HomeMy WebLinkAboutCollins, Malcolm & SylviaBOARD OF COUNTY DI V LOPMI NT
0 COORDINATOR
COMMISS! N£RS J. G^ Y E.T
January 16, 1987
Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins
P. O. Box 4114
(2496 Edwards Road)
Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Collins:
Please be advised that on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, the Board
of County Commissioners granted your petition to amend the Future
Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy
Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CG (Commercial,
General) located on the north side of Edwards Road, approximately
300 feet east of South 25th Street (2496 Edwards Road).
A copy of the recorded Ordinance No. 86-82 is enclosed for your
information.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jim Minix, Chairman
JM/dcm
Enclosure
HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · E. E. GREEN, 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 33482-5652 · Phone (305)466-I 100
Coordinator: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext, 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 336 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 317
ORDINANCE NO. 86-82
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE
NOi 86-01 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2496 EDWARDS ROAD
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RM (MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO CG (COMMERCIAL,-GENERAL)
MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MA~KING THE NECESSARY
CHANGES ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY;
PROVIDING FOR ~CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILIT¥;
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:
1. "Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins presented a
petition to amend the future land use classification set forth in
the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from RM
(Medium Density Residential) to CG (Commercial, General) for the
property described below.
2. The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency, after
holding a public hearing on December 9, 1986 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 RM (Medium Density
Residential) to CG (Commercial, General) for the property
desCribed below.
3. The Board held a public hearing on ..DeCember 17, 1986,
sUch hearing in the. Fort Pierce News
Tribune on December 9 and December 10, 1986,
NOW, THEREFORE BF. IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida:
A. c._~ANGE 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:
The S 395.97 feet of the E 111.35 feet of the
W 1/2 of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section
21, Township 35 S, Range 40 E, St. Lucie
County, Florida.
Less right of way for public roads and
drainage canals.
(Located along the north side of Edwards Rd.,
approximately 300' ft. east of South 25th
st.)
owned by Malcolm C. and Sylvia Collins, be, and the same is
hereby changed from RM- (Medium Density Residential) to CG
(Commercial, General).
B. FINDING OF CONSISTENC][.
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. SEVERABILITX.
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.
F. APPLIC-ARILIT¥ OF ORDINANCE.
This ordinance shall be applicable as stated in
Paragraph A.
G. FILING WIT~ 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 WIT~ 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, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301.
OR
5 2 S £2518
I ? EFFECTIVE DATE.
ThiS ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of
official acknowledgment from the Office of Secretary of State
been filed in that office.
After motion and second, the vote on this-ordinance was
as follows:
Chairman Jim Minix Aye
Vice-Chairman Jack Krieger Aye
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner Aye
Commissioner Havert L. Fenn Aye
~Commissioner Judy Culpepper Aye
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1986.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTO dO3Z4
RM~ll R~ED
RS- q BLUE
CG GREEN
CN ORANGE
D~Ro
?ET!TION OF MALCOLM CARROLL COLLINS & SYLVIA COLLINS
TO CHANGE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM RM TO CG
RM RED
RL BLUE
C6
N
~L A :S
PETITION OF MALCOLM CARROLL COLLINS & SYLVIA COLLINg
TO CHAN6E FUTU~E LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM RM TO CG
MENORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
County ~dministrator
County Commission
Planning Administrator/~~/
December 11, 1986
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins
to Amend the Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie
County Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium
Density Residential Development) to CG (Commercial
General)
On Wedne. sday; December 17, 1986, you will be asked to
review a petition on behalf of Malcolm and Sylvia Collins to
amend the Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan from RM to CG. The petitioner is proposing
to operate a retail florist shop at 2496 EOwards Road. This
petition was presented to the St. Lucie County Local Planning
Agency for review on December 9, 1986, at which time, this Agency
voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval of this petition. In offering
this recommendation of approval, this Agency determined that the
proposed petition is consistent with the Policies and Objectives
of the St. Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan.
As required under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, County
Staff has transmitted this amendment request to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for interagency review. In com-
ments received back from the Department, some concern was
expresseO about the compatability of this petition with the
Residential Development Policies of the Growth Managemnt Policy
Plan. On September 22, 1986, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council reported that this proposed amendment did not conflict
with any regional plan or policy.
AttacheO for your review is a copy of the original staff
comments on this petition, transmitted to you on August 1, 1986,
and the most recent memorandum transmitted to the St. Lucia
County Local Planning Agency on December 2, 1986. By separate
memorandum, the County Attorney's Office will be providing for
your review a Draft Ordinance granting approval to this petition.
December 11, 1986
Page 2
Petition: Malcolm anG
-- Sylvia Collins
If you have any questions on this petition, please let me
know.
GMS/D3M/mg
COLLINS3(B3)
cc: County Attorney
Malcolm Carroll Collins
Commision Secretary
Press/Public
WEDNESDAY
AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 17, 1986
7=00 P.M.
Petition of. Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins to
amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County
Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential
Development) to CG (Commercial, General) for the following
described property:
Se~i~n m:..T~nsh!p 3~5 S, Rag, ge 40 .E_~..St.. Lqcie _.Ogunty., F.l.o.rida. _
Less right of way f6r ~ubli¢ roads and drainage canals.
(Located ~l°ng the north side of Edward~ Rd., approximately 300
ft. east of South 25th St.)
Prior--to this public hearing, ~notice of ~he same was sent to
all adjacent property owners.
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from'time to time.
~ Please note that all proceedings before the _Board of County
Commissioners are electT'onically recorded. Any person who
decides to appeal ahy action taken by the Board of County
Commissioners at this meeting will need a record of the
proceedings.' and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made.
%
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ Jim Minix, Chairman
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBOECT:
MEMORANDUM
Local Planning Agency
Planning Administrator .~~
December 2, 1986
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia
Collins to amend the Future Land Use Maps of the
.... St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan
from RM (Medium Density Residential Development)
to CG (Commercial General)
On August 7, 1986, the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners held a public hearing for the purpose of
authorizing the transmittal of this petition to the Florida
Oepartmeot of Community Affairs as required under .Chapter
16).)184, Florida Statute. As of this date, my office has not
received any return comments from theDepartment about this
petition. On September 22,. 1986, the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council held a hearing on the proposed petition, and
reported that the proposal did not conflict with any adopted
Council plans or policies.
Attachedyou will find a copy of the original staff report
on this matter. County staff has no objections to this petition
and recommmends its approval.
GMS/DOM/mg
COLLINSI(B))
cc: County Attorney
Malcolm C. and Sylvia Collins
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
-SUB3ECT:
Petition # 8
MEMORANDUM
County Administrator
County Commission
Planning Administrator
August i, 1986
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins to
Amend.the-,Future~.tand Use Maps of the St. Lucie'County
Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Residential, Medium)
to CG (Commercial, General).
LOCATION:
EXISI'~NG ZON,~NG:
North side of Edwards Road,
approximately 300 feet east of
South 25th Street.
RM311 (Resi~dential~' Multiple
Family - 11' d.u./ac)
EXISTING G.N.P.P.
PROPOSED G.N.P.P.:
RM (Residential, Medium)
CG (Commercial, General)
PROPOSED USE:
-The Petitioner is propo.stng
to operate a Retail Florist
Shop on this site.
PARCEL' SIZE:
.90 acre
SURROUNDING ZONING:
RM-11,' RS-4, CN, and CG
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
Properties' to the north and
west are vacant; to the east is
the Sherwood Acres Subdivision.
FIRE PROTECTION:
Ft. Pierce Central Fire Station
is located approximately 1 1/4
miles away.
#ATERZSE~ER SERVICE:
On site system.
CON#ENTS: County S~aff has reviewed this petition'and has determined
that it is generally consistent with the commercial locational
requirements of the Growth Management Policy Plan. In making this
determination, County Staff has taken into consideration the existing
property ownership and would advise this Board that this petition
represents the maximum eastward extension- of commercial development
Collins Pe ition
August 1, 1986
along Edwa'rds Road that can take place withobt serious adverse impact
on the residences in this area.
Although not up for consideration at this time, the
Petitioner' has filed a rezonin9 application to Commercial General for
this site.: This application will be presented to you at your November
hearings. Staff would, at this time, recommend that the Petitioner
consider amending this petition to Commercial Neighborhood, providing
a more compatable commercial designation to the adjacent homes along
Sherwood Lane.
cc: County Attorney '
Malcolm C. Collins
Press/Public
RED
.I~LtL
GREEN
21-3 -4
BOOTH DJ
ICHOLAS RD.
0
-PETITION OF HALCOLR CARROLL COLLIIIS & SYLVIA COLLINS
TO CHA'NI~E ZONIN$ DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION -
FROH R~-~ll TO C$
]),L. UE
.GREEN
ORANGE
2 35.-4.
BOOTH DR~
ICHOLAS RD.
· pETITION OF RALCOLR CARROLL COLLINS & SYLVIA COLLINS
TO .CHANGE ZOI~'I'NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION '
FROPi RM-11 TO CG
PETITION OF MALCOLM AND SYLVIA COLLINS
December 17, 1986
ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MINIX: Okay, next is a petition of Malcolm C. and Sylvia Collins for
a change in land use from RM to CG. Madam secretary, proof of
publication, please, and an excerpt from the minutes.
SECRETARY: Yes, sir. December 9, 1986. On December 9, 1986, the
Rlanning& Zoning Commission voted 5 to i to recommend that the Board
deny the rezoning petition and to consider rezoning the property to
CO, Commercial Office. (NOTE: Apparently, the secretary read the
rezoning petition instead of the land use petition.)
MINIX: Thank you. Staff?
SCHINDLER: Thank you, Commissioner Minix. As has been stated, you
have before you a petition for a change in land use from RM to CG.
The subject parcel is located on the north side of Edwards Road
approximately 300 feet east of South 25th Street. The parcel size is
approximately .9 acres. As required under Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes, County staff has transmitted this amendment request to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs for interagency review, and
in the comments received back from the department some concern was
expressed about the compatibility of this petition with the
residential development poli¢ie~ of the Growth Management Rolicy Plan.
Additionally, on September 22, 1986, the Treasure Coast Regional
Rlanning Council reported that this proposed amendment did not
conflict with any regional plan or policy.
MINIX: Thank you. Yes, representative of the Petition?
SYLVIA COLLINS: Yes, my name is Sylvia Collins, and we presently
reside at the property address. Since all the other corners seem to
be going commercial as you have so generously now allowed our neighbor
to build something there, too, we will be forced to move out of our
home there, as we really do not want to live next to an office or
whatever it's going to be - a retail office or whatever.
MINIX: You're speaking in opposition to this?
SYLVIA COLLINS: No, I'm the petitioner. I really don't feel like I
want to live there anymore, so I would want to have it for another
use. What we want to do with it is, we want to build a retail place
for flowers and plants there. We have originally petitioned the
Cou'nty Commission to change it to General Commercial, but staff has
suggested that we change it to Commercial Neighborhood since
Commercial Neighborhood now includes this use, we can do that.
MINIX: You're willing to accept Commercial Neighborhood?
SYLVIA COLLINS: Yes, sir.
MINIX: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to speak in opposition to the petition?
MACADIE: My name is Doug MacAdie, and I go along with CN.
MINIX: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in reference to
this petition, either for or against? Seeing no one, this public
hearing is closed. Any questions from the Board? The Chair will
entertain a motion.
TREFELNER: Mr. Chairman, again, this is the plan amendment, and then
the zoning is coming up?
MINIX: Right.
TREFELNER:
CULPEPPER:
I move approval of the petition by Ordinance 86-82.
Second.
MINIX: We have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance 86-82.
further discussion? Call the roll, please.
(Secretary calls roi1.)
Any
MINIX: We now a petition of Malcolm C. and Sylvia Collins for a
change in zoning from RM-11 to CN. Proof of publication, please.
SECRETARY: November 26 in the News Tribune.
MINIX: And the excerpt from the Planning & Zoning.
SECRETARY: Mr. Russakis made a motion to deny the petition with a
recommendation of CO zoning. Mrs. Fawsett seconded the motion, and
upon roll call, the Board unanimously voted in favor of the motion.
Chairman Terpening said the petition would be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation for a denial,
recommending a change from CN zoning to CO zoning.
MINIX: Thank you. Staff?
SCHINDLER: Thank you, Commissioner Minix. Staff's Original feeling
on the matter was that the CN zoning would permit the intended use of
a florist would serve as a buffer between the proposed heavier CG on
the corner and the residential neighborhood to the east. Staff still
feels that this would serve as an adequate buffer and would ask your
consideration.
MINIX: Well, now that we've done the other one CN, that's not a
problem anymore. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there
anyone who wants to speak in favor or against? (Pause) Close the
public hearing. The Chair will entertain a motion.
KRIEGER: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption Resolution 86-283.
FENN: Second.
MINIX: We have a motion and second.
the roll, please.
Any further discussion? Call
(The Secretary calls the roll.)
MINIX: Your petition has been approved with your zoning change being
to Commercial Neighborhood.
2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
"~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA'
SPECIA~ .MEETING
Date: December 17, 1986 coqvened: 7:02 p.m.
TaPes: #1 - #5 : adjourned: 2:55 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Jim Minix, Vice Chairman 3ack
Krieger, Havert L. Fenn, 3udy Cuipepper, R. Oaie Trefelner
Others Present: Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney, 3. Gary Ament,
Community Deveiopment Coordinator, Gary SchindIer, Planning
Administrator, Theresse du Bouchet, DePuty Clerk
12.' PETITION OF MALCOLM C. AND SYLVIA COLLINS FOR A CHANGE IN
LANDUS~ F~-~'M RM Tb CG (5---'~'812)'~, ~
Sylvia Collins appeared before th~ Board to request approval of
the proposed Change in land use f~m~. RM to CG.
It was mo~ed by Com. Trefelner, 8~conded by Com. Cuipepper, to
adopt OrdlnanPe No. 86-82 amendiR~'{he St. Lucie County Growth
Management Poiicy Plan, Ordinance~86-OI by changing the Iand use
designatiog of the property located at 2496 Edwards Road from RM
(medium density residentiai) to CG (commercial general) making
findings; "'providing for making the necessary changes on the
official zoning map of St. Lucie COunty; and, upon roll cai1,
motion unanimousiy carried.
2571
STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
OF FLORl ° urc II P:9 t2: 7
COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST - TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
BOB GRAHAM
Governor
TOM LEWIS, Ill.
S~cretary
November 12, 1986
The Honorable Havert L. Fenn
Chairman
St. Lucie County Board of
Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 33482-5652
Dear Commissioner Fenn:
Pursuant to. section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, the Department
of Community Affairs ~has conducted a review of the proposed amend-
ments to the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan.
Our review indicated that the August 11, 1986, proposed plan
amendments were generally consistent with the statutory requirements
except as noted in the attached comments. The Department believes
the County should continue to monitor the cumulative impact of such
plan amendments to ensure the internal consistency of the adopted
Growth Management Policy Plan pursuant to s.163.3177(2), Florida
Statutes. Additional comments from the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners have been attached for your review and possible use
during the comprehensive plan amendment process.
Once the adoption process is complete, the Department
requests a copy of the amended comprehensive plan as required by
s.163.'3187(3),--Florida Statutes.
~OM ~DIS. PR. __PKS. mY.H.
__AG. __ENG. ~PERS. ~FIN.
~APT. ~LANDFL. __PUR. mAPPR.
/~"~1TY. __LIB. 'REC. ~CLER~
~911 __MI. ADM. __ ROAD __COLL
~COM. SEC. ~MT. CO. ~SERV.
__ DATA __ NiT. CTH$. __ V.A. __$HER.
,~--"1~'¥. __ MO.gQ. __ WELF.
OTHER
EMERGE NCY MANAGEMEN lNG
AND COMMUNITY DrwFLOPMENT · RESOURC[: PLANNIN' ,t? MANAGEMENT
Mr. Havert L. Fenn
November 12,. 1986
Page Two
Please contact Mr. Lenwood Herron at 904/487-4545 if we can
be of further assistance regarding these comments.
RFK/lhr
Sincerely,
Robert F. Kessler, Chief
Bureau of Local Resource
Planning
Enclosures
cc.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS
TO THE ST LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN
Petition #6
The petition of William Carpenter to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to medium residential appears to be
inconsistent with the residential development and agricultural
development policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan on
pages 29 and 33.
Petition #7
The petition of Laura Hancock {o amend the FutUre Land Use map
from medium residential tb commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the residential development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition
The petition of Malcolm and Sylvia CollinS,.to amendthe Future
Land Use map from medium residential to cgmmerCial ~eneral
appears to be inconsistent with the residential development
policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition #10
T~he petition of Terrance~Mack to amend the Future Land Use map
from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the commercial development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 30.
Petition #12
The petition of Rose Baukmer to amend the Future Land Use map
from low residential and commercial general to light industrial
appears to be inconsistent With the residential development and
industrial development policies of the Growth Management Pol%cy
Plan on pages 29 and 32.
Petition #13
The petition of Potter and Cleghorn to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with .the residential development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition #14
Local approval of the H. F. Martek, Jr., project should be
deferred until specific impact issues have been sufficiently
resolved under the Development of Regional Impact Process
pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes. It should be noted
that this project exceeds 80% of the 1,000 dwelling units thresh-
old for St. Lucie County. Therefore, the applicant should
contact the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource
Management for guidance on the DRI process.
Petition %17
The petition of the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use map from light
industrial to medium residential appears to be inconsistent with
the residential development policies of the Growth Management
Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition #19
Local approval of the Minton. et al projec~ should be deferred
until specific impact issues have been sufficiently resolved
under the Development of Regional Impact process pursuant to
section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The applicant should contact
the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource Manage-
ment for guidance on the DRI process.
Petition #20
The petition of Dorothy L. Foster to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the commercial development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 30.
Petition #21
Local approval of the Strazzulla Brothers Company, Inc., and ~John
B. Culverhouse et al should be deferred until specific impact
issues have been sufficiently resolved under the Development of
Regional Impact process pursuant to section 380.06, Florida
Statutes. The applicant should contact the Department of
Community Affairs, Bureau of ReSource Manag6ment for guidance On
the DRI process.
st. luci¢
CO0..(!
,,' '.C.,~,_ :: '.. ,......
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Resource Planninq
2571 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Subject: 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
lreasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed the amendments to the St.
Lucie County land use element at its regular meeting on Sepi~ember 22, 1986.
The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal to the
State Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Sections 163.3184(1)(c)
and (2), Florida Statutes, for consideration by the County prior to
adoption of the document.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element have been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
Council's review procedures, and Counci]'s adopted plans and policies. The
following comments are offered as a result of that r~view.
The proposed amendments are not in conflict or inconsistent with
adopted Council plans or policies. Proposals to convert large
tracts of agricultural lands to semi-urban uses (e.g., Item 20)
are of some concern, however, and should not be considered prior
to a comprehensive reevaluatien of the County's goals and
objectives for the entire area (see attached letter).
Prior to the approval of the land use amendments, the proposed
changes should be tested aoainst the St. Lucie County
transportation model, to assure that the affected roadways can
accommodate the more intense land uses.
Council supports the efforts of St. Lucie County and the School
Board of St. Lucie County {see the at~ached letter) in improving
educational opportunities through-the use of d~dications and
impact fees as discussed in the amendment request.
6_20 s. dixie hiqh.~o¥
Ot~onc {305) 2BC,-~313
.il, C,,; r~, .:,
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Page two
September 23, 1986
The property described by Item 1 is close to the sites of the
Treasure Coast Square Mall and the proposed Vista Plantation
development in Martin County. The ability of U.S. 1 to
accommodate additional traffic generated by Item 1 must be
ensured. Adequate right-of-way should be dedicated for future
expansion of the roadway network prior to the development of this
parcel.
Considering the proximity of Item 16 to the St. Lucie County
Airport, the current land use designation of Lioht Industrial may
be more appropriate than the proposed Residential land use
designation. Consideration should be given to plans for future
expansion of the airport facilities and increased levels of air
traffic, as well as noise and safetyJissues.
The property described by Item 18 contains many .~acres of
wetlands known as the Northern Savannas.-~ Care should be taken
to minimize the impacts of any development on this
environmentally sensitive area.
The property d~scribed by Item 20 is located on the border of
Indian River County and is near the interface of the St. Johns
River Water Management District and South Florida Water
Management District. Since a development of such size in this
location may have far reaching impacts, it is recommended that
the land use amendment not be approved until both St. Lucie
County and Indian River County aqree that such an action would
not adveKsely affect the ability of pither county to realize
growth management and planning objectives. A primary concern is
the relationship of the project with the existing
urban/agricultural boundary. Development of the property as
residential may create compatibility problems with existing
agricultural development. Prior to considering any change in
land use, the County should Carefully consider its long range
plans for this area, provision of infrastructure and services,,
and the impacts of residential development on agricultural
activities in the area. Addit)onally, a project of the size of
this proposal would be a DRI. Final consideration of the
proposed land use change should, perhaps, wait until a report
and recommendations can be developed that' evaluate regional
issues.
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Page three
September 23, 1986
If you need additional information or have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me.
.Sincerely;
Daniel M. Cary
Executive Director
DMC:lg
Attachments
PROPOSED
LAND USE AMENDMENTS FOR ST. LUCIE
COUNTY
ITEM AIRES
CURRENT DESIGNATION
PROPOSED DESIGNATION
1 9.2
2 18.0
3 37.5
4 3.0
5 23.1
6 1.5
7 0.9
8 1.5
9 17.6
10 30.5
11 4.4
12 0.7
13 278.0
14 32.5
15 37.5
16 52.5
17 0.3
18 760.0
19 2.3
20 5,643.0
Residential, Low
Residential, Low
Residential, Low
Residential, Low
Res i denti a 1 ,~ L ow
Residential, Medium
Residential, Medium
Commerci al, General
Residential, Low
Semi -Urban
Residential, Low
Commercial, General
Residential, Low
Agricultural, Productive
Semi -Urban
Semi -Urban
Industrial, Light
Residential, Low
Semi -Urban
Residential,
Agricultural,
L ow
Producti v.e
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Residential, Medium
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Residential, Medium
Commercial, Tourist
Resid6~tial, Low
Industrial, Light
Commercial, General
Residential, Low
Industrial, Light
Industrial, Light
Residential, Medium
Residential, Medium
Industrial, Light
Commercial, General
Semi-Urban
BOA'J.L ~.,~) OF COUNTY COMMISSIO:~'~i~ t,;RS
1840 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32960
Telephone (305) 567-8000
~ep~ember 9, 1986
Mr. Peter G. Merritt
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
620 South Dixie Highway
Stuart, FL 33495
RE:
Land Use Amendment for St. Lucie
County - Falcon Ridge
Suncom Telepflone: 42,4-I011
Dear Mr Merritt: ?~'~'~'"~0 ~'~
Indian River County staff has revieWed the petition of the
Strazzulla Brothers Company, Inc. and John B. Culverhouse etal to
amend the future land use maps of the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricult.ural) to~SU (Semi-Urban)
for the above referenced project. At this time ~taff's comments
are as follows: "
!)
~The proposed project land use designation (SU Semi-Urban at
one unit per acre) is not compatible with Indian River
County's Land Use Plan (Agriculture at one unit per five
acres). The existing parcels in the surrounding area are
currently in agricultural production, until such time that
the necessary urban services become available and th~
surrounding area infills with urban development, staff
believes that this project would create "leap-frog" develop-
ment and would be premature.
2) Staff has concerns regarding traffic impacts to local roads
entering into Indian River County that could result as the
project develops to its maximum buildout.capacity.
Please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners has not
considered these comments, however, upon direction from the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, staff will present this
issue to the Board for their deliberation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope that our
concerns can be addressed in the applicant's response. If you
have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 567-8000, ext. 247.
Sincerely, ~
._.~. ~ o ~C._~¢~L ~- ..
Art Chal lacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
Rober% Keating, AICP
Tommy Thomas
Jim Davis
Mike Orr
Mike Miller
Richard Shearer
Stan Boling
2571
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST · TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
32399
BOB GRAHAM
Governor
November 12, 1986
TOMLE~S, JR.
Secr~a~
The Honorable Havert L. Fenn
Chairman -
St. Lucie County Board of
Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 33482-5652
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
Dear Commissioner Fenn:
Pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, the Department
of Community Affairs has conducted a review of the proposed amend-
ments to the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan.
Our review indicated that the August 11, 1986, proposed plan
amendments were generally consistent with the statutory requirements
except as noted in the attached comments. The Department believes
the County should continue to monitor the cumulative impact of such
plan amendments to ensure the internal consistency of the adopted
Growth Management Policy Plan pursuant to s.163.317712), Florida
Statutes. Additional comments from the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners have been attached for your review and possible use
during the comprehensive plan amendment-process.
Once the adoption process is complete, the Department
requests a copy of the amended comprehensive plan as required by
s.163.3187(3), Florida Statutes.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DF~'FLOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNIN~ ~l? MANAGEMENT
Mr. Havert L. Fenn
November 12, 1986
Page Two
Please contact Mr. Lenwood Herren at 904/487-4545.if we can
be of further assistance regarding these comments.
RFK/lhr
Sincerely,
Robert F. Kessler, ~Chief
Bureau of Local Resource
Planning
Enclosures
TreasUre` c0as%-Regional Planni'ng co~i1
cc-o
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS
TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN
Petition #6
The petition of William Carpenter to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to medium residential appears to be
inconsistent with the residential development and agricultural
development policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan on
pages 29 and 33.
Petition #7
The petition of Laura Hancock to amend the Future Lan~ Use map
from medium residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the residential development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition
The petition of Malcolm'and Sylvia C011i~k to amend the Future
Land Use map from medium residential to commercial general
appears to be inconsistent with the residential development
policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition ~10
The petition of Terrance Mack to amend the Future Land Use map
from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the commercial development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 30.
Petition #12
The petition of Rose Baukmer to amend the Future Land Use map
from low residential and commercial general to light industrial
appears to be inconsistent with the residential development and
industrial development policies of the Growth Management Pol%cy
Plan on pages 29 and 32.
Petition #13
The petition of Potter and Cleghorn to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the residential development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition #14
Local approval of the H. F. Martek, Jr., project should be
deferred until specific impact issues have been sufficiently
resolved under the Development of Regional Impact Process
pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes. It should be noted
that this project'exceeds 80% of the 1,000 dwelling units thresh-
old for St. Lucie County. Therefore, the applicant should
contact the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource
Management for guidance on the DRI process.
Petition #17
The petition of the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use map from light
industrial to medium residential appears to be inconsistent with
the residential development policies of the Growth Management
Policy Plan on page 29.
Petition #19
Local approval of the Minton et al project should be deferred
until specific impact issues have been sufficiently resolved
under.the Development of Regional Impact~process pursuant to
section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The applicant should contact
the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource Manage-
ment for guidance on the DRI process.
Petition 920
The petition'of Dorothy L. Foster to amend the Future Land Use
map from low residential to commercial general appears to be
inconsistent with the commercial development policies of the
Growth Management Policy Plan on page 30.
Petition #21
Local approval of the Strazzulla Brothers Company, Inc., and ,John
B. Cu.lverhouse et al should bedeferred until specific impact
issues have been sufficiently resolved under the Development of
Regional Impact process pursuant to section 380.06, Florida
Statutes. The applicant should contact the Department of
Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource Management for guidance on
the DRI process.
st. luci
September 23, 1986
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Resource Planninq
2571 Executive CentPr Circ)e, East
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive P)an Documents
Dear Mr. Hook:
Pursuant to the requqrements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Requlation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,'the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed the amendments to the St.
Lucie County land use element at its regular meeting on September 22, 1986.
The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal to the
State_ Department of Community Affairs. pursuant to Sections 163.3184(1)(c)
and (2), Florida Statutes, for consideration by the County prior to
adoption of the document.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element have been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of Chaoter 163, Florida Statutes,
Council's review procedures, and CoUncil's adopted plans and policies. The
-following comments are offered as a result of 'that r~view.
The proposed amendments are not in conflict or inconsistent with
adopted Council plans or policies. Proposals to convert large
tracts of agricultural lands to semi-urban uses (e.g., Item 20)
are of some concern, however, and should not be considered prior
to a comprehensive reevaluation of the County's goals and
objectives for the entire area (see attached letter).
Prior to the approval of the land use amendments, the proposed
changes should be tested aoainst the St. Lucie County
transportation model, to assure that the affected roadways can
accommodate the more intense land uses.
Council supports the efforts of St. Lucie County and the School
Board of St. Lucie County {see the attached letter) in improving
educational opportunities through the use of dmdications and
impact fees as discussed in the amendment request.
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Page two
September 23, 1986
The property described by Item 1 is close to the sites of the
Treasure Coast Square Mall and the proposed Vista Plantation
development in Martin County. The ability of U.S. 1 to
accommodate additional traffic generated by Item 1 must be
ensured. Adequate right-of-way should be dedicated for future
expansion of the roadway network prior to th~ development of this
parcel. "
Considering the proximity of Item 16 to the St. Lucie County
Airport, the current land use designation of Liaht Industrial may
be more appropriate than the proposed Residential land use
designation. Consideration should be given to plans for future
expansion of t~e airport facilities and increased levels of air
traffic, as well as noise and safety issues.
The property described by Item 18 contains many acres of
wetlands known as the Nor£hern Savannas. Care should be taken
to minimize the impacts of any development on this
environmentally sensitive area.
The property dmscribed by Item 20 is located on the border of
Indian River County and is near the interface of the St. Johns
River Water Management District and South Florida Water
Management District. Since a development ~of such size in this
location may have far reaching impacts, it is recommended that
the land use amendment not be approved until both St. Lucie
County"and Indian River County aqree that such an action would
not adversely affect the ability of ~ither county to realize
growth management and planning objectives. A primary concern is
the relationship of the project with the existing
urban/agricultural boundary. Development of the property as
residential may create compatibility problems with existing
agricultural development. Prior to considering any chanae in
land use, the County should carefully consider its long ~ange
plans for this area, provision of infrastructure and servi'ces,.
and the impacts of residential development on agricultural
activities in the area. Additionally, a project of the size of
this proposal would be a DRI. Final consideration of the
proposed land use change should, perhaps, wait until a report
and recommendations can be developed that evaluate regional
issues.
Mr. Ralph K, Hook
Page three
September 23, 1986
If you need additional infOrmation or have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely~ /y
-- .:....~/.. /
Danie~ M. Cary
Executive Director
DMC:lg
....... Attachments
PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENTS FOR ST. L UCIE COUNTY
ITEM
ACRES CURRENT DESIGNATION
1 9.2
2 18.0
3 37.5
4 3.O
5 23.1
6 1.5
7 0.9
8 1.5
9 17.6
10 30.5
11 4.4
12 0.7
13 278.0
14 32.5
15 37.5
16 52.5
17 0.3
18 760.0
2.3
20 5,643.0
PROPOSED DESIGNATION
Residential, Low
Residential, kow
Residential, Low
Residential, Low
Residential, Low
Residential, Medium
Residential, Medium
Commercial, General
Residential, Low
Semi -U rb an
Residential, Low
Commercial, General
Residential, Low
Agricultural, Productive
Semi -Urban
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Residential, Medium
Commercial, General
Commercial, General
Residential', Medium
Commercial,'--Tourist
Residential, Low
Industrial, Light
Commercial, General
Residential, Low
Industrial, Light
Semi-UrBan ..................... Industrial, Light
Industrial, Light
Residential, Low
Semi-Urban
Residential,
Agricultural,
Low
Productive
Residential, Medium
Residential, Medium
Industrial, Light
Commercial, General
Semi-Urban
BO,..~.~,D OF CO UNTY COMMISSIC..~ERS
1840 2$th Street. Veto Beach. Florida 32960
Telephone ($05) 567-8000
September 9, 1986
Mr. Peter G. Merritt
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
620 South Dixie Highway
Stuart, FL 33495
RE:
Land Use Amendment for St. Lucie
County - Falcon Ridge
Suncom Telephone 424-10tl
Dear Mr Merritt: ?'~..'_ ;':'~-- .-,---.
Indlan Rlver County staff has reviewed' the ~etltion of the
Stra~-~.ulla 9rothers Company, Inc. and ~ohn ~. Culverhouse eta1 to
amend the future land use-maps of the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan from AG (Agricultural) to SU (Semi-Urban)
for the above referenced project. At this time staff's comments
are as follows:
!) The proposed project land use designation (SU Semi-Urban at
one unit per acre) is not compatible with Indian River
County's Land Use Plan (Agriculture at one unit per five
acres). The existing parcels in the surrounding area are
currently in agricultural produCtion. Until such time that
the necessary urban services become available and th~
surrounding area infills with urban development, staff
believes that this project would create "leap-frog" develop-
ment and would be ~emature. .
2) Staff has concerns regarding traffic impacts to local roads
entering into Indian River County that could result as the
project develops to its maximum buildout.capacity.
Please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners has not
considered these comments, however, upon direction from the
Treasure Co&st Regional Planning Council, staff will present this
issue to the Board for their deliberation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope that our
concerns can be addressed in the applicant's response. If you
have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 567-8000, ext. 247.
Sincerely,
Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
CC:
Rober% Keating, AICP
Tommy Thomas
Jim Davis
Mike Orr
Mike Miller
Richard Shearer
Stan Boling
WEDNESDAY
AGENDA - BOARD ~F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 17, 1986
7:00 P.M.
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins to
amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County
Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential
Development) to CG (Commercial, General) for the following
described property:
The S 395.97 feet of the E 111.35 feet of the W % of the W % 6f, th~SW, % of
Section 2~., .T~. sh%P 35 s,. Ra~.ge. 40 E,_ St. Lucie .County~ Florida..
Less right of way for uublic roads and drainage canals.
(Located along the north side of Edwards Rd., approximately 300
ft. east of South 25th St.)
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners.
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from time to time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of CounTy
Commissioners are electronically recorded. Any person who
decides to appeal any action taken by the Board of County
Commissioners at this meeting will need a record of the
proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ Jim Minix, Chairman
PROPERTY OWNERS IN PETITIONED AREA
llAll
Malcolm & Sylvia Collins
2496 Edwards Road
P. O. Box 4114
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33448
OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED
Parcel 1
Maryl M. Hauck
2527 Botany Avenue
Sarasota, FI. 33580
Parcel 2
William C. Reeves
914 Seagr~pe Lane
Vero Beach, Fi. 32963
Parcel 3
W. R. McCain
P. O. Box 456
Fort Pierce, Fi. 3345~
Parcel 4
Paul and Anna Melzer
P. O. Box 1042
Fort Pierce, FI. 33454
Parcel 5
Harold R. Runte
1037 Gramdview Blvd
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Parcel 6
Francis & Ann Dukett
2109 W. Booth Drive
Fort Pierce, FI. 33482
Parcel 7
Betty C. Vechnak
2919 Nicholas Road
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Parcel 8
Light and Life Fellowship, Inc
C/O Church of the Redeemer
P. O. Box t175
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33454
Parcel 9
S. J. & Carine Perdomo
2210 Edwards Road
Fort Pierce, Fll 33482
Parcel I0 & 11
Robert H.. Spain, Etal
S. Australiam'Avemue
Palm ~each, Fl. 33402
Parcel 12
Adolph War~ksa
3051S. 25~h Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Sherwood Ac'Unit 1, S/D Lot 1
Drew & Barbara Hendry
2930 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 2
William & Mae Hatcher
2928 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Lot 3
Michael & Lill~.a~ Goldberg
2926 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pi~rce, Fi. 33482
Lot 4
Barbara F. Turner
P. O. Box 2266
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33454
Lot 5
Thomas & Louise Deal
2922 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 6
Robert & Linda Arthur
2920 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 7
Carl & Helen Hicks
2918 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 8
Claudia Miller Hampton
Rt 4, Box 123 Jorgensen Rd
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 9
Burgess & Marion Meadows
1501 Coronado Avenue
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 10
Ronald & Amy James
2912 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Lot 11
William & LeeAnn Ward
2910 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 22
Clyde & Mary Sylvester
3112 River Drive
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33450
Lot 23
Elizabeth Johnson
2913 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, 33482
Lot 24
Frank & Margaret JoneS5
2915 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Lot .25
Thomas & Doris Jay
2917 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 26
Stanley & Betty Bracken
2919 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 27
MaryS. Moore
2921 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Lot 28
George & Helen Maxwell
2923 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, FI. 33482
Lot 29
Virginia F. Starling
2925 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 30
Thomas & Patti.cia Donovan
2'927 Sherwood Land
Fort Piercg~ Fl. 33482
Lot 31
Thomas & Delores Zades
2929 Sherwood Lane
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Lot 32
Shirley A. Blanton
1705 S. 28th Street
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33450
Edgewood AC S/D, Blk 1 Lot 1
Shop & Go, Inc.
P. O. Box 428
Mango, Fl. 33550
Lot 10 & 11
Arnold E. Ferris
26 North Street
Bedford Hills, N. Y. 10507
Lot 2 & 3
Roy & Sarah Cooper
3076 S. 25th Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 12 & 13
Maria Beke
3107 S. 24th Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 9
Phyllis Brooker
3101S. 24th Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Block 2, Lot 1
Margaret G. McSween
2303 Edwards Road
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 2
Anita M. Deleo
3102 S. 24th Street
Fort Pierce, Fl. 33482
Col. HD GoForth S/D Blk 1,
Lot 1 & 2 & 24 & 25
Hershal & Mildred Staggs
2209 S. Edwards Road
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 3
Helen E. McSween
3105 S. 23rd Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 3
Ernest & Betty Caldwell
1235 Adam Street
Vermilion, Ohio 44089
Lot 4
Katherine Strickland
3109 S. 23rd Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 4
Paul & Muriel DeFillipo
2203 S. Edwards Road
Fort Pierce, Fl. 3348Z
Lot 6 & 7
Jack & Irene Kandell
1708 Ponce De Leon Prado
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
Lot 8 & 9
Edward & Willie Jones
3107 S. 22nd Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33450
Lot 22 & 23
James & Nellie DeFonzo,Etal
3108 S. 23rd Street
Fort Pierce, Fi. 33482
BOARD OF COUNTY ' D V LOPM NT
COMMISSION£RS C O0 R D I NATO R
J. GARY AMENT
December 9, 1986
In compliance with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Zoning
Ordinance you are hereby advised that Malcolm Carroll Collins and
Sylvia Collins have petitioned the Board of County Commissioners
to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie
County Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density
Residential Development) to CG (Commercial Gen
_f°~lowln~ described property: · eral) for the
'Re SI 395.97 feet of
~' .~ ~.~ reef o~ the W % of the W % 6f the SW % of
Less right of way for public roads and drainage canals.
(Located along the north side of Edwards Rd., approximately 300
ft. east of South 25th St.)
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on
this petition at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 17. 1986, in
Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, ~300 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 Boar .
Commissioners of St Luci ......... - d of County
- = ~uu ~y, ~±ori~a are
recorded An~- ~erson .... ~ · , electronically
· ~ ~
the Pp 1 any actmon taken by
Board of County Commissioners at this meeting will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to
ensure that a verbatim record 6f the proceedings is made. If it
becomes necessary, these publid hearings may be continued from
time to time.
This notice is being sent to all adjacent property owners.
you should have any questions, additional information may be
obtained by calling Area Code 305, 466-1100, Extension 359.
Sincerely,
If
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUC~UN3Y' FLORIDA
Jim Minix, Chairman
dcm
HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I ® E. E. GREEN, District No. 2 · .1ACK KRIEGER, District No.,3 · R. D,4LE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MIND(, District No. 5
County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 33482-5652 · Phone (305) 466-t 100
Coordinator: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ex~. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 336 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 317
PETITI~ OF M~LCOLN CARRE COLLI,NS ~ SYLVIA C§LLINS
PLANNI~ AND ZOI~I~ C~ISSION
12/9/86
TERPENING: The next application is that of Sylvia Collins Plan
Amendment from RM-11 to Commercial General. Is the applicant or t'helr
representative here, please?
SYLVIA COLLINS: Yes, my name is Sylvia Collins and I live by parcel 7
on this same map. Now, I know that all these people that have talkeo
before for the Other application are going to have the'same objections
to this application, and I would llke to clarify some points. We have
at a prior County Commission meeting lnOicated that we are wllling to
change thls application to Commercial Neignbornooo. We intend to nave
a retall florist shop anU garden supplies there. At the tlme we filed
the petition, your Commercial Neighborhood did not allow for tn~s. It
nas been cnanged since then and will allow us to operate this under
the new allowed uses of Commercial Nelghbornooo. Talklng to other
people at Sherwood Lane, I agree with them; their homes are definitely
suitable to llve ln; I doubt a little bit about my nome because what
they actually have right now is homes that border on vacant property.
Our property only nas a house in the front of the property. All our
property in the back ls vacant and certainly, I live on a one-way
street with a dead end - oh, it's not a one-way street, but it's a
street with a dead eno - and it's suitable to live there. But, since
now, and I hate the 7EIeven just as much, I just don't want to live
there as a nome anymore, and I really don't think it is suitable, not
this particular piece of property. And rlgnt now I would De allowed
to builO on our particular property ten units, the other ones can
builO eleven per acre, ano I think they should take into consloeratlon
that they are not talking aboUt borOering vacant property all the
time.
TERPENING:
applicant:
General?
Tnan.k you, Mrs. Collins. A question that I have of the
Are you requesting that you De moved Oown from Commercial
SYLVIA COLLINS:
to that effect.
Yes, I 0o.
I nave already sent Mr. Murphy a letter
TERPENING: Mr. Murphy, on the land use amendment, woulO this affect
tne land use amendment petition~
MURPHY: The request to Oown-zone to Neighborhood Commercial?
TERRENING: Yes.
MURPHY: No.
TERPENING: It w. ould affect the rezoning petition?
MURPHY: The rezoning petition reflects the amenOment request to
NeigqUornooO Commercial·
TERPENING: Right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone to speak in opposition
of this petition, or aOd aOditlonal comments? Yes, sir. For the
recoro, woulo you state your name please, because this is on the tape.
COOPER: My name is Roy Cooper, and I live on 3076 South 25tn Street,
lots 2, 3, and 4. I would just like to acc a few more comments to
those that I've already mace. Golng to business and navlng businesses
there, those dear peopie wiII stiI1 nave the same probiems that I nave
when your trash truck comes in the morning to pick up the trash
between 4:30 ano 5:00 they're going to wake you up. This joker got
real exuberant one morning and got me up at 3:00. The traffic, as
you've already been tolo, is very, very baO. If you think I'm
kiOOing, come to my house one cay and I'll give you Oougnnuts and
coffee between about 7:00, anO you'lI see traffic, backeo up from
EOwarOs Roao over the raiiroao track. It's very bad. So, I think we
need to keep our traffic Oown. Ano another thing that I've noticeO
that amazes me quite a bit, too is that some of these people come up
asking for rezoning and change, ~nO yet they have no complete plans on
what they're going to 0o. So, I can't see where they know exactly
what they're going to Od anO now they expect you to make an
intelligent Oecision on your recommenOation, and I want to thank you
laoies anO you gentlemen for this thankless job that you have in these
snort hours that you spend. Thank you very much.
TERPENING: Thank you. Mr. Meaoows?
BURGESS MEADOWS: Restating my name, I'm Burgess Meadows and I own the
property at 2914 Sherwood Lane. My Oaugnter and my granOOaugnter live
there. For the same reasons that I stated on the previous thing, this
is a creeping thing, as you Od one, then the person nextooor wants
and then the next one wants his and it just continues on. It seems
that those people who are already there should nave some rights in the
thing. So, I would ask you to vote against this. Thank you.
TERPENING: Thank -you, Mr. Meaoows. Any aOOitional...yes, Mr. Deal?
TOM DEAL: Tom Deal. 2922 Snerwooo Lane. I almost feel like I'm
wasting my time here, because, you know, 25tn Street should be a 12-
lane highway and we neeo lot 4 and A there probably to be turning
lanes anyway eventually. I really don't blame her, because you know,
after we put the office building or whatever we're golng to put on the
corner, you know, she's got a valuable piece of property and I assure
you, you know my property's not worth a neck of a lot, but I will be
able to sell it sometime I hope. Because what you're Oolng ls, you're
movlng me out of the neighborhood, SO I request that you deny this.
TERPENING: Thank you, slr. Yes, slr?
FRANK WARD: My name, agaln, ls Frank Ward. Tnls is the first time
I've been to one of
these meetings, but T'm almost becoming convinced
that Sherwood Lane is not going[ to be fit to live on. This EOwaros
Road - I've talked about the vs~cant lot 32. If we .change it all
across, I've already made those tatements. We'll be locked in. How
about the people on lots 31 anO 29, when they OoO't like tnls?
Evidently, the whole thing st~rrteo When we got the nice little
whatever it ~s, the gas station, and the convenience fOOd store.
Then 4 there was no ~onger Oesirable so we make it Oesirable for
something else. I'll make thLs very brief. Now A is no longer
desirable. I just wonOer what will be undesirable next. You're
getting pretty close to my house too. Thank you.
TERPENING: Thank you. Yes, slr?
GEORGE MAXWELL: My name is George Maxwell. I 1lye on Sherwood Lane.
~ was here previously on the Other parcel there that they wanted to
change to Commercial. I think ~hat thls goes right ~ack to what we
stated before ano all the other testimony here that this A would
the only Commercial piece of property in the whole Sherwood Lane and
can't see destroying a whole neighborhood for one little plece of
p~operty on the corner. T can't see it, and I think that's what we've
been Ooing; and 11kc I salO before, you'd be openlng the odor to
of them ano the whole area there of A anO back to the north, it would
be declared Commercial too sooner or later, and Loro knows what you'd
get in there if you changed the zonlng on it Yes, that's my
opposition to it. '
TERPENING: T~ank you, sir.
ROBERT ARTHUR: (blank space in the tape here) I heard a comment from
this Commission tnls evenlhg that property owners snoulo expect
CommerciaI growth on busy streets ano I think, because I'm getting s°
tireO, I'o like to suggest if that's true that we ought to Od it ali
at once anO not waste all of our time. I really mean that; I think
that's a serious comment to near from this Commission, anO I object to
that as well as this request this evening. Thank you.
TERPENING: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who wishes to speak in
opposition of the petition? Does the applicant naviog any closing
statements?
SYLVIA COLLINS: Ali I can say really is that I certainly agree with
all of these people, and if they are saying that they will probably
nave to leave their homes, .that is exactly what I'm going to Od,
because I'm forceO just as well as they are - they're just going ~o be
the next ones. I nave an office builOing next to my resiOence where I
am still living now, anO then I will be forced to move anO they will
probably De forceO to move, too. When we bought the house, there
wasn't much traffic on EOwarOs RoaO. But there is so much traffic
now, but that's the way the county grows, there's nothing that can be
done about it.
TERPENING: Thank you. Mrs. Ferrick, I believe yeu nave a question9
FERRICK: Yes. On your property, you're saying that you want to put a
florist shop in there. Have you a commitment for purchase for tnis
particular type of venture on that corner?
COLLINS: We are not going to sell the property. We are going to keep
the property. We are going to use the house that is presently on
there to use it as a florist sn.op. And we nave about an acre of land
in the back, of which we're going to use to...well, nave plants anO
things like that.
TERPENING: Thank you. Mr. Russakis?
RUSSAKIS: How long nave you owned the property?
COLLINS: Slnce i980.
RUSSAKIS: Thank you.
TERPENING: Any further questions of the applicant? If there are no
other questions, we'll close the public segment of the meetlng. Does
staff have any comments?
MURPHY: Yes slr, Mr. Chairman. In regarO to the Department of
Community Affairs' comments on thls petition, petltlon #8, it appears
to b.e inconsistent with ResiOentlal Oevetopment pollcles on page 29 of
the GMPP. In regarOs to the Reglonai Plannlng Councll comments, the
proposed a'menoment odes not appear to confllct wltn any aOopteo
council plans or policies. County staff nas revieweO this petitlon
and determined that it ls consistent wltn the land use plan and
recommends approval.
TERPENING: Thank you. Any further comments from the Board? What ~--
will be the pleasure of the Board, please?
FERRICK: I have a question for the County Attorney. M~. Terpening
nas just said that the land use would nave to be Commercial General.
At the corner across the street - the land use is what, CG or ON? The
Shop n' Go? The land use on that is CN, right?
MURPHY: The land use on the existing Shop n' GO is RL. CN is
conceivably compatible with an RL land use category.
FERRICK: So then, in other words, thiS particular parcel could still
carry an RM-11...well you can't Od that because R~-ll .... mmm...okay;~
Thank you.
RUSSAKIS: What is the width of that piece of property?
COLLINS: About 108 - 109 foot.
RUSSAKIS: And you currently reside there, is tnat correct?
COLLINS: Yes. That's where I'm going as soon as I get out of here.
(laughter)
CARMAN: I make a motion that we approve the petition as it is
consistent with the Growth Management Policy Plan.
FAWSETT: I'll second.
TERPENING:
please.
Thank you.
Any further discussion?
Call the roll,
(Secretary calfs the roll, only Mrs. Ferrick voting against the
petition.)
TERPENING: Your application will be recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners for approval. The next application is that of
Sylvia Collins ~request for rezoning from RM-11 to Commercial
Neighborhood. Is the applicant here?
COLLINS: Yes.
TERPENING: Do you wish to make any aOOitinal comments?
COLLINS: The same tnat I made before.
TERPENING:
comments?
Does anybody in opposition wish to make any additional
(Unidentified person): The same as before.
TERPENING: Hearing none, we will close the public'portion of the
meeting. Odes staff nave any additional comments?
MURPHY: No additional comments.
TERPENING: Thank you.
CARMAN: Move the approval.
RUSSAKIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say something. In the
use of this piece of property, what duffers you from your neighbors in
so far as shrubbery, fence...
COLLINS: It is my understanding tnat in the ordinance somewhere it
says that we Od nave to put up either a five foot hedge or a wall or
something like this. We, of course, will put up a hedge since we
inteno to sell plants there and I Od unOerstano that we have to put
t~is there.
RUSSAKIS: Well, we're caught in a situation as you can see what's
evolving, anO they're in a no-win situation and in a sense, so are we.
It's unfair to make your property be the Duffer once 4 nas been zoneo
and then where does it stop, simply because you're by yourself t~ere
in a nome we grant it, but they're more of in a multituOe of
a Subdivision effect so it stops there. I would suggest that you get
witn your neighbors and work out some type of hedge or whatever that's
going to make them nappy, possibly put the roadway behind the existing
building that nas been zoned and keep the noise away from them as best
you can and make whatever arrangements you can witn your neighbors
between now and County Commission or else they're going to oppose you
obviously and you're going to be caught in a no-win situation where
you're living next to it. As it is now, I guess if I wanted to be
located in those areas, I would like, probably, a florist next to me.
This ShOuld De a quiet business, you know, something much more
neighborly ....
COLLINS: I would assume you would like it more than ten apartment
buildings.
RUSSAKIS: I'm sure your neighbors are going to be very helpful
because they can see the growth comi.ng, but hopefully tnat'll be the
stop of it and if you all.can work something out, you may avoid a
battle at that tlme.
TERPENING: We nad a monion.
RUSSAKIS: I second it, sir.
Is there a second to the motion?
TERPENING: Thank you.
FAWSETT: Mr. Chairman, we absolutely have got to stay with CO. CN -
if she's golng to nave a florlst shop - what, in slx months if it
folos up, She coulo nave a Commercial NelgnDorhooO in there. That's
what she's asklng for and you know what that means. Commercial
Neignbornooo. If we're going to stay consistent witn what we did to
the corner, then we've got to go to CO to protect these people that
nave these houses there.
RUSSAKIS: I think we're trying to kind of accelerate and I think that
Neighborhood Commercial allows less than Office, or not? Can she put
a florlst in?
COLLINS: Looklng at the property, I don't think that it would be very
feasible that anybody put in eltne'r a gas station or a convenience
store nor...
RUSSAKIS: You cOuldn't convince anybody here of that.
CARMAN: Mr. Chairman, we nave a motion on the floor.
CN down to CO? Dennls?
Can we go from
TERPENING: Mr. Mclntyre or Mr. Murphy, can she run the business she
wants in CO?
MURPHY:
zoning.
No, she cannot run a florist shop in Commercial Offlce
TERPENING: Are we still discussing whether or not the change from
Commercial'Neignbornooo to Commercial Office could be maoe~ Is that a
side-step? -
CARMAN: Lateral pass, behind the goal line.
RUSSAKIS: I don't want to expose the neighbors to anythlng...someboOy
will think of something to put in there...
CARMAN: I don't want to change it.
what the motion is.
I want to leave it at CN.
That's
TERPENING:
MCINTYRE:
RUSSAKIS:
This discussion might be meaningless. Can we Oh it?
Well, you can recommend it.
Obviously we can't Od it, we can just reoommeno it.
MCINTYRE: We're talklng about it in terms of whether it's an intense,
more intense, if it's more intense you can't Oh it. Gary Schindler is
saying that from a traffic standpoint, CO is actually less intense
than CN. So, conceivably, if it's not from a zoning standpoint, we
could go to a CO with a recommendation without reaovertislng. Now
agaln, that would not allow ncr to put a florist shop,
proposes, as she
TERPENING: Mr. Russakis, did I hear you make a motion to withdraw
your second? Yes, well, what was your motion before?
CARMAN: To approve the petition as it is here, for CN.
RUSSAKIS: We don't want to Oh that. I withdraw my second.
TERPENING: We've got a motion without a second right now.
RUSSAKIS: Woulo you oonsiaer witnarawing, Hr. Carman, so we can make
it consistent with the other piece?
TERPENING: Dles for lack of a secono.
RUSSAKIS: I'll offer a motion to Oeny the petltlon as requests the
zoning ano recommeno that they go for Office Commercial.
FAWSETT: I secono the motion.
TERPENING: The motion is seconoeo. Shall we call the roll, please?
(Secretary calls the roll, with only Mr. Carman voting against.)
TERPENING: Nfs. Collins, your ...
COLLINS: I unOerstano what you're saying; I Oon't know hOw I'm golng
to Co it, Out I unOerstano what you're saying.
TERPENING: Okay. Thank you.
END OF PETITION.
SEW/sew
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman J. P. Terpening, Mabel
Fawsett, Jim Russakis, Patricia
King, b. J. Sciturro (through
Fender petition, excused for
following petitions), Patrici~
Ferrick (absent for first petition,
Jode Groves, excused), Robert
Carman (absent for first pettion,
Jode G~bves, excused).
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
William Myers, Peggy Harris (both
excused absences).
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney;
Dennis Murphy, Planner; Gary
Schindler, Planning Administrator;
Dolores Messer, Secretary.
Tapes: 1, 2, 3, 4
DATE OF HEARING: 1~/9/86
CONVENED: 7:00 P.M.
ADJOURNED: 1:10 AiM.
Page: 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins to amend
the Future Land Use Maps of the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential
Development) to CG (Commercial General) located on the north side
of Edwards Road, approximatley 300 feet east of South 25th Street
(2496 Edwards Road).
Sylvia Collins, representing the petition, clarified that they
are willing to change the petition from CG to CN. She stated
their intended land use to be a retail florist shop and garden
supply.
Mr. Terpening asked Mrs. Collins if she was considering down
zoning from CG to CN. She replied she was.
The following persons were in opposition: Roy Cooper who was
concerned with noise from service vehicles, and traffic problems;
Burgess Meadows who was concerned with encroachment; Tom Deal
who was concerned with encroachment; Frank Ward who was
concerned with commercial encroachment; George Maxwell who was
concerned with encroachment; Robert Arthur who was concerned
with commercial encroachment.
Mrs. Collins responded that she is in the same situation as those
opposed to the petition.
Mrs. Ferrick questioned Mrs. Collins if she had a commitment for
purchase for a retail florist shop venture. Mrs. Collins
responded that they do not plan to sell the property, but use the
existing house as a florist shop and the acre of land in the rear
to put plants.
Hearing no other queStions or comments, Chairman Terpening closed
the public portion of the hearing.
Staff related Dept. of Community Affairs comments regarding
inconsistency with residential development policies. He also
related Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council comments
regarding no conflict with council's policies or plans. Staff
found the petition consistent with the land use plan and
recommends approval.
Mr. Carman made a motion that the petition be approved as it is
consistent with the GMPP. Mrs. Fawsett seconded the motion, and
upon roll call Mrs. Ferrick voted against the motion, and Mrs.
King, Mrs. Fawsett, Messrs. Russakis, Carman, and Terpening voted
in favor of the motion. Chairman Terpening said that the
petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
w~t-h a ~recomm~nd,ation~of app~o_v_al_as it is consistent with the
GMPP.
AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
TUESDAY
DECEMBER 9, 1986
7:00 P.M.
Petition of Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins to
amend the Future Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County
Growth Management Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential
Development) to CG (Commercial, General) for the following
described property:
The S. 395.97 feet of the E 111.35 feet of the W ~ of the W ½ 6f the SW ~ of
LesS_ right of way for public roads and drainage canals. .
(Located along the north side of Edwards Rd., approximatley 300
ft. east of South 25th St.)
Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning
Agency are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to
appeal any action taken by the Local Planning Agency at this
meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners.
dcm
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION(ERS
November 17, 1986
D VC LOPM NT
COORDINATOR
J. GARY AMENT
In compliance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, you are
hereby advised that Malcolm Carroll Collins and Sylvia Collins
have petitioned the Local Planning Agency to amend the FutBre
Land Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management
Policy Plan from RM (Medium Density Residential Development) to
CG ICommercial, General) for the following described property:
The/S~ 395.97 feet of the E 111.35 feet of the W ½ of the W ~ 6f the SW ~
........ , ..... . .~ ....
/
~Sec~ion 2!r ~.~. ~p 35 S, Range 40 E,, St. Lucie Cqunty.~. Florida.
Less right of way_for public ~oa_ ds and drainage canals.
(Located along the north side of Edwards Rd., approximately 300
ft. east of South 25th St.)
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on
Tuesday, December 9, 1986, 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 Local Planning Agency
are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal
any action taken by the Local Planning Agency at this me.e~ing
will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made.
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 305, 466-1100, Extension 359.
Sincerely,
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
J Terpening, Chairman
dcm
HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · E. E. GREEN, District No. 2 · ,1ACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5
Counly Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue ® Fort Pierce, FL 33482-5652 · Phone (305)466-1100
Coordinator: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 336 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 317