Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAbernathy, Bruce (2)BOARD OF COUNTY D V6LOPM6NT COMMISSiON£RS D I R CTO R J. GARY AMENT March 1, 1988 Mr. Bruce Abernethy Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & LLoyd P,O. Box 1270 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34954 Subject: Off-Site Signs Dear Mr. Abernethy: In regard to our conversation of Tuesday, March 1, 1988, please be advised that Section 3.2.750(2)(d) of the St. Lucie County Zoning Ordinance, limits the placement of all off-site signs to a minimum distance of 10 feet from the street right-of- way or other property line. This includes both side and rear yards. In the case of your specific property. If this triangular parcel of land is indeed only 14 feet wide at its widest point, then compliance with this requirement would render this property useless for the purpose of erecting an off-site sign. However, please let me stress, that the property owner does have the right to apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment for relief from these requirements. If granted, this could allow a sign to be erected on this property. As an adjacent property owner, you would of course be notified of any such public hearing and would be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing. I hope that this is of some use to you. If you have questions on this matter, please let me know. DJM/meg SIGNl(B24) cc: Zoning Administrator PA-87-015 PA-87-016 Planning A~ ini~a~or \ any HAVERT L. FENN. D~strict No. ~ ® JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 ~ JACK KRi EGER. Distnct No 3 · R DALE TREFELHER D,strict No, 4 · JIM MIN~X District No. 5 County Administrator - WEL_DON~ B LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue ® Fort Pierce FL 33482-5652 ~ Phone (305) 466-1100 Director: Ext. 398 e Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext 316 ~ Zoning: Ext. 336 e Code Enforcement: Ext. 317 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION6RS December 31, 1987 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR J. GARY AMENT Bruce Abernethy,- Jr., Esquire Agent for Pearl Goodman, Lester D. and Betty Roth c/o Neill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd P. O. Box 1270 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 Dear Mr. Abernethy: This is to confirm that on December 1, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, granted the petition of Pearl Goodman, Lester D. and Betty Roth for a change in land use designation from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (General Commercial Development) for property located on Old Dixie Highway, ¼ mile south of the north St. Lucie County Line. A copy of recorded Ordinance No. 87-9~6 is enclosed for your information. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Jack Krieger, Chairman Enclosure dcm HAVERT L. FENN, District No. t ® JUDY CULPEPPER District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX District No. 5 Coun~' Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 33482;5652 e Phone (305) 466-1100 Director: Ext, 398 ® Building: Ext. 344 e Planning: Ext. 316 ~ Zoning: Ext. 336 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 317 S63033 ORDINANCE NO. 87-96 · FILE NO. PA-87-015 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 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF THE NORTH ST. LUCIE COUNTY LINE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL ) MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE 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 followin9 determinations: I. Pearl Goodman, Lester D. and Bett~ Roth, by Agent: ~il!, ~riffin, Jeffries and .Lloyd presented a petition to amend th~ f-~.turR land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie .... _~ Grow~_.h Management Policy Plsun from P~ ( Low D~-~ity Residential Development ) 'to CG ( Commercial General ) for the propez-ti- d~s~ribed below. 2. T~- ~St. Lucie County LocaI !Ul arming Agency, a~ter holding a public hearing on November 10, 1987 of which due notice was publishe~d at least seven (7) days prior to said hearing and ~ o~m~-~s_ ~ ~ ~ithin five hundr~.d feet (500') were 'by mail of said hearing, has recommended that the Board sm~_n_~ the., f-u~xre land use classification set forth in the L-ucie Count-M Growth Management Residential .De-veiopme~t.) · to. CG prope_~-hy d~scr~ed below. Pi an from. RL ( Low Density ( Commercial ~enerat ) for the owned by Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, be, and the same is hereby changed from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (Commercial General). B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY. This Board specifically determines that the approved change in future land use plan is consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan. C. CHANGES TO ZONING MAP. The St. Lucie County Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the changes to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this ordinance. .D. CONFLICI~/NG PROVISIONS. Special acts of the Florida !eg±s!a~e applicable ..only to unincorporated areas of- St~ Lucie County, Co-~c~ty ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, .in conflict wi~h this ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to 722~e extent of~uch~Id~t~. J. ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Jack Krieger Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn Commissioner R. Date Trefelner Commissioner Jim Min±x Commissioner Judy Culpepper Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 1st day of December, 1987. OARD OF CO~NTY COMMISS'IONERS ~.'t:/ APPROVED A8 TO FO~ ~ 863033 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING Date: Tape: December 1, 1987 #1 - #3 convened: 7:00 p.m. adjourned: 10:35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Oack Krieger, Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn, 3im Minix, Oudy Culpepper, R. Dale Trefelner Others Present: Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney; Terry Rlanning Administrator; Dennis Murphy, County Planner; Smith, Deputy Sheriff; Oane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk Hess, Walter 1. Petition oh Pearl Goodman~ Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, (by agent: N~-~I~ Griffin~ .~efferies and_ Lloyd--~ to Amend the Future Land Use ~ of the Growth Management Roticy Rlan ~rom RL "('Low Density A-~sident~l~ to C~ (Ge'~eral Commercial Develo~-~t~ Reference is made to memorandum from the Planning Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated November 24, 1987, on the above captioned subject. Bruce Abernathy, Agent for petitioner, appeared before the Board to request approval of the above referenced petition. It was moved by Com. Minix, Seconded by Com. Fenn, to adopt draft Ordinance No. 87-96, 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 Old Dixie Highway 1/4 mile South of the North St. Lucie County Line (more particularly described herein) from RL.(Low Density Residential Development) to CG (Commercia~ General) making findings; providing for making the necessary changes on the official zoning map of St. Lucie County; providing for conflicting provisions and severability; providing for filing with the Department of State and the Department of Community Affairs and for an effective date and adoption; also, amend this ordinance's legal description by deleting Parcel 3, which reads as follows: "Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the North one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter lying between the Westerly right-of-way for the FEC Railroad and the Easterly right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway"; and, Opon roll call, motion carried unanimously. _ CG RL GREEN BLUE A k PETITION OF PEARL GOODMAN, LESTER ROTH & BETTY ROTH BY A6~ENT: BRUCE ABERNATHY, JR. TO CHANGE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM RL TO CG RM-5 RS-2 CG CT U BLUE PURPLE GREEN BROWN ORANGE ~MH-5 YELLOW PETITION OF PEARL GOODMAN, LESTER ROTH & BETTY R:OTH BY AGENT: BRUCE ABERNATHY, JR. TO CHA'NGE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM RL TO CG MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Administrator County Commission Planning Administrator November 30, 1987 December 1, 1987, County Commission Review of Growth Management Policy Plan Land Use/Rezoning Amendments As the Board is aware, on Tuesday, December 1, 1987, you are scheduled to review a series of Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Rezoning Amendments as a part of~the December 1987 review cycle. Under separate cover, you were transmitted copies of the staff reports on these petitions. Attached, you will find a copy of the agenda for this meeting. Since the preparation of these reports/agenda, two items have emerged that staff would like to bring to this Board's attention. First, on the attached agenda, reference is made to a petition on behalf of Ft. Pierce Investors Ltd., for a change in land use and zoning. Please note that at the petitioners request, this pro3ect has been withdrawn from consideration. This request for withdrawal ~ was presented at the November 10, 1987, Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission review meeting. Due to the fact that we had already set up advertising for this petition, it was necessary to include this item on the agenda for this meeting. Please note, since this item was withdrawn at the LPA/P&Z meeting and no action was taken on it, this Board should simply acknowledge its withdrawal for the record. Secondly, in regard to petition number i-K, both this office and after further review by the County Attorney we would at this time offer an amended recommendation for this Board's consideration. As you will recall, from reading our comments of November 24, 1987, the petitioner is offering to withdraw from consideration those parts of this petition that would add a commercial land use designation to portions of this property. The petitioner did request, following discussions with staff, that the property along the St. Lucie River originally planned for a commercial designation, be included in the requested amendment from SU to RL. From a strict land planning point of view, staff has no ob3ection to this requested change. November 30, 1987 Page 2 Sub3ect: Plan Amendment Review - Agenda The proposed inclusion of this property as residential would be a lower intensity use than the commercial and generally consistent with previous Board actions in regard to this type request. However, upon further reflection we feel that there may be some question in regard to the consistency with this action. Both the County Attorney and I would be more comfortable, from a challenge perspective, if the properties requested for commercial use were simply dropped and left in their present land use state, and that no action be taken to amend them to something else, unless the appropriate procedures were followed. Staff has reviewed this issue with the petitioner's representative and determined that such an action would not have any adverse effect upon the proposed development plans f~r t~hi.s project. If you have any questions on these two items, staff can provide additional elaboration at the public hearings. If you have any other questions, please let me know. DJM/mg PLANI(B14) cc: County Attorney Commission Secretary PA & RZ Petition Files COMMISSION REVIEW: DECEMBER 1, 1987 AGENDA ITEM: 1 - A FILE NO.: PA-87-015 ORDINANCE NO.: #87-96 MEMO RA NDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Administrator County Commission Planning Administrator November 24, 1987 Petition of Pearl S. Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Bett~ Roth to amend the Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL .(Low Density Residential Development) to CG (Commercial General). On Tuesday, December 1, 1987, you will be asked to review a petition on behalf of Pearl S. Goodman, et al, for a change in Land Use from RL to CG for property located along the east side of North U.S. #1, near the Indian River County Line. The petitioners propose to develop a community scaled commercial development on this site. On Tuesday, November 10, 1987, this petition was presented to the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency for review and recommendation. At that hearing significant Agency and public comment was generated about this proposal, particularly about the designation of that portion of this property lying between Old Dixie Highway and The Florida East Coast Railroad for Commercial Use. Following a lengthy discussion on this issue, and by amending the legal description of this petition to exclude that property lying east of Old Dixie Highway, the Local Planning Agency, by a unanimous vote, forwarded a recommendation of approval for this petition to the Board of County Commissioners° Attached you will find a copy of Draft Ordinance #87-96 which would grant approval to this petition. Please note, that this Draft Ordinance has not been amended to delete the property lying between Old Dixie Highway and the Florida East Coast Railroad. November 24, 1987 Paue 2 Petition: Goodman, P., et al File No.: PA-87-015 Any approval action by this Board, that wishes to include this deletion, must include the appropriate amendment to this description. In addition to the Draft Ordinance #8?-96, please find attaChed copies of our original staff report to the Local Planning Agency on this petition, as well as the minutes of that meeting. As required, this petition was reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs and other interested parties. Comments provided to St. Lucie County included concerns expressed'by Indian River County about possible traffic impacts within their jurisdiction. As in any development project of this size within St. Lucie County, prior to the presentation of final site development plans, the developer will be required to submit a complete traffic analysis that will address these concerns and identify the appropriate relief actions to be taken. Staff recommends approval of Draft Ordinance #87-96. If you have any questions on this matter, please let us know. J .~ Gary A~o~' '- / D~evelopme~t Director erry L4 Hess Plan~in~ and Zoning Director DJM/djm GOODMAN4(B.DEC) cc: County Attorney Bruce Abernethy, Jr. Commission Secretary Press/Public AGENDA - BOARP ~3F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY DECEMBER 1, 1987 7:00 ~P.M. Petit on of Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, by Agent: Neill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described ]property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: on Old Dixie Highway, 1/4..mile south of the north St Lucie County Line.) ' Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides t~o 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~iof 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 9, 1987. Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on November 24, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman FILE NO. PA-87-015 Agenda Item: File Number: # 1 PA-87-015 M E M 0 R A N_O U_N TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Local Planning Agency Planning Administrator NovemDer 2, 1987 Petition of Pearl Gooaman, Lester O. Rotn and Betty Rotn to Amend the Future Lano Use Maps of the St. Lucia County GrOwth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Densi. ty ReSidential) to CG (General Commercial Development). LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTINO'G.N.p.p.: PROPOSED GoNoPoP.: t PROPOSEO USE: PARCEL SIZE: S~ROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING L~iD U~: FIRE/ElIS: WATER T~e east side of North U.S. #1 approximately 1/~ mile south of InOian River County line '(Pounded on the east Dy Florida East Coast Rail~oao). RM-5 (Resioential Multiple Family - 5 ou/ac) ' RL (Low Density ResloentiaI Development) CrG (General Commercial Development) To develop a retail shopping center. 13.53 ac. RM-5, CG, and RS-2 There are scattered existing commercial uses along North-U.S. #1 in this area. Properties t_o the east are vacant. Lakewooo Park suboivision is approximately 3 miles away. Station #7 (Lakewooo Park) is approximately 3 miles away. On site facilities will Oe proviOeo. November 2, 1987 Page 2 Petition: Goodman, p., et al File No.: PA-87-015 STANDARDS FOR REVIEN: In reviewing this appiicati'on for proposed amendment to the Growtn Management Policy Plan, the Local Planning Agency shall consider and make the following determinations: #nether .the proposeo amenament is consistent all elements of the St. Lucie Growth Nanagement Policy Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the Commercial Development policies of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan. Specific policies in support of t~is petition include #34 and #37. e Whether and the extent to wnlcn the p~oposeo amenament Is consistent with existing aha proposea lane uses in this area; The proposeo land use amendment is consistent with the planned oev~t~opment pattern for this area of North US #1. Whether there nave been changea conoltions that requlEe an amenament; Increased residential development in the eastern portions of the Lakewooo Park area along with expanding resioential"oevelopment in southern Indian River County make t~is a likely site for commercial development° Whether aha tn~ extent to which the proposea amenament .oulo result in aemanas on publlc r:cilltl~s, ana..netnez or the extent to wnlcn.tne p oposea amenament woula exceea the capacity SuCh pubtlc faCilities, incluelng Out not llmitea to transportation ~aclllties. sewage ~acilltles, water supply, pagks drainage, ~c~ools emergency mealcal ' ~acllltles; November 2, 1987 Page :~ Petition: Goodman, p., et al File No.: ~A-87-015 0 The proposed change in land use is not anticipated to create an excessive demand on publ2c facilities in this area. Water and Wastewater treatment facilities will be provided on site. Whether aha the extent to which the proposea amenament wOUld result in significant aaverse Impacts on the natura! environment; To the. best of our information, the petitioned. property odes not contain any unique or sensitive environmental habitat. #nether and the extent to which the proposed amendment wOUld result In an orderly and logical aeVelopmentpattern'speclfically iaentlfyln9 any negative effects on SuCh pattern; The proposeo amenOment of this property to commercial would permit it to be copsoliOateo into a, larger commercial tract for OeVelopment as a community siZed-shopping center. thisT?r zopmen~ or a community Sized shopping center, This property is ro ose ~ wztn the Pro,pert to the n P P O to be consolidated · Y grin to from a more develOpable parcel. County staff has reviewed t~is petition recommends its approval. Agency comments received from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and South Florida Water Management District indicate:no objection. However, the Regional Planning Council Odes recommend that any development proposal for this site incluo a careful evaluation ofIndiantne River regionalco,.~,,~y.transp°rtati°n,nese~- comment~simpaCtswilltn~s project may ~ave in fil'es for this oe,,~- ...... be noted t.n the project -~m~H~ and exam development submission. ' ineo at =the time of November 2, 1987 F'age /4 Petition: Goodman, p., et al File No.: PA-87-015 Attacaeo you will find a Copy of Draft Ordinance #87-96, which would grant approval to t~is petition. Staff recommends that tDis Agency forward a recommendation of apProval for this Draft OrOinance to the Board of County Commissioners. TLH/DOM/DS/mg Attachment GOODMAN2(B.OEC) cc: County Attorney Bruce ASernet~y, Jr. Press/PuDlic TUESDAY AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVF24~ER 10, 1987 7=00 P.M. Petition of Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, by Agent: Neill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County .Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Devel'opment) to CG (General Commercial Development ) for the following described proper t y = (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: on Old Dixie Highway, 1/4 mile south of the north St. Lucie.County Line. ) 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 ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony ~d evi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the re~mest 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 individ%m~l testifying during a .hearing upon request. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same wes sent to all adjacent property owners October 20, 1987j Legal notice was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on October 21, 1987. FIL~ leO. PA-87-OI~ PARCEL ONE: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the south 165 feet of the North one quarter of the Southwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter lying East of U.S. Hig~y No. i and that part of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter, of the Northeast uae quarter lying between. Old Dixie Highway and U.S. Highvay No. 1, less the South 100 fee: as ~aaured'~lon8 U.S. Hl&h~y 1 and less the Western 300' more or less thereof .which is currently zoned CG and designated as CH In the St. Lucie County PARCEL TWO: SettLoR 6, To. ship 34 South, Range 40 East. From the Southwest corner of the Morth one half of tl~e Southeast one quarter of the ~ortheast one q~rter, run ~st aloag the South line t.~reof tS,i feet to the ~s~ ri&hr-or--ay of U.S, Highway No. I and the point of beginning, ~eRce run North~scerly ald~e t~ rtghc-o-f-~ay of U.S. H ~gh~ay No. 1 100 feet, thence East parallel to the South line of the North o,-~lf of :he ~et~t one q~rter of t~ ~rt~ast uae quarter to the ~sc ri one q~rter of t~ ~rtheas: ~e quarter~ t~nce ~sterly to the _point ef begl~in8, leas ~the ~estern :300' core or less thereof County ~~tly Z~d CG and ~al&~ted as CH tn t~ ~. PARCEL .... ~rth ~ ~f.of ~he ~t~st' ~ q~rter of t~ FtC Rail~ a~ t~ ~terly rllht,of_vay of Old !~r~]ce Abezuuathy, Jr. =/o Neill,Griffin, Jeffries&Lloyd i~-O- ~× 1270 ~. Pierce, Fi. 34954 ~earl (kxxlman ~ster Roth ~tty ~th ~745 S.E. 10th St. '~. Lauderdale, rlo 33316 OTHER Pt~OPERTY O~ NOTIFIED Parcel 1, 3 & 4 Ernest Klatt P.O. Box 1477 Bolmton Bch., Fl. 33435 Parcel 2 Central ~~.~. Lt. No. 59-329 36th St. at 13th Ave. N.W. '~ Fl. 33142 . J. Griffith 401 Peterson Rd. ~. Pierce, Fl. 34947 Parcel 6 1630 N.E. 55th St. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33334 Jctvmc~ Oil Co., In~. P.O. Box 3809 Ft. Pierce, Fi. 34954 arcel 8 Par~l 9 P.O. ~ '31 ~ Bch., Fl. 32960 Parcel 10 ~ & Pla ~1~ ?~47 N. S~rmsota, Fi. 34243 O6 2ar -~ 13 & 14 ~ON. U.S. . Pierce, x~l 18 & 21 elma Groves, I~c. 32N. U.S. 1 · Pierce, Fl. 34946 Pmrc~ 16 6610 N. U.S. 1 Ft. Piez~m, Fl. 34946 Pmro~l 19 Jmx~ j. SZ~ile 1400 D~~ a~. - Ft. Pier~m, Fl. 34950 6~10 N. U.S. 1 Pt. Piero8, FI. 34946 P~ml ~ & 12 Divil~ ~ ol' FJ.., c/o M~in~ Sci~m C~t~r 5595 oM Pt. Pimr~, Fl. 34946 Parcel 22,23 & 25 Guy E. Potea[, Sr. 5945 20th St. Vero Bch., Fl. 32960 Parcel 24 & 26& 28 Hugh E. Russell Henry C. Russell P.O. Box 1236 Veto Bch., Fl. 32960 '1. E~st Coest Rmilromd ;t. A~.Fastine, FI. 32084 ~r<~l 29 ~481 O:kl Dixie Fa~f. '~. P' ~lt~ce, Fl. 34~46 State Roads State of Florida Road D~pt. R~d Right-of_Way 780 S.W. 24th St. Ft. ~, Fl..33315 P~-cel 3O Theresa Wilkes 6485 Old Dixie Hwy. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 County Road St.Lucie Co. P~tin. Bld9o ~ Ri~ht-of-Rmy, ~n. 208A 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pieroe, Fl. 34982 Paroe/ 31 Matths~ & Claudia Schneidler 1928 Wycrnin9 Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 ~aroel 32 & 35 ~mtth~ & Marie ~id~r ;466 N. U.S. 1 "~. Piez~, Fl; 34946 Pmr~e/ 33 Cecil & Teresa Jenkins 6453 Old Dixie tiff. Ft'. Pierce, - Fl. 34946 ..... Paro~l 34 ~ller Park Ptners-II(B)Ltd. 9790 66th St. ,N. Pine] 1~-~ Park,~Ft. 33565 CH GREEN RL BLUE 6-34-40 k PETITION OF PE~R'L ~, LESTER ROTH & BETTY R'OTH B'Y /~T: B~'UCE ABER~ATHY, JR. TO CHA~fGE ZOI~I'NG D]STR'ICT CLASS]F]C/~TION FRO~ R~-5 TO C6 RH-5 BLUE RS-2 PURPLE £G GREEN CT BROWN U ORANGE m 34-40 PETITIO~ ~ J~L ~, LESTER ROTH g BETTY ROTH BY AGE~T: BJtU~E ABERNATHY, dR. TO C~ Z~I~ DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FR~ RH-5 TO CG PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVAL SPECIAL MEETING ~;,,",.o~0 MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1987 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: J. P. Terpening, Mabel Fawsett, Joseph Sciturro, Robert Carman, Patricia Ferrick Jim Russakis Patricia King, and Jo Ann Allen. ' , BOARD MEMBERS ABSiENT: Peggy Harris - Excused due to illness. OTHERS PRESENT: Krista Storey, Assistant County Attorney; Dennis J- Murphy, 'Planning Administrator; Terry Hess, Planning and Zoning Director; Donna Scanlon, Assistant Planner McElhaney, Assistant Planner; and Dolores ; Laura Griggs- Messer, Secretary. PRESS ATTENDANCE: Susan Burgess, Ft. Pierce News Tribune. TAPES: 1, 2, and 3. TIME: 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING~ Petition of Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, by Agent: N~ill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd, to amend the Future Land Use Maps of the Sro Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (General Commercial Development). Bruce Abernethy from the law firm · · . Lloyd presented the!.petition an ~ANe%llA~rl~fin Jeffrles and visual aids in exDl~nin~ ~ ~ ~t=~ed s~veral ~ap exhibits as · - = '~,~ ~catlon and t~on. He explained Ithat ~ ~= ...... purpose of the ~eti- ..~o ~=uc, ~r. Calvin Holland, has the subject property and the property.involved in Agenda Items 2 and 4 under contract to nurcha ......... , 3 the requested land Use a~endme~' uu~=~gen= upo, the grantin~ of la ] s an~ chan es in p ns ~nvolve the constru~- ~= - - ~_ . zoning. Future T · , ~ u~ ~ comRlunl~ ' he petitioner wishe]~ ~ ........... Y s~opp~ng center. · 'e Highway. Mr. Abernethy presented a conceptual site plan for the proDosed River Ridge Plaza, which will consist of approximately 175,000 sc. ft. Intentions are to draw two anchors to the shopping center and then have the remainder consist of specialty shops. Ingress and egress fpr the project would be from U.S. 1, and from the proposed construction of a new access road along the southern side of the property. The new road would connect U.S. 1 and Old D~x~e Highway, and provide access to the site from the south. Abernet_~hv pointed out that Staff had found the request con- ~stent with the County's comprehensive plan, specifically Item ~©'iocatlng34 and of Item shoppingN°° 37. centers These items deal with the desired near major thoroughfares due to the traffic generated from such operations. He said the location of, the subject property and the petition,s proposed use are in keeping with the stated policies. Mr. Abernethv That the surroundinq PrQ~grties are for the most- part also pointedcoma~rcialOUt or institutional use. The property to the east is zoned (Low(~{esiden~ial'Density p ;~ ~= ~.Single Family - 2 du/ac) and its land use is RLv%~,~) .'~' '"/' ~.~ ~es~uen~aa~ However, separates there is a 100 ft. right-~ way owned by FEC Railway which the RS-2 T ~w~On~n- from tn~ ~ subject property. The petitioner feels that thisa ~100 ft. right_'~°.~ of-way will serve as an appropriate dividing line nd buffer between residential and commercial use. Mr. Abernethy then referenced Staff's findings that there are changed conditions within the general area that warrant the requested plan amendment. Northern St. Lucie County and southern Indian River County are fast-growing Spanish Lakes, Vero Shores, Vero Highlands areas, areLakew°°din fairly Park, proximity to the proposed shopping center - - m udeve]o~men~. close lation base within a 2.5 mile radius is a little over ~ O00--,---,The popu- 26,500 within a 5 mile radius. and Mr. Abernethy said that Staff feels that the proposed development would not place any excessive demands on public facilities. He said that the proposed devet'0pment ~could reduce trips requi~d b~ residents of Lakewood Park and Spanish Lakes utilizing U.S 1 for shopping in Ft Pierce or Veto Be ' . ach H ' possibility of residents of Vero Hi ~ e further stated the · g lands and Veto Shores using Old Dixie Highway rather than U.S. i to access the proposed shopping development. He said that the proposed project could ~dd approximately $200,000 for road impact fees, and in addition, nave a positive impact on St. Lucie County,s tax base. The proposedfor residents.develbpment would also offer employment opportunities Mr. Abernethy agreed with Staff's ~omments that there would not be any negative environmental impact from the subject proposal, and that the project would constitute an orderly and logical development of the area. He said that traffic concerns such as :nzersection improvements would be addressed during the site plan review process. >l:-s. Fawsett stated her traffic safety concerns regarding the i'urnplke Feeder Road and U.S. 1 and inqu±red what road improve- ::.,~nEs could be made. Mr. Abernethy said that through discussion w.th Staff he had ~etermined that intersection improvements would ye required of the developer. The specifics of those improve- ments would be addressed during the site plan review process. In response to questioning by Mrs. Ferrick, Mr. Abernethy said that 23 acres would be involved in the overall project. In response to questioning by Mr. Terpening, Mr. Abernethy said -that the property east of Old Dixie Highway could be used as off- s~te water retention or as utility parking.- The tract of land is very narrow and may not be practical for oommercial use. Staff would have an opportunity to scrutinize use for that narrow strip of land at the time of site plan review. >:r. Jack Cahill spoke in favor of the petition stating that the proposed development would provide services for nearby St. Lucia County residents and would be of benefit to the County's tax roll. The following persons spoke in opposition to the petition: Dan Harrell, on behalf of Rhodes Holding, stated his client's . concern regarding property under contract which lies south and east of the subject property and the uses that are along and adjacent to Old Dixie Highway. They felt concerned, in the absence of a binding site plan, about ~hat kind of uses would be allowed immediately adjacent to Old Dixie Highway. Attorney Buck Bryan, spoke on behalf of Mr. Guy Poteat, who owns property east of the proposed project, 130 acres to the east of the railroad tracks. Mr. Poteat's concern involved the di~ ~'~'~ of shopping center traffic from U.S. 1 to Old Dixie ~ighway wh~~ is a narrow road. Mr. Bryan felt the narrow strip of land im- mediately to ~he west of.the FEC Railroad should not be redesig~ nated for commercial use Another concern dealt with residents~ to the east that would ha~e to view the back side of the shoppi~ center. Mr. Bryan and his client.felt that a 300 ft. depth of ~ commercial use in this area is sufficient. In response to questioning by'Mr. Terpening regarding landscaping and buffering, Mr. Murphy replied that additional screening would be required along this east property line. Regarding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy said that Staff found the petition consistent with commercial develo~xaent requirements. Access improvements would be specifically addressed at the time of site development plan submission. Comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council indicated no major objection to the proposed land use amendment, but encouraged cooperation with Indian River County to determine traffic impacts. in res[7onse to ~_...astionlng by Mr. Sciturro, ,~r. Murphy replied that in addition to the proposed access corridor between U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway, there are two probable access points from th~:~ s~te to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Murphy said that it is 1.~:ely that Staff would recommend at least one access point be des:gned to facilitate service movement (delivery by ~rucks). Mr. Russakis stated his concern with truck Old Dixze Highway, and felt the petitioner should provide for service movement within the proposed project. Mr. Sciturro also stated his concern regarding truck traffic on Old Dixie Highway,, ~r. Carman stated this same concern. Mr. Terpening said that he did not believe truck drivers who are on a time schedule would access a slower road such as Old Dixie Highway, he felt they would turn on the service road from U.S. 1 and then turn into the project. Mr. Russakis and Mr. Terpening then discussed service movement as presented in the conceptual plan, In response to questioning by Mr. Sciturro, Ms. Storey replied that regarding this petition the Board should be looking for consistency with the GMPP. She said that the level of site detail presently Under discussion are probably not appropr.iate at this point in the process. Regarding closing remarks, Mr. Abernethy reiterated that the 100 ft. wide FEC RailWay right-of-way serves as a proper dividing !i, ne and is sufficient as a buffering zone. He felt that the residential development of Mr. Poteat's property would provide additional buffering to the west of the FEC Railway. He felt that under GMPP pOlicies, some commercial use, limited ~arking, or off-site drainage is more consistent with a location abutting an~a~t.iv~ railroa~ track. He~ commented that adjacent,propertY owners had been contacted by the Staff as well has himself. They werethe petition, present at th!is hearing, but had not spoken in opposition to Mrs. Fawsett asked Mr. Abernethy about drainage to the east as the project is elevated higher to the west. Mr. Abernethy said those engineering concerns would be approached at the developmen- tal stage. Mrs. Fawsett then questioned bufferin~ on the south side of the project. Mr; Abernethy said part of the purpose for the new roadway is to serve as a buffering zone. There had been some discussion regarding a landscaped median strip in the new roadway. Mrs. Fawsett then asked Mr. Abernethy if the Petitioner would consider not including the narrow strip of land between Old Dixie Highway and ~he FEC Railway. Mr. Abernpthy said in order to maintain necessary flexibility, they. are not prepared to withdraw that subje, ct narrow strip of land. They feel that leaving that strip designated as low density residential would be · nconsistent with the GMPP. adDacent residents that have no objection to the proposed devet%L~-'~ opment. Eight people raised their hands. hearAt thiSing.time, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of th~ ..ucdl ilanning Agency forward a recommendation of approval of Oz-d~nance Nee 87-96 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mrs. Flng seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Terpening said z.e did not feel he could support the petition as presented. He did not feel there is adequate residential buffering regarding the narrow strip of land between the FEC Railway and Old Dixie Highway. Mrs. Fawsett agreed with Mr. Terpening. ~4ro Carman said that residential development to the east of the railroad would probably not face the railroad, but would face in an easterly direction. He felt that the existing buffering is sufficient. Mr. Terpening said the narrow strip under discussion could still be used for storm water runoff, yet protect nearby residents from a more commercially intensive zoning° Upon roll call, Mrs. Ferrick, Mrs. King, Mr. Russakis and Mr. Carman voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Sciturro, Mrs. Fawsett and Mr. Terpening voted against the motion. Mrs. Allen abstained due to conflict of interest. This resulted in four votes in favor of the motion and three against the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioner t~hat the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Zqs. Storey informed the Board and the publicilthat Mrs. Allen would file a Conflict of Interest form with ~ihe Secretary° Lengthy discussion then followed regarding viously discussed narrow strip of land from t~on. Mr. Abernethy asked Mr. Murphy if the at issue was left 'in a residential classific. still be used as off-site water retention fo ment to the west, and if so would there be strictions because of the difference in zoni ion of the pre- rezonin~ peri- strip of land if it could commercial develop- additional_re, classifica~ions between the western and the eastern portion Mr. Murphy replied that the strip could be used for off-site ~r retention, but that all landscaping r~quirements would still hold true. At this time, Mr. Abernethy said that the Petitioner wOuld be amenable to deleting the narrow strip of !andlat issue from both the plan amendment and rezoning petitions ii. made ~n lig'ht of Staff's comme-- · ThlS:o deletion was off-site water r~^-~:-- ._ .~nts that the stirlp could be used a =~=uuxon ~n the residential d~signation, s i' ': ; '_. . .'.. . ' .' . i- Incorporating Mr. Abernethy's comments regard: legal description that describes the narrow S{ Old Dixie Highway from the change of land use Carman made a motion that Ordinance Nee 87-96i [~oard of County Commissioners with a recommen with the deletion of Parcel 3 from the petitii~ seconded the motion, and upon roll call, the [ mously in favor of the motion, with the excepl~ who abstained due to conflict of interest. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioner th, would be forwarded to ~he Board of County ~'~'u~nendation of approval with the above-mentioned .rig deletion of the :rip of land east of petition, Mr. be forwarded to the ation of approval no Mr. Russakis oard voted unani- ion of Mrs. Allen the petition s i on~ with deletion STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMM'UNITY AFFAIRS 2571 E~ECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST ~ TAt LAHASSE[, FtORIDA 32399 BOB MARTIN~Z G~er~ THOMAS G. PELHAM September 14, 1987 Honorable Jim Minix Chairman Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33482-5652 Dear Mr. Minix: ursuant to section 163.318'4, Florida'Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs has reviewed the amendments County.pr°p°sed for the Growth Management Policy Plan for St. Lucie Our review indicated that the proposed amendments met the requirements of section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, however, the amendments were not all internally consistent with the plan as required by section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes. Amendment f, which proposes to change a semi-urban commercial tourist ~ ........... area to · , ~o ~u~ appear to De int wlth. ur~an growth.policies 3 · ernalty consistent should be located'o- ~2_~_~' 83 and 84, ~n ~ha~ commercial uses · ' ~=~=~ roads or con~ro 1 ways. Internal consistenc~, ~2 ..... =__= j 1. ed access road- z ~ ~=~uzre~ Dy section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes. The proposed use for this property of a 700 unit recreational vehicle park exceeds the DRI threshold for this use. Comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council along use.with other review agencies are enclosed for your consideration and Amendments for your comprehensive plans w~ich occur after September 1987 should adhere to the requirements of section 9J- 11..014,. Florida Administrative Code. Copies of Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code, which have been mailed to all local governments become effective September 22, 1987. I:'MIERGENCY MANAGEMENT ® HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCI~ PLANNING AND MANAC, EM£NT Honorable Jim Minix September 14, 1987 Page Two If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Ralph HoOk at (904) 487-4545 or Mr. John McKirchy Senior Attorney 488-0410. ' , at WP/rhr Enclosure cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council S~ely, W°°~irector Division o~rReso~c~ Planning and Management st. lucie tfCL, Uf August 21, 1987 councll Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Con~nunity Affairs Bureau of Local Resource Planning 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, FL 32301 Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Documents Dear Mr. Hook: Pursuant to (~ne requirements of the Local Government COmprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Treasure Coast Regional Filanning Council reviewed the amendments to the St. ~e County Future Land Use Element at its regular meeting on August 21, The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal to the State Department of COmmunity Affairs pursuant to Sections 163,3184{1){c) ano {2), Florida Statutes, for consideration by the County prior to adoption of th~' document. Evaluation The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element have been reviewed n accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, ouncil's review procedures, and Council's adopted comprehensive plan. The followiny con, hen, ts are offered as a result of that review. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendments do not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Prior to the approval of the land use changes associated with Items A and B, ~he appropriate analysis should be completed demonstrating tha~ U.S. I has the available capacity to accommodate the additional highway trips. The analysis should also demonstrate that an acceptable level of service can be - maintained on U.S. 1 at buildout of the area. Also, Indian River County has expressed concerns over increased strip commercial development along U.S. I (see attached letter). Prior to approving the land use change associated with Item N, St. Lucie County should work with tile City of Port St. Lucie and Martin County to assure that all multijurisdictional transpor- tation impacts are adequately addressed {see the attached letter from Martin County). Furthermore, because this parcel is koran t. mar~s jim min~ ~228 s.~. ma~n downs b~d. ~aifman dec ~rman ~ite ~OS · p.o. box 1529 palm ci~ flo~da ~S490 ~omas g. benny, ili daniel m. ca~ ohon¢ (305) 286.3313 ~cm~/~asur:r cz¢cutiv~ director Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs August 21, 1987 Page Two adjacent to t~e North Fork of the St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve, development of this property should be consistent with the Department of Natural Resources {DNR) Management Plan for this aquatic preserve. A letter from the DNR is attached which expresses concerns over the~ possible development of a marina on this parcel. The proposed 700 Jpace Recreational Vehicle Park associated with Item F exceeds th DRI threshold. The 100 percent DRI threshold is 5uO spaces'. Because of public objections to the proposed project {see attached letters) and because regional issues have not been identified, final consideration of the proposed land use change to Commercial Tourist should, perhaps, wait until a report and recommendations can be developed that evaluate regional issues. For Item F, ~i the regional issues of concern are related to land use compati ty, the provision of services, and the impact on water res. )s. The proposed density of up to g units/acre may not be compa:ible with the surrounding agricultural land use. The 76.7 act lrcel does not seem large enough to allow this density r-and adequate buffers from noise and pesticides ...... associated wi nearby agricultural activities. Regional concerns are o warranted with regard to Water supply and sewage disposal This is especially important when recreational vehicles areb ,. lved, because an overnight visitor to the park may leave e~ several days worth of wastewater and take several days wo :h of fresh water when leaving. Finally, this site i Tenmile Creek which drains into the North Fork of the St, 'Lucie River. Depending on the design of the drainage system nd wastewa~er facilities, a development of this intensity may ha an adverse impact on the quality and quantity of water enteri the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and Aquatic Preserve If you need additional information or have any questions, please do not Daniel M. Cary ~~ Executive Director DMC:ks Attachments IN REPLY REFER TO: South Florida Water Management P..'~t ~ ~tf~c.u [~,ox '24(~80 :';301 Gun (}!ur) Road '.,V, si F'~: ,n Bec, ci~ Florida 33416--4F~80 '-~, I none (305~ 686~8800 · -!or,da WATS Ell-lO 1-800-432--20f:S District October 14, 1987 Mr. Terry L, Hess, AICP Planning Administrator St. Lucie County County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203 Ft. Pierce, Florida 334~-5652 Dear Mr. Hess: Subject: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Amendments SFWMD RF: 87-139 District staff have ~eviewed the eight proposed amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan which will be considered by the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners on December 1, 1987. Please consider the following comments related to the environmental aspects of the amendments: ~tems A~-~, C, D and E: No comment Item F: The proposal for 700 recreational vehicle (RV) sites exceeds the DRI I threshold of 500 RV s(tes. Th~s site is located just north of Ten Mile Creek. The creek floodplain and hammock located on the site appear to be intact and should be protected. / The site is also loc)ated approximately two miles east of a sludge disposal landfill which has been permitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation. If On-site water supplies are.proposed for this project, the location and any potential water quality impacts of the landfill should be carefully considered. Item G: The presence ofiisolated should be evaluated p!rior to development orders. wetlands on this site and their condition the approval of necessary rezoning or other Item H: T~e site appears to contain wetlands that are part of a larger wetland ~, as well as isolated wetlands, l~e general information provide~ indicates that the applicant propqSes to preserve two extensive wetland systems on site as well as creating new!wetland areas ... ". While this is encouraged by the District, specific comments and recommendations will be made at the time of application for a DistriCt Surface Water Management Permit. Nancy H Ro(,n JD. York Cha~rrr an - ¢'i,tnh)tton VICO Chairman - Palm City i" aru,, ? ?t,(,, Oscar M Q-¢rbln Jf Arson o Mlhan Fritz Sleln James F Garner ,h.,'h ....... Ft Mw"rs Belle Glade Fl Myers M~arn Terry L. Hess October 14, 1987 Page 2 if you have any questions regarding these comments or if I can provi additional information or assistance, please don't hesitate to call. cc- TCRPC Ralph Hook - DCA Sincerely, David B. Thatcher Development.Review Coordinator Resource Control Department ORDINANCE NO. 87-96 FILE NO. PA-8?-015 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 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY 1/4 MiLE SOUTH OF THE NORTH ST. LUC!E COUNTY LINE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WiTH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE 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: I. Pearl Goodman~ Lester D. and Betty Roth, by Agent: Neill, Griffin~ Jeffries and L~oyd presented a~etition to.amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (Commercial General) for the property described below. 2. The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency, after holding a public hearing on November 10~ 1987 of which due notice was published at least seven (7) days Prior to said hearing and all owners of property within five hundred feet (500') 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 Plan from RL (Low Dens±~y Residential Development) to CG (Commercial General) fo.r the property described below. 3. The Board held a public hearing on December 1, 1987, after publishing a notice of such hearing in t~e Fort Pierce News Tribune on November 24, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: of County 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: PARCEL ONE: Sec:ion 6, ?o~nshtp 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the mouth 165 feet of =he North one quarter of the SouCbwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter lying East of Hishway No. ! and that par: of the ~orth one half of the 01g Dixie Highway an~ U.S. High,ay No. i, less the Sou~h ]00 fee: or less ~hereof which is curren=i3 zoned CC and ~eslgnated CEL ~0: co~--ner of the North one half of the Southeast one 9~rter of the Northeast one ~r:er, run ~st along the South line :hereof 45.4 .fee= :o ~he ~st right-of-way of U.S. High,ay No. 1 and the point of/beginning. ~zn~e rum Northwe~ter!y alomg the ~: right-of-way of U.S. Higb~ay No. 1 10O feet, ~hence ~$= parallel H!g~ay, :hen~e $ou~he~:erly al~g :~ right-of-way of 01~ D~xle point of beg~nning, /e~s the ~es:e~ 300' more or-lem~ thereof (Location: on Old Dixie Highway, % mile south of une uor~h Lucie Gounty Line.) owned by Pearl Goodman~ Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, be, and the same is hereby changed from RL (Low Density Residential D ~ evemopment) to CG (Commercial General). FINDING OF CONSISTENCY. This Board specifically determines that the approved change in future land use plan is consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan. C. CHANGES TO ZONING MAP. The St. Lucie County Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the changes to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this ordinance. D. CONFLICTING 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 affect 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 affect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. Fo 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 Capitoi~ Tallahassee~ Florida,. 32304 FILING WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. The County Attorney shall send a certified copy of this ordinance .to the~ Department of Community Affairs, 2571 Executive Center Circle East, Taliahassee, Florida, 32301. 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. Jo ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Jack Krieger XX Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn XX Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner XX Commissioner Jim Minix XX Commissioner Judy Culpepper XX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 1st day of December, 1987. ATTEST: CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS- COUNTY ATTORNEY pLm ING AND ¢O ISS ON LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUI~Y, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING MINI.PI'ES NOVEMBER 10, 1987 UNOFFICIAL- ZONING APPROVAL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT= j. p. Terpening, Mabel Fawsett, Joseph Sciturro, Robert Carman, Patricia Ferrick, Jim Russakis, Patricia King, and Jo Ann Allen. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Harris - Excused due to illness. OTHERS PRESENT: Krista Storey, Assistant County Attorney; Dennis j. Murphy, Planning Administrator; Terry Hess, Planning and Zoning Director; Donna Scanlon, Assistant Planner; Laura Griggs- McElhaney, Assistant Planner; and Dolores Messer, Secretary. PRESS ATTENDANCE: Susan Burgess, Ft. Pierce News Tribune. TAPES: 1, 2, and 3. TIME: 7:0.0 P'~M. PUBLIC HEARING: Petition of Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, by Agent: N~ill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd, to amend the Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (General Commercial Development). Bruce Abernethy from the law firm of Neill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd presented the petition and offered several map exhibits as visual aids in explaining the location and purpose of the peti- tion. He explained that his client, Mr. Calvin Holland, has the subject property and the property involved in Agenda Items 2, 3 and 4 under contract to purchase, contingent upon the granting of the requested land use amendments and changes in zoning. Future plans involve the construction of a community shopping center. The petitioner wishes to extend the existing commercial depth along North U.S. #1 over to the Florida East Coast Railroad rzght-of-way on the eastern side of Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Abernethy presented a conceptual site plan for the proposed River Ridge Plaza, which will consist of approximately 175,000 sq. ft. Intentions are to draw two anchors to the shopping center and then have the remainder consist of specialty shops. Ingress and egress for the project would be from U.S. 1, and from the proposed.construction of a new ~access road along the southern side of the property' The. new road would connect U.S. i and Old Dixie Highway, and provide access to'the site from the south. Mr. Abernethy pointed out that Staff had found the request con- sistent with the County's comprehensive plan, specifically Item No. 34 and Item No. 37. These items deal with the desired locating of shopping centers near major thoroughfares due to the traffic generated from such operations. He said the location of the subject property and the petition's proposed use are in keeping with the stated policies. Mr. Abernethy also pointed out that the surroundinq ~es 9r~ for the most part commercial RS-2'~ ' "~'.'-~--~-~ or institutional use. The property to the east is zoned __-~:~;.:¢:~ (Residen%ial, Single Family - 2 du/ac) and its land use is Ku ,,.. (Low Density Residential). However, there is a 100 ft. right-o~:~ way owned by FEC Railway which separates the RS-2 zoning from the?.~ subject property. The petitioner feels that this 100 ft. right- of-way will serve as an appropriate dividing line and buffer between residential and commercial use. Mr. Abernethy then referenced Staff's findings that there are changed conditions within the general area that warrant the requested plan amendment. Northern St. Lucie County and southern Indian River County are fast-growing areas. Lakewood Park, Spanish Lakes, Vero Shores, Vero Highlands are in fairly close proximity to the proposed shopping center development. The popu- lation base within a 2.5 mile radius is a little'over 11,000, and 26,500 within a 5 mile radius. Mr. Abernethy said that Staff feels that the proposed development would not place any excessive demands on public facilities. He said that the proposed development could reduce trips required b~ residents of Lakewood Park and Spanish Lakes utilizing U.S. 1 for shopping in Ft. Pierce or Vero Beach. He further stated the possibility of residents of Vero HiGhlands and Vero Shores using Old Dixie Highway rather than U.S. 1 to access the proposed shopping development. He said that the proposed project could add approximately $200,000 for road impact fees, and in addition, have a positive impact on St. Lucie County's tax base. The proposed development would also offer employment opportunities for residents. Mr. Abernethy agreed with Staff's comments that there would not be any negative environmental impact from the subject proposal, and that the project would constitute an orderly and logical development of the area. He said that traffic concerns such as intersection improvements would be addressed during the site plan review process. Mrs. Fawsett stated her traffic safety concerns regarding the Turnpike .Feeder Road and U.S. 1 and inquired what road improve- ments could be made. Mr. Abernethy said that through discussion with staff he had determined that intersection improvements would be required of the developer. The specifics of those improve- ments would be addressed during the site plan review process. In response to questioning by Mrs. Ferrick, Mr. Abernethy said that 23 acres would be involved in the overall project. In response to questioning by Mr. Terpening, Mr. Abernethy said that the property east of Old Dixie Highway could be used as off- site water retention or as utility parking. The tract of land is very narrow and may not be practical for commercial use. Staff would have an opportunity to scrutinize use for that narrow strip of land at the time of site plan review. ~r. Jack Cahill spoke in favor of the petition stating that the proposed development would provide services for nearby St. Lucie County residents and would be of benefit to the County's tax roll. The following persons spoke in opposition to the petition~ Dan Harrell, on behalf of Rhodes Holding, stated his client's . concern regarding property under contract which lies south and east of the subject property and the uses that are along and adjacent to Old Dixie Highway. They felt concerned, in the absence of a binding site plan, about what kind of uses would be allowed immediately adjacent to Old Dixie Highway. Attorney Buck Bryan, spoke on behalf of Mr. Guy Poteat, who owns property east of the proposed project 130 acres to the east of the railroad tracks. Mr. Poteat's concern involved the diversi~5 of shopping center traffic from U.S. 1 to Old Dixie Highway wh~ a narrow road. Mr. Bryan felt the narrow strip of land lm- ~ ~ mediately~S to the west of the FEC Railroad should not be redesig~ Another conce _ .~ hated for commercial use. rn dealt with residents:°~-'- · w the back side of the snoppl~-- to the east that would have to v~e _ . center. Mr. Bryan and his client felt that a 300 ft. depth oz commercial use in this area is sufficient. In response to questioning by'Mr. Terpening regarding landscaping and buffering, Mr. Murphy replied that additional screening would be required along this east property line. Regarding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy said that Staff found the petition consistent with commercial development requirements. Access improvementS would be specifically addressed at the time of site development plan submission. Comments from the Treasure coast Regional Planning Council indicated no major objection to the proposed land use amendment, but encouraged cooperation with Indian River County to determine traffic impacts. In response to questioning by Mr. Sciturro, L ....Murphy replied 'that in addition to the proposed access corridor between U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway, there are two probable access points from this site to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Murphy said that it is likely that Staff would recommend at least one access point be designed to facilitate service movement (delivery by large trucks). Mr. Russakis stated his concern with truck traffic on Old Dixie Highway, and felt the petitioner should provide for service movement within the proposed project. Mr. Sciturro also stated his concern regarding truck traffic on Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Carman stated this same concern. Mr. Terpening said that he did not believe truck drivers who are on a time schedule would access a slower road such as Old Dixie Highway, he felt they would turn on the service road from U.S. 1 and then turn into the project. Mr. Russakis and Mr. Terpening then discussed service movement as presented in the conceptual plan. In response to questioning by Mr. Sciturro, Ms. Storey replied that regarding this petition the Board should be looking for consistency with the GMPP. She said that the level of site detail presently under discussion are probably not appropriate at this point in the process. · .......... Regarding closing remarks, Mr. Abernethy reiterated that the 100 ft. wide FEC Railway right-of-way serves as a proper dividing. line and is sufficient as a buffering zone. He felt that the residential development of Mr. Poteat's property would provide additional buffering to the west of the FEC Railway. He felt that under GMPP policies, some commercial use, limited parking, or off-site drainage is more consistent with a location abutting an active railroad track. He commented that adjacent property owners had been contacted by the Staff as well has himself. They were present at this hearing, but had not spoken in opposition to t he pet it ion. Mrs. Fawsett asked Mr. Abernethy about drainage to the east as the project is elevated higher to the west. Mr. Abernethy said those engineering concerns would be approached 'at the developmen- tal stage. Mrs. Fawsett then questioned buffering on the south side of the project. Mr. Abernethy said part of the purpose for the new roadway is to serve as a buffering zone. There had been some discussion regarding a landscaped median strip in the new roadway. Mrs. Fawsett then asked Mr. Abernethy if the petitioner would consider not including the narrow strip of land between Old Dixie Highway and the FEC Railway. Mr. Abernethy said in order to maintain necessary flexibility, they. are not prepared to withdraw that subject narrow strip of land. They feel that leaving that strip designated as low density residential would be inconsistent with the GMPP. '~.A~ Mr. RussBkis requested for a show of hands to ~ndlcate those ~ adjacent residents that have no objection to the proposed devel opment Eight people raised their hands. ~ At this time, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of th~ hearing. Considering the presentation of the petitioner and his Agent in addition to Staf~-"omments, Mr. Carman made ~-~otion that the Local Planning Agency forward a recommendatiO~ of approval of Ordinance No. 87-96 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mrs. King seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Terpening said he did not feel he could support the petition as presented. He did not feel there is adequate residential buffering regarding the narrow strip of land between the FEC Railway and Old Dixie Highway. Mrs. Fawsett agreed with Mr. Terpening. Mr. Carman said that residential development to the east of the railroad would probably not face the railroad, but would face in an easterly direction. He felt that the existing buffering is sufficient. Mr. Terpening said the narrow strip under discussion could still be used for storm water runoff, yet protect nearby residents from a more commercially intensive zoning. Upon roll call, Mrs. Ferrick, Mrs. King, Mr. Russakis and Mr. Carman voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Sciturro, Mrs. Fawsett and Mr. Terpening voted against the motion. Mrs. Allen abstained due to conflict of interest. This resulted in four votes in favor of ~ the motion and three against the motion. Chairman Terpening informed the petitioner that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Storey informed the Board and the public that Mrs. Allen would file a Conflict of Interest form with the Secretary. Lengthy discussion then followed regarding deletion of the pre- viously discussed narrow strip of land from the rezoning peti- tion. Mr. Abernethy asked Mr. Murphy if the narrow strip of land at issue was left in a residential classification, if it could still be used as off-site water retention for commercial develop- ment to the west, and if so would there be any additional re- strictions because of the difference in zoning classifications between the western and the eastern portion. Mr. Murphy replied that the strip could be used for off-site water retention, but that all landscaping r~quirements would still hold true. At this time, Mr. Abernethy said that the petitioner would be amenable to deleting the narrow strip of land at issue from both the plan amendment and rezoning petitions. This deletion was made in light of Staff's comments that the strip could be used as off-site water retention in the residential designation. Mr. Russakis made a motion to reconsider Agenda Item No. 1 (Ordi- nance No. 87-96), and Mrs. Ferrick seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion, with the excep- tion of Mrs. Allen who abstained due to conflict of interest. incorporatin~ Mr. Abernethy's comments regarding deletion of the legal description that describes the narrow strip of land east of Old Dixie Highway from the change of land use petition, Mr. Carman made a motion that Ordinance No. 87-96 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the deletion of Parcel 3 from the petition. Mr. Russakis seconded the motion, and upon roll call, the Board voted unani- mously in favor of the motion, with the exception of Mrs. Allen who abstained due to conflict of interest. · in informed the petitioner that the petition chairman Terpen g ....... ~.. Commissionm~rs with a . ed to the Boar~ oz ~uu~u~ ~ · uld be forward wo · recommendation of approval with the above-mentioned SOUTH RELIEF HAMILTON RD. .....--- DALLY TRAFFIC COUNT. North bourn3 9,91~ I South bound 9~685. TOTAL 19r598 \ (PER FLA. D.O.T.)~ \ It~DIAN RIVER COUNTY iT.LUCIE COUNTY L. akewood , Park \ VERO BEACH Holiday Pines INDRIO RD. ST. Spanish LoRes Proposed ~tOPPING CENTER \ on US I between Fort Pierce Vero Beoch TLANT/C OCEAN ST. San Lucie Plazo NOTE ~ ~,P ~)P U;_ATI 0 N WITHI~ tS !83,5~O. BOUNDarY LINE FOR PO~L~T I0 · EXISTING SHOPP[~ ~E~ FORT P/ERCE . '~"" DELAWARE AVE ECKERDS VIRGINI :0 © ill III PARCEL ONE: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the south 165 feet of the North ~ne~quarter of the Southwest ~ . one quarter of the Northeast~one quarter lying East of U.S. Highway No~ 1 an~that part of the North one h~alf of the Southeast one quarter-of the Northeast one quarter lying between Old Rixie Highwa~y and U.S. Highway No. !, less~.the South-100 feet as measured~along~-S- Highway 1 and less~the Western 300' more or less thereof which is currently zoned CG'and designated as CH in the !St.. Lucie County GMPP. PARCEL TWO: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. From the Southwest corner ~f ~he North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter, run East along the South line thereof 45.4 ~feet to theTEast right~of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1 and the point of beginning. Thence run Northwesterly along the East right-of-way of U~.S. Highway No. 1 100 feet, thence East parallel to the~South line of the North one-half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter to the West right-of-way of Old Dixie 'Highway, thence Southeasterly along the right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway to the South line of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter, thence Westerly to the point of beginning, less the Western 300' more or less thereof which is currently zoned CG and designated as CH in the St. Lucie County GMPP. PARCEL THREE: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter lying between the Westerly right-of-way for the FEC Railroad and the Easterly right~of-way of Old Dixie Highway. Blulce Abernathy, Jr. c~o Neill~,Griffin, Jeffries&L~°Yd~ p. ',70 Fl. 34954 A Pearl Goodw~n Lester Roth Betty Roth 10th St. Ft~ Fl. 33316 parcel 5 R. J. ith 6401 Rd. Ft. Fl. 34947 OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED Parcel 1; 3 & 4 Ernest Klatt P.O. Box 1477 Boynton Bch., Fl. 33435 parcel 6 Kim Alexander 1630 N.E. 55th St-. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33334 Parcel 2 Central Bank&Tr. Co. Lt. No. 59-329 36th St. at 13th Ave. N.W. Miami~ Fl. 33142 Parcel 7 Johnson Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 3809 Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34954 Mary Goodfellow Dr. Fl. 32963 parcel 9 Steven B. Cartwri9ht James P. Wart P.O. Box 31 Vero Bch., Fl. 32960 Parcel 10 George & Pia Kreissle 7947 N. TamiamiTr. Sarasota, Fl. 34243 et al. Ln. .Gdns.,F1.33410 Parcel 13 & 14 Divers Trainin9 Academy, Inc. 5595 Old Dixie Hwy. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 L5 Coast Radio Oper., Inc. U.S. 1 Fl. 34946 Parcel 16 ThelmaYarbrough, (Tr.) 6610 N. U.S. 1 Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 Parcel 17 J~zaes M. Yarbrough 6610 N. U.S. 1 Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 18 & 21 Groves, Inc. U.S. 1 · Fi. 34946 parcel 19 Jerome J. Stabile 1400 Delaware Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34950 parcel 20 & 12 Diving Lockers of Fl., Inc. c/oMarine Science Center 5595 Old Dixie Hwy. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 Parcel 22,23 & 25 Guy E. Poteat, Sr. 5945 20th St. Vero Bch., Fi. 32960 Parcel 24 & 26& 28 Hugh E. Russell Henry C. Russell P.O. Box 1236 Vero Bch., Fi. 32960 ~lroad Fi C(~st Railroad 1 . ~z. St. Fi. 32084 State Roads State_of Florida Road Dept. Road~Right-of-Way 780 S.W. 24th St. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33315 County Road St.Lucie Co. Admin. Bldg. Road Right-of-Way,Rm.208A 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 Fte 29 Paul ~ams Dixie Hwy. Fi. 34946 Parcel 30 Theresa Wilkes 6485 Old Dixie Hwy. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 Parcel 31 Matthew & Claudia Schneider 1928Wyc~ming Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 32 & 35 & Marie Schneider U.S. 1 Fi. 34946 Parcel 33 Cecil & Teresa Jenkins 6453 Old Dixie Hwy. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34946 Parcel 34 Keller park Ptners-II(B)Ltd. 9790 66th St.,N. Pinellas Park, Fl. 33565 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS November 9, 1987 DCVCLOPMCNT DIRCCTOR J..GARY AMENT In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you are hereby advised that Pearl Goodman, Lester D. Roth and Betty Roth, by Agent: Neill Griffin Jeffries and Lloyd, have petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RL (Low Density Residential Development) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: on Old Dixie Highway, 1/4 mile south of the north St. Lucie County Line.) A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 1, 1987, 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 respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearin§, 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 305, 466-1100, Extension 331. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Jacku Krieger, ~nairman FILE NO. PA-87-015 HAVERT L. FENN, District No. ~ ® JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 ® R, DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 ® JIM MINIX, District No. 5 Count/Aciministrator - WELDON B. LEWIS 2300Virginia Avenue ® Fort Pierce, FL 33482-5652 ® Phone (305) 466-t 100 Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 336 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 317 PARCEL ONE: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the south 165 f~et..~of the North one quarter of the Southwest one quarter of_the Northeast one quarter lying East of U.S. Highway No. t .and that part of th~North one half of the South~ast~one quartet of the Northeast one quarter~lying between. Old.Dixie Highway and U~S. Highway No~ 1, less the South 100 feet as~measured along U.S. Highway 1 and less the Western 300' more or less thereof which is curm~ntly zoned CG and designated as CH in the St. Lucie County GMPP. PARCEL TWO: Section 6, Township 3.4 South, Range 40 East. From the Southwest corner of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter, run East along the South line thereof 45.4 feet to the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1 and the point of beginning. Thence run Northwesterly along the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1 100 feet, thence East parallel to the, South ii'ne' of the North one-half of the~-Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter to~the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway, thence Southeasterly along the right-of-waY of Old Dixie Highway to the South line of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter, thence Westerly to the point of beginning, less the Western 300' more or less thereof which is currentlyzoned CG and designated as CH in the St. Lucie County GMPP. PARCEL THREE: Section 6, Township 34 South, Range 40 East. That part of the North one half of the Southeast one quarter of the Northeast one quarter lying between the Westerly right-of-way for the FEC Railroad and the Easterly right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway.