D BY __ , i jj White Customer il Canary Finance TOTAL AMT. REC'D Pink File Copy SUBJECT: ,Land Use Amendment ~.. Duda & Sons, Inc. \ Low Density Residential (RL) The south one-half of half of Section 9; the excepting the right-of-wa of and the north one-half of Northeast one-quarter and Section 17; all of Section 95; that portion of the south west right of way line of In East, St. Lucie County, Fl( :tion 4; the one-half of Section ~th one-ha of the south one-half o Route 95; the northw~ ~st one-quarter of Sectio~ one-half of the southeast ~epting the right-of-way of Ir st one-quarter of Section 23 1 state Route 95, Township 37 Soi Office ial~and General Commercial (X) The east one-half of on 9; the~est one-half of Section 1 th? west right-of-wa, line of Interst~e Route 95; that portiol ~n~u~r°~n~h~hi~nor~ght-o?way-ii~ of Interstate Route 9 - one-half of tNe southeast one-quarte Township 37 South Range 39 East, S~ ~ie County, Florida. 8; the west one- F Section 15 ~st one-quarter ~ 16; the one-quarter of ~terstate Route 'ing west of the th, Range 39 lying west of of Section 15 the northeast of Section 16, Transmittal Letter Date: Project No: We Transmit: ~>~herewith ( ) under separate cover For Your: ( ) approval ( ) review & comment ~use The Following: Copies Date Description Remarks: Co pies To: Reynolds, Smith and H Architects · Engineers · Planners, P.O. BOX 4850 ills ncorporated Jacksonwille~ Florida 32201 REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · PLANNERS INCORPORATED May 16, .1988 Mr. Dennis Murphy Planning Administrator County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue Room 203 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Dear Dennis: Enclosed are the two separate parcel descriptions requested for the Land Use Amendment submitted on behalf of A. Duda & note these are not legal descriptions, but are general loca based on the Florida System of Section!, Township, and Range Thank you for you assistance in this matter. If you have a questions please feel free to contact me at your convenienc Charlotte ~. Gillis Project Manager ml p 904/739-2000 · 6737 SOUTHPOINT DR. SO. (32216) · P.O. BOX 4850 · JACKSONVILLE · ORLANDO · TAMPA · FORT LAU DERE ATLANTA · GREENVILLE · J ACKS by Annette Banquer Sons, Inc. Please bion descriptions y further JACKSONVILLE, FL 32201-4850 ALE · M ER RITT ISLAND ON · DENVER