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