Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHemingway Corp (2)BOARD OF COUNTY D6V£LOPM£NT COMMISSION£RS DIR6CTOR TERRY L. VIRTA February 20, 1989 Heminway Corporation BY AGENT: Genevieve Jackson 2500 S.E. Midport Road - Suite 470 Pt. St. Lucie, FL 34952 Dear Petitioner: This letter is to confirm that on December 14, 1988 the Board of County Commissioners approved your petition to amend the future land use classification from SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) for property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 feet east of Tayler Road, 200 feet west of Keen Road. Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No.. 88-96 adopted by the Board. Very truly yours, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Judy Culpepper, Chairman JC:tk Encl. HAVERT L. FENN, District No 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5 Counn/Administrator -- WELDON BE LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 Ob~IN~d~CE NO o: 88-96 FILE NO.: PA-88-003 ANORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 86-01 BY.CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ST. LUCIE BLVD,, 200FEET WEST OF KEEN ROAD (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND AFFAIRS AND FOR AN AND ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the 'Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. The Heminway Corporation presented a petition to amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County GrowthManagement Policy Plan from SU (Semi - Urban). to CG (Commercial, General) for the property described below. 2. The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency, after holding a public hearing 23, 1988, of which due notice was least Seven (7) days prior to said hearing and all owners of property within five hundred (50.0') feet were has recommended that the Board amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County .GroWth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi -Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) for the property described below, 3. The BOard held a 'public hearing on December 14, 1988, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Ft. Pierce News Tribune on December 6, 198.8. oo 6J-'§ If any portion of this or~inance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or cirCumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. F. APPLICABILITY OFORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable as Stated in Paragraph A. G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. H. FILING WITH THE' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. The County Attorney shall send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, $23991 I. EFFECTIVE DATE. ThiS ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of official acknowledgment from the Office of Secretary of State that %his ordinance has been filed in that office. TH~ SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST .QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTH.~ST QUA-RTER (S~ 5/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST.QUARTER (SE !/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NOr 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES .o 6i9 CG - ORANGE SU - BLUE CT - RED CHv - p~Rr~'PLE IL - A C1- CG PETITIO~ OF HEMIi~Y CQfRPOR,,ATIQ~N BY A~£NT: ~£N~VIEWE FOR A CHAN~E IN FUTURE LAN~D U$!E CLASSI~FICATID~ FROM SU T'O C G AR- 1 - RVP - IL - P~"RJP L,E IL. ~¥ PETITIO~I OF HE..,~I~NW~AY C§~PO~ATIO~N BY A~NT: 6~:NEVIEVE JA~ON FOR A CHA, N~E IN FUTUR~E LAN~D U$:E CLASSIFICATION PROI~ SU TO C6 ~Q~ OF COUNTy COMMI SSIONER~ ST. ~ COUNTY, ~ Date: December 14, 1988 convened: 7:00 p.m. Tape: No. 1 & 2 adjourned: 9:57 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Judy Culpepper (as noted); Vice Chazrman Havert L. Fenn (as noted); Jim Minix; R. Dale Trefelner; Jack Krieger. Others Present: Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator; Hazel Harriman, Sheriff' s Office; Noreen J. McMahon, Deputy Clerk. The purpose of this meeting is to hold public hearings for the following petitions for a Change in Land Use and Change in Zoning. Proof of publication was presented for each of the following petitions. 6. k[~ CORPORATION (1-1700) (a) Change .in Land .Use Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to the County Administrator, County Commission, dated December 13, t988, subject "Petition of Heminway Corporation, for a Change in Land Use from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial, General)." The petitioner proposes to develop these 10.02 acres for commercial purposes. Genevieve Jackson, on behalf of the petitioner, was request approval of this petition. present to It was moved by Com. Krieger, seconded by Com. Trefelner, to adopt Ordinance No. 88-096, an ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan, Ordinance No. 86-01 by changing the land use designation of the property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 200 feet west of Keen Road (more particularly described herein) from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) making findings; providing for making the necessary changes on the St. Lucie County Zoning Atlas; providing for conflicting provisions and severability; providing for filing with the Department of State and Department-of Community _ Affairs and for an effective date and adoption; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. ~ TUESDAY AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 12, 1988 1:30 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 ft. east of Taylor Dairy Road) Please note that all proceedings before the Board of CounTy Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proCeedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners July 1, 1988. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on July 5, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ('SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE .'SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES PROP~Y C~Y~S IN PETITIONED AREA Genevieve Jackson 2500 SE MidportRd. Suite 470 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Merritt Sapp 6000 St~ Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 I, 2 Helen Ptatts Platts Groves, Inc. 2953 Seminole Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34951-9740 OTHER PROPERTY C{.~ERS NOTIFIED 3 Mary Skubic 6236 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 A HeminwayCorporation 2500 SE Midport Rd. Suite 470 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 4 Commerce Park Dev., Inc. 4440 PGA Blvd. Ste. 305 Palm Bch. Gdns., FL 33410 James Spooner P.O. Box 794 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 Kioshi Groves 1300 HartmanRd. Fto Pierce, FL 34947 7 Henry & Margaret Calhoon P. O. Box 1317 Ft. Pierce~ FL 34954 Alton Sapp 61~5 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 9 Edward Carl 642 SE Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, FL 34984-5142 10 Elton & Rebecca Luke 5677 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 I1 Arvel Jr. & Ethel Lewis 5593 St. Lucie B/vd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946-9057 12 Albert & ThelmaWhite 5645 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft- Pierce, FL 34946 13 Walter & Barbara S~ith 5621 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 14 James &MarilynMinix 5500 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Piercew FL 34946 Rt. Lucie Co. Admin. Bldg. Road Right-of-way ~300 Virginia Ave. #208A ~t. Pierce.. FL 34982 15 Robert Mucker (TR) c/o S. Wainburg 1428 Brickell Ave. Miami, FL 33131-3409 Canal s F. P. F. W. C. D. 131 N. 2 St. Rm. 212 Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS July 1, 1988 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd. 1680 ft east of Taylor Dairy Road) ' ' A public hearing on the petition will be held at 1:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 12, 198.8, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Admin- istration Building, 2300 virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respeot to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice' to the new owner. If you should have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 466-1100, Extension 344/41. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Jack Krieger, Cha~i~man FILE NO. PA-88-003 HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE ]'REFELNER District No. 4 · JIM MINIX District No. ,5 County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-t 100 Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294 TIlE SOUTHEAST qUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ('SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.3i FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. '2' RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES The St. Lucia County Board of County Commi', mrs proposes to change ~he use of land within ! ~rea In the map in this advertisemont. ' ~ ~' A public hearing on the proposal will be held before the St. Lucia Count/ Board of County commi~doner~ on! TUesday, July 12, 1988, at 1:30 P.M., In Room 101, St. Lucia County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue,; Ft. Pierce, F~rida. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the comments an~ tecommendations of the St. Lu~} County Local Planning Agency and determine whether o~ not to transmit the propose~ ~nd u~ plan amendment t ~ Florida Depa,ment of Community AffaiYs for fu~her anenc~ review ;n ..... ' ....... : ...... ~napter 163.31~ Florida Statutes = , ~v,u~.~ ~,u~ me mqmrem~ Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commas(gnats are electroni~l~ recorded. If a decides to appeal any dec,ion made by the Bo~d of Counw Commissione~ with re~ect to any maUercon~ered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and tha~ fo~ suc~ pur~, he may n~ ~ en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includ~ ~e te~on and ~ ~hic~.?e appeal ~s to be based. Upon the reque~ of any ea~ to th~ .... ~.~ ;.a~ ......... ?..-. ~n~ ~pon ~n~ w.~ =~ swo~n ;~. Any pa~ to the proceeding will be~d an ~~ ~,~:~u~~ ~.~g 1yl~ ourmO B he8rln0 upo~ request, .. .... ; ~v v,v~*=~=~ Bny I~U~l ~-, Copies of the proposed amendments to the St, Lucia Counw Growth*Management Polic Plan public review in the St Lucia Count~ offal- ~; ~ ..... : ............ Y _ are a~a~ble for --- ..u,.,= ~vu.uu, rL rmrce, PiOrlaa, aUrl~g normal bu~ne~ hours. - = ....... ' "~'* ~1 in. rested per~s may appear and will be ~iven an oppo.uniw to be h~r~ ~t ;hat.e. If ~ becomes necessaw, these public hearings nay be continued from time to time. ' ................ .... ST. LUCIE COUNt. FLORIDA - ~. BOARD. O~ COUNTY CO~M~SS~ONEaq * /S/JACK KRIEGER CHAIRMAN COc~TY ? ,~.-.: :<,,. ... , .. , ~ .~,: :. ',?",' · .... .-, · E ' :~ ~ ' A MATTHEW J and MARIE T. SCHNEID R, et al:~ From RL flow ' * 4' ',' ,~ "~ ' ~ ~ "-,'~ Railroad, ~ fee~ no- ~ T .......... ~ (C~m~ercml Genii: Locat~, ' ~ _ ~a~rUTION, INC.= * From RL (Low DensiW Re~dential}' lo CG (Commmcial General}: Location* ~ acres plus, minus, ~n North U.S. I and O~ D~ Highway. at the e=lsflng Harbor Branch Facile(es. ~Old Dixie Highway ' C NCNB OFFLO~tDA= From RL (Low Den~ty ResidenflalJ to CH (Comm=~c al Highway): Location: 1] plul. m~us ecrus. ~ng Nomh U.S. 1 and Old Dix)e Highway, ar W~lcox Ro~d. D U.I. COMMUMITIEI. From SU (Semi Urban) to CG (Commer~l Generalj::Location: 14.5 acres, lying al ~ulhwest caner of Road. · HEMINWAY CORPORATION= From SU (Semi Urban) m CG ~Commerc~al Gene;~l): Location: I0 ac,es, ly~f ~1o~ ~e~nGnh ~e of west of Keen Reed. ~ ....... F H.J. ROSS & Hal, ROSS AsSOc~TES, INC.: ~* ? ~rom SU {Semi Urban) to RL (L ........... ~ " ' .... ~ ~ ~ H THOMAS ~YDON= ~From feet RL no.h (Low of Oeflsi~y West M~wny Residential) Road.t° CG (Commerc~M ~eneral): Loca~n: I ST. LUClE INVESTMENT CORP.: 1 ].2 ac~, ~tK ero~ ~e ~ ~e of S~ ~ S~, · - neanFr°m:Bou~vard.CG (Commercial General) to IL (Industrial Li~h~): Location: 21.6 acres, ~ng w~t of South U.S. I JANE W. TURMAIL: Lena.~r°m (HarbourSU (S~iRidge/WideUrba~) to RL~afers).(Low Oensi~ Re~dengialJ: Loca~on: 20 acres, ~ing at*~0,heast ~er < CAL~WAY LAND and CATTLE COMPANY: Fro~ SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low Density Residen~l), (Co~me~l T~Em~nusRE~ER~Eacres ly:ng baleen. Interstate. and GHdest. Cut-Off Road..Petition il pa..of Dev'. P~ o f ~ A DUDA&IONS; .: From AG (Productive Agricultural) to X (Interchange).and RL (Low Den~w Re~de~l): L~tio~: 3.3~ of Inter;tats ~ at Gatlin Boulevard. " 4 JOHNM, MgCAETY; .... ,,:... ...-: :;-*'[:"".~ . From AG (P~duct~ Agttcul~ral) to SU tSemi urban): Loca;ion: 3,~ plui, minus .=r~, ~g ~;h of Range U~ Road. " ' ~ ': ' ~' ~ ' of G~des CUt~ R~, NEWS TRIBUNE ....... P.O. BOX 69 FOE Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida 3495~-0069 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ST. LUCiE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared David T. Rutledge or Kathleen K. LeClair, who on oath says that he/she is publisher, publisher's secretary of the .News Tribune, a daily newspaper published at Fort Pierce ~n St. Lueie County, Florida; that the attached copy of the advertisement, beinga public notice in the matter of...qb..a.n.g.e...!q..L..a.n..d...g.s.e. ............ was published in said newspaper in the issues of ......... .................. ............................ Affiant further says that the said News Tribune is a newspaper published at For~ Pierce, in said St. Lucie County, Florida, and that the smd newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said St. Lucie County, Florida, each day .and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Fort Pierce, ~s,ai_.'d ,St. Lu.c,i.e Cqu. nt¥, F, lorida,.for, a p.e. riod of?ne year next preceding the first p ancafion oz me a~tacnea copy oz aaver~isemem: an~d affiant tfir~er says that he has nei~t~er paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, reb~te,,commission or r~lund for the Purpose of securing this advertisement for publication tn ~he said n~wsPaper. Swo.rn to and subscribed bet~or~ me tisement~ ~.:~. NOT C IZth TbAs .... %.~ ~... day of... - .......................... (SEAL) Notar; ~Y COati lSS]O¢~ BO~DED THRU 6ENEF;AL ':~; ": k':.. ' ' NOTICE OF ~- The St. Lucie CountyBoard of C~ tisement. A public hearing on the pro 1988, at 7:00 P.M., Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Planning Agency, Florida D{ Please note thatall decision made bythe Boan record of the proceedln record includes th~ dividuals dividual testifying. Copies Luc~ie County Ail in' If it becomes necessary, these nty Comn, ,~oners p~oposes to <' hange the us,~ of Isled withi~ ,,e area shoWni~the map in thm'adver- ,- ~ ' ~ St. Lucb cou Board of Count'~ Commissioners ~ ~ers, 3r~ con~i~e~' ~h ioneYs with respec~ ~e('.any rrlatter need ",o ensure th [)arty to suCh U est an opportunity le ~e'iheard at that timel ~y be clontinued from time tO t. ime --------r-,*¢-, .... ,~-~ ST. LU¢ NEWS TRIBUNE P.O. BOX 69 Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida 349~1~69 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ST. LUClE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared David T. Rutledge or Kathleen K. LeClair, who on oath says that he/she is publisher, publisher's secretary of the .News Tribune, a daily newspaper published at Fort Pierce m St. Lucie County, Florida; that the attached copy of the advertisement, being a..p..u.b..1.~..c..n..o.t..J_.c..e.. in the matter of ...C..b.a..n~ .e..J:..n...L.a.n..d...U.s..e ............ was published in said newspaper in the issues of ......... ................... ............................ NOTICE OF The St. Lucie Coun~ Board of County Commissioners proposes -tisement. - Luci~ 3rd F ~Urpose ofthis ~meeting is to co~ resp~ Affiant further says that the said News Tribune is a newspaper published a[ Fort Pierce, in said St. Lucie County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said St. Lucie County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class marl matter at the post office in Fort Pierce, in said St. Lucie County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the. attached copy of advertisement: and affiant further says that he ~s neither paia nor promised any person, firm or corporation a~.y discount, re,b~; ,commission o? refunff for the.purpose of securing this advertisement for puotication in the mia newspaper. Sworn to and subserfibed ~efO.re me OTICE C~F CHANGE ~N LAND U$£ Thr~ St. Lucie Coun~ Board of C0un~ Com**.,~oners proposes ~o chanoe the use of land w~h~. ~e area tisemen~. A public hea~ngon t~ proposal will be ~he 19~, at 7:00 P.M,,in the Avenue, Ft. P~erce, Florida. of Pla~ing COMMISSION REVIEW: DECEMBER 14, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: 6 - a FILE NO.: PA-88-003 ORDINANCE NO.: #88-96 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Administrator County Commission Planning Administrator December 13, 1988 Petition of Hemminway Corporation, for .a Change in Land Use from SU (Semi - Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) On Wednesday, December 14, 1988, you will be asked to review a petition on behalf of Hemminway Corporation, for a change in land use from SU to CG for property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 200 feet west of Keen Road. This petition was presented to the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on June 23, 1988. At that hearing, the Local Planning Agency voted six (6) to one (1) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners consider approval of this petition. In issuing that recommendation, they urged that it be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for the required agency review in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. On July 12, 1988, this Board concurred with that recommendation and forwarded this matter for further review. On September 16, 1988, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed this proposed Land Use Amendment for consistency with the development policies of the Treasure Coast Regional Plan. The comments of the Council are found in the attached documents. This petition is referenced in the Treasure Coast material as Item #9. On October 15, 1988, review comments were returned to St. Lucie County from the Department of Community Affairs in regard to this petition. This particular item was determined by the Department as generally consistent with the development policies of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Plan, and the requirements of section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, which were in effect prior to October 1985. December 13, 1988 Page 2 Petition: Hemminway Corporation File No.: PA-88-003 County staff continues with its original recommendations of support for this petition. Although we acknowledge-that there may indeed be certain impacts associated with the development of this property that will need further review, we are confident that these impacts will be satisfactorily addressed through the Development of Regional Impact review process. Attached for your review is a copy of our original staff report and the minutes of the previous meetings on this issue. Consistent with Board policy, attached you will find a copy of Draft Ordinance #88-96, which would grant approval to this requested change in land use. If you have any questions on this matter, please let us know. CONCURRENCE: ~vri~rDt~reCtor DJM/DBS/la Attachment HEM6(S4) cc: County Attorney Genevieve Jackson Commission Secretary Press/Public ORDINANCE NO.: 88-096 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 86-01 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ST. LUCIE BLVD., 200 FEET WEST OF KEEN ROAD (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO CG (COMMERCIAL,. GENERAL) MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARy CHANGES ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the .following determinations: 1. The Heminway Corporation presented a petition to amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi - Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) for the property described below. 2. The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency, after holding a public hearing on June 23, 1988, of which due notice was published at least seven (7) days prior to said hearing and all owners of property within five hundred (500') feet were notified by mail of said hearing, has recommended that the Board amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi - Urban) to CG (Commercial, General) for the property described below. 3. The Board held a public hearing on December 14, 1988, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Ft. Pierce News Tribune on December 6, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: A. CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. The future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan for that property described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" owned by Heminway Corporation, be, and the same is hereby changed from SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (Commercial, General). B. .FINDING OF CONSISTENCY. This Board specifically determines that the approved change in the future land use plan is consistent with the policies and ob3ectives contained in the St Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan. ' C. CHANGES TO ZONING ATLAS. The St. Lucie County Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the changes to be made in the St. Lucie County Zoning Atlas and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this ordinance. D. ~ONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordinance is for any- reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. F. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. H. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. The County Attorney shall send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399. I. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of official acknowledgment from the Office of Secretary of. State that this ordinance has been filed in that office. J- ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this as follows: ordinance was Chairperson Judy Culpepper XXX Vice-Chairper~ Havert Fenn XXX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XXX Commissioner Jack Krieger XXX Commissioner Jim Minix XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED This date of December 14, 1988 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTy COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTy ATTORNEY WEDNES~ AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 14, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management~-p~.~_P_lan~- "from-SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd 1680 ft. Taylor Dairy Road) ', east of Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners November 21, 1988. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988. BOARD OF COUN. TY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER 'l(SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUAR%v~R (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430,00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/4) OF THE SOUTH,S. ST QUA~P~._T~R. (SE-~!/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST ~QUARTER (SE !/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NOr 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLoRiDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: July 12, 1988 convened: 9:D8 a.m. Tape: #1 - #3 adjourned: 3:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Jack Krieger; Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn; Jim Minix- R. 'Dale Trefelner; Judy Culpepper (as noted) '' Others Present: Weldon Lewis, County Administrator; Dan Kurek, Assistant County Administrator; Dan Mclntyre, County Attorney; Krista Storey and Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator; Jeff Ketteler, County Engineer; Howard Kimble, Public Works Director; Lew England, Acting Property Administrator; Walter Smith and Evan Costopoulos Sheriff's Office; Jane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk ' (i) .Heminway_ Corporation (2-2552) Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated July 6, 1988, subject "Petition of Heminway Corporation to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy ~lan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General Development) It was moved by Com. Minix, seconded by Com. Culpepper, to transmit this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comments; and, upon roll all, carried unanimously, c motion COMMISSION REVIEW: JULY 12. 1988 AGENDA ITEM: 14 - I FILE NO.: PA-88-003 MEMORANDUM TO: County Administrator County Commission FROM: DATE: Planning Administrator July 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Petition of Heminwa¥ Corporation to Amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi - Urban) to CG (Commercial General Development) On Tuesday, July 12, 1988, you will be asked to review a petition on behalf of the Heminwa¥ Corporation, for a change in land use from SU to CG for property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 200 feet west of Keen Road. This petition was presented to the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on June 23, 1988. At that hearing, the Local Planning Agency voted six (6) to one (1) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners consider approval of this petition, and that it be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for the required agency review in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. At' this time, staff would offer a preliminary recommendation of approval. However, County staff would reserve the right to amend this recommendation pending completion and review of the required agency comments. Attached for your review is a copy of our original staff report and the minutes of the June 23, 1988, Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact this office. DJM/DBS/meg Attachment HEM2(B-DEC88) cc: County Attorney Genevieve Jackson WEDNE .... AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 14, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St~ Luci~ouaty, Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd 1680 ft Taylor Dairy Road) ', . east of Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners November 21, 1988. Legal-notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER' (SE I/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE, SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QU~-RTER (SE-l/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1./4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES Agenda Item: File Number: PA-88-OO& MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Local Planning Agency Planning Administrator June 16, 1988 Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, to Amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General) LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GMPP: PROPOSED GMPP: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: WATER/SEWER SERVICE: On the north side of St. Lucie 200 feet west of Keen Road. AR-1 (Agricultural, du/ac) Blvd., Residential _ 1 SU (Semi - Urban) CG (Commercial, General Development) 10.02 Acres _ To develop for commercial purposes-- AR-l, RVP, and IL Road Runner Trailer Park is located to the east of the site. There are some single family homes scattered throughout this area. The remainder of the land is undeveloped. Station #4 (St. Lucie approximately 1 mile away. Blvd.) is Public services are currently nos available to this site. The subject property is within the planned service area for Ft. Pierce Utilities. June 16, 1988 Page 2 Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporation PA-88-003 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW- In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Growth Management Poli6y Plan, the Local Planning Agency Shall consider and make the following determinations: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie Growth Management Policy Plan; The proposed change in land use is consistent with 'the Commercial Development Policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan. Specific policies in support of this petition are #34 and #35. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area; The proposed amendment is- consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. the Whether there have been changed require an amendment; conditions that Expansion plans -for the St. Lucie County. International A~rport have created th6 need to minimiz~ all possible residential development areas in or near the approaches to this facility. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities; The proposed development is not expected to create an excessive demand on public facilities in this area. June 16, 1988 Page 3 Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporation PA-88-003 Whether and the extent to which the- proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifica}-.ly identifying any negative effects on such pattern; The proposed amendment is consistent with the I Board of County Commissioners Commercial Development Policies for the St. Lucie County International Airport and its environs. COMMENTS The petitioner, Heminway Corporation, proposes to change the land use designation from SU to CG for the property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., approximately 200 feet west of Keen Road. County staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and found it not to be within a designated area of Critical State Concern, found it not to qualify as a small area or emergency plan amendment under Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes and is not proposed for adoption under a Joint Planning Agreement pursuant to Chapter 163.~171, Florida Statutes. County staff has determined this petition to be generally consistent with the Commercial Development Rolicies of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Rolicy Plan. The- proposed amendment to Commercial is consistent with the ~development pattern in the area ~f the St. Lucie County International Airport and all approaches ~o and/or near this facility. 'Under the requirements of Rule 93-11,-Florida Administrative Code, the State of Florida requires a recommendation from this Agency, as well as staff, prior to the Board of County Commissioner,s consideration on whether to transmit this petition for further agency review- At this time, staff would recommend that the Local Rlanning Agency forward a recommendation of approval for this petition and that it recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that this petition be transmitted to the State of Florida for further agency review and comment. Although staff is offering a preliminary recommendation of approval, we would advise the Petitioner that should the Board of CounTy Commissioners agree to transmit this petition for further review, St. Lucie County reserves the right to amend this recommendation oending completion and review of the required agency comments. June 16, 1988 Page a Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporatios PA-88-O0~ If you have any questions on this matter, this office. pleas~ contact DJM/DBS/seb Attachment HEMi(B-DEC88)a cc: County Attorney Genevieve 3ackson SAMPLE MOTION: MOTION .TO TRANSMIT: AFTER CONSIDERING HEARING, INCLUDING REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF ZONING LOCAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF HEMINWAY CORPORATION- FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) BE APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES. MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TE'STIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE'PETITION OF HEMINWAY CORPORATION FOR A C'HANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO CG (COMMERCIAL, DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER STATUTES; BECAUSE,.. GENERAL), NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER THE FLORIDA REVIEW AND 163, FLORIDA THURSDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JUNE 23, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classifica- tion of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) ~to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd 1680 ft Taylor Dairy Road) '' - east of Please note that all proceedings b~fore the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he wil~t need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur- pose, he may need to ensure .that a verbatim record, of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party_~t° the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners June t, 1988. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988. FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE~t/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - I4C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING I0.02 ACRES CG - ORANGE SU - BLUE CT - RED CHv - PURPLE IL - GREEN 25- CG ST. LUCIE PETITION OF HEHINWAY CORPORATION BY AGENT: 'GENEVIEVE JACKSON FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROm SU TO CG CT' N AR-1 - ~EIt IL - .PUi~£ 25-34-39 N IL A RVP PETIT[OI~ OF HEI"IlggAY CORPORAT]OII BY AC~IIT: ~IE]~¥]EVE JACKSON FOR A CHAflC~ ]1~ FUTURE LAIRD USE CLASS[F[CAT]:ON FROIq SU TO CG 'Genevieve Jackson 2500 SE Midport Rd. Suite 470 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 1, 2 Helen Platts Platts Groves, Inc. 2953 Seminole Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL ~34951-9740 C A '~qerri t t Sapp 6000 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 OTHER PROPER/%' OW.ATRS :'~TZEJ_ED 3 Mary Skubic 623g St. Lucie Blx~. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 A He~inwav CorEoratlon 2500 SE Midport Rd. Suite 470 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Cocr~rce Park Del=:, Inc. 4440 PGA Blvd. Ste. 305 Palm Bch. Grins., FL 3341f James Spooner P.O. Box 794 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 Kioshi Groves i300 Hartman Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34947 ? Hen~- &'-Margaret Calhoon P. O. Box 1317 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 8 Alton Sapp 6105 St. LucieBlvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 9 Edward Carl 642 SE Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, FL 34984-5142 10 Elton & Rebecca Luke 5677 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 11 krvel Jr. & Ethel Lewis 5593 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946-9057 12 Albert & Thelma White 5645 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 13 - Walter & Barbara Smith 5621 St. LL1cie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL -34946 14 James & MarilynMinix 5500 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 County Roads St. Lucie Co. Admin. Bldg. Road Right-of-way 2300 Virginia Ave. #208A Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 15 Robert Zucker ('I/q) c/o S. Wainburg 1428 Brickell Ave. ,Miami, FL 33131-3409 Canals F- P. F. W. C. D. 131 N. 2.St. Rm. 212 Ft. Pierce, ~L 34950 PUBLIC HEARING: PA-88-003: Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for property located on the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 200 ft. west of Keen Road. Ms. Genevieve Jackson presented the petition. She explained the project called North Woods has approximately 680 ft. fronting on St. Lucie Blvd. and is approximately 600 ft. in depth. She said the Board of County Commissioners had approved a similar petition on the corner of Taylor Dairy Road and St. Lucie Blvd. Staff has found the petition to be consistent with the GMPP. It would also be consistent with the expansion plans for the St. Lucie County Airport. In response to questioning by Mr. Terpening, Ms. Jackson said the southeast corner that is labled as an out parcel is currently under negotiation for purchase. Re§arding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy said Staff has determined the proposed petition to be generally consistent with the commer- cial development policies of the GMPP, as well as the development policies of the St. Lucie County Airport. Staff recommended approval and transmittal for further department and regional review. Hearing no further public comment in favor .~of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of the he ar lng. After considering the testimony presented during the public hear- ing, includin§ Staff Comments, and the Standards of Review as set in Section 5.3.300, St. Lucie County Zoning Ordinance, Mrs. King made a motion that the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that the petition of Heminway Corporation for a change in land use from SU (Semi Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) be approved and transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review and evaluation under the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Mr. Sciturro seconded the motion, and upon roll call, Mrs. Sciturro, Mrs. Ferrick, Mrs. King, Mr. Flowers, Mr. Skidmore and Mr. Terpening voted in favor of the motion. Mrs. Fawsett voted against the motion. This resulted in six votes in favor of ..and one vote against the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioner's agent that the peti- tion will be-forwarded to the Board of~ Count~ ~ommissioners with a recommendation of approval. STATE DEPARTMENT OF 2740 CE N ~, ER Vi EW DRIVE BOB MARTINEZ GOVernor OF FLORIDA COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TA L LA HASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 THOMAS G. PELHAM October 11, 1988 Secretary Mr. Jack Krieger The Chairman, Board of County Commissioners St.. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs has reviewed the proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The review indicated that the proposed amendments 88-007, 88-008, 88-006, 88-009, 88-014, 88-001, 88-002, 88-012, 88-003 88-004, 88-011 and 88-013 are generally consistent with the requirements of section 163.3177, Florida Statutes which were in effect prior to October 1985.· Please note the comments of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Transportation concerning amendments 88-007 88-008 88-013. , , 88-006, 88-009, 88-014 and Amendment 88-010 is inconsistent with St. Lucie COunty Growth Management Policies 14, 15 and 23-. Policy 14 states that land should be zoned for commercial use "only when there are adequate public services, e.g. fire protection, water and sewer, roads etc., available .... - Policy 15 states that "the County will encourage only the types, amounts, and in~ensitims of land develop- menn that are consistent with road capacities .... ,, Staff comments indicate a lack of sufficient roadway capacity for the proposed land use. Policy 24 stanes that "neighborhoods...should be protected from adverse influences of blighting and unsafe factors such as heavy traffic volumes and incompatible non-residential uses." EMERGENcy MANAGEMENT . HOUSING AND COMMuNITy DEVELOPMENT . RESOuRcE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Mr. Jack Krieger October 1t, 1988 Page Two Staff co~ents point to the "detrimental effect" that the redesignation would have on the existing and future residential areas by the intrusion of co~ercial land uses. Agency co~enns are enclosed for your use during the amendment process. Upon completion of the adoption process, the Department requests a copy of the amended plan and adoption ordinance pursuant to Section 163.3187(3), Florida Statutes. For further information please contact Mr. John Healey at (904) 487-4545. ' Division of Resource Planning and Management PRB: j hr Enclosures cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council _ sL Iuci¢ September 16, 1988 planniqg councl Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of COmmunity Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2740 Centerview Drive The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 ,SEE BUREAU OF "' ~'" LOG,~.. Subject: St. Lucie County Local Government Comprehensive Plan Documents Dear Mr. Hook: Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use Element of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan at its regular meeting on September 16, 1988. Please excuse the delay in getting the comments to you. The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) pursuant to Sections 163.3184(1) (c) and (2), Florida Statutes, and for consideration by the County prior to adoption of the documents. Evaluation The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the complete agenda item as presented to Council. Council's action was to adopt the comments and approve their transmittal to DCA. However, the following additional co.mments are also to be part of our transmittal, based on Council action at the September 16 1988 meeting: Based on additional information presented at the Council meeting, there are potential conflicts with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan relative to proposed Plan Amendment PA-88-013. 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suite 205 - p.o. box 1529 L~olm clfv. florida .~L~Ool't Jim minlx thomas g. kenny, III 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 comments received relative to this item. The petitioner (land owner) will also be provided with a copy of the comments from the meeting and asked for a response. If you need additional information or have any questions please do not hesitate to call. ' /~~ly, / / Enclosures TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ~ EM ORAN DU M To: From: Counc il Members Staff AGENDA TEM 5D Date: Subject: September 16, 1988 Council Meeting Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Thirteen Amendments to the St. Lucie County Future Land Use Element Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs, which in turn is seeking Council's comments. Council,s review of the information forwarded by the Depar~ment of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship of the proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. If a conflict with adopted plans or policies is identified, the regional planning agency is to specify any objections and may make recommendations for modifications. Council also provides informal comments to the local government through a spirit of cooperation, and technical assistance on matters related to the proposed amendments. These advisory comments are aimed at providing coordination between the local and regional comprehensive plans. Backg_~ound St. Lucie County is considering 13 amendments to their Future Land Use Element. The locations of the properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying map, and the number of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized on the following table: 0 ~ 0 L 0 0 L L n 0 " 0 0 I I I I CO O0 CO OD U 0 CJ I,. I L (.- L 0 L 0 C~ N L '7_, In order to assist t'~ Council in their review, the following definitionsincluded: from the Kt. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE ST. LUCZE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for ~he production of citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries, forestry, cattle and stock raising, dairy farms and other direct agricultural uses. Dwelling units at a density of one per acre and large-scale self-contained developments. , SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban development (less than one dwelling unit per 'acre), generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural character of the area. RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development category that allows for residential development projects having an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre. Evaluation The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council,s adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The following commen~s are offered as a result of tha~ review. Many of the parcels under consideration are covered with native pine flatwoods vegetation. These properties have the potential for containing species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council encourages the development of site plans that are sensitive to the needs of any listed species and which preserve as much native vegetation as possible. ~tems 1, 2, and 3 ~PA-88-007, PA 88-008, and PA 88-006~ These three parcels are related directly to The Reserve Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The large area (1,400 acres) is being proposed for low density residential development. The smaller parcels at the future interchange of 1-95 and Prima Vista Boulevard proposed for commercial land use, are proposed to be used for a resort hotel (40.5 acres) and a shopping center (30.3 acres). The proposed land use changes would result in a greater intensity of development, therefore generating higher traffic volumes. All traffic impacts and appropriate mitigative measures to maintain Level of Service C/D on the regional roadway network will be addressed under the DRI review process. Since these parcels are part of the DRI, the proposed land use changes would need to be consistent with the DRI approvals, when they are rendered. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, a complete analysis of consistency is impossible until the completion of the DRI process. The assessment report and recommendations may have some bearing on the proposed land use changes. Since DRI review is not yet complete, a complete assessment of consistency would be premature. It is recommended that no change in land use be considered until Council has completed its assessment report. Because this is a DRI, the County may address proposed land use changes simultaneously with its review of the project. Item 4 (PA 88-009) This amendment involves a very large tract (approximately 4,300 acres) of land lying west and south of the 1-95 interchange at Gatlin Boulevard, just west of the City of Port St. Lucie. According to the County staff, it involves a land use reclassification of approximately 3,000 acres to RL (low density residential), and the addition and reconfiguration of approximately 1,300 acres of "Interchange,, land use. The ~nterchange category provides for land uses which require a high degree of accessibility to limited access highways. The petitioner/owner, who actually holds a total of 10,000 acres at the site, has indicated that RL is a more appropriate land use, given "activity- in this area. The actual use of the property at present is as citrus groves and a sod farm. The redesignation of this tract as proposed is not consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Planning Policy, nor does it appear to be consistent with good planning practice. The proposed change should not be approved for the following reasons: The ability of local government to upgrade the perceived development potential of land and, therefore, its market value by granting changes in land use designation gives 10~a1 government the power to mint a form of currency. No local government shou3d give away that currency without assurance thaL in return the citizens of the area will also benefit. To do so would not be prudent. The owner of thi~ prDperty has re~dested that the land use be Changed from Agricultural Productive (4,300 acres) to Low Density Residential (3,000 acres) and Interchange Oriented Commercial (1,300 acres). NothinU is being offered to the community in return for Tlkis land use change, not even an intelligent, w~ll-conceived plan for development. To grant the requested change would enhance substantially market value and perceived development Potential of the land, without requiring that in return for that added value and development potential, the landowner do anything for the citizens of the area--not even demonstration that development could intelligently occur at the r~z/u~sted density withou~ negative impact. Until such time am government has sufficient data to assure the public that the change is in their interest and that negative fiscal and environmental /mzp~cts will not occur, the change should not be ~. Granting the prop~s~ change would interfere with the planning of an /mportant future growth area in an intelligent, comprehensive, and positive manner. Inte~-f~_nge would occur for two reasons: 1) because, as mentioned above, the local government,s neuotiating power would have been- compromised prior to a plan being developed; and 2) because the ch~a~ge would encourage the breakup of what now is a very large tract of land in single ownership (10,000 acres). Many planning techniques wh/~h can assure intelligent and positive growth are difficult to implement where multiple ownerskip occurs. By way of illustration, a comprehensive evaluation of this property might conclude that due to the ecological or agricultural importance of the land, that development should ideally occur only within a two-mile radius of the interchange. If the entire 10,000 mL-res is single ownership, the local government is in a position to approve development in the form of a mixed use, compact community that provides future residents a place where they can live, work, and shop without having to commute excessively long distances, in return for an '~greement that remaining Portions of the property are dedicatej to ecological preserve areas, as agricultural areas, or some combination of both. Essentially all future development rights would be transferred into the zone that was most appropriate for development, and additional development potential would be added to that zone to the extent necessary to make the dedication of remaining land acceptable to the owner and to make the community created function as a mixed use, somewhat independent place. The landowner is happy because the market value of his land has been enhanced considerably;, the citizens are happy because land is set aside for ecological and agricultural purposes, and the community that results is well planned; and future residents of the new community are happy because they have a well planned potentially wonderful place to live. Such opportunities may be lost if land use is enhanced on one portion of -the property without considering the future of the entire property. Instead, the enhanced portion-'of- the property could be sold-and any opportunity for transfer of development rights from one property to the other is less likely if not impossible to negotiate. Approval of the proposed change would negatively. effect the value and development potential of land that should be encouraged to be developed or redeveloped prior to opening new areas to development. By way of example, Fort Pierce is an area that has tremendous potential for redevelopment, but which is not likely to redevelop if uses we would like to see in Fort Pierce are made excessively abundant elsewhere on less expensive land. Likewise, Port St. Lucie has very large amounts of undeveloped land which should be encouraged to develop, thereby reducing the cost of services. Infill will not occur rapidly if new areas are continually granted development potential. State and Regional Comprehensive Plans discourage urban sprawl and encourage the infill of existing communities. For reasons stated above, granting of the proposed change will discourage infill. Approval of development potential in this area, at this time, would encourage leapfrog development and sprawl. Responsible growth management requires that local governments understand fully the costs of providing infrastructure and services to new development and demonstrate an ability to deliver sel-vices concurrent with need, prior to taking 6 7o action to encourage development. Based on development approvals that have to be granted to date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County, it is clear that substantial expenditures will be necessary to expand the existing roadway system. Just to support approved development it appears an additional east/west roadway or expressway will be needed and many existing roads will need to be substantially expanded. To encourage even more growth prior to determining an efficient and cost effective method of paying for existing needs would not be prudent and would potentially increase per capita costs by expanding the area needing to be served. Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000 acres of residential) should be discouraged and mixed use encouraged. Planning that provides people opportunities to live, work, and shop in reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems and provides for the more efficient delivery of infrastructure. Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for essentially every need. Separation of uses is today blamed for the traffic problems in places like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to follow the methods of development that have created the kinds of problems that exist in these areas would be to ignore history and give away the future of this Region. The need for more than 600 acres (existing) of Interchange Commercial at this one location is unclear and needs to be considered in terms of its comprehensive effect and relationship to surrounding areas prior to approval. According to both the City of Port St. Lucie and the County, no such study has been proposed. The redesignation of land use is inappropriate at this time (for reasons noted above) and unnecessary. Although not represented in the review package submitted, this property has already been granted 600 acres of interchange oriented potential and the existing Agricultural Productive category allows for large- scale, self- contained development. The only thing required to obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable development plan. Since reasonable use is already allocated, it is not clear why the County should agree to upgrade substantially land development potential in the absence of a plan. The owner of this property has atr~ady been alerted that a DRI review would be required to receive development auproval on this property. Since the owner has indicated that the property is not to be developed at this time, changes to the land use designation would see~ more appropriate at the time of DRI review. 8. Approval of the project could create a domino effect that would encourage other requests for entitlement increases prior to questions being answered regarding the best future for the entire undeveloped portion of the County. 9. The proposed change could negatively effect Martin County (see attached comments from Martin County). If the State of Florida and this Region are to achieve their goals, we must insist on better planning than has taken place to date statewide. No planning has been done for this property, and no land use change is therefore warranted at this time. ~tem 5 ~PA 88-014) This large trac~ (3,000 acres) is located along Glades Cu~-off Road (C.R. 709) west of Range Line Road (C.R. 609). The current land use and zoning categories assigned to the land are agriculture. The actual land uses are agricultural, with one rock mining operation. The redesignation of this tract to a semi-urban land use category is not consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor does it appear to be consistent with good planning practice. The proposed change should not be approved for the following reasons: The tract lies at an isolated location, well to the west of any urban development or urban services in St. Lucie County; In the absence of any plan of development, it must be assumed that the proposed land use would constitute the type of scattered, "leapfrog,,, and low intensity single use development which has proved to be a great burden on other communities in the Region and the State and is discouraged by both Regional and State Plans; Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000 acres of residential) should be discouraged and mixed use encouraged. ~Planning that provides people opportunities to liue, work, and sleep in 4 o reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems ,.nd provides for the more efficient delivery Of infrastructure. Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for essentially every need. Separation_ of uses is today blamed for the traffic problems in places like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to follow the methods of development that have created the kinds of problems that exist in these areas would be to ignore history and give away the future of this Region. No assessment has been done of the costs or methods of providing transportation, sewage, water supply, park, drainage, school, or medical facilities to this part of the County. There are presently no services in the area.- The neares= fire/emergency medical services facility is 14 miles away; _ Responsible growth management requires that local governments understand fully the costs of providing infrastructure and service to new development and demonstrate an ability to deliver services concurrent with need prior to taking action to encourage development. Based on development approvals that have to be granted to date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County, it is clear that substantial expenditures will be necessary to expand the existing roadway system. Just to support approved development, it appears an additional east/west roadway or expressway will be needed and many existing roads will need to be substantially expanded. To encourage even more growth prior to determining an efficient and cost effective method of paying for existing needs would not be prudent and would substantially increase per capita costs by expanding the area needing to be served. The area is presently relatively inaccessible. It can be reached only via Glades Cut-off Road from the north, and with a connection to Glades Cut-off Road provided by Range Line Road to the south. Ail roads are two-laned. No assessment is provided to address the serious east/west capacity deficiencies which already exist in this area of St. Lucie County; and While this property may lend itself in the future to the development of a mixed-use community (or literally to a new town g~ven the size of the tract.), the proposed land use change promotes the development of the trac~ at a density which would call fora very inefficient and costly delivery of se~vices (less than one dwelling unit per acre). The t}~e of single use sprawl proposed by the o%~er is counter to principles of~ balanced, planned development. A mixed variety of land use is essential, pa~ticularly in such a remo~e location. 5. The redesiqnation of land use is inappropriate at this time (for reasons noted above and unnecessary. The existing Agricultural Productive category already allows for large-scale, self- contained development. The only thing required to obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable development plan. Since reasonable use ls already allowed, it is not clear why the County should agree to upgrade substantially land development potential in the absence of a plan. The owner of this- property has already been alerted that a DRI review would be required to receive development approval on this property. Since the owner has indicated that the property is no~ to be developed at this time, changes to the land use designation would seem more appropriate at the time of DRI review. 6. The proposed change could negatively affect Martin County (see attached comments from Martin County). The review materials indicate that the developer/owner intends to develop this property at a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The size of the trac~ and the number of potential units call for the consideration of a DRI. Given that a DRI will be required, the appropriate time for the consideration is concurrently with the DRI approvals. In the preparation of the DRI (pre-submission), the owner will be encouraged to develop a project which contains the variety and mix of uses (living, working, shopping, and recreational environments) which would contribute to the evolvement of a true community. The advantages of being able to provide for services and facilities in an efficient manner and in avoiding the pitfalls experienced by unplanned growth are clear. Each day local governments in the Treasure Coast Region must face the unpaid costs of sprawl which has occurred previously. The approval of the land use changes proposed in this and the previous (#4) amendment represent an announcement by the local government of at least partial responsibility to provide the needed ~nfrastructure in this area. The costs of providing 10 that infrastructure in an area which is not only well removed from existing urban facilities, but is to be characterized by sprawling, low densities will be extremely high. Fina!~y, Council recognizes that the proposed land use category appears to allow little or no additional diversi~y in land use types and densities. The existing land use category should be retained because it allows for large-scale, self-contained developments, while the proposed use appears to be more limiting and could result in single use sprawled ~evelopment.' Martin County staff has expressed concerns relating to the impact of this and the previous land use change on that County,s plan policies and activities. Urban development as proposed would be in conflict with the Martin County Land Use Plan (see attached letter). Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment appears to be in conflict and inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~tem 6 ~PA 88-001~ This amendment is for a 22-acre parcel of land immediately west of U.S. 1, between a shopping plaza and two mobile home parks. County staff states that the petitioner intends to consolidate parcels in order to develop a Planned Non-residential Development (PNRD). The proposed Industrial Light (IL) land use is ~ecessary to accommodate wholesale activities planned in the development. Public water is available at this site, but public sewage treatment facilities are not. The County will want to evaluate the wetlands associated with this parcel prior to any development approvals. Also, the County may want to take a look at the opportunity, in conjunction with this project, to provide access between the mobile home parks and the shopping plaza. Ail opportunities such as this to reduce stress on U.S. 1 should be carefully considered. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendmen~ does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Item 7 [PA 88-002} This amendment involves a lt4-acre parcel which the petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home community. The property is adjacent to another manufactured home development and lies along the !1 Florida Turnpike. Given the size of this parcel and its relative isolation, the developer should be encouraged to request some limited commercial land use to Me used for neighborhood service type uses. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in .conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Items 8 and 9 (PA 89-012 and PA 88-003) These parcels (14.5 and 10.0 acres respectively) lie along St. Lucie Boulevard (C.R. 608) in the vicinity of the St. Lucie County International Airport. Both lie immediately west of the airport in a main approach/take-off zone. Although public services (sewer and water) are not yet available in this area, they do lie in the Planned Service Area for Fort Pierce Utilities. Commercial and industrial uses will probably become prevalent in this corridor. Improvements to St. Lucie Boulevard have been programmed by the County. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Items 10, 11 and 12 (PA 88-004 PA 88-011, ~ ~ r ~ J These three parcels all lie between U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway in the northern portion of the County. The County has a previously adopted policy regarding this area to contain the effects of commercial develop- ment primarily to U.S. 1, rather than on Old Dixie Highway. County staff takes exception to petition 12, citing access problems and feared effects to Old Dixie Highway. No such concerns are expressed for Item 10 which lies immediately east of a proposed shopping center, nor Item 11 where commercial development is proposed by the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc. Ail three petitioned properties are on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Some of this ridge has been mined for sand or otherwise disturbed, especially on Item 11. There are no public facilities (sewer or water) avail- able to any of these sites. All will have to utilize on-site facilities. 12 The property associated with Item 12 is covered with mature sand pine scrub habitat. It should be surveyed by qualified personnel for the presence of Lakela's mint, a federally endangered plant species whose entire population is known to exist only in a few locations near the subject parcel. Because sand pine scrub habi- tat is becoming extremely rare in the Region, Council encourages the preservation of as much of this habitat as possible. These comments also apply to Items t0 and 11 if scrllb habitat exists. Prior to development a traffic analysis should be prepared for each site and submitted to the County Engineer and Florida Department of Transportation. The analysis should address impacts on nearby intersections (U.S. 1) in order to define problems relating to signalization, turning movements, and median cuts. Based on the information provided and the concerns expressed above, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Item 13 (PA 88-0132 This parcel (12.5 acres) is located immediately north of the 25th Street/Midway Road intersection which is rapidly evolving into a major intersection in St. Lucie County. The intersection and both roadways are programmed for major improvements. Ail four quadrants of the intersection area now have commercial land use. This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast quadrant. A traffic study should be submitted for the review and approval of the County Engineer. The study should address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on the applicable roadways and intersections. The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to the eas~. There have been frequent storm water management problems in this area. A study is currently underway on how to manage such problems in the North Fork drainage area. County staff supports the petition, citing the logic of developing a compact core to the commercial area while recognizing the environmental constraints and potential conflicts of continued commercialization. Perhaps reflecting the long standing community opposition to 13 commercial development in this area, the local planning agency voted five to one to deny the petition. There are environmental constraints which apply to th~s property. However, the exa~ use for this parcel and the way in which these cons%taints are considered are local government consideraticns. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~ecommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Attachments -' -~-,, - --~ .... ~'~ ;t ',,~ ~,o .... .... _ ,_ _~_.: :~ ~; ~ ~= . _ - --- ST LUCt~ OOUNTY~ ~':': COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS I - '"~' ~- ~--~. 13 DDUNTY OF' MARTIN STATI OF FLOi IIDA August 29, 1988 Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Coordinator Treasure Coast_Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 1'529 Palm City, Florida 34990 RE: St. Lucie County Land Use Amendment for PA 88-O09and PA 88-014 Dear Terry, I apologize that we will not be able to agenda the subject items before the Martin County Board of County Commissioners prior to September 13, 1988. In the interim, t am supplying these comments from the Community Development Department. The Board may have more specific comments for your September Council meeting. 1. I_MPACT ON MARTIN COUNTY'S PLANS, POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES: a. The first proposal in PA 88-009 is to change approximately 4,300 acres of agriculturally designated lands to interchange oriented development (X) and Low Density Development {RL 1-5 upa). This may have significant impacts on Martin County's plans, policies and activities. The applicant is not proposing a specific development at this time and the existing Agricultural zoning {AG) will remain intact. This complicates the existing agricultural zoning in areas of Martin County in proximity to this parcel. If this change is accepted it will set the stage for a potential urban type development abutin9 agricultural areas in Martin County. b. The second proposal which will have an impact on Martin County is PA 88-0t4. This amendment request is to change approximately 3,000 acres of Agricu)tural {AG) to Semi-Urban (SU) land uses. Generally, there are no urban concentrations in this area which is considered rura) and agricultural. The application indicates that the land use change will not provide any increase in density, since both the Semi-Urban and Agricultural land use cateqories permit deve]opment at a maximum density of one dwelling unit pe~ acre. This property is located between the East Coast Railway Line and Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, I958 Page Two CR 609 (Range Lin6 Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin County line. Land uses to the south in both Mar~in and St. Lucie County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida Department of Corrections facility is operating immediately to the south of the County line west of CR 609. These changes would be incompatible with the Martin County Land Use Plan and may lead to potential adverse traffic impa'cts and environmental degradation to Atlapath Flats. Consideration should be given to the placement of east-west routes connecting to major thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. tf these are proposed on the Major Thoroughfare Plan then developemnt of these roadways should be concurrent with development of these and surrounding properties. c. Th~ potential impact of urban development west of the Gatlin Boulevard interchange at 1-95, the potential widening of CR 609 and the developement of major thoroughfares in this area wilt have to be co:ordinated with M~rtin County at the time of development review for th:is property. The magnitude of traffic, which could be produced by this land use change, was not envisioned in the development of the Martin County ThorOughfare Plan and Year 2005 Transportation Plan and coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be jeopardized. 2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT: The current land use designation amendment without any specific development plans, is not expected to have any immediate significant social, economic, or environmental impacts on Martin County. Should an urban type development occur in this area, the impact on Martin County and surrounding areas will have to be closely evaluated. I trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. S~ncerely, Harry ~. King, Planning Administrator HWK/ERC/dlw [0146] cc: Board of County Commissioners Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Development Department Henry ller, Growth ~tanagement Plan, Appointee Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community DeveIopmen~ Coordinator Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PI2LNNING COUNCIL PORTION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Pat Ferrick: My name is Patricia Ferrick, 4802 S. 25th Street, St. Lucie County. I am a~pearing this morning on my behalf of a couple of organizations in the area of plan amendment 88-013, before t begin I would like to give you some handouts. Cary: That is Item ~9 on the list of items. Minix: We are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first. Kenny: You want to do 1, 2, and 3 first. Minix: Pat, we are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first because Dagney has a conflict on those 3, so we are going to do those and get those passed so she can then discuss on the rest of them. Anyone interested in discussing PA 88-07, PA 88-08, PA 88-06, those are the 3 that we are taking up at this time. Seeing no public comment is there any... Kenny: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding these are not in conflict with the Regional Policies and that the land use amendment can be crossed simultaneously with the DRI, is that the way it is? I move staff comments on item 1, 2, and 3 of the St. Lucie County Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Eggert: Seconds. Minix: Okay, we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion? · ~ Marcus: 1, 2, and 3. Kenny: 88-007, 88-008, 88-006. Minix: Any further discussion? signify by saying aye. Oppose no. Minix: Now Pat, you may come up. Ail in favor of the motion Motion carries. Cary: That's 12.5 acres which is currently at low density residential being proposed for commercial general. That is discussed on page 13 of the report. Ferrick: I want to thank you all for letting me appear this morning before you. I have some comments on 88-013. I have prepared a packet. The packet that I handed to both Commissioner Mini× and Executive Director, Dan Cary, has copies of information Pat Ferrick: Again, for the record my name is Patricia Ferrick, I reside at 4802 S. 25th Street, Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County. I am appearing this morning on petition number 88-013 and I would like to give you those handouts. that was provided to DCA and it had been my understanding I had requested the information be transmitted to this board, but looking at the package you received I notice that you had very little information and the maps are so small that you are all not getting a true picture of the problems that we have. My letter states, "Dear Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, potential inconsistencies and adverse impacts upon adjacent~property owners were identified and documented in packets sent to the LPA, St. Lucie County Commissioners, and the Department of Community Affairs.', And I hope they had been sent on to the Regional Planning Staff and Council, but I don't believe they have been. Therefore, I am going to, can you hear me? I guess you can't if I leave the podium. The particular property in question is this property right here. Once you come in for a commercial land use amendment from 900 feet, you will look on your maps that I have provided you with back to approximately this point. At the time they came in to St. Lucie County to do this, the regulations of St. Lucie County say that they must have had a conceptual sent to the board. When they came in this property showed that on-site sewage treatment plant on a conceptual, I have a copy of the conceptual if you all would like to see it. Back here in this portion and this portion which is adjacent to the river you are not seeing today, but it is part of the overall package and you come to the irreverent part of your decision, even though it is not supposed to be admissible. This property, here has wetlands on it in here, they intend to put multifamily quadplexes, triplexes, and duplexes in this particular section. They intend an ingress and egress, this multifamily complex off of Midway Road, a two-lane road opposite the aquatic preserve. There are no shoulders hardly to the road down here to allow ~egress and ingress of this property. I have brought along a picture to show you, if you will pass it around. The pictures will indicate the areas in question and they will indicate on the bottom serious flooding that has occurred in the particular area--1985. My property adjoins this parcel. I own this property colored on this map here in green. I own the north 125 feet of these parcels of property. Your staff comments and St. Lucie County staff comments say that this will complete an urban core in this particular vicinity. At the present time there are already 60 acres zoned in a commercial core in this area. All of these colored in red on the map are now in commercial general. They're only approximately seven acres utilized of this commercialism in this intersection at this present time. I read with interest the comments that were in your staff report, particularly the ones that said, regional planners say that when local governments increase the market value of land by granting land use changes he uses his power to mint a form of currency. It does the same thing when you change and allow a speculative land development to come in with no constraints on the flood hazard areas in this particular area. If you will notice the handout I have given you on the second page shows the flood plain area. This property is wholly located in flood hazard zone A6 in St. Lucie County. This is 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 development. This is not being the case. Florida Statutes 187 which is your Florida comprehensive Plan, says in several instances that these things should be addressed. In particular, there about five elements that require addressing of this in the State plan. These have not been addressed, because when they come in for these particular changes, all they come in is with a conceptual and it does not show, allow you all the availability to see what is exactly in that area nor unfortunately do the maps that you are provided when you get this. You don't see but a small portion, you don't see that. the fact that on here it abuts the North Fork of the river, we have serious drainage problems in the area. At the present time the positive drainage for this parcel of land ends right here. The water at that point comes backwards and either goes this way to the river or tries to go across the street, head south, and then east into the river. It has created potential problems before and it has now.. If any amount of development in this area will increase these potential problems ten-fold. At the present in St. Lucie County we have approximately 2,508 acres zoned commercial in St. Lucie County. That amounts to approximately 827 square feet zoned commercial for each man, woman, and child in St. Lucie County. We have a problem keeping the buildings we now have rented, new shopping centers are half vacant, and this is something that we don't need to increase. Again, I will go back to, referring to staff comments and they say on another issue, it says no local government should give away that currency without assurance that in return the citizens of the area will also benefit, the report advises. Well, I am sorry to say this one is not going to have the citizens of St. Lucie County, it is going to create a problem for the adjacent property owners. If you will note you do not have copies of it, but ' Mr. Cary and Mr. Minix have copies of a petition of opposition from the White City Improvement Club, from the North Fork property owners, and you also have a petition with 26 signatures from all the adjacent property owners here within 500 feet who were notified of this change. We have enough commercialism in the area to qualify for keeping our area in our own area and not bringing adjacent traffic into our area. One of the problems that I have seen over the years and I have been interested in zoning since I moved to St. Lucie County 20 years ago. I found out that I had got zoned out in Ft. Lauderdale and I bought property that had zoning on it which I needed which was agriculture. My property has been zoned agriculture since zoning came into being and prior to that it was in an agricultural sort of classification I guess when it was given to the by the State of Florida. One of the faults I find with different things is in planning concepts. Right now in planning concepts planners have been advising against urban sprawl. Planners have not taken into consideration which causes urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is caused in part by the planners themselves. You ask, why do I emphasize this? Urban Sprawl is caused by planning concepts which allow too much encroachment of commercialism into neighborhoods. This in turn forces the people that live in those neighborhoods to move away from all the adverse impacts it brings with them--the incompatible land uses, the increased noise, the pgllution, and increased crime. Where do these people -~ove? These people move to progressive and innovative developments such as The Reserve or other developments west of town which limit housing types and activities to sections restricting commercialism aspects to the fringes now placing them on every street corner and behind every nice subdivision. At the present time subdivisions in this area have houses that have a good quality of homes and they sell anywhere in the neighborhood up to $200,000. The north side of Midway Road, which is this road here and this is S. 25th Street, has mainly people who moved in there and bought property zoned agricultural. They bought because they liked the rural , they have farm animals, they have tractors for their planting, so they have plenty of open space for their children. They moved there to protect their lifestyle and they did indeed move there from other areas for this reason. They do not want to move again. Urban Sprawl is caused by this. People do not want to live there and this is what causes urban sprawl, not the fact that is something good for a neighborhood, it is something that is not good for a neighborhood, they...(CHANGE TAPES - ~1, SIDE 2)...the thing that is not being taken into consideration under State rules is the fact that you can't say: "well, I don't want to live next to a bar, I don't want to live next to an adult place;', but these things are allowed in commercialism. People do not want them in neighborhoods, they do not want to develop these properties they are in their neighborhood. Right now, if you will notice, all the properties to the north of 25th Street, several miles down the road bordering the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. Now this is a potential development, if we start bringing commercialism complete without a road, that is aL1 we are going to have. No one is going to want' to live next to straight commercialism. That is what causes urban sprawl ladies and gentlemen. Planners, they can say all they want, and you want to confine your activities to a general area s~o that you can control your infrastructure, so it is concurrent and consistent with State policies, but are themselves causing urban sprawl because people don't want to live there, they want peace and quiet, they don't want adverse impacts and they move into developments that can control these things. This is one of the main reasons that I appear here this morning. We have another problem, Midway Road, which is this road right here, there have been several comments in your DRI, previous DRIs, which concern the Sharrett Development, which concern The Reserve, which will concern the projects of the McCarty Bros., and these say that before any development occurs in their areas, that Midway Road has to be improved. Well, attached to the pack that Mr. Cary has is a letter from the Engineering Department that appeared in the News Tribune. It states in there that in order to facilitate development, Mid,ray Road will not be able to be developed because of State standards unless you go to and culverts or if you take and you put a retention pond to run your water, excuse me I am getting feedback here, to run your water into that retention pond. There is no available land there at the present time to run water in and purify the water because as you know iD Class III waters the State's very particular. Class III waters are directly across the street from this Project on the southernmost portion which is an aquatic preserve, and these are very strict regulations and this roadway cannot be improved without exorbitant costs being paid, not little costs, but big costs, because they are not going to let it happen. Development is going to be hampered in all the areas I mentioned because of this. There has to be an alternative. If you will also notice on here, the way these roads come, 25th street as projected could have improvements and they're planning to four-lane 25th Street, but it is going to be two-laned sections either way here. The roadway here itself can be developed, but we have problems with this corner right here from Midway Road. In order to develop Midway Road and get the lands necessary to develop Midway Road, 40 feet of this brand new shopping center torn down because they can't take tropics as included in that letter in the News because it will be putting a very bad curve in the road in ~r to stay away from the aquatic preserve. All the land must purchased from the north side of the road. These are problems: we are facing in our County, and unfortunately with the packets you get, I know you are all from different counties and I am going to try and rush them up because I know I am long winded and when you get into these things, we need to take careful lc~k at why we are allowing Speculative development. We have no c¢ ~trol and, okay I will point out something else, just recently in [986, this parcel here and this parcel here came before this bo~ ~d and the State board for plan amendments and the St. Lucie C)unty Commission. At that time, the recommendations were to apprcve these parcels. Just recently, because we have no control over any rights-of-way or anything, this parcel here, 40 feet of right-of-way, cost St. Lucie County and the tax payers $200,000 be ~ause we had no provision to get that right-of-way in our Cour ~y. This parcel here cost our County approximately an additiona $168,000. This is tax payers money, we have no control. There is no control on this parcel here or this parcel here. I know that, speaking in multifamily again, it's not something you want to look at today, but it is an overall picture, that is one of the fallacies in the way we are doing planning. You are not se~ing the overall picture when these things come before you. Yol are only seeing commercialism being approached to put on a road that is a minor or major artery in St. Lucie County , m} mind has gone a little blank this morning, I don't recall whic]L it is. But we have had these problems in this County, and instead of making a decision on this today, yes or no, I would thin] that this could be postponed until other things are researc]ed. Staff has indicated in this very minute report that they pit in for 88-013, that there are improvements going to be made to the corridor there that there are also going to be improvements to the river. Yes that is true, they have tried to apply for permits, but I live in St. Lucie -County and they've tried--because they have to dredge an area that drains into the aquatic preserve. Ladies and gentlemen, I will close this morning and t will ask that you do not allow this project, it is wholly in the 100-year flood plans or if you have tendencies to want to do it, postpone until some more decisions come forth and plans come forth to show that there is indeed going to be som~ improvements in the flood hazard areas and be in compliance with both the State statutes and your own Regional Plan. In my packet I have prepared both the numbers which affect both the State and the Regional whick is 187 and F.S. 163, 9J-5, and your own section 16.113. Now I don't want to go into those and belabor the point and tell you what they are, but your plans, the Regional Plan, and the State Plan have indications that this project should not go forth until there are more restraints and you find out what is going to happen because as you know, flooding is a big hazard, it may occur only once in awhile, but to those of us it has occurred, it is devastating. I walked out in 1985 with water this high because I live on the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, as you can see from my parcel, and I appreciate your concerns and I would appreciate you find this particular amendment not consistent with any of these plans this morning and I would ask that you deny this. Thank you so much for your time. Minix: Let me explain something about how St. Lucie County handles these things. The Planning and Zoning Board goes to the first public hearing, and as you can see that was five to one in opposition. The County Commission automatically sends the petition then to the State and when it comes back from the State the County Commission will have a public hearing and make a decision on it. So, at this point in time, in fact, that's true of all of these you will be hearing from St. Lucie County. The County Commission has not made a final decision on this matter. Cary: I wish this information, what Pat has said is exactly true. The information that we get to base our review on is often extremely limited. It may just say: "here is the piece of land, here is what is proposed.,, To my knowledge we didn't receive this report, did we Terry? Terry: No, we didn't. Cary: Based on a very good presentation Pat made today, I mean, she raised some issues which suggested this thing is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. That information was not available to us when we made that recommendation. What's the deal on the timing on this? Terry: We have to submit our comments to DCA in the nex~ couple of days. Cary: Under that circumstance, in other words, we are under a time frame. We have to get our comments to have them mean anything to DCA within a certain time constraint. Based on what I have heard, I am convinced that there is reason to believe there is some problem~ with this and it potentially, in fact is, inconsistent with the Regional Plan. We haven't had the opportunity to study this information, but based on what I am hearing, any kind of arguments, there is reason for concern. If there isn,t room for drainage out there to take place without impacting, there are some pretty good issues brought up. In a situation like this when we have a tight time clock, all I can say is you need to base your recommendations to us on what you have heard and the total information available to you. We can redo an evaluation on this thing, if that is what you want us to do based on what you've heard and send it up there. It will be a complex analysis because these issues are complicated. I think, all I can say is I have doubt in my mind at this point whether this thing is consistent and I have doubt about whether the Council should support it. You may want to direct us to study this report to make, I guess, staff comments. We can make DCA recognize and explain to them what's happened. These are staff comments. Pass on any recommendation that you feel comfortable with today and then bring those back to Council next month for formal approval unless you are comfortable with the position at this point. Eggert: Are you saying that you'd pass, you would send these up the way it stands saying it is consistent and then add staff comments to that. Cary: I am saying you need to give us direction on this. Based on what I have heard, I have doubts about whether this proposal is in fact consistent with the plan. We didn't have this information. Everything that Pat said made sense to me. It put a lot of doubt in my mind. I am not sure what we have here is this, is a problem we typically get into with incomplete information. Minix: What we are going to do is continue with public comments. I am sure there are other comments that we are going to hear, then we will come back to questions and comments from the Council and then we will make a decision based upon what you have learned here this morning and what our executive director has said. Pat, thank you very much. Is there any other comments from the public on this issue? Seeing no one in the public, I will open it up to questions and comments from the Council. Cary: Roger suggested something that might be appropriate. One thing we could do, is transmit the comment with a cautionary note that a presentation was made at the Council meeting and we would detail that has raised serious concerns about whether this is in fac~ consistent. Jochem: I found the presentation extremely impressive and extremely appropriate because it detailed the particular policies that this proposal was in violation to and I think two comments: 1) I think every comment we send to the State should do that, should say Policy ~ is this, is in potential violation or in violation of that policy and I think that is the way we should proceed; 2) I certainly hope someone lets the petitioner know because we are not hearing from the petitioner. It has always been my experience that there may be two sides to the story and we should make sure if we are going to send forward these comments that we ask the petitioner if they have some comment. Minix: Is the petitioner, a representative of the petitioner here today? Is there anyone here representing the petitioner? Dagney: And the third thing that I look at which is interesting for from the staff comments, it says the County staff supports the petition and what you are saying that you'll... Minix: The County staff supports the petition, the Planning and Zoning Board on five to one denied the support. It has not been formally decided by the County Commission. There will be a last public hearing before the County Commission. I am not sure of the date right now, but in the very near future. Dagney: After everybody speaks, I suggest a motion, that we follow Roger's suggestion and detail the policies that this proposal is in potential violation and submit the lady's comments and ask the petitioner for their comments. Eggert: I have got some problems With sending anything up that says this is consistent and making a little thing saying we are sending you other information. That never quite arrived together. Is there something totally neutral we can say further information to follow, I would rather have something like that than have this is consistent go up, except that we may change our minds about this. Saberson: What we are really saying is that the initial review by the staff based on the information the staff had indicated it was consistent; however, there was information that was received at the Council meeting which we are not really in a position to judge the validity of at the present time. That raises questions as to whether the original recommendation was correct or not. Eggert: I am having problems sending this kind of statement forward With this kind of situation. Kenny: It appears to me that items 4, 5, and now 13 appear to be inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan, and I think in addition to staff comments, in making an additional comment on 13 pointing out where it is inconsistent we recommend to local government that those land use amendments be denied. I would like to have some conversation on 10, 11, and 12. Minix: Let's go ahead and finish this one. Helm: Are these two roads mentioned 25th Street and Midway Road- -are they regional roads? Cary: Midway is. Helm: Also with the St. Lucie Planning and Zoning board voting five to one denying this, did staff know that? Marcus: There was some discussion about us not postponing this for 30 days. ' Cary: Technically to have our comments be incorporated what is sent to the local government, they have to be up to DCA in a couple of days. What I said was, based on what I have heard, I am inclined to think this is consistent with the Regional Plan. I think we can say this appears to be, based on information provided at the Council meeting, it appears to be in conflict with the Regional Plan. The Council can say that we haven't had a chance to study. Marcus: So they can't postpone it? There is no opportunity to review any of the information, then I agree to take that statement about consistency out of there. Elmquist: I think if we are compelled to move forward due to the constraints that rather than saying it does not appear I think we should make a stronger statement that we have reservations about it. Sometimes they don't get past the first line. Minix: Let me ask, I think we are pretty much all in attune here, I think it is just a matter of getting a motion of getting...Roger or Dan will you give us motion that you think answers the concerns of the Council at this time. Minix: of it. The applicant isn't here and we haven't heard that side Foley: Your County staff recommended for in this project. Our County staff is very tough. If they favor something... Minix: Why i~ cg~nty staff recommending for this project. Virta: There are a number of factors they took into consideration. The staff in looking at this land use proposal and at this point in time, we are dealing with land use, we are not dealing with specific aspects of site plans, site plan designs, those type of inspirations will be addressed as part of the rezoning and site plan approval process in St. Lucie County. Those considerations are legitimate and legitimate concerns from everybody who is associated with developments, but in terms with the comprehensive plan change, that is really not part of the consideration. What we are looking at is we have a commercial cluster at the intersection of within St. Lucie County. What is being, suggested here and what is being reviewed, the expansion in what is intended to be a less intense manner, a transitioning down from a very high intensity typically all purpose what we call general commercial to a lesser intensity of this type use and then into residential. It's a classic transitioning that time wise happens over and over again and at least from the information we have to use it appears that is a 16gical sequence that is taking place, that is supposed to take place in this location. Kenny: Do you have a basis for recommending more commercial. It seems like you have a lot of vacant commercial in this immediate area. Is there need based on future growth in that area? Is there some sort of projected public interest that more commercial... Virta: It's been considered, I have to admit I am not totally conversed with all the aspects, but certainly that was considered. This area. Kenny: Can you discuss why the LPA turned it down five to one. Was there discussion at the LPA hearing that... Virta: Certainly, there was a great deal of discussion. The concerns of the adjacent property owners, the impact that it could potentially have upon them. The concerns especially so that maybe rather than being a transitioning of land use to a very intense commercial to a lesser to non commercial uses, that it wouldn't be .... intense commercial just on a basis. There were a lot of issues brought forward. Minix: I think it would be fair to say that the same things that you have heard today from Pat were probably what the Planning and Zoning Board heard. Foley: Was it the Planning and Zoning or the LPA. We have a distinction in our County. A great distinction. One, the LPA happens to be our County Commissioners and the other is the citizens our planning commission is our Roberts: The LPA is not... Virta: The LPA for St. Lucie County is the Planning and Zoning Commission. Minix: Dan Cary has the minutes from that meeting and uh he is reading them now. Cary: Just to reinforce what we've heard. The only thing I see here and I admit I am skimming this as fast as I can. The applicant is, the justification for the proposed change in their perspective was the fact that the other three corners of the intersection were already annexed commercial use. Everybody: It's not -~n the corner. Cary: They are pointing to the fact that,...and it says here, the petitioner has received communication from an interested out- of- town insurance company regarding leases facing this area. They are trying to change the land use so they can be... Jochem: I think we have some good information and some lack of information which puts us at a disadvantage, what we need to do is say that this parcel is a potential conflict with specific policies of our RCPP which include traffic, the aquatic preserve, drainage, whatever they may be, say potential because that is what it is. We know that sometimes you can solve problems, sometimes you can't and we need to... Minix: You want to make that a motion Dagney? Dagney: Yes. Move that is what we say. That there is a potential conflict and send on the comments that were presented today, ask the petitioner if they have additional comments, and send those on as well to DCA. Mini×: That's the motion, is there a 2nd. Horenburger 2nds. Minix: We have a motion and a 2nd. This is only item 13. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Motion carries. Florida Depa,,'tment of Ent ironmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. ~, 2~)0 Blair Stone Road ~ -li~ltah~sscc, Flori~ 32399-2400 Bob ~l~rtme~. Governor l)alt- Twachmlunn. Sccrclarv John Shearer. Assistan~ Secretary September 16, 1988 Ms. Susan Williams Department of COmmunity Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, -Florida 32399 Dear 44~--WS-lq-i~ms: RE: Future Land Use Amendments File #PA-88-007 PA-88-009 and PA-88-014 ' · I have reviewed the above referenced land use amendments and am enclosing a letter from Marion Hedgepeth to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and a memorandum from Lou Devillon to Don White, which deal with the Reserve (Amendment File #PA-88-007). With regards to the McCarty and Duda properties, problems with potable water sources could be encountered due to the quality of aquifer water in this general area. All of the three parcels in question contain extensive low-lying areas. This will undoubtedly dictate extensive drainage work and/or wetland alteration to facilitate development. Drainage will likely be directed to the C-23 or C-24 canals, and ultimately to the St. Lucie Estuary, which is already stressed due to the impacts of agricultural and residential drainage. Said impacts have been in the form of decreased salinities, increased silt loading, and additional nutrient loading. It is not known whether the wetlands contained on these properties are jurisdictional (with the exception of the Reserve, for which a pre-Henderson Act jurisdictional determination was performed which claims no jurisdiction). It appears from aerial photography, that there may be connections (ditches or drainage ways) between wetlands contained on the Duda and McCarty properties and waters of the State (C-23 or C-24). A jurisdictional determination may be needed at a future date to further determine any eventual involvement we might have. Ms. Susan Williams September 16, 1988 Page Two The Depar.tment is very concerned about the impact on the community infrastructure and the deficit which will be created by the development of the 8,700 acres encompassed in these three amendments. If I can be of further assistance please call. Richard W. Deadman Planning Manager RWD/pph enclosures 3 tori Ia Department of Environmental Regulation Southeast District. 1900 S. Congress Ave_. Suite ^ ~ West Palm B~ch, Fl6rt~ 334~ 407-964-~8 ~otl ~n~n, D~Ut)' ~sunt ~c~cn[y S~ptember !,!988 Ms L Christine Bedit= ~Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council i3,28 S.W. -~ Ma~n Downs Blvd., Suite 205 'P.0. Box 1529 Palm City, Florida 33490 Subject: The Reserve Dear Christin~: i have revi%wed the Sufficiency Response (dated July !9, 1988) referenced above and have the following co~ents: 1. The applicant stated that 3 new wells are being added to plant capacity which are capable of producing higher yields than ~? ~.,ose wells tested in the 1984 study. Please provids the Department with the new test well data. Please keep in mind that applications for pumps and raw water mains must be ~brnitted for any new wells. ~. As the soils in St. Lucie County are ~!!.most unlformily rated as unacceptable for septic tank usage by the U.S. Soil and Conservation Service, why are Saba! Creek Phases I, II and IV and Reserve Plantation Phases i and II not proposed for sewers (gravity or low pressure)? Riveria sand is ponded for 6 to 9 months annually in the proposed septic ~ank area according to the U.S. Soil Conservaticn Service. 3. If irrigation reuse cannot be utilized for wellfieid recharge, when and where is the R.O. industrial injection well planned to be built? Please explain how this project will comply with the pending requirement of Florida Administrative Rule 17-40 which requires reuse in wm~er limited areas unless reuse wi!! cost more than two times the cost of the combinmd utility systems. TO: FKOM: DATE: SUBJECT: Don White, P.E. Program Administrator L.J. Devillon ~ September 1, 1988 The Reserve DRI The following comments are made relative to the po%sbic water supply for the above project and are made based on a cursory review o£ the DRI Sufficiency Report: - Ass0aning an average production of 60 gpm for the 25 potable water wells proposed, total production may not be capable of meeting maximum dsy demands-of the water system. Based on 100 gpcd or 300 gpd for each DU, maximum day flow requirements may be as high as '2.7 MGD. Total production of the proposed we!!fie!d would be approximately 2.1 MGD. · * .{ 24 hour fl0w X 150% X 150% = max. daily flow; _ The existing water treatment plant has been issued a construction permit for .432 MGD using a lime softening/ filtration treatment system. To date this facility has not been released for service. Additional treatment capacity will be required to meet the demands of the ultimate .project. Depending on the raw water source encountered, treatment other than lime softening/filtration may be required. In the case of reverse osmosis treatment, consideration must be given to proper disposal of the reject water. - Appropriate plans, specifications and application for water plant expansion should be submitted to the Depmrtment upon the existing water treatment facility reaching a ~inished water maximum day equal to 80% of the Department rated plant capacity. Conssruction of the expansion should beQin before or when the facility achieves a maximum day finished water production equal to 90% of the Department approved rated plant capacity. Failure to meet either _the 80% or 90% criteria should be just cause for disapproving water distribution system apDlic~tions.submltted to the Department pursuan5 to Ck. !7-22. 5. At what flow on the wastewater management fncility is.the alternmte means of efflumnt disposal/reuse proposed to be constructed7 6. Would the Reserve Utility agree to a wastewater treatment plant expansion schedule based on the following: a. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) reach 60 % 'of permitted capacity, a consultant will have been chosen. ~ i b. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) !reach 70% capacity, plans and specifications for.new permit applications wilt be submitted. c. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) reach 75%, construction shall begin and be completed prior to flows reaching 95% permitted capacity. 7. I have enclosed further comments from the Department's Drinking Water Section (September 1, 1988 memorandum). If you have any further questions regarding the Department's comments-, please feel free to call me at (407)964-9668 or SUNCOM #~21-5005. l~arion Y. Hedgepet~ /)RI Coordinator MYI~:mh:88 CC: South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Smith Et. Lucie County, Office of Planning and Zoning Pete McDonough, Team Plan Lnc. -John Outland, DER Tallahassee 780 Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837-5290 Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local-Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dear Mr. Hook: BUREAU OF LOCAU RESOURCE PLANNING September 21, 1988 RE: Land Use Amendments - St. Lucie.County. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163 F.S. and Chapter 9J-11 FAC Interim Review Requirements, the comments of the FDOT to the proposed St. Lucie County Land Use Amendments are enclosed. If you or your staff have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me at (305) 522-4244 extension 214 or John Anderson at (407) 837-5290 (S/C 245-5290). Sincerely, ~Gu~avo Schmidt, p. E. ~t~ng District Planning Administrator District 4 GS: JA: mg Enclosure CC: Mr. Jim Sculty Mr. Michael J. Tako Mr. John Anderson Amendment No. PA-88-007 - Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc. From SU /Semi-urban) to RL {Low Density Residential) - 1,400 Acres The amendment is a part of the Reserve Development of'Regional Impact (DRI} now in review by the County and Treasure Coast Reqional Planning Council. This Department's comments regarding sufficiency of the application have been previously submitted. Principle concerns have been with the location and design of the interchange of Prima Vista/Reserve Boulevard with 1-95. Both location and design have been approved by this Department. Remaining concerns are under discussion. The 4000+ acre Reserve DRI of which this proposed land use amendment is a part, represents a substantial commitment of land beyond the present FDOT Urban Boundary in St. Lucie County to urban development. Substantial traffic impacts on the state highway system and the potential state system, including Prima Vista Boulevard are anticipated. These have been addressed only in part in the developer's response to Question 31 of the Application for Development Approval (ADA) of the Reserve DRI. Another concern of this Department relates to the Transportation Corridors Planning Program now underway in the five counties of District 4. Prima Vista Boulevard from US-1 to 1-95 and its extension northwesterly along Reserve Boulevard, now proposed as a private street, has been preliminarily designated a regional corridor. The corridor is anticipated to function as an outer circumferential highway in the future St. Lucie County urban area, extending northwesterly and northerly from Glades Cut-Off Road (CR-709) along the general alignment of McCarty Road and SR-603 into Indian River County and the Vero Beach urban area. It is anticipated that this corridor will interchange in the North County area with both the Florida Turnpike (SR-91) and 1-95 (SR-9) in the vicinity of Orange Avenue. The proposed development is the forerunner of other proposals extending urbanization west of the present urban limits and the developed or programmed transportation system. The St. Lucie County Planning Department is now in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and the Traffic Circulation Element in accordance with the 1985/86 Growth Management Legislation. Also, the St. Lucie County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as a part of this comprehensive planning effort, is updating its transportation plan for the St. Lucie Metropolitan Area. The FDOT, in conjunction with the St. Lucie County MPO, is in the process of evaluating the present and future transportation network in St. Lucie County, Indian River, and Martin COunties using the Florida State Urban Transportation computer model. A preliminary report is expected to be available by the end of September. Amendment No. PA-88-007 (cont'd) We cannot at this time and without additional information determine the impact development traffic might have on state and regional transportation facilities. The question of whether the proposal would result in an orderly and logical development pattern will depend upon the public infrastructure -- including transportation facilities -- available, or programmed to serve it. It is recommended that any final action on this and related land use amendments Un the area west ~f 1-95 (SR-9) be deferred at least until the results of this study are available and the transportation facilities necessary to serve this and other similar developments in the West-Central St. Lucie County area can be determined. Amendment No. PA-88-006 Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc. From SU (Semi-Urban~ to CG (General Commercial) - 30.3 Acre~ See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007. Amendment No. PA-88-008 - Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc. From SU_~Semi-Urban~to CTITour~st Commercial~_2 40.52 Acres See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007. Amendment No. PA-88-009 - A - Duda and Sons, Inc. From AG (Agricultural) to RL (Low Density Residential) and X ~ Dev--300 Acres The state facility directly affected by this proposed amendment is 1-95 (SR-9) which it adjoins on the east. Included is the existing interchange at Gatlin Boulevard and two proposed interchanges between Gatlin Boulevard and the Martin County Line. (Two proposed interchanges, one approximately in the center of Section 23, Township 37S, Range 39E and another at approximately Parr Drive at the northeast corner of Section 35, 37, 39, are shown on the current Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, Florida dated March, 1987.) As with Amendment No. PA-88-007, 006 and 008 this Department cannot comment on the impact of this proposed land use amendment on the State or Regional Transportation System without~more detailed information concerning traffic generation and an evaluation of the impact of future vehicle trips on the existing and the proposed future Transportation Network. The Department's comments on Amendment No. PA-88-007 with regard to deferral of final action until an evaluation of this impact on the Highway Network apply to this petition as well. Since this proposal is a DRI, it would be advisable for the land use amendment to be withdrawn at this time and resubmitted in conjunction with an Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the DRI, at which time a traffic analysis in response to Question 31 can be evaluated. Amendment No. PA-88-014 - John M. M¢Carty, Sr., ~tal From AG (Agricultural} to SU. (semi~U~bah) _ ~3~000 Acres There are no state facilities directly impacted by this proposed amendment, however, the same comments as were made by this Department with regard to Amendment Nos. PA-88-007, 006, 008, and 009, are applicable to this proposed amendment. The Department believes that there would be substantial impacts on the public transportation system and transportation needs which should be included in the transportation planning process of the St. Lucie County MPO and Planning Department as well as overall systems planning by the Florida Department of Transportation. There is a possibility that development based on the proposed land use amendment would be considered a DRI, the determination of which would have to be made by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council at such time as development as defined in Chapter 380.04 F.S. is initiated. Insufficient information has been provided this Department for it to make a determination of the impact on the state system or the state regional and local transportation network. Amendment No. PA-88-00] - St. Lucie Investment Corp. .From CG (General Commercial) to IL (Light Industrial) - 21.55 Acres US-1 (SR-5) is the state facility directly affected by this proposed amendment. Property included in the amendment does not have direct access to US-] at this time, however, property to the East fronting on US-1 is part of the same ownership. US-1 (SR-5) ~s a Principal Arterial in the state Functional Classification and is a Statewide and Interregional Transportation Corridor in the Corridors Plan now underway now in the five counties of District 4. Also, a detailed corridor study has been done on US-1 from Hobe Sound north through Indian River County. The recommendations of that study in this location are improvement of US-1 to a six lane divided facility. It is also recommended that wherever possible frontage roads be provided within the existing 200 foot corridor right-of-way. The proposed amendment will generate fewer vehicle trips than if the area were developed to either general commercial as now exists along the US-1 frontage or to multi-family residential. Therefore, this Department has no objection to the change in land use. The Department is concerned about the present and future level of service (LOS) on US-1. This facility is expected to carry increasingly higher volumes of traffic as development continues at a rapid pace in Southeast St. Lucie County and the Port St. Lucie area. I987 traffic counts south of the intersection of Prima Vista Boulevard at approximately the site (Station 265) indicate an ADT of 37,200 vehicles -- an increase of 55 percent over the 24,000 vehicles in this segment in 1985. According to the H.W. Lochner Corridor Study US-t is expected to carry 61,400 v.p.d, by the year 2020 in this segment. US-1 is now operating at a LOS E. Under future conditions it will also be operating at LOS E based on the assumption that there are no more than 2.5 signalized intersections per mile. If the frequency of signals increases as a result of an expansion in the number of high traffic generating uses the LOS will be further reduced. LOS D is the minimum acceptable operating LOS for US-1 in this area. It is strongly recommended that in any subsequent review of Applications for Development Permit a frontage road system (which may require additional right-of-way), or a cross-access drive be required interconnecting all property and development on the west side of US-/ between the entry to La Buena Vida Mobile Home Park and Mangrove Square north to the entry to Spanish Lakes Riverfront Development. The design for access to the site or to the frontage drive system from US-/ should include correcting the intersection of Mediterranean Boulevard South with US-/ and the entry to the Home Center Plaza. Prior to any subsequent development review the proponent should meet with representatives of this Department (Traffic Operations) as well as the County Engineer concerning access and egress to the site from US-1. 7~mendment. No. PA-88-012 ~ U.S. Community, Inc. From SU (Semi-Urban) to CG {Commercial General} - 14.54 Acres This proposed amendment does nol directly impact any present state facility. However, it is located on and will have access to St. Lucie Boulevard/lmmokolee Road (CR-608) which has been preliminarily designated a regional corridor in the Corridors Planning Program now underway in the five counties of District 4. St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road lies midway between Indrio (CR-614) and Orange Avenue (SR-68) and will interconnect Dixie Highway and US-/, 25th Street (SR-615), Kings Highway (SR-7t3). It is indicated as extending in the future from Kings Highway west along a new alignment to intersect with both 1-95 (SR-9) and the Florida Turnpike (SR-91) and to connect ultimately with the north-south regional corridor, Rangeline Road (CR-609A), which extends from Indian River County (CR-615) to the Beeline Highway (SR-710) in Martin County along existing and proposed alignments. St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road is now a state facility (SR-608) from 25th Street (SR-615)to US-1 (SR-5) and may be extended as such in a future year functional classification as least as far west as Kings Highway (SR-713). The proposed amendment lies at the intersection of St. Lucie Boulevard/In~okolee Road and Keene Road which is a logical extension of Jenkins Road (CR-61t) to Kings Highway (SR-713), a preliminarily designated local corridor. The existing right-of-way on St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road ranges between 40 and 80 feet in width in the segment between US-1 and Kings Highway in which the proposed amendment is located.. The adopted Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, dated March, 1987 indicates a minimum right-of-way of 276 feet for a proposed six lane divided expressway, In view of the significance of the St. Lucie County International Airport now undergoing expansion and the several points of intersection with statewide and interregional as well as regional and local corridors and potential future designation of this facility as a state route, a minimum 242 foot right-of-way should be protected for a six lane divided facility in a rural section. If an urban section is to be constructed a minimum of 130 feet should be provided for 6 lanes with dual left turn capability at principal intersections. In addition, frontage roads, or at a minimum, cross-access drives may be required to provide land service between intersecting streets and major driveway access to abutting property. The same minimum right-of-way is recommended for the Jenkins Road/Keene Road Corridor. In a review of subsequent applications for development permit the County should obtain right-of-way protection for both St. Lucie Boulevard/tmmokolee Road and Keene Road. Future site plans should provide for limitation of access from St. Lucie Boulevard and location of access drives a sufficient distance west of Keene Road to insure safety and a smooLh operation of the intersection of Keene Road and St. Lucie Boulevard at ultimate development. Right turn lanes should be provided a~ principal drives and Keene Road. Amendment No. PA-$8-003 - HeminWay corporation From SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General) - 10.02 Acre:, The comments on Amendment No. PA-88-012 are applicable to this amendment as well with the exception that the potential norlherty extension of Keene Road is dependent upon airport development plans and the adopted policies related thereto by the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. The same right-of-way protection concerns are applicable for St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokotee Road, as well as the restriction of access to a safe location west of the intersection of Keene Road, and right turn lanes at principal drives. Driveway connections to this site should also be coordinated with those which provide access to the US Community Site on the south side of St. Lucie Boulevard. The County should give consideration to reservation of right-of-way for the potential northerly extension of Keene Road at the southeast corner of this site. Amendmen% No. PA-88-0tt - Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc. From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General) 51 Acres This proposed amendment has direct access to and impacts US-1 (SR-5), a statewide/interregionat transportation corridor designated in the Transportation Corridors Planning Program now underway in the five coun%ies of District 4. The proposed amendment also has frontage on Old Dixie Highway (SR-605). US'I is currently developed as a four lane divided arterial road. The US-1 Corridor Study by H.W. Lochner Company recommended a four lane rural arterial in this section with strict access control or with frontage roads. Current traffic volumes in this location according to state counts in 1987 indicate a traffic volume of 18,800 v.p.d, at Station 107 north of the proposed amendment. Anticipated future volumes of traffic according to the Lochner report are 41,000 v.p.d, in the Year 2020. The LOS on US-1 todayin this section is LOS. C or better. If the projected traffic volumes are correct US-/ would have to be widened to six lanes in order to maintain a satisfactory LOS and signalization would have to be restricted to no more than two per mile. In the review of site plans related 'to this proposed amendment (should it be approved) the Department recommends that access to US-1 be restricted to approved median openings, and limited intermediate right turn drives that right turn lanes be provided at these drives together with sheltered left turns at median openings and that access also be provided to Dixie Highway coordinated with access to the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution as is suggested in the staff report. The staff supports the St. Lucie County Planning Department and their recommendation for a planned non-residential development (PNRD) for the entire Harbor Branch facility in order to insure protection of the dunes areas through environmentally sensitive design and protection of the capacity and the smooth and safe flow of traffic along US-1 and Dixie Highway. Amendment No. PA-88-010 - NCNB of Florida RL (Low Density Residential) to CH (Highway Comm~ercial) 13.34 Acres This proposed amendment fronts on and has access to Old Dixie Highway (CR-605) which is designated a rural major collector on the Highway Functional Classification of April 15, 1988. The site also has access to and will directly impact US-1 (SR-5). The same comments with regard to US-/ as were made on Amendment No. PA-BS-01t are applicable to this proposed amendment. If the proposed application is approved access to the site from US-I should be restricted. Median ~penings are indicated at approximately the south line of the proposed amendment site and approximately 800 feet north. If approved the entire site including the property fronting on US-1 should be included in a planned non-residential development (PNRD) in subsequent permitting in order to insure environmentally sensitive design and adequate access control in the interest of protecting the traffic carrying capacity of US-1. Amendment No. PA-88-004 Matthew and Marie Schneider From RL (Residential Low Density) to CG (General Commercial) - 14.53 Acres The proposed amendment does not directly impact any~state facility, however, it lies only a short distance from US-1 (SR-5) and has frontage on Old Dixie Highway (CR-605). There is noted in the backup material furnished this Department that the applicant for this proposed amendment is also the owner of land fronting on US-1. The same comments made by this Department with regard to Amendment No. PA-88-010 are applicable to this proposal. The Department is concerned about the number of points of access from US-1 and long term maintenance of an acceptable LOS on that facility. Prior to any further application for development permit the owner should contact and coordinate with this Department and the St. Lucie County Engineer. This Department is concerned 'about the impact that further extensive commercial designation, zoning and development will have in the US-1 (SR-5) Old Dixie Highway Corridor from the Indian River County Line south. The H.W. Lochner Study recommends the development of marginal frontage roads or other similar methods to protect the right-of-way from encroachment and halt degradation of LOS on US-1 (SR-5). We recommend that the County take all action necessary in subsequent reviews of applications for development permit to assure the maintenance of a high level of service for safe and efficient operations on that facility. Amendment No. PA-88-013 - Thomas Zaydon From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (General Commercial) - 12.5 Acres There are presently no state facilities directly impacted by this proposed amendment. Twenty-fifth Street on which this proposal fronts has been preliminarily designated a regional corridor as a part of the Transportation Corridors Planning now underway in the five counties of District 4. This corridor extends from US-1 on the north to Port St. Lucie Boulevard on the south via Hawley Road, St. James Drive, Airosa Boulevard. From Port St. Lucie Boulevard the corridor continues south along Floresta and Riverbend Boulevard to and into Martin County via Becker and Murphy Roads. The 25th Street corridor is expected to be used extensively as an alternate to US-t as the principal facility becomes more congested. The present rfght-of-way on 25th Street in this general location is indicated by St. Lucie County as 80 feet. The recommended corridor width is a minimum of 120 feet for a 6 lane urban arterial and 160 feet according to the Map, Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County dated March, 1987. Midway/Whi%e City Road is and will continue to be a heavily travelled east-west corridor between US-1 and 1-95 lying at the north line of Port St. Lucie. Midway Road/White City Road (CR-712) is also preliminarily designated a regional corridor in the Transportation Corridors Plan now in development, minimum right-of-way width 120 feet. Current right-of-way width is 80 feet. In review of the staff comments and the record of public hearing we note that the entire ownership tract comprises 24 acres and that there are apparently 60 acres presently designated and zoned commercial at the intersection of 25th Street and Midway Road. The area presently designated if developed to its commercial potential (assuming 30% land area coverage and single story construction), could result in nearly 800,000 square feet of commercial square footage generating an estimated 28,000 (2,445 per peak hour) daily trips. Roadway capacity is not now available or programmed to serve these projected volumes. This Department shares the concerns of the St. Lucie County Planning staff about further extensions of commercially designated and zoned land in this location due to the present limited capacity and LOS on abutting and nearby arterial streets as well as in the interest of conserving new capacity as it is added. Should this proposed amendment be approved, we recommend that it be considered a PNRD in subsequent development permittinq, that site access be restricted and that right-of-way necessary for ~he 25th Street corridor be obtained. Amendment No. PA-88-004 - H.J. Ross and Associates. Inc. From SU (Semi-Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential) - 113.9 Acres This proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly impact any state facility. The Department has no comment. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Staff AGENDA ITF3t 5D Date: September 16, 1988 Council Meeting. Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Thirteen Amendments to the St. Lucie County Future Land Use Element Introduction Pursuant' to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs, which in turn is seeking-Council's comments. Council's review of the information forwarded by the Department of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship, of the proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. If a conflict with adopted plans or policies is identified, the regional planning agency is to specify any objections,and may make recommendations for modifications. Council .also provides informal comments to the local government through a spirit of cooperation, and technical assistance on matters related to the proposed amendments. These advisory comments are. aimed at providing coordination between the local and regional comprehensive plans. St. Lucie County is considering 13 amendments to their. Future Land Use Element. The locations of the properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying map, and the number of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized on the following table: In order to assist the Council in their review, the following definitions from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are included: LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM ~THE ST~ LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for the production of citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries, forestry, cattle ~and stock raising, dairy farms and other -direct agricultural uses. Dwelling units at a density of one per acre and large-scale, self-contained developments. SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban development (less than one dwelling unit per acre), generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural character of the area. RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:. Adevelopment category that allows for residential development projects having an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre. Evaluation The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The following comments are offered as a result of that review.' Many of the parcels under consideration are covered with native pine flatwoods vegetation. These properties have the potential for containing species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council encourages the development qf site plans that are sensitive to the needs of any listed species and which preserve 'as much native vegetation as possible. Items 1, 2, and 3~ (PA-88-007, PA 88-008, and PA 88-006) These three parcels are related directly to The Reserve Development of Regional Impact'/(DRI). The large~rea (1,400 acres) is being proposed for low density residential development. The smaller parcels at the future interchange of 1-95 and Prima Vista Boulevard proposed for commercial land use, are proposed to be used for a resort hotel (40.5 acres) and a shopping center (30.3 acres). The proposed land use changes would result in a greater intensity of development, therefore generating higher traffic volumes. All traffic impacts and appropriate land use be (14,300 acres acres) and acres). in ret for int, t,i we2 To the substant 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 property has requested that the Plan of the Productive (3,000 1 (1.,300 the community not even an development. enhance perceived l.and, without value and do anything ~ea--not even gently negative uch~time as government data i he public that is in their interest and that negative fiscal and environmental impacts will not occur the change shOuld not be made. ' the ~ an intell comprehensive, manner. Interference would 1)! beCauSe, as mentioned government's negotiating compromised prior to a plan 2 because the change would what now is a very large s ~ ownership (10,000 acres which growth are multiple ownership occurs· proposed change would interfere with of ~n importan~ future growth area in and positive two reasons: the local ~uld have been .eveloped; and 'e the breakup of land in planning and )lement where By way of illustration, a comprehensive evaluation of this property might conclude that due to the ecological or agricultural, importance of the land, that development should ideally occur only within a two-mile radius of the interchange. If the entire 10,000 acres is single ownership, the local government is in a position to approve development in the form of a mixed use, compact community that provides future residents a place where they can live, work, and shop to commute excessively long distances, in return for an agreement that remaining portions of the property are dedicated to ecological preserve areas, as e action to encourage development. Based on development approvals 'that have to be granted to date in Port St, Lucie and St. Lucie CounTy, it is clear that sUbstantial expenditures will be necessary to expand .the exist~ng roadway system. Just to support lopment it appears an additional needed and gro .existing per cap needinq to be served. ~ or expressway will. be will need to be even more ficient and cost existing needs potentially by expanding the area GenerallY, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000 acres of re raged and peop ~ w that provides · , ork, 'and shop in reas alleviates the need for cost effic! del of blocks of low density, require people to get in es: ti Dade of of prob] area.~ be to ignore hJ future of this Region. in for the more ructure. Large 1 land drive for of uses is places continue to that have in these give away the The nee for more than 600 (existing) of Inte Commercial at one location is unclear . needs to be considered in terms of its comprehE lye effect and relationship to surrounding areas prior ~o approval. According to both of Port St. Lu.c~e and the County, no such has been proposed. oriented potential and the Agricultural Productive category allOws for e- scale, self- contalne¢ development. The only thing required to obtain s~ch use would be approval of an acceptable developm~nt plan. Since reasonable use is already allocate([, it is not clear ' ~the County should agree to Upgrade substantJ land development p6tentia] in the absence of a plan. reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems and provides for the more efficient delivery of infrastructure. Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for essentially every need. Separation of uses is today blamed for the traffic problems in places like' LOs Angeles ~and continue to follow the methods of development that have created the kinds of problems that exist in these areas would be to ignore history and give away the future of this Region. No assessment has been done of the costs or methodsof providing transportation, sewage, water drainage, school, or medical faci] this part of the County. There are presently no services in the area. The nearest medical services facility is 14 miles away; Responsible growthmanagement requires that local governments understand fully the costs of providing infrastructure and service to new development and demonstrate an ability to deliver services concurrent with need prior to ~ taking action to encourage development. Based ~ on development approvals that have to be granted to date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County, it is clear that substantial expenditures will be necessary to expand the existing roadway system. Just to support approved development, it appears an additional east/west roadway or expressway will be needed and many existing roads will need to be substantially expanded. To encourage even more growth prior to determining an efficient and cost effective method of paying for existing needs would not be prudent ~nd would substantially increase capita costs by expanding the area needing ~served. The area is presently relatively inaccessible. It can be reached only via Glades Cut-off Road from the north, and with a connection to Glades Cut-off Road provided by Range Lin.s Road to.. the south. All roads are two-laned. No assessment is provided to address the serious east/west capacity deficiencies which already exis~ in this area of St. Lucie County; and While this property may lend itself in the future to the development of a mixed-use community (or literally to a new town given the size of the tract), the proposed land use change promotes the that infrastrUcture in an area which is not only well removed from urban facilities, but is to be characterized by sprawling, low densities will be extremely high. Finally,.Council recognizes allow dj use existing land proposed land use itional The it aJ be retained because scale, self-contained developments, while m appears to be more limiting and could result in single use sprawled development. Martin ~f has ex~ the s and the that County,s plan policies deve Ma ing to ge on Urban with the '). Based on the information provided amendment appears to be in ' with the policies contained Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~tem 6 {PA 88-0~ This amendment is for a 22-acre arce ~_m~e~latel~ ~est of U.S. 1, 'betwee- ~ ,d_~ .of ~and ~u ~o. ~o~ile home parks Count-" ~ ~opplng p~aza . S~af the petitioner i _ ..~ f states that to ~ ....... n~nds to consolidate parcels in order ~=v~zop a Planned Non-residential Development (PNRD). The proposed Industrial Light (IL)land use is necessary to accommodate wholesale actlvi in the develomment ~,,~ ..... ties planned sit~ = .... ~ - ~~ wa~er is availa~ -- =. . =--~ ~ea~men~ facilities are not. The County w!ll want to ev associa ~" , aluate, the w ted with th . · etlands is parcel rmor approvals Als~ ~ _ ? to any develo ment ' -, ~= County may want to take 'a lo~k at v~° ~'~Y~e~' con~nction with..this-project, to een the mobile hOme Parks and the Ail opportunities such as this to U.S. 1 should be carefully considered. Based on the information, provided~., the proposed amendment does not appear ~o~ be 'in Co'nflict · or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Item 7 (PA 88-0~ This amendment involves a ll4-acre parcel which the petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home comm~ni%y. The property is adjacent to another manufactured home development and lies along the the proposed inconsistent Regional 11 The property associated with ~Item 12 is covered with mature sand pine scrub habitat. It should be surveyed by qualified personnel for the presence of Lakela's mint, a federally endangered plant species whose entire population is known to exist only in a few locations near the subject parcel. Because sand pine scrub habi- tat is becoming extremely, rare in the Region, Council encourages the preservation of-as much of this habitat 1las possible.if scrub habitatThese' exists.C°mments also apply toItems 10 and Prior to development a traffic analysis should be prepared for each site and submitted to the County Engineer and Florida Department of Transportation. The analysis should address nE intersections (U~.S. 1) in order to turning movemenl ,g to cuts. Based on the information provided and the concerns expressed above, the proposed, amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the RegionaI Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~tem 13 ~ This parcel (12.5 acres) is located immediately north of the 25th Street/Midway Road intersec=ion which is rapidly evolving into a major intersection in St. Lucie County. The intersection and both roadways are programmed for ma]or improvements. All four quadrants of the intersection area now have commercial land use. This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast quadrant~ A traffic study should be submitted for the review and approval of the County Engineer. The study should address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should, be proposed to maintain acceptable levels of~ service on the applicable roadways and intersections. The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to the east. There have been frequent storm water management problems in this area. A study is currently underway on how to manage such problems in the North Fork drainage area. County staff supports the petition, citing the logic of developing a compact core to the commercial area while recognizing the environmental constraints and potential conflicts of continued commercialization.Perhaps reflecting the long standing community opposition to 13 -- ST LUCIE * "'"'~,:'' ~ ~ . COUNTY. ~::~ 1 1 ~z~ __ COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS 12 ;, I 23 ./ R 39 E 2; Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, 1988 Page T~o CR 609 (Range Line Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin County line. Land uses to the south in both Martin and St. Lucie County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida Department of Corrections facility is operating immediately to the south of the County line west of CR 609. These changes would be incompatible with the Martin County Land Use Plan and may lead to potential adverse traffic impacts and environmental degradation to Allapath Flats. Consideration should be given to the placement of east-west routes connecting to major thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. If these are proposed on the Najor Thoroughfare Plan then developemnt of these roadways should be concurrent with development of these and surrounding properties. c. The potential impact of urban development west of the Gatli.n Boulevard interchange at 1-95, the potential widening of CR 609 and the developement of major thoroughfares in this area ~ill have to be coordinated with Martin County at the time of development review for this property. The magnitude of traffic, which could be produced by this land use change, was not envisioned in the development of the Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year 2005 Transportation Plan and coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be jeopardized. 2. IDENTIFY AREAS Of POTENTIAL CONFLICT: The current land use designation amendment without any specific development plans, is not expected to have any immediate significant social, economic, or environmental impacts on Martin County. Should an urban type development occur in this area, the impact on Martin County and surrounding areas will have to be closely evaluated. i trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. S~ncerely, Harry,. King, Planning Administrator HWK/ERC/dlw [0146] cc: Board of County Commissioners Nm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael Fo Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Development Department Henry Iler, Growth Management Plan, Appointee Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coordinator Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie st. lucie August 4, 1988 The Honorable Jack Kreiger Chairman Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Vir~in~a'AVe~ue Fort Pierce, FL 33450 Subject: St. Lucie County Local Government ~Comprehensive Plan Documents Dear Commissioner Kreiger: This is to notify you that the Regional Planning Council has received a request from the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for comments on the following comprehensive planning document: Amendments to Future Land Use Element (13) St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Council staff will review the documents in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Plannin~g~ and La~'~"Dewe~opm, ent Regulation Act, Chapter '163, Florida Statutes. It is anticipated that the report and recommended comments will be presented to Council at its meeting on September 16, 1988. Prior to the CoUncil meeting, the meeting agenda, report, and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to you. You or any representative of your local government are invited to attend the meeting and will be afforded an opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council meeting the adopted comments wild be transmitted to DCA. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Te/r~~. Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH:lb cc: Dennis Murphy, AICP Jim minix thoftml g. kenny, III 3228 s.w. mGrtin downs blvd, chalmmn vlc:$ m suite 205 - p.o. box tS29 palm ~lty, florida 34990 John acor daniel m. cary phono,-(407~ 286.33t3 socretary~asur~ oxocuflvo ~troclo~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS JACK KRIEGER CHAIRMAN July 19, lg88 Mr. Raluh K. Hook Division or-Resource Management Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Subject: Transmittal of Winter 1988 Proposed Amendments to the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan Dear Mr. Hook: Enclosed, please find ten (10) copies of the thirteen (13) proposed Land Use Amendments to the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan scheduled for final review in December of 1988. on Tuesday, July 12, 1988, the St. Lucie 'County Board of County Commissioners, after holding a public hearing on each petition, voted unanimously to forward each of these petitions to the Department of Community Affairs for further review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As cited in the staff reports for each of these petitions, three (3) o~ the thirteen (13) proposed changes are related to a Development of Regional Impact submission (The Reserve); none are considered to be a small area amendment under the requirements of ~Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; none are considered to be emergency plan amendments; none are proposed for adoption under a j6int planning agreement pursuant to Chapter 163.3171, Florida Statutes; and none are located within any designated Area of Critical State Concern. Since three (3) of the submitted Land Use Amendments are related to the submission of a Development of Regional Impact, if permitted, we would appreciate an expeditious review of those Land Use Amendments associated with Callaway Land and Cattle Company, so that if the Application for Development Approval (ADA) is completed, both the land plan amendments and the proposed development order for this project may be heard at the HAVERT L. FtENN. District No I e JUDY CULPEPPER Distncr No 2 · JACK KRIEGER D,str,ct No ,D · R DALE TREFELN£R D,stnct No, 4 · JIM MINIX Dismcr Nc 5 Count',, Adm~n,srrotor W'[LDOt4 2~ LE',VtS 2300 Vtrglma Avenue · Fort P~erce FL 34982-5¢~52 · '%05) 466' I00 or (0,05) 878~4898 July 19, 1988 Page 2 Subject: Winter 1988 Plan Amendments same time. As of July 14, 1988, this application was determined by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as insufficient and additional information requested. If during your review of these proposed amendments you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of Community Development for assistance. Specific individuals in ' ~,~..~.~.~. ~that office to contact would be Mr. Terry~ Virta, Director of C6~mmunity DeveloPment or Mr. Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator. When your Agency returns its review comments to S~. Lucie County, I would appreciate it if you would also include copies to Mr. Virta and Mr. Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney, as well. We appreciate the time you will be spending on these petitions, and look forward to receiving your input on these requests. Sinc~ely, , ~ J~k. Kri~er ~h airman, - · Board of County Commissioners JK/DJM/meg TRANSi(B30) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Development Director Petition Files WEDNESDA~~ AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 14, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi- Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 ft. east of Taylor Dairy Road) Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, nOtice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners November 21, 1988. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-88-003 TIlE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOIY~HEAST QUARTER '~('§E 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES BOARD.! OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS November 21, 1988 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, has petitioned the Board of County Commis- sioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth 'Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd 1680 ft Taylor Dairy Road) ', . east of A public hearin§ on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 14, 1988, in St. Lucie County Commission Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FlOrida. All interested per- sons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1553. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-88-003 HAVERT L. FENN, District No. 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE ]'REFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX District No. 5 County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300e Virginiaa Ext.Avenue344 e· Fort Pierce,Ext.FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100 Director: Ext. 398 Building: Planning: 316 · Zoning:Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF'THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN FLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES BOARD DF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: July 12, 1988 convened: 9:08 a.m. Tape: #1 - #3 adjourned: 3:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Jack Krieger; Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn; ~Oim Minix; R. 'Dale Trefelner; Judy Culpepper (as noted) - Others Present: Weldon Lewis, County Administrator; Dan Kurek, Assistant County Administrator; Dan Mclntyre, County Attorney; Krista Storey and Heather 'Young, Assistant County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator; Jeff Ketteler, County Engineer; Howard Kimble, Public Works Director; Lew England, Acting Property Administrator; Walter Smith and Evan Costopoulos, Sheriff's Office; Jane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk (i) Heminw~z .Corporation (2-2552) / Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated July 6, 1988, subject "Petition of Heminway CorporatiOn to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County'Growth Management Policy ~]an from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General Development) It was moved by Com. Minix, seconded by Com. Culpepper, to transmit this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comments; and, upon roll call, carried unanimously, motion Agenda Item: # ~ File Number: PA-88-O0~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Local Planning Agency Planning Administrator June 16, 1988 Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, to Amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Luoie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General) LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GMPP: PROPOSED GMPP: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: WATER/SEWER SERVICE: On the north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 200 feet west of Keen Road. AR-1 (Agricultural, du/ac) Residential - 1 SU (Semi - Urban) CG (Commercial, General Development) 10.0~ Acres To develop for commercial purposes AR-i, RVP, and IL Road Runner Trailer Park is located to the east of the site. There are some single family homes scattered throughout this area. The remainder, of the land is undeveloped. Station #4 (St. Lucie Blvd.) is approximately 1 mile away. Public services are currently not available to this site. The subject property is within the planned service area for Ft. Pierce Utilities. June 16, 1988 Page 2 Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporation PA-88-003 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the Growth Management Policy Plan, the Local Planning Agency shall consider and make the following determinations: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with ali elements of the St. Lucie Growth Management Policy Plan; The proposed change in land use is consistent with the Commercial Development Policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan. Specific policies in support of this petition are #34 and #35. e Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area; The proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. the Whether there have been changed conditions require an amendment; that Expansion plans for the St. Luoie~ County International Airport have created the need to m~nimize all possible residential development areas in or near the approaches to this facility· Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities; The proposed development is not expected to create an excessive demand on public facilities in this area. June 16, 1988 Page 3 Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporation PA-88-003 Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically identifying any negative effects on such pattern; The proposed amendment is consistent with the Board of County Commissioners Commercial Development Policies for the St. Luoie County International Airport and its environs. COMMENTS The petitioner, Heminway Corporation, proposes to change the land use designation from SU to CG for the property located on the north side of St. Luoie Blvd., approximately 200 feet west of Keen Road. County staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and found it not to be within a designated area of Critical State Concern, found it not to qualify as a small area or emergency plan amendment under Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes and is not prooosed for adoption under a Joint Planning Agreement pursuant to Chapter 163.3171, Florida Statutes. County staff has determined this petition to be generally consistent with the Commercial Development Rolioies of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Rolicy Plan. The proposed amendment to Commercial is consis,~ent with the development pattern in the area of the St. Lucie County International Airport and'all approaches to and/or near this facility. Under the requirements of Rule 9J-il, Florida Administrative Code, the State of Florida requires a recommendation from this Agency, as well as staff, prior to the Board of County Commissioner's consideration on whether to transmit this petition for further agency review. At this time, staff would recommend that the Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of approval for this petition and that it recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that this petition be transmitted to the State of Florida for further agency review and comment. Although staff is offering a preliminary recommendation of approval, we would advise the petitioner that should the Board of County Commissioners agree to transmit this petition for further review, St. Lucie County reserves the right to amend this recommendation pending completion and review of the required agency comments° June 16, 1988 Page 4 Petition: File No.: Heminway Corporation PA-88-003 If you this office° have any questions on this matter, please contact DJM/DBS/seb Attachment HEMl(B-DEC88)a cc: County Attorney Genevieve Jackson SAMPLE MOTION: MOTION TO TRANSMIT: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCiE COUNTY LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF HEMINWAY CORPORATION FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) BE APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER FLORIDA STATUTES. TO CG TO THE REVIEW 153, MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCiE COUNTY LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF HEMINWAY CORPORATION FOR A CHANGE IN (COMMERCIAL, DEPARTMENT EVALUATION LAND USE GENERAL), NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER STATUTES; BECAUSE... FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO CG THE FLORIDA REVIEW AND 153, FLORIDA AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY JUNE 23, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend-the Future Land Use Classifica- tion of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 ft. east of Taylor Dairy Road) Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur- pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is madew which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn ino Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners June !, 1988. Legal notice was published, in the News Tribuneu a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15~ 1988. FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUT'dEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) A_ND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES ~L - PUI~PL£ 25--34-39 A IL. PETITION OF HERI#WAY CORPORATION BY AGENT: GENEVIEVE JACKSON FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FRO~ SU TO CG SU CT CWv IL - PUIbPLE - GRE[II 2.5- N Cl"lv A CT' PETITIO~ OF (,~EMIIIWAY CORPORATION ))Y ,t!~EtiT: GENEVIEVE JACK~ FOR ~A CHANGE ,IN FUTU~ LAND ,USE CLASSIFICATION FROM SU TO C G Genevieve Jackson 2500 SE Midport Rdo Suite 470 Port St. Lucte, FL 34952 Helen Platts Ptatts Groves, Inc. 2953 Seminole Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34951-9740 ~rritt Sapp 6000 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 CYI/qER PROPERTY OWNqKRS N~TIFIED 3 Mary Skubic 6236 St. Lucie' Blvd. Ft. P!erce, FL 34946 Heminwav Core, rat!on 2500 SE Midport Rd. Suite 470 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Comc~rce Park Deg:, Inc. 4440 P(iA Blvd. Ste. 305 Palm ~ch. Gctns., FL 33410 5 Jam~s Spooner P.O. Box 794 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 6 Kioshi Groves 1300 Hartman Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34947 7 Hem~v & ,.Margaret Cathoon P. O. Box 1317 Fto Pierce, FL 34954 8 Alton Sapp 6105 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 9 Edward Carl 642 SE Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, FL 34984-5142 i0 Eiton & Rebecca Luke 5677 St. Lucie Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 Arve! Jr. & E~hel Lewis 5593 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft~ P!erce, FL 34946-9057 12 Albert & Thelma'~ite 5645 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 13 Walter & Barbara Sm/th 5621 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 14 Jarm~s & MarilynYiinix 5500 St. Lucie Blvd. Ft. Pierce, F% 34946 15 Robert Zucker (TR) c/o S. Wainburg 1428 Brickell Ave. ?liami, FL 33131-3409 Cana 1 s Fo P. F. W. C. D. 131 N. 2 St. Rm. 212 Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 County Roads St,. Lucie Co~ Admin. Bldg. Ft. Pierce, FL 34!82 THURSDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JUNE 23, 1988 7:00 P.M. Petition of Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, to amend the Future Land Use Classifica- tion of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 ft. east of Taylor Dairy Road) Please note that all pro'ceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur- pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearlRg, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners June 1, 1988. Legal not~ce was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988. FILE NO. PA-88-003 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (~E 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST qUARTER~(SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOI~SHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE' SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE~ 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PACE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES Fee t ~ 400 Datef A~ 227. 1988 Appl lcant' s Ha~, _~ Hem~nyay Cor~a~p~ following pro~rty, . the 'Legal Description~ (TY~ or print only in black ink) See Attached ~×hibit "~" ~ Property Tax .Z.D. # i32s.x.~n_oon~_.nnnvh Froms _ _ -~T~ _ TOt .... CG /~ Ply (Our) reason fo~ making this request ls~ For.fU. ture cpnuaerc/.al..development m X I (Ne) do hereb~ certify that ! (we) o~n in fee simple all o£ the above described p£oPerty and have legal right to request a change'in Future Land Use o£ said property. ! (Ne) dO-hereby certify-that ! (we) own in fee simple that portion o£ the above described property for which 'a change in Future Land Use iS requested, described as __ The remainder o£ the property described. In paragraph 01 above .'for which change in Future Land Use is requested is owned by and that I (we) ce~tl£y that the above legal descriptiOn submitted by me (us) represents the' property X-fee) wish to have reclassified. (Ne) ! understand~that Z (we) must be present at the hearing or will be represented by my (our) agent, Genevieve L. Jackson J~eminwav Cor~ora~ on Petitioner Cs) NOTXCBs IN COMPLX~CB MXTI! CBAPTBR 163.3187 ~RXDA ~A~ ~lS P~XTI~ ~ O~l BB PRBS~ ~R FI~ ~ISSI~ NX~ ~R ST. ~CXE ~~ SONXN~ D~;ZSX~ TO D~XNB ~PROPRXATB D~INB~: ~R EXHIBIT "A" THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE' 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 24.5.00 OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES Fees ~400 Dates A~ 1988 PL~FI'TION FOR CIZM~B IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIF~C!%_ TZON Appltcant ' $ N~e: _. Heminwa7 qorporay~on ~?~ - ~ ~ ~ Applicant's ~ress~ 25. 0p. S~ M~d~o~t_Ro~_ Suite 470 _ Port St.~Lucie, FL 34952 A~pltcan~'s ~hone Numb~r~ 3~-5565 I {We) do here~ petition the St. ~cle ~ty Planning and ~1~ ~t881on and the ~'. ~le ~unty ~az4 of County foll~lng~ssl~e~Sp~o~rtyt° change: ~e Future ~nd Use . Classification of the 'Legal Description: fType or print only In black ink) See Attached Exhibit "A" ~---. ~ · . 111 , . ..... . ..... i i ilI i Property Tax I.Do $ 1325_&q0_ooo2__aaO_6 Froms /~y (Our) reason for making this request is.: ~ TO s .... cs FQr f, uture, .cp.mm.e_rcia!~evelopment I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in fee Simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change'in Future Land Use of ssi6 property. I (We) do hereby certify-that I (we) own in fee simple that portion of the above described property for which a change In Future Land Use is requested described as The remainder of the property described, in paragraph 01 above for which change in Future Land Use is requested is owned by _ and that I (we) certify that the above legal descriptio~ submitted by me (us) represents the' property X (we) wish to have reclassified. · : _ I (We) understand that I (we) must be present at the hearing or will be represented by my (our) agent. _Genevieve L._ _Jackson_ _ _Heminwa¥ .Corporation Agent ~ -- ' , Petitione~(s) ...... NOTICE~ IN C(~LI~E WITH CHAPTER 163,3187 FLORIDA STATUTES THIS PETITION CAN ONLI~ BB PRF~BNTBD FOR FINAL CONHISSION REVIEW DUItXI~ PAY ~ ~OVlU~ER OF ~aca cAI.~ ~EA~. PL~S~ CONSULT APPROPRIATB DF-%DLINES FOR EXHIBIT '!A" THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/-4). OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245~00. OFf THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE i/4.) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET' OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE .1/-4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT~OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2'1, PAGE 14, !4A - !4C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE. COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO~ 2 RIGHT-OF~WAy~ CONTAINING 10.02 ACRES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONCRS June 1, 1988 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Heminway Corporation, by Agent: Genevieve Jackson, Esquire, has petitioned the Local Planning Agency to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: On north side of St. Lucie Blvd., 1680 ft. east of Taylor Dairy Road) A public hearing on t~e petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, June 23, 1988, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interest.ed persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meetin§ or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you have any questions, additional information may be obtained by calling Area Code 407, 466-1100, Extension 344/41. Sincerely, LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST_ LUCIE~COUNTY, FLORtD~ J.~P. Terpeni4~ Ch~/irman FILE NO. PA-88-003 HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER District No. 4 · JIM MINIX District No. 5 County Administrator - WELDON B, LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100 Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (S~ 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. LESS AN EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 430.00 FEET OF THE EAST 245.00 OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE l f4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE I/4) AND THE WEST 406.31 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND THE NORTH 698 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE .SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 25, AND LESS STATE ROAD NO. 608 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 14, 14A - 14C AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 353 AND DEED BOOK 198, PAGE 349, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING I0.02 ACRES