HomeMy WebLinkAboutCallaway Land & Cattle Co (3)BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
February 17, 1989
D6V£LOPM6NT
DIR6CTOR
~RRY L. VIRTA
Callaway Land & Cattle Co.
BY AGENT: R.C. Karner & Assoc.
Karner & Associates
2162 Reserve Park Trace
Pt. St. Lucie, FL 34986
Dear Petitioner:
This letter is to confirm that on December 15, 1988 the Board of
County Commissioners approved your petition to amend the future
land use classification from SU (semi-urban) to RL (low density
residential) for property !ocaated on the southeast side of
'GladesRoad. Cut-Off Road, approximately 3 miles south of west Midway
Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 88-102 adopted by the Board.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Judy Culpepper~ Chairman
JC: tk
Encl.
HAVERT L~ FI~I~ N. District No. 1 · JUDY CULPEPP£R District No. 2 · JACK KRI£GSR. District No. 3 · R DALE TR£FI~LNER District No ~ · JIM MINIX, Distric~ No. 5
Caun~, Administrator -- WELDON BE LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce F/34982-5652
Director: (407) 46~S-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
OF
NO.
ORDINANCE NO.: 88-102
LUCIE COUNTY
? POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE
USE DESIGNATION
OFWEST MIDWAYROAD
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)
FROM SU (SEMI.URBAN) TO RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIal)
MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS;
PROVIDING ~IONS AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND
EFFECTIVE DATE AND ADOPTION.
WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. Callaway Land & Cattle .Co., presented a petition to
amend the future land use classification set forth in the St.
Lucie County GrowthManagement Policy Plan .from SU (Semi-Urban)
to RL (LOw Density Residential) for the property described below.
2. The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency, after
holding a Public hearing on July. 12, 1988, .of which due notice
was pUbliShed at least seven (7) days prior to said hearing and
all owners of property within five hundred (500') feet were
notified by .mail of said hearing,
amend the fUture land use Classification set forth in the St.
Lucie County'Growth Management Policy Planfrom SU (Semi - Urban)
· o RL (Low Density Residential)' for the property described below.
3. The Board held a public hearing on December 15, 1988,
of such hearing in the Ft. ~Pierce News
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. SEVERABILIT¥.
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void,
such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this
ordinance, If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be
held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or
circumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to
any other person, property or circumstances.
F. APPLICABILIT~ OF ORDINANCE.
This ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph .A.
G.~ILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The forthwith to send a
certifie.d Copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Laws,
Department of State, The Capitol, ~Tallahassee, Florida, 32304.
H.~ILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
The County Attorney shall send a certified cOpy of this
ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs, The Rhyne
Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399.
A ~PARCEL OF LAND LYi~NIG IN SECTIONS ~:1. 22. 23.
~3. 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIp 36 SOUTH. RANGE 39'EAST. ST.
COUNTY, FLORIDA~ HORE~AR~T:ICU,LARLy~,. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23. THENCE NORTH
89'03'42" EAST. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23. A
DISTANCE OF 96~0! TO 'A"PO{[{T OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 170.00
FEET EAST OF. AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO. 9 ( 1-95 ) AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
MAP, SECTION 94001-2412 DATED 6-2-77 WITH LAST REVISIONS ON 8-28-
81, BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
EASEMENT. AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 97. PAGE 504.
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
00'00'11" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID.FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO THE WEST LINE OF A
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy AS RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY. FLORIDA. A DISTANCE OF 8.215.66 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE
INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A DESCRIPTION
SHOWN ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W. BETHAM,' P.L.S.
WITH FLORIDA.CERTIFICATE NO. 319~ WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 ANDKNOWN AS
THE "iNTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL". THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLy ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCESz
26. 27, 28. 29,
LUCIE
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 500.50 FEET. THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAI,D CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1.6'47'10'; THENCE SOUTH 58'59'55"
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 62~.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
· DISTANCE OF 234,~4 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15";
THENCE DEPARTING' SAID . PROPOSED WESTERLy RIGHT-OF-WAy NORTH
31~44'36' WEST. 11'6.53 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF~wAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROPOSED 'LEGENDS
DRIVE" EXTENSION, .THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY ~ LINE OF SAID "LEGENDS DRIVE" THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES~
INTERSECTION BEING A POI,NT ON A
CU,RUE CONCAVE TO THW'EST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS'SOUTH 11'47'49- EAST. SAID CURVE HAVING
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
..ARCCENTRAL OF SAID ANGLE CURVE OF OG'A DISTANCE, · . OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
09 23 ; THENCE SOUTH
CURUE CONCAVE ~ ~NG A RAD~ OF 540.00
FEET: THENCE SOL ,EASTERLY ALONG~THE A~C O~ JAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272-.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54'31"; THENCE SOUTH ] '10" EAST, 353.66 'FEET TO A
POINT OF Ct E TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS'OF 1,060.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A D/STANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39'37':
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09" EAST, 794.83.FEET: THENCE SOUTH 88'51'34" EAST,
1,479..24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199 - 201, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'2!"
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGXT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY.RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 504, PUBLIC RECORDS .OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.58 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY iLINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUClE COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID:WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LI-NE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
SOUTH 04'50'26" WEST, 637.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
12'25'58" WEST, 640.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19'28~,24-
WEST, 683.65 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 79'2?'56" WEST, 55.51
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10'32'03" EAST, 50.00 FEET: THENCE
NORTH 79'27'56" EAST. 55.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
40'32'32" EAST, 146,64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23'34,44"
WEST, 422.43 FEET;
THENCE. . DEPARTING.SAID, · · WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE SOUTH 89'52'24"
WES~ PaRA~LE~ WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE: QUARTER
{1/4) OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 1529.49 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 43'08'22" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLy RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMFI~T DIsTRIcT CANAL NO.
'C-24, A DISTANCE OF 2,361.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLy
'LINE OF A PARCEL~OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS O.F ST~ LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA;. THENCE SOUTH
61'51'34" WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
619.04 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 40'58'54" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID' PARCEL 958,79 FEET TO THE POINT OF
WITH THE NORTHEASTER~ INTERSECTION
Y RIGHT-OF'WAY LINE OF AFORESAID CANAL NO.
C-24; THENCE NORTH 43'08'22, WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
R~GHT-OF-WAy LINE, 173.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE SDUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 344, PAGES 1093 - 1095,
PUBLIC. RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH
46'4 3 EAST, ALONG. THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
:260.91 FEET;. THENCE NORTM 43'08'40" WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF 'SABAL CREEK PHASE IV" AS.RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
17o PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
5,08'2.07 FEET: THENCE NORTH 43'34'09. WEST, CONTINUING ALONG.~
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SABAL CREEK .PHASE IV AND THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SABAL CREEK P~ASE II, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
15/21/22/23726/27/28/29/33/34/35-36-39
SU-RL
SU-CG
SU-CT
x~x'x,'x',,,~x',,,~"~ S U : BLUE
RL = RED
PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND & CATTLE CO.J
BY AGENT:
FOR CHANGE IN Fb
FR
FR
REGINA KAR~ER, P.L.S.
TU~E LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
OM SU TO RL
DM SU TO CG
)M SU TO CT
15/21/22/23/26/27/28/29/33/34/35-36-39
SU-RL ~ PURPLE
SU-CG ~ RED
SU-CT
RS-2 =
P.U.D. =
/~R-1 =
PETITION OF CALLAWAY L^ND & iCATTLE CO.,
BY A~:ENT: REGINA KA~R~£:R, P.L.S.
PO~ CHA'N,6~E IN FUT
FRO~
FR OI
FRO~
URgE L~N~ USE CLASSIFICATION
SU TO ~'L
SU TO CG
SU TO CT
Date: December 15, 1988 convened: 7:19 p.m.
Tape: ~1, ~2, ~3, 94 adjourned: 1:42 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Judy Culpepper; Vice Chairman
Havert L. Fenn$ Jim Minix; R. Dale Trefelner; Jack Krieger.
Others Present: Tom Kindred, Asst. County Administrator,
Operation; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Terry Virta; Community
Development Director; 'Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator;
Mayor William B.. McChesney, City of Port St. Lucie; Councilman
David t~iley, City of Port St. Lucie; Councilman Tom Hooper, City
of Port St. Lucie;' Councilwoman Shirley Conti, City of Port St.
Lucie; Councilman Bob -Davis, City of Port St. Lucie; Wayne
Algire, City Manager; Roger-Orr, City Attorney; Patricia A.
Tobin, City Planner; Hazel Harriman, Sheriff's Office; Noreen J.
McMahon, LDeputy Clerk.
The purpose of this meeting is to hold public hearings for
Community Development Planning & The Reserve. Proof of
Publication was presented for each of the following petitions.
1. f~JJ~f~YZ~R~ COMPANY (1-0090)
Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator,
addressed to the County Administrator, County Commission, dated
December 15, 1988, subject "Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle
Co. for a Change in Land Use from SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low
Density Residential Development).,,
John Ho!comb, President of Callaway Land & Cattle Co.,
present to address this issue. (Reserved Comments.)
was'
It was moved by Com. Krieger, seconded by Com. Fenn, to adopt
Ordinance No. 88-T02, an ordinance amending the St. Luc!e County
Growth Management Policy Plan, Ordinance No. 86-01 by changing
the land use designation of the property located on the southeast
side of Glades Cut-off Road, approximately 3 miles south of West
Midway Road (more particularly described herein) from SU (semi-
urban) to RL (lOw density residential ) making findings;
providing for making the necessary changes on the St. Lucie
Country Zoning Atlas; providing for conflicting provisions and
s everability; providing for filing with the Department of
State and Department of Community Affairs and for an effective
date and adoption; and, upon roll call, motion carried
unanimously.
Clerk of Circuit Court
August 4, 1988
!1
1 Subject:
The Honorable Jack Kreiger
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
~St. Lucie County .....
2300 Virginia Avenue.
Fort Pierce, FL 33450
St. Lucie County Local Government
Comprehensive Plan Documents
Dear Commissioner Kreiger:
This is to notify you that the Regional Planning Counci~ has
received a request from the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for comments on the following comprehensive
planning document:
Amendments to Future Land Use Element (13)
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan
Council staff will review the documents in accordance with
the require, ments:<of the--'Locat Government ComprehensiVe .... .:...,~
Plannin~ and Land 'Development Regulation Act, ChaPter 163, --
Florida Statutes. It is anticipated that the report and
recommended comments will be presented to Council at its
meeting on September 16, 1988.
Prior to the' Council meeting, the meeting agenda, report,
and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to
you. You or any representative of your local government are
invited to attend the meeting and will be afforded an
opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council
meeting the adopted comments will be transmitted to DCA.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Te/r~~. He°s, AICP
Planning Coordinator
TLH:lb
cc: Dennis Murphy, AICP
3228 s.w. martin downs blvd.
suite 205 · p.o. box '1529
palm city, florid. 34F~0
phone (407] 286-33t3
Jim rninix thornQs g. kenny, !11
chc~lrman vlc=s ch~irm<~a
john acor daniel m. cory
secret~3zy/treasuref $xe~utiv$ dlre~t~
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
JACK KRI6G£R
CHAIRMAN
July 19, 1988
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Division of Resource Management
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Sub3ect: Transmittal of Winter 1988 Proposed Amendments to the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan
Dear Mr. Hook:
Enclosed, please find ten (10) copies of the thirteen (13)
proposed Land Use Amendments to the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan scheduled for final review in December of
1988. on Tuesday, July 12, 1988, the St. Lucie 'County.~Board of
County Commissioners, after holding a public hearing on each
petition, voted unanimously to forward each of these petitions to
the Department of Community Affairs for further review in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes.
As cited in the staff reports for each of these petitions,
three (3) of the thirteen (13) proposed changes are related to a
Development of Regional Impact submission (The Reserve); none are
considered to be a small area amendment under the requirements of
Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; none are considered to
be emergency plan amendments; none are proposed for adoption
under a joint planning agreement pursuant to Chapter 163.3171,
Florida Statutes; and none are located within any designated Area
of Critical State Concern.
Since three (3) of the submitted Land Use Amendments are
related to the submission of a Development of Regional Impact, if
permitted, we would appreciate an expeditious review of those
Land Use Amendments associated with Callaway Land and Cattle
Company, so that if the Application for Development Approval
(ADA) is completed, both the land plan amendments and the
proposed development order for this project may be heard at the
HAVERT L. FIENN District No 1 · JUDY CULP£PP£R Distnc~ No 2 · JACK Ki~EG£R D~srrict No ,.3 · R DALE TREFELN£R District No. 4 · JIM MINIX Distnct .No. 5
Coun.%, Adm~mstrotor 'w'£ LDON B LE~'IS
2300 V~rg~n,a Avenue · Fou P:erce FL 34982-5652 · '305) 466.4100 or (305) 878-4898
July 1-9, 1988
Page 2
Subject: Winter 1988 Plan Amendments
same time. As of July 14, 1988, this application was determined
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as insufficient
and additional information requested.
If during your review of these proposed amendments you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of
Community Development for assistance. Specific individuals in
that ~ffic. e~to conta~t~would be.~Mr~. Terry Virta, D~ec.~or~of~
Community Development or Mr. Dennis Murphy, Planning
Administrator. When your Agency returns its review comments to
-St. Lucie County, I would appreciate it if you would also include
copies to Mr. Virta and. Mr. Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney, as
well.
We appreciate the time you will be spending on these
petitions, and look forward to receiving your input on these
requests.
Si~ely, · ~
J,~.k Kri~er
~nairma~, ,
Board of County Commissioners
JK/DJM/meg
TRANSl(B30)
cc: County Administrator
County Attorney
Development Director
Petition Files
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CE N~, E RV i EW DRIVE TALL A H A SSEE FLORIDA 32399
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
October 11, 1988
THOMAS G. PELHAM
Secretary
Mr. Jack Krieger
The Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Dear Commissioner:
Pursuant to sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida
Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs has reviewed the
proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
The review indicated that the proposed amendments 88-007,
88-008, 88-006, 88-009, 88-014, 88-001, 88-002, 88-012, 88-003
88-004, 88-011 and 88-013 are generally consistent with the
requirements of section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, which were in
effect prior to October 1985.
Please note the comments of the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Florida Department of Transportation
concerning amendments 88-007 88-008 88-006 88-009 88-014 and
88-013. ' ' ' '
Amendment 88-010 is inconsistent with St. Lucie County
Growth Management Policies 14, 15 and 23. Policy 14 states that
land should be zoned for commercial use "only when there are
adequate public services, e.g. fire protection, water and sewer,
roads etc., available .... " Policy 15 states that "the County will
encourage only the types, amounts, and intensities of land develop-
ment that are consistent with road capacities .... " Staff comments
indicate a lack of sufficient roadway capacity for the proposed
land use.
Policy 24 states th'at "neighborhoods...should be protected
from adverse influences of blighting and unsafe factors such as
heavy traffic volumes and incompatible non-residential uses."
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RESOURCE PLANN1NC AND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Jack Krieger
October 11, 1988
Page Two
Staff comments point to the "detrimental effect" that the
redesignation would have on the existing and future residential
areas by the intrusion of commercial land uses. Agency comments
are enclosed for your use during the amendment process.
Upon completion of the adoption process, the Department
requests a copy of the amended plan and adoption ordinance
pursuant to Section 163.3187(3), Florida Statutes.
For further information, please contact Mr. John Healey at
(904) 487-4545.
and Management
PRB:jhr
Enclosures
cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
tf cl uf
ional
council
September 16, 1988
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
The Rhyne Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
BUREAU OF LOCAL
Subject:
St. Lucie County Local Government Comprehensive Plan
Documents
Dear Mr. Hook:
Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes~ the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use
Element of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan at its regular
meeting on September 16, 1988. Please excuse the delay in
getting the comments to you.
The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal
to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) pursuant to
Sections 163.3184(1) (c) and (2), Florida Statutes, and for
consideration by the County prior to adoption of the documents.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element have been
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's
adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the complete
agenda item as presented to Council. Council's action was to
adopt the comments and approve their transmittal to DCA.
However, the following additional comments are also to be part of
our transmittal, based o]: Council action at the September 16,
1988 meeting:
Based on additional information presented at the
Council meeting, there are potential conflicts with the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan relative to proposed
Plan Amendment PA-88-013.
3226 s.w. martin downs blvd.
suite 205 - p.o. box ~529
Jtrn mlnlx thornc]s g. kenny,
chotrr~on vice cholrmon
Mr. Ralph K~ Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
September i6, 1988
Page Two
Enclosed is a copy of the transcript of the comments received
relative to this item. The petitioner (land owner) will also be
provided with a copy of the comments from the meeting and asked
for a response.
If you need additional information or have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call.
:ive~irector
DMC: lb /
/
Enclosures
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Council Members
AGENDA ITEM 5D
From:
Staff
Date:
Subject:
September 16, 1988 Council Meeting
Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Thirteen Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Future Land Use Element
Introduction
Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to
review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments prior to
their adoption. St. Lucie County has submitted proposed
amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs, which in
turn is seeking Council's comments.
Council's review of the information forwarded by the Department
of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship of the
proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. If a conflict
with adopted plans or policies is identified, the regional
planning agency is to specify any objections and may make
recommendations for modifications. Council also provides
informal comments to the local government through a spirit of
cooperation, and technical assistance on matters related to the
proposed amendments. These advisory comments are aimed at
providing coordination between the local and regional
comprehensive plans.
Backqround
St. Lucie County is considering 13 amendments to their Future
Land Use Element. The locations of the properties under
consideration are shown on the accompanying map, and the number
of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are
summarized on the following table:
0
0
Cl..
C
X
0
n
C)
0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I i I I I I I I I I
2
In order to assist t'~ Council in their review, the fcllowing
definitions from the Kt. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are
included:
LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE
ST. LUCEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for the production of
citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries,
forestry, cattle and stock raising, dairy farms and other
direct agricultural uses. Dwelling units at a density of
one per acre and large-scale, self-contained
developments.
SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban
development (less than one dwelling unit per acre),
generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural
character of the area.
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development category
that allows for residential development projects having
an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review
procedures, and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy
Plan. The following comments are offered as a result of that
review.
Many of the parcels under consideration are covered
with native pine flatwoods vegetation. These
properties have the potential for containing species
listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council
encourages the development of site plans that are
sensitive to the needs of any listed species and which
preserve as much native vegetation as possible.
Items 1, 2, and 3 fPA-88-007, PA 88-008, and ~A 88-006)
These three parcels are related directly to The Reserve
Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The large area
(1,400 acres) is being proposed for low density
residential development. The smaller parcels at the
future interchange of 1-95 and Prima Vista Boulevard
proposed for commercial land use, are proposed to be
used for a resor~ hotel (40.5 acres) and a shopping
center (30.3 acres).
The proposed land use changes would result in a greater
intensity of development, therefore generating higher
traffic volumes. Ali traffic impacts and appropriate
mitigative measures to maintain Level of Se_~vice C/D on
the regional road~ay network will be addressed under
the DRI review process.
Since these parcels are part of the DRI, the proposed
land use changes would need to be consl'sten~ with the
DRI approvals, when they are rendered.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, a
complete analysis of consistency is impossible until
the completion of the DRI process. The assessment
report and recommendations may have some bearing on the
proposed land use changes. Since DRI review ms not yet
complete, a complete assessment of consistency would be
premature. It is recommended that no change in land
use be considered until Council has completed its
assessment report. Because this is a DRI, the County
may address proposed land use changes simultaneously
with its review of the project.
Item 4 (PA 88-009)
This amendment involves a very large tract
(approximately 4,300 acres) of land lying west and
south of the 1-95 interchange at Gatlin Boulevard, just
west of the City of Port St. Lucie. According to the
County staff, it involves a land use reclassification
of approximately 3,000 acres to RL (low density
residential), and the addition and reconfiguration of
approximately 1,300 acres of "Interchange" land use.
The ~nterchange category provides for land uses which
requmre a high degree of accessibility to limited
access highways.
The petitioner/owner, who actually holds a total of
10,000 acres at the site, has indicated that RL is a
more appropriate land use, given "activity" in this
area. The actual use of the property at present is as
citrus groves and a sod farm.
The redesignation of this tract as proposed is not
consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Planning
Policy, nor does it appear to be consistent with good
planning practice. The proposed change should not be
approved for the following reasons:
The ability of local government to upgrade the
perceived development potential of land and,
therefore, its market value by granting changes in
land use designation gives 10~al government the
power to mint a form of currency. No local
government shoed give away that c~rrency without
assurance that in return the citizens of the area
will also benefit. To do so would not be prudent.
The owner of this property has requested that the
land use be ~hanged from Agricultural Productive
(4,300 acres) to Low Density Residential (3,000
acres) and Interm-hange Oriented Commercial (1,300
acres). NothinU is being offered to the community
in return for T/Lis land use change, not even an
intelligent, well-conceived plan for development.
To grant the requested change would enhance
substantially market value and perceived
development polz~ntial of the land, without
requiring that in return for that added value and
development potential, the landowner do anything
for the citizens of the area--not even
demonstration that development could intelligently
occur at the r~n~uested density without negative
impact.
Until such time am government has sufficient data
to assure the public that the change is in their
interest and that negative fiscal and
environmental i~mp~ will not occur, the change
should not be ~e.
Granting the pr~se~ change would interfere with
the planning of an important future growth area in
an intelligent, ~omprehensive, and positive
manner. Intem-f~x~_nce would occur for two reasons:
1) because, as mentioned above, the local
government's negotiating power would have been
compromised prior to a plan being developed; and
2) because the ch~a~ge would encourage the breakup
of what now is a very large tract of land in
single ownership (10,000 acres). Many planning
techniques wb~b can assure intelligent and
positive growth are difficult to implement where
multiple ownership occurs.
By way of illustration, a comprehensive evaluation
of this property might conclude that due to the
ecological or agricultural importance of the land,
that development should ideally occur only within
a two-mile radius of the interchange. If the
entire 10,000 antes is single ownership, the local
government is in a position to approve development
in the form of a mixed use, compact community that
provides futLlr~ residents a place where they can
live, work, amd shop without having to commute
excessively long distances, in return for an
· -agreement that remaining portions of the property
are dedicated to ecological preserve areas, as
agricultural areas, or some combination of both.
Essentially all future development rights would be
transferred into the zone that was most
appropriate for development, and additional
development potential would be added to that zone
to the extent necessary to make the dedication of
remaining land acceptable to the owner and to make
the community created function as a mixed use,
somewhat independent place. The landowner is
happy because the market value of his land has
been enhanced considerably; the citizens are happy
because land is set aside for ecological and
agricultural purposes, and the community that
results is well planned; and future residents of
the new community are happy because they have a
well planned potentially wonderful place to live.
Such opportunities may be lost if land use is
enhanced on one portion of -the property without
considering the future of the entire property.
Instead, the enhanced portion--of- the property
could be sold-and any opportunity for ~ransf~r of
development rights from one property to the other
is less likely if not impossible to negotiate.
Approval of the proposed change would negatively.
effect the value and development potential of land
that should be encouraged to be developed or
redeveloped prior to opening new areas to
development. By way of example, Fort Pierce is an
area that has tremendous potential for
redevelopment, but which is not likely to
redevelop if uses we would like to see in Fort
Pierce are made excessively abundant elsewhere on
less expensive land. Likewise, Port St. Lucie has
very large amounts of undeveloped land which
should be encouraged to develop, thereby reducing
the cost of services. Infill will not occur
rapidly if new areas are continually granted
development potential.
State and Regional Comprehensive Plans discourage
urban sprawl and encourage the infill of existing
communities. For reasons stated above, granting
of the proposed change will discourage infill.
Approval of development potential in this area, at
this time, would encourage leapfrog development
and sprawl.
Responsible growth management requires that local
governments understand fully the costs of
providing infrastructure and services to new
development and demonstrate an ability to deliver
services concurrent with need, Prior to taking
action to encourage development. Based on
development approvals that have to be granted to
date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County, it
is clear that substantial expenditures will be
necessary to expand the existing roadway system.
Just to support approved development it appears an
additional east/west roadway or expressway will be
needed and many existing roads will need to be
substantially expanded. To encourage even more
growth prior to determining an effiCient and cost
effective method of paying for existing needs
would not be prudent and would potentially
increase per capita costs by expanding the area
needing to be served.
Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000
acres of residential) should be discouraged and
mixed use encouraged. Planning that provides
people opportunities to live, work, and shop in
reasonable proximity alleviates the need for
costly road systems and provides for the more
efficient delivery of infrastructure. Large
blocks of low density, purely residential land
require people to get in their cars and drive for
essentially every need. Separation of uses is
today blamed for the traffic problems in places
like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to
follow the methods of development that have
created the kinds of problems that exist in these
areas would be to ignore history and give away the
future of this Region.
The need for more than 600 acres (existing) of
Interchange Commercial at this one location is
unclear and needs to be considered in terms of its
comprehensive effect and relationship to
surrounding areas prior to approval. According to
both the:City of Port St. Lucie and the County, no
such study has been proposed.
The redesignation of land use is inappropriate at
this time (for reasons noted above) and
unnecessary. Although not represented in the
review package submitted, this property has
already been granted 600 acres of interchange
oriented potential and the existing Agricultural
Productiue category allows for large- scale, self-
con=ained development. The only thing required to
obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable
development plan. Since reasonable use is already
allocated, it is not clear why the County should
agree to upgrade substantially land development
potential in the absence of a plan.
The owner of this property has already been
alerted that a DRI review would be re~uired to
receive development auproval on this property.
Since the owner has indicated that the property is
not to be developed at this time, changes to the
land use designation would se~ more appropriate
at the time of DRI review.
Approval of the project could create a domino
effect that would encourage other requests for
entitlement increases prior to questions being
answered regarding the best future for the entire
undeveloped portion of the County.
9e
The proposed change could negatively effect Martin
County (see attached comments from Martin County).
If the State of Florida and this Region are to achieve
their goals, we must insist on better planning than has
taken place to date statewide. No planning has been
done for this property, and no land use change is
therefore warranted at ~this time.
Item 5 fPA 88-014)
This large tract (3,000 acres) is located along Glades
Cut-off Road (C.R. 709) west of Range Line Road
(C.R. 609). The current land use and zoning categories
assigned to the land are agriculture. The actual land
uses are agricultural, with one rock mining operation.
The redesignation of this tract to a semi-urban land
use category is not consistent with the Regional
COmprehensive Policy Plan, nor does it appear to be
consistent with good planning practice. The proposed
change should not be approved for the following
reasons:
The tract lies at an isolated location, well to
the west of any urban development or urban
services in St. Lucie County;
2 o
In the absence of any plan of development, it must
be assumed that the proposed land use would
constitute the type of scattered, "leapfrog," and
low intensity single use development which has
proved to be a great burden on other communities
in the Region and the State and is discouraged by
both Regional and State Plans;
Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000
acres of residential) should be discouraged and
mixed use encouraged. Planning that provides
people opportunities to live, work, and sleep in
8
4 o
reasonable proximity alleviates the need for
costly road systems .nd provides for the more
efficient delivery Of infrastructure. Large
blocks of low density, purely residential land
require people to get in their cars and drive for
essentially every need. Separation. of uses is
today blamed for the traffic problems in places
like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to
follow the methods of development that have
created the kinds of problems that exist in these
areas would be to ignore history and give away the
future of this Region.
No assessment has been done of the costs or
methods of providing transportation, sewage, water
supply, park, drainage, school, or medical
facilities to this part of the County. There are
p~esently no services in the area.- The nearest
fire/emergency medical services facility is 14
miles away;
Responsible growth management requires that local
governments understand fully the costs of
providing infrastructure and service to new
development and demonstrate an ability to deliver
services concurrent with need prior to taking
action to encourage development. Based on
development approvals that have to be granted to
date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County, it is
clear that substantial expenditures will be
necessary to expand the existing roadway system.
Just to support approved development, it appears
an additional east/west roadway or expressway will
be needed and many existing roads will need to be
substantially expanded. To encourage even more
growth prior to determining an efficient and cost
effective method of paying for existing needs
would not be prudent and would substantially
increase per capita costs by expanding the area
needing to be served.
The area is presently relatively inaccessible. It
can be reached only via Glades Cut-off Road from
the north, and with a connection to Glades Cut-off
Road provided by Range Line Road to the south.
Ail roads are two-laned. No assessment is
provided to address the serious east/west capacity
deficiencies which already exist in this area of
St. Lucie County; and
While this property may lend itself in the future
to the development of a mixed-use community (or
literally to a new town gTven the size of the
tract), the proposed land use change promotes the
development of the tract at a density which would
call for a very inefficient and costly delivery of
services (less than one dwelling unit per acre).
The t}~e of single use sprawl proposed by the
o%~er is counter to principles o~ balanced,
planned development. A mixed variety of land use
is essential, pa~ticularly in such a remote
location.
The redesignation of land use is inappropriate at
this time (for reasons noted above and
unnecessary. The existing Agricultural Productive
category already allows for large-scale, self-
contained development. The only thing required to
obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable
development plan. Since reasonable use is already
allowed, it is not clear why the County should
agree to upgrade substantially land development
potential in the absence of a plan.
The owner of this'. property has already been
alerted that a DRI review would be required to
receive development approval on this property.
Since the owner has indicated that the property is
not to be developed at this time, changes to the
land use designation would seem more appropriate
at the time of DRI review.
The proposed change could negatively affect Martin
County (see attached comments from Martin County).
The review materials indicate that the developer/owner
intends to develop this property at a density of one
dwelling unit per acre. The size of the tract and the
number of potential units call for the consideration of
a DRI. Given that a DRI will be required, the
appropriate time for the consideration is concurrently
with the DRI approvals. In the preparation of the DRI
(pre-submission), the owner will be encouraged to
develop a project which contains the variety and mix of
uses (living, working, shopping, and recreational
environments) which would contribute to the evolvement
of a true community. The advantages of being able to
provide for services and facilities in an efficient
manner and in avoiding the pitfalls experienced by
unplanned growth are clear. Each day local governments
in the Treasure Coast Region must face the unpaid costs
of sprawl which has occurred previously.
The approval of the land use changes proposed in this
and the previous (#4) amendment represent an
announcement by the local government of at least
partial responsibility to provide the needed
~nfrastructure in this area. The costs of providing
10
that infrastructure in an area which is not only well
removed from existing urban facilities, but is to be
characterized by sprawling, low densities wilt be
extremely high.
Fina!2y, Council recognizes that the proposed land use
category appears to allow little or no additional
diversity in land use types and densities. The
existing land: use category should be retained because
it allows for large-scale, self-contained developments,
while the proposed use appears to be more limiting and
could result in single use sprawled ~evelopment.
Martin County staff has expressed concerns relating to
the impact of this and the previous land use change on
that County's plan policies and activities. Urban
development as proposed would be in conflict with the
Martin County Land Use Plan (see attached letter).
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment appears to be in conflict and inconsistent
with the policies contained in the Regional
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Item 6 (PA 88,001)
This amendment is for a 22-acre parcel of land
immediately west of U.S. 1, between a shopping plaza
and two mobil!e home parks. County staff states that
the petitioner intends to consolidate parcels in order
to develop a Planned Non-residential Development
(PNRD). The proposed Industrial Light (IL) land use is
~ecessary to ~accommodate wholesale activities planned
in the development. Public water is available at this
site, but public sewage treatment facilities are not.
The County will want to evaluate the wetlands
associated with this parcel prior to any development
approvals. Also, the County may want to take a look at
the opportunity, in conjunction with this project, to
provide access between the mobile home parks and the
shopping plaza. All opportunities such as this to
reduce stress on U.S. 1 should be carefully considered.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional ComPrehensive Policy Plan.
Item 7 (PA 88--002)
This amendment involves a ll4-acre parcel which the
petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home
community. The property is adjacent to another
manufactured home development and lies along the
11
Florida Turnpike. Given the size of this parcel and
its relative isolation, the developer should be
encouraged to request some limited commercial land use
to be used for neighborhood service type uses.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in .conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Items 8 and 9 (PA 88-012 and PA 88-003)
These parcels (14.5 and 10.0 acres respectively) lie
along St. Lucie Boulevard (C.R. 608) in the vicinity of
the St. Lucie County International Airport. Both lie
immediately west of the airport in a main
approach/take-off zone. Although public services
(sewer and water) are not yet available in this area,
they do lie in the Planned Service Area for Fort Pierce
Utilities.
Commercial and industrial uses will probably become
prevalent in this corridor. Improvements to St. Lucie
Boulevard have been programmed by the County.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Items 10, 11, and. 12 (PA 88-004, PA 88-011, and
PA 88-010)
These three parcels all lie between U.S. 1 and Old
Dixie Highway in the northern portion of the County.
The County has a previously adopted policy regarding
this area to contain the effects of commercial develop-
ment primarily to U.S. 1, rather than on Old Dixie
Highway. County staff takes exception to petition 12,
citing access problems and feared effects to Old Dixie
Highway. No such concerns are expressed for Item 10
which lies immediately east of a proposed shopping
center, nor Item 11 where commercial development is
proposed by the Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution, Inc.
Ail three petitioned properties are on the Atlantic
Coastal Ridge. Some of this ridge has been mined for
sand or o~he~wise disturbed, especially on Item 11.
There are no public facilities (sewer or water) avail-
able to any of these sites. All will have to utilize
on-site facilities.
12
The property associated with Item 12 is covered with
mature sand pine scrub habitat. It should be surveyed
by qualified personnel for the presence of Lakela's
mint, a federally endangered plant species whose entire
population is known to exist only in a few locations
near the subject parcel. Because sand pine scrub habi-
tat is becoming extremely rare in the Region, Council
encourages the preservation of as much of this habitat
as possible. These comments also apply to Items t0 and
tl if scrub habitat exists.
Prior to development a traffic analysis should be
prepared for each site and submitted to the County
Engineer and Florida Department of Transportation. The
analysis should address impacts on nearby intersections
(U.S. 1) in order to define problems relating to
signalization, turning movements, and median cuts.
Based on the information provided and the concerns
expressed above, the proposed amendment does not appear
to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies
contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Item 13 (PA 88-013~
This parcel (12.5 acres) is located immediately north
of the 25th Street/Midway Road intersection which is
rapidly evolving into a major intersection in St. Lucie
County. The intersection and both roadways are
programmed for major improvements. All four quadrants
of the intersection area now have commercial land use.
This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast
quadrant.
A traffic study should be submitted for the review and
approval of the County Engineer. The study should
address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway
Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie
West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be
proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on
the applicable roadways and intersections.
The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to
the east. There have been frequent storm water
management problems in this area. A study is currently
underway on how to manage such problems in the North
Fork drainage area.
County staff supports the petition, citing the logic of
developing a compact core to the commercial area while
recognizing the environmental constraints and potential
conflicts of continued commercialization. Perhaps
reflecting the long standing community opposition to
13
commercial development in this area, the local planning
agency voted five to one to deny the petition.
There are environmental constraints which apply to this
property. However, the exa~t use for this parcel and
the way in which these cons%taints are considered are
local government consideraticns.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve
their transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs in
fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
Attachments
-., . ~ ~ .... ~ _~ _¢~_.~-~ ~ I ' ?~
.... ~ -j ~. ..... ~ ZL :~_ .~.-.~-'~ .,'~_ I
. · ...... ~::~.~ -_ '~
-- ~ ~
ST LUCi~ COUNTY ;~--_<..
COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS
:--~ .... ~_~.~. ~. ~ · ~ . ~Z- .
~.. ·
23
o £
3
PORT
I
COUNTY OF MARTIN
STATE OF FLORIDA
August 29, 1988
Hr. Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Coordinator
Treasure Coast_Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, Florida 34990
RE: St. Lucie County Land Use Amendment for PA 88-009 and PA 88-014
Dear Terry,
I apologize that we will not be able to agenda the subject items before the
Martin County Board of County Commissioners prior to September 13, 1988. In
the interim, I am supplying these comments from the Community Development
Department. The Board may have more specific comments for your September
Council meeting.
I. IMPACT ON MARTIN COUNTY'S PLANS, POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES:
bo
The first proposal in PA 88-009 is to change approximately 4,300 acres
of agriculturally designated lands to interchange oriented development
(X) and Low Density Development (RL 1-5 upa). This may have
significant impacts on Martin County's plans, policies and
activities. The applicant is not proposing a specific development at
this time and the existing Agricultural zoning (AG) will remain
intact. This complicates the existing agricultural zoning in areas of
~lartin County in proximity to this parcel. If this change is accepted
it wilt set the stage for a potential urban type development abuting
agricultural areas in Martin County.
The second proposal which will have an impact on Martin County is
PA 88-014. This amendment request is to change approximately 3,000
acres of Agricultural (AG) to Semi-Urban (SU) land uses. Generally,
there are no urban concentrations in this area which is considered
rural and agricultural. The application indicates that the land use
change will not provide any increase in density, since both the
Semi-Urban and Agricultural land use categories permit development az
a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre.
This property is located between the East Coast Railway Line and
Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP
Auausz t7, t988
Page Two
CR 609 (Range Linc Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin
County line. Land uses to the south in both Martin and St. Lucie
County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida
Department of Corrections facility is operating immediately to the
south of the County line west of CR 609.
These changes would be incompatible with the Martin County Land Use
Plan and may lead to potential adverse traffic impacts and
environmental degradation to Altapath Flats. Consideration should be
given to the placement of east-west routes connecting to major
thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. tf these are proposed on
the Major Thoroughfare Plan then developemnt of these roadways should
be concurrent with development of these and surrounding properties.
Th~' potential impact of urban development west of the Gatlin Boulevard
interchange at 1-95, the potential widening of CR 609 and the
devetopement of major thoroughfares in this area will have to be
coordinated with Martin County at the time of development review for
this property. The magnitude of traffic, which could be produced by
this land use change, was not envisioned in the development of the
Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year 2005 Transportation Plan and
coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be
jeopardized.
2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT:
The current land use designation amendment without any specific
development plans, is not expected to have any immediate significant
social, economic, or environmental impacts on Martin County. Should
an urban type development occur in this area, the impact on Martin
County and surrounding areas will have to be closely evaluated.
I trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use
amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Harry ~. King,
Planning Administrator
HWK/ERC/dlw [0146]
CC:
Board of County Commissioners
Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator
Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Come, unity Development Department
Henry lter, Growth ~ianagement Plan, Appointee
Eu~a R. Clarke, Transportation Planner
Terry L. Vir~a, St. Lucie County Co,unity Developmen~ Coordinator
Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie
3
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
PORTION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Pat Ferrick: My name is Patricia Ferrick, 4802 S. 25th Street,
St. Lucie County. I am appearing this morning on my behalf of a
couple of organizations in the area of plan amendment 88-013,
before I begin I would like to give you some handouts.
Cary: That is Item #9 on the list of items.
Minix: We are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first.
Kenny: You want to do 1, 2, and 3 first.
Minix: Pat, we are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first because Dagney
has a conflict on those 3, so we are going to do those and get
those passed so she can then discuss on the rest of them. Anyone
interested in discussing PA 88-07, PA 88-08, PA 88-06, those are
the 3 that we are taking up at this time. Seeing no public
comment is there any...
Kenny: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding these are not in
conflict with the Regional Policies and that the land use
amendment can be crossed simultaneously with the DRI, is that the
way it is? I move staff comments on item 1, 2, and 3 of the St.
Lucie County Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Eggert: Seconds.
Minix: Okay, we have a motion and a second, is there any further
discussion?
Marcus: 1, 2, and 3.
Kenny: 88-007, 88-008, 88-006.
Minix: Any further discussion?
signify by saying aye. Oppose no.
Ail in favor of the motion
Motion carries.
Minix: Now Pat, you may come up.
Pat Ferrick: Again, for the record my name is Patricia Ferrick,
I reside at 4802 S. 25th Street, Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County.
I am appearing this morning on petition number 88-013 and I would
like to give you those handouts.
Cary: That's 12.5 acres which is currently at low density
residential being proposed for commercial general. That is
discussed on page 13 of the report.
Ferrick: I want to thank you all for letting me appear this
morning before you. I have some .comments on 88-013. I have
prepared a packetr The packet that I handed to both Commissioner
Minix and Executive Director, Dan Cary, has copies of information
that was provided to DCA and it had been my understanding I had
requested the information be transmitted to this board, but
looking at the package you received I notice that you had very
little information and the maps are so small that you are all not
getting a true picture of the problems that we have. My letter
states, "Dear Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, potential
inconsistencies and adverse impacts upon adjacent.property owners
were identified and documented in packets sent to the LPA, St.
Lucie County Commissioners, and the Department of Community
Affairs." And I hope they had been sent on to the Regional
Planning Staff and Council, but I don't believe they have been.
Therefore, I am going to, can you hear me? I guess you can't if
t leave the podium.
The particular property in question is this property right here.
Once you come in for a commercial land use amendment from 900
feet, you will look on your maps that I have provided you with
back to approximately this point. At the time they came in to
St. Lucie County to do this, the regulations of St. Lucie County
say that they must have had a conceptual sent to the board. When
they came in this property showed that on-site sewage treatment
plant on a conceptual, I have a copy of the conceptual if you all
would like to see it. Back here in this portion and this portion
which is adjacent to the river you are not seeing today, but it
is part of the overall package and you come to the irreverent
part of your decision, even though it is not supposed to be
admissible. This property, here has wetlands on it in here, they
intend to put multifamily quadplexes, triplexes, and duplexes in
this particular section. They intend an ingress and egress, this
multifamily complex off of Midway Road, a two-lane road opposite
the aquatic preserve. There are no shoulders hardly to the road
down here to allow egress and ingress of this property. I have
brought along a pictore to show y~u, if you will ~ass it around.
The pictures will indicate the areas in question and they will
indicate on the bottom serious flooding that has ocCurred in the
particular area--1985. My property adjoins this parcel. I own
this property colored on this map here in green. I own the north
125 feet of these parcels of property. Your staff comments and
St. Lucie County staff comments Say that this will complete an
urban core in this particular vicinity. At the present time
there are already 60 acres zoned in a commercial core in this
area. All of these colored in red on the map are now in
commercial general. They're only approximately seven acres
utilized of this commercialism in this intersection at this
present time. I read with interest the comments that were in
your staff report, particularly the ones that said, regional
planners say that when local governments increase the market
value of land by granting land use changes he uses his power to
mint a form of currency. It does the same thing when you change
and allow a speculative land development to come in with no
constraints on the flood hazard areas in this particular area.
If you will notice the handout I have given you on the second
page shows the flood plain area. This property is wholly located
in flood hazard zone A6 in St. Lucie County. This is one of our
prime concerns and it is also a prime concern of your regional
plan. There are certain sections in your regional plan that say
this should be addressed prior to development. This is not being
the case. Florida Statutes 187 which is your Florida
C6mprehensive Plan, says in several instances that these things
should be addressed. In particular, there about five elements
that require addressing of this in the State plan. These have
not been addressed, because when they come in for these
particular changes, all they come in is with a conceptual and it
does not show, allow you all the availability to see what is
exactly in that area nor unfortunately do the maps that you are
provided when you get this. You don't see but a small portion,
you don't see that the fact that on here it abuts the North Fork
of the river, we have serious drainage problems in the area. At
the present time the positive drainage for this parcel of land
ends right here. The water at that point comes backwards and
either goes this way to the river or tries to go across the
street, head south, and then east into the river. It has created
potential problems before and it has now.. If any amount of
development in this area will increase these potential problems
ten-fold. At the present in St. Lucie County we have
approximately 2,508 acres zoned commercial in St. Lucie County.
That amounts to approximately 827 square feet zoned commercial
for each man, woman, and Child in St. Lucie County. We have a
problem keeping the buildings we now have rented, new shopping
centers are half vacant, and this is something that we don't need
to increase. Again, I will go back to, referring to staff
comments and they say on another issue, it says no local
government should give away that currency without assurance that
in return the citizens of the area will also benefit, the report
advises. Well, I am sorry to say this one is not going to have
the citizens of St. Lucie County, it is going to create a problem
for the adjacent property owners. If you will note, you do not
have copies of it, but Mr. Cary and Mr. Minix have copies of a
petition of opposition from the White City Improvement Club, from
the North Fork property owners, and you also have a petition with
26 signatures from all the adjacent property owners here within
500 feet who were notified of this change. We have enough
commercialism in the area to qualify for keeping our area in our
own area and not bringing adjacent traffic into our area. One of
the problems that I have seen over the years and I have been
interested in zoning since I moved to St. Lucie County 20 years
ago. I found out that I had got zoned out in Ft. Lauderdale and
I bought property that had zoning on it which I needed which was
agriculture. My property has been zoned agriculture since zoning
came into being and prior to that it was in an agricultural sort
of classification I guess when it was given to the by the
State of Florida. One of the faults I find with different things
is in planning concepts. Right now in planning concepts planners
have been advising against urban sprawl. Planners have not taken
into consideration which causes urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is
caused in part by the planners themselves. You ask, why do I
emphasize this? Urban Sprawl is caused by planning concepts
which allow too much encroachment of commercialism into
neighborhoods. This in turn forces the people that live in those
neighborhoods to move away from all the adverse impacts it brings
with them--the incompatible land uses, the increased noise, the
POllution, and increased crime. Where do these people l~ove?
These people move to progressive and innovative developments such
as The Reserve or other developments west of town which limit
housing types and activities to sections restricting
commercialism aspects to the fringes now placing them on every
street corner and behind every nice subdivision. At the present
time subdivisions in this area have houses that have a good
quality of homes and they sell anywhere in the neighborhood up to
$200,000. The north side of Midway Road, which is this road here
and this is S. 25th Street, has mainly people who moved in there
and bought property zoned agricultural. They bought because they
liked the rural , they have farm animals, they have tractors
for their planting, so they have plenty of open space for their
children. They moved there to protect their lifestyle and they
did indeed move there from other areas for this reason. They do
not want to move again. Urban Sprawl is caused by this. People
do not want to live there and this is what causes urban sprawl,
not the fact that is something good for a neighborhood, it is
something that is not good for a neighborhood, they...(CHANGE
TAPES - #1, SIDE 2)...the thing that is not being taken into
consideration under State rules is the fact that you can't say:
"well, I don't want to live next to a bar, I don't want to live
next to an adult .place;" but these things are allowed in
commercialism. PeoP~le do not want them in their neighborhoods,
they do not want to develop these properties when they are in
their neighborhood. Right now, if you will notice, all the
properties to the north of 25th Street, several miles down the
road bordering the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. Now this
is a potential development, if we start bringing
commercialism compl~ithout a road, that is all we are going
to have. No one is going to want to live next to straight
commercialism. That is what causes urban sprawl ladies and
gentlemen. Planners, they can say all they want, and you want
to confine your activities to a general area so that you can
control your infrastructure, so it is concurrent and consistent
with State policies, but are themselves causing urban sprawl
because people don't want to live there, they want peace and
quiet, they don't want adverse impacts and they move into
t
developments hat can control these things. This is one of the
main reasons that I appear here this morning. We have another
problem, Midway Road, which is this road right here, there have
been several comments in your DRI, previous DRIs, which concern
the Sharrett Development, which concern The ReserVe, which will
concern the projects of the McCarty Bros., and these say that
before any development occurs in their areas, that Midway Road
has to be improved. Well, attached to the pack that Mr. Cary has
is a letter from the Engineering Department that appeared in the
News Tribune. It states in there that in order to facilitate
development, Midv~ay will not be able to be developed because
of State standards you go to and culverts or if you
take and you put a retention pond to run your water, excuse me I
am getting feedback here, to run your water into that retention
pond. There is no available land there at the present time to
run waser in and purify the water because as you know in Class
III waters the State's very particular. Class III waters are
directly across the street from this project on the southernmost
portion which is an aquatic preserve, and these are very strict
regulations and this roadway cannot be improved without
exorbitant costs being paid, not little costs, but big costs,
because they are not going to let it happen. Development is
going to be hampered in all the areas I mentioned because of
this. There has to be an alternative. If you will also notice
on here, the way these roads come, 25th street as projected could
have improvements and they're planning to four-lane 25th Street,
but it is going to be two-laned sections either way here. The
roadway here itself can be developed, but we have problems with
this corner right here from Midway Road. In order to develop
Midway Road and get the lands necessary to develop Midway Road,
40 feet of this brand new shopping center here would have to be
torn down because they can't take tropics on the south portion,
as included in that letter in the News Tribune, because it will
be putting a very bad curve in the road in order to Stay away
from the aquatic preserve. All the land must be purchased from
the north side of the road. These are problems we are facing in
our County, and unfortunately with the packets you get, I know
you are all from different counties and I am going to try and
rush them up because I know I am long winded and when you get
into these things, we need to take careful look at why we are
allowing speculative development. We have no control and, okay I
will point out something else, just recently in 1986, this parcel
here and this parcel here came before this board and the State
board for plan amendments and the St. Lucie County Commission.
At that time, the recommendations were to approve these parcels.
Just recently, because we have no control over any rights-of-way
or anything, this parcel here, 40 feet of right-of-way, cost St.
Lucie County and the tax payers $200,000 because we had no
provision to get that right-of-way in our County. This parcel
here cost our County approximately an additional $168,000. This
is tax payers money, we have no control. There is no control on
this parcel here or this parcel here. I know that, speaking in
multifamily again, it's not something you want to look at today,
but it is an overall picture, that is one of the fallacies in the
way we are doing planning. You are not seeing the overall
picture when these things come before you. You are only seeing
commercialism being approached to put on a road that is a minor
or major artery in St. Lucie County , my mind has gone a
little blank this morning, I don't recall which it is. But we
have had these problems in this County, and instead of making a
decision on this today, yes or no, I would think that this could
be postponed until other things are researched. Staff has
indicated in this very minute report that they put in for 88-013,
that there are improvements going to be made to the corridor
there that there'are also going to be improvements to the river.
Yes that is true, they have tried to apply for permits, but I
live in St. Lucie-County and they've tried--because they have to
dredge an area that drains into the aquatic preserve. Ladies and
gentlemen, I will close this morning and ~ will ask that you do
not allow this project, it is wholly in the 100-year flood plans
or if you have tendencies to want to do it, postpone until some
more decisions come forth and plans come forth to show that there
is indeed going to be som~ improvements in the flood hazard areas
and be in compliance with both the State statutes and your own
Regional Plan. In my packet I have prepared both the numbers
which affect both the State and the Regional whick is 187 and
F.S. 163, 9J-5, and your own section 16.113. Now I don't want to
go into those and belabor the point and tell you what they are,
but your plans, the Regional Plan, and the State Plan have
indications that this project should not go forth until there are
more restraints and you find out what is going to happen because
as you know, flooding is a big hazard, it may occur only once in
awhile, but to those of us it has occurred, it is devastating. I
walked out in 1985 with water this high because I live on the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River, as you can see from my parcel,
and I appreciate your concerns and I would appreciate you find
this particular amendment not consistent with any of these plans
this morning and I would ask that you deny this. Thank you so
much for your time.
Minix: Let me explain something about how St. Lucie County
handles these things. The Planning and Zoning Board goes to the
first public hearing, and as you can see that was five to one in
opposition. The County Commission automatically sends the
petition then to the State and when it comes back from the State
the County Commission will have a public hearing and make a
decision on it. So, at this point in time, in fact, that's true
of all of these you will be hearing from St. Lucie County. The
County Commission has not made a final decision on this matter.
Cary: I wish this information, what Pat has said is exactly
true. The information that we get to base our review on is often
extremely limited. It may just say: "here is the piece of land,
here is what is proposed.,, To my knowledge we didn't receive
this report, did we Terry?
Terry: No, we didn't.
Cary: Based on a very good presentation Pat made today, I mean,
she raised some issues which suggested this thing is inconsistent
with the comprehensive plan. That information was not available
to us when we made that recommendation. What's the deal on the
timing on this?
Terry: We have to submit our comments to DCA in the next couple
of days.
Cary: Under that circumstance, in other words, we are under a
time frame. We have to get our comments to have them mean
anything to DCA within a certain time constraint. Based on what
I have heard, I am convinced that there is reason to believe
there is some problems with this and it potentially, in fact is,
inconsistent with the Regional Plan. We haven't had the
opportunity to study this information, but based on what I am
hearing, any kind of arguments, there is reason for concern. If
there isn't room for drainage out there to take place withou~
impacting, there are some pretty good issues brought up. In a
situation like this when we have a tight time clock, all I can
say is you need to base your recommendations to us on what you
have heard and the total information available to you. We can
redo an evaluation on this thing, if that is what you want us to
do based on what you've heard and send it up there. It will be a
complex analysis because these issues are complicated. I think,
all I can say is I have doubt in my mind at this point whether
this thing is consistent and I have doubt about whether the
Council should support it. You may want to direct us to study
this report to make, I guess, staff comments. We can make DCA
recognize and explain to them what's happened.- These are staff
comments. Pass on any recommendation that you feel comfortable
with today and then bring those back to Council next month for
formal approval unless you are comfortable with the position at
this point.
Eggert: Are you saying that you'd pass, you would send these up
the way it stands saying it is consistent and then add staff
comments to that.
Cary: I am saying you need to give us direction on this. Based
on what I have heard, I have doubts about whether this proposal
is in fact consistent with the plan. We didn't have this
information. Everything that Pat said made sense to me. It put
a lot of doubt in my mind. I am not sure what we have here is
this, is a problem we typically get into with incomplete
information.
Minix: What we are going to do is continue with public comments.
I am sure there are other comments that we are going to hear,
then we will come back to questions and comments from the Council
and then we will make a decision based upon what you have learned
here this morning and what our executive director has said. Pat,
thank you very much. Is there any other comments from the public
on this issue? Seeing no one in the public, I will open it up to
questions and comments from the Council.
Cary: Roger suggested something that might be appropriate. One
thing we could do, is transmit the comment with a cautionary note
that a presentation was made at the Council meeting and we would
detail that has raised serious concerns about whether this is in
fact consistent.
Jochem: I found the presentation extremely impressive and
extremely appropriate because it detailed the particular policies
that this proposal was in violation to and I think two comments:
1) I think every comment we send to the State should do that,
should say Policy # is this, is in potential violation or
in violation of that policy and I think that is the way we should
proceed; 2) I certainly hope someone lets the petitioner know
because we are not hearing from the petitioner. It has always
been my experience that there may be two sides to the story and
we should make sure if we are going to send forward these
comments that we ask the petitioner if they have some comment.
Minix: Is the petitioner, a representative of the petitioner
here today? Is there anyone here representing the petitioner?
Dagney: And the third thing that I look at which is interesting
for from the staff comments, it says the County staff supports
the petition and what you are saying that you'll...
Minix: The County staff supports the petition, the Planning and
Zoning Board on five to one denied the support. It has not been
formally decided by the County Commission. There will be a last
public hearing before the County Commission. I am not sure of
the date right now, but in the very near future.
Dagney: After everybody speaks, I suggest a motion, that we
follow Roger's suggestion and detail the policies that this
proposal is in potential violation and submit the lady's comments
and ask the petitioner for their comments.
Eggert: I have got some problems With sending anything up that
says this is consistent and making a little thing saying we are
sending you other information. That never quite arrived
together. Is there something totally neutral we can say further
information to follow, I would rather have something like that
than have this is consistent go up, except that we may change our
minds about this.
Saberson: What we are really saying is that the initial review
by the staff based on the information the staff had indicated it
was consistent; however, there was information that was received
at the Council meeting which we are not really in a position to
judge the validity of at the present time. That raises questions
as to whether the original recommendation was correct or not.
Eggert: I am having problems sending this kind of statement
forward With this kind of situation.
Kenny: It appears to me that items 4, 5, and now 13 appear to be
inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan, and I think in
addition to staff comments, in making an additional comment on 13
pointing out where it is inconsistent we recommend to local
government that those land use amendments be denied. I would
like to have some conversation on t0, I1, and 12.
Minix: Let's go ahead and finish this one.
Helm: Are these two roads mentioned 25th Street and Midway Road-
-are they regional roads?
Cary: Midway is.
Helm: Also with the St. Lucie Planning and Zoning board voting
five to one denying this, did staff know that?
Marcus: There wash some discussion about us not postponing this
for 30 days. ~
Cary: Technically to have our comments be incorporated what is
sent to the local government, they have to be up to DCA in a
couple of days. What I said was, based on what I have heard, I
am inclined to think this is consistent with the Regional Plan.
I think we can say this appears to be, based on information
provided at the Council meeting, it appears to be in conflict
with the Regional Plan. The Council can say that we haven't had
a chance to study.
Marcus: So they can't postpone it? There is no opportunity to
review any of the information, then I agree to take that
statement about consistency out of there.
Elmquist: I think if we are compelled to move forward due to the
constraints that rather than saying it does not appear I think we
should make a stronger statement that we have reservations about
it. Sometimes they don't get past the first line.
Minix: Let me ask, I think we are pretty much all in attune
here, I think it is just a matter of getting a motion of
getting...Roger or Dan will you give us motion that you think
answers the concerns of the Council at this time.
Minix:
of it.
The applicant isn't here and we haven't heard that side
Foley: Your County staff recommended for in this project. Our
County staff is very tough. If they favor something...
Minix: Why is County staff recommending for this project.
Virta: There are a number of factors they took into
consideration. The staff in looking at this land use proposal
and at this point in time, we are dealing with land use, we are
not dealing with specific aspects of site plans, site plan
designs, those type of inspirations will be addressed as part of
the rezoning and site plan approval process in St. Lucie County.
Those considerations are legitimate and legitimate concerns from
everybody who is associated with developments, but in terms with
the comprehensive plan change, that is really not part of the
consideration. What we are looking at is we have a commercial
cluster at the intersection of within St. Lucie County.
What is being~ suggested here and what is being reviewed, the
expansion in what is intended to be a less intense manner, a
transitioning down from a very high intensity typically all
purpose what we call general comamel'cial to a lesser intensity of
this type use and then into residential. It's a classic
transitioning that time wise happens over and over again and at
least from the information we have to use it appears that is a
logical sequence that is taking place, that is supposed to take
place in this location.
Kenny: Do you have a basis for recommending more commercial. It
seems like you have a lot of vacant connnercial in this immediate
area. Is there need based on future growth in that area? Is
there some sort of projected public interest that
commercial.., more
Virta: It's been considered, I have to admit I am not totally
conversed with all the aspects, but certainly that was
considered. This area.
Kenny: Can you discuss why the LPA turned it down five to one.
Was there discussion at the LPA hearing that...
Virta: Certainly, there was a great deal of discussion. The
concerns of the adjacent property owners, the impact that it
could potentially have upon them. The concerns especially so
that maybe rather than being a transitioning of land use to a
very intense commercial to a lesser to non commercial uses, that
it wouldn't be .... intense commercial just on a basis.
There were a lot of issues brought forward.
Minix: I think it would be fair to say that the same things that
you have heard today from Pat were probably what the Planning and
Zoning Board heard.
Foley: Was it the Planning and Zoning or the LPA. We have a
distinction in our County. A great distinction. One, the LPA
happens to be our County Commissioners and the other is the
citizens our planning commission is our
Roberts: The LPA is not...
Virta:commission.The LPA for St. Lucie County is the Planning and Zoning
Minix: Dan Cary has the minutes from that meeting and uh he is
reading them now.
Cary: Just to reinforce what we've heard. The only thing I see
here and I admit I am skimming this as fast as I can. The
applicant is, the justification for the proposed change in their
perspective was the fact that the other three corners of the
intersection were already annexed commercial use.
Everybody: It's not-~n the corner.
Cary: They are pointing to the fact that,...and ~t says here,
the petitioner has received communication from an interested out-
of- town insurance company regarding leases facing this area.
They are trying to change the land use so they can be...
Joche~: I think we have some good information and some lack of
information which puts us at a disadvantage, what we need to do
is say that this parcel is a potential conflict with specific
policies of our RCPP which include traffic, the aquatic preserve,
drainage, whatever they may be, say potential because that is
what it is. We know that sometimes you can solve problems,
sometimes you can't and we need to...
Minix: You want to make that a motion Dagney?
Dagney: Yes. Move that is what we say. That there is a
potential conflict and send on the comments that were presented
today, ask the petitioner if they have additional comments, and
send those on as well to DCA.
Minix: That's the motion, is there a 2nd.
Horenburger 2nds.
Minix: We have a motion and a 2nd. This is only item 13. Is
there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify
by saying aye. Motion carries.
780 Southwest 24 Street ~P 2,~ ]98~
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
Telephone: (407) 837-5290 BUREAU OF LOCAl2
RESOURCE PLANNING
September 2l, 1988
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
TKANSPORTATIO
Dear Mr. Hook:
RE: Land Use Amendments - St. Lucie.County.
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163 F.S. and
Chapter 9J-11 FAC Interim Review Requirements, the comments of the
FDOT to the proposed St. Lucie County Land Use Amendments are
enclosed.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning these
comments, please feel free to contact me at (305) 522-4244 extension
214 or John Anderson at (407) 837-5290 (S/C 245-5290).
Sincerely,
,Gu~avo Schmidt, P. E.
Act/~ng District Planning Administrator
District 4
GS:JA:mg
Enclosure
CC:
Mr. Jim Scully
Mr. Michael J. Tako
Mr. John Anderson
Amendment No. PA-88-007 Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
From SU (Semi-urban) to RL (Low Density Residential)- 1~400 Acres
The amendment is a part of the Reserve Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) now in review by the County and Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council. This Department's comments regarding sufficiency of
the application have been previously submitted. Principle concerns
have been with the location and design of the interchange of Prima
Vista/Reserve Boulevard with 1-95. Both location and design have been
approved by this Department. Remaining concerns are under discussion.
The 4000+ acre Reserve DRI of which this proposed land use
amendment is a part, represents a substantial commitment of land
beyond the present FDOT Urban Boundary in St. Lucie County to urban
development. Substantial traffic impacts on the state highway system
and the potential state system, including Prima Vista Boulevard are
anticipated. These have been addressed only in part in the
developer's response to Question 31 of the Application for Development
Approval (ADA) of the Reserve DRI.
Another concern of this Department relates to the Transportation
Corridors Planning Program now underway in the five counties of
District 4. Prima Vista Boulevard from US-1 to 1-95 and its extension
northwesterly along Reserve Boulevard, now proposed as a private
street, has been preliminarily designated a regional corridor. The
corridor is anticipated to function as an outer circumferential
highway in the future St. Lucie County urban area, extending
northwesterly and northerly from Glades Cut-Off Road (CR-709) along
the general alignment of McCarty Road and SR-603 into Indian River
County and the Yero Beach urban area. It is anticipated that this
corridor will interchange in the North County area with both the
Florida Turnpike (SR-9t) and 1-95 (SR-9) in the vicinity of Orange
Avenue.
The proposed development is the forerunner of other proposals
extending urbanization west of the present urban limits and the
developed or programmed transportation system.
The St. Lucie County Planning Department is now in the process of
updating its comprehensive plan and the Traffic Circulation Element
in accordance with the 1985/86 Growth Management Legislation. Also,
the St. Lucie County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as a
part of this comprehensive planning effort, is updating its
transportation plan for the St. Lucie Metropolitan Area. The FDOT, in
conjunction with the St. Lucie County MPO, is in the process of
evaluating the present and future transportation network in St. Lucie
County, Indian River, and Martin Counties using the Florida State
Urban Transportation computer model. A preliminary report is expected
to be available by the end of September.
,%
Amendment No. PA-88-007 (cont'd)
We cannot at this time and without additional information
determine the impact development traffic might have on state and
regional transportation facilities. The question of whether the
proposal would result in an orderly and logical development pattern
will depend upon the public infrastructure -- including transportation
facilities -- available, or programmed to serve it.
It is recommended that any final action on this and related land
use amendments in the area west of 1-95 (SR-9) be deferred at least
until the results of this study are available and the transportation
facilities necessary to serve this and other similar developments in
the West-Central St. Lucie County area can be determined.
Amendment No. PA-88-006 ' Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
From SU (Sem~-Urban) to CG (General Commercial) - 30.3 Acres
See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007.
Amendment No. PA-88-008 - Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
From SU (Semi-Urban} to CT (Tourist Commercial~ - 40.52 Acres
See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007.
Amendment No. PA-88-009 - A - Duda and Sons, Inc.
From AG (Agricultural) to RL (Low Density Residential) and X
~nterchan~e Development) - -4,300 Acres
The state facility directly affected by this proposed amendment
is 1-95 (SR-9) which it adjolns on the east. Included is the existing
interchange at Gatlin Boulevard and two proposed interchanges between
Gatlin Boulevard and the Martin County Line. (Two proposed
interchanges, one approximately in the center of Section 23, Township
37S, Range 39E and another at approximately Parr Drive at the
northeast corner of Section 35, 37, 39, are shown on the current
Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, Florida dated March, 1987.)
As with Amendment No. PA-88-007, 006 and 008 this Department
cannot comment on the impact of this proposed land use amendment on
the State or Regional Transportation System without-more detailed
information concerning traffic generation and an evaluation of the
impact of future vehicle trips on the existing and the proposed future
Transportation Network.
The Department's comments on Amendment No. PA-88-007 with regard
to deferral of final action until an evaluation of this impact on the
Highway Network apply to this petition as well.
Since this proposal is a DRI, it would be advisable for the land
use amendment to be withdrawn at this time and resubmitted in
conjunction with an Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the
DRI, at which time a traffic analysis in response to Question 31 can
be evaluated.
Amendment No. PA-88-014 - John M. McCarty, Sr., ~tal
From AG (Agricultural) to SU (Semi-Urban) - -3~000 Acres
There are no state facilities directly impacted by this proposed
amendment, however, the same comments as were made by this Department
with regard to Amendment Nos. PA-88-007, 006, 008, and 009, are
applicable to this proposed amendment.
The Department believes that there would be substantial impacts
on the public transportation system and transportation needs which
should be included in the transportation planning process of the St.
Lucie County MPO and Planning Department as well as overall systems
planning by the Florida Department of Transportation.
There is a possibility that development based on the proposed
land use amendment would be considered a DRI, the determination of
which would have to be made by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council at such time as development as defined in Chapter 380.04 F.S.
is initiated. Insufficient information has been provided this
Department for it to make a determination of the impact on the state
system or the state regional and local transportation network.
Amendment No. PA-88-00] - St. Lucie Investment Corp.
From CG (General Commercial} to IL (L~qht Industrial}
21.55 Acres
US-1 (SR-5) is the state facility directly affect_ed by this
proposed amendmenl. Property included in the amendmenl does not have
direct access to US-/ a% this time, however, property to the East
fronting on US-1 is part of the same ownership.
US-1 (SR-5) is a Principal Arterial in the state Functional
Classification and is a Statewide and Interregional Transportation
Corridor in the Corridors Plan now underway now in the five counties
of District 4. Also, a detailed corridor study has been done on US-1
from Hobe Sound north through Indian River County. The
recommendations of that study in this location are improvement of US-1
to a six lane divided facility. It is also recommended that wherever
possible frontage roads be provided within the existing 200 foot
corridor right-of-way.
The proposed amendment will generate fewer vehicle trips than if
the area were developed to either general commercial as now exists
along the US-1 frontage or to multi-family residential. Therefore,
this Department has no objection to the change in land use.
The Department is concerned about the present and future level of
service (LOS) on US-1. This facility is expected to carry
increasingly higher volumes of traffic as development continues at a
rapid pace in Southeast St. Lucie County and the Port St. Lucie area.
1987 traffic counts south of the intersection of Prima Vista Boulevard
at approximately the site (Station 265) indicate an ADT of 37,200
vehicles -- an increase of 55 percent over the 24,000 vehicles in this
segment in 1985. According to the H.W. Lochner Corridor Study US-1 is
expected to carry 61,400 v.p.d, by the year 2020 in this segment.
US-/ is now operating at a LOS E. Under future conditions it will
also be operating at LOS E based on the assumption that there are no
more than 2.5 signalized intersections per mile. If the frequency of
signals increases as a result of an expansion in the number of high
traffic generating uses the LOS will be further reduced. LOS D is the
minimum acceptable operating LOS for US-1 in this area.
It is strongly recommended that in any subsequent review of
Applications for Development Permit a frontage road system (which may
require additional right-of-way), or a cross-access drive be required
interconnecting all property and development on the west side of US-1
between the entry to La Buena Vida Mobile Home Park and Mangrove
Square north to the entry to Spanish Lakes Riverfront Development.
The design for access to the site or to the frontage drive system from
US-1 should include correcting the intersection of Mediterranean
Boulevard South with US-] and the entry to the Home Center Plaza.
Prior to any subsequent development review the proponent should
meet with representatives of this Department (Traffic Operations) as
well as the County Engineer concerning access and egress to the s~te
from US-/_
:"~mendmen% No. PA-88-012 - U.S. Community, Inc.
From SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General} - 14.54 Acres
This proposed amendment does not directly impact any present
state facility. However, it is located on and will have access to St.
Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road (CR-608) which has been preliminarily
designated a regional corridor in the Corridors Planning Program now
underway in the five counties of District 4. St. Lucie
Boutevard/Immokotee Road lies midway between Indrio (CR-614) and
Orange Avenue (SR-68) and will interconnect Dixie Highway and US-l,
25th Street (SR-6t5), Kings Highway (SR-713). It is indicated as
extending in the future from Kings Highway west along a new alignment
to intersect with both 1-95 (SR-9) and the Florida Turnpike (SR-91)
and to connec~ ultimately with the north-south regional corridor,
Rangeline Road (CR-609A), which extends from Indian River County
(CR-615) to the Beeline Highway (SR-71D) in Martin County along
existing and proposed alignments. St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road
is now a state facility (SR-608) from 25th Street (SR-615) to US-1
(SR-5) and may be extended as such in a future year functional
classification as least as far west as Kings Highway (SR-713).
The proposed amendment lies at the intersection of St. Lucie
Boulevard/Immokolee Road and Keene Road which is a logical extension
of Jenkins Road (CR-611) to Kings Highway (SR-713), a preliminarily
designated local corridor. The existing right-of-way on St. Lucie
Boulevard/Immokolee Road ranges between 40 and 80 feet in width in the
segment between US-/ and Kings Highway in which the proposed amendment
is located. The adopted Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, dated
March, 1987 indicates a minimum right-of-way of 276 feet for a
proposed six lane divided expressway. In view of the significance of
the St. Lucie County International Airport now undergoing expansion
and the several points of intersection with statewide and
interregional as well as regional and local corridors and potential
future designation of this facility as a state route, a minimum 242
foot right-of-way should be protected for a six lane divided facility
in a rural section. If an urban section is to be constructed a
minimum of 130 feet should be provided for 6 lanes with dual left turn
capability at principal intersections. In addition, frontage roads,
or at a minimum, cross-access drives may be required to provide land
service between intersecting streets and major driveway access to
abutting property. The same minimum right-of-way is recommended for
the Jenkins Road/Keene Road Corridor.
In a review of subsequent applications for development permit the
CounTy should obtain right-of-way protection for both St. Lucie
Boulevard/Immokolee Road and Keene Road. Future site plans should
provide for limitation of access from St. Lucie Boulevard and
location of access drives a sufficient distance west of Keene Road to
insure safety and a smooth operation of the intersection of Keene Road
and St. Lucie Boulevard at ultimate development. Right turn lanes
should be provided at principal drives and Keene Road.
Amendment No. PA-88-003 - Heminway Corporation
From SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General)- 10.02 Acres
The comments on Amendment No. PA-88-012 are applicable to this
amendment as well with the exception that the potential nor%herty
extension of Keene Road is dependent upon airport development plans
and the adopted policies related thereto by the St. Lucie County Board
of County Commissioners. The same right-of-way protection concerns
are applicable for St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road, as well as the
restriction of access to a safe location west of the intersection of
Keene Road, and right turn lanes at principal drives. Driveway
connections to this site should also be coordinated with those which
provide access to the US Community Site on the south side of St. Lucie
Boulevard. The County should give consideration to reservation of
right-of-way for the potential northerly extension of Keene Road at
the southeast corner of this site.
Amendmen% No. PA-88-011 - Harbor Br6nch Oceanographic Institutionr
Inc.
From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General) -
5t Acres
This proposed amendment has direct access to and impacts US-1
(SR-5), a statew~de/interregional transportation corridor designated
~n the Transportation Corridors Planning Program now underway in the
five counties of District 4. The proposed amendmen~ also has frontage
on Old Dixie Highway (SR-605). US-1 is currently developed as a four
lane divided arterial road. The US-1 Corridor Study by H.W. Lochner
Company recommended a four lane rural arterial in this section with
strict access control or with frontage roads. Current traffic volumes
in this location according to state counts in 1987 indicate a traffic
volume of 18,800 v.p.d, at Station 107 north of the proposed
amendment. Anticipated future volumes of traffic according to the
Lochner report are 41,000 v.p.d, in the Year 2020. The LOS on US-1
today in this section is LOS C or better. If the projected traffic
volumes are correct US-1 would have to be widened to six lanes in
order to maintain a satisfactory LOS and signalization would have to
be restricted to no more than two per mile.
In the review of site plans related-to this proposed amendment
(should it be approved) the Department recommends that access to US-1
be restricted to approved median openings, and limited intermediate
right turn drives that right turn lanes be provided at these drives
together with sheltered left turns at median openings and that access
also be provided to Dixie Highway coordinated with access to the
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution as is suggested in the staff
report.
The staff supports the St. Lucie County Planning Department and
their recommendation for a planned non-residential development (PNRD)
for the entire Harbor Branch facility in order to insure protection of
the dunes areas through environmentally sensitive design and
protection of the capacity and the smooth and safe flow of traffic
along US-1 and Dixie Highway.
Amendment No. PA-88-010 - NCNB 6f Florida
RL (Low Density Residential~ to CH (Highway Comm~ercial) - 13.34 Acres
This proposed amendment fronts on and has access to Old Dixie
Highway (CR-6OS) which is designated a rural major collector on the
Highway Functional Classification of April 15, 1988. The site also
has access to and will directly impact US-1 (SR-5).
The same comments with regard to US-/ as were made on Amendment
No. PA-88-011 are applicable to this proposed amendment. If the
proposed application is approved access to the site from US-I should
be restricted. Median openings are indicated at approximately the
south line of the proposed amendment site and approximately 800 feet
north. If approved the entire site including the property fronting on
US-1 should be included in a planned non-residential development
(PNRD) in subsequent permitting in order to insure environmentally
sensitive design and adequate access control in the interest of
protecting the traffic carrying capacity of US-1.
Amendment No. PA-88-004 - Matthew and Marie Schneider
From RL (Residential Low Density) to CG (General Commercial) -
]4~53 Acres
The proposed amendment does not directly impact any state
facility, however, it lies only a short distance from US-t (SR-5) and
has fronsage on Old Dixie Highway (CR-605). There is noted in the
backup material furnished this Department that the applicant for this
proposed amendment is also the owner of land fronting on US-1.
The same comments made by this Department with regard to
Amendment No. PA-88-010 are applicable to this proposal. The
Department is concerned about the number of points of access from US-1
and long term maintenance of an acceptable LOS on that facility.
Prior to any further application for development permit the owner
should contact and coordinate with this Department and the St Lucie
County Engineer. '
This Department is concerned about the impact that further
extensive commercial designation, zoning and development will have in
the US-1 (SR-5) Old Dixie Highway Corridor from the Indian River
County Line south. The H.W. Lochner Study recommends the development
of marginal frontage roads or other similar methods to protect the
right-of-way from encroachment and halt degradation of LOS on US-1
(SR-5). We recommend that the County take all action necessary in
subsequent reviews of applications for development permit to assure
the maintenance of a high level of service for safe and efficient
operations on that facility.
Amendment No. PA-88-013 - Thomas Zaydon
From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (General Commercial)
12.5 Acres
There are presently no state facilities directly impacted by this
proposed amendment.
Twenty-fifth Street on which this proposal fronts has been
preliminarily designated a regional corridor as a part of the
Transportation Corridors Planning now underway in the five counties of
District 4. This corridor extends from US-1 on the north to Port St.
Lucie Boulevard on the south via Hawley Road, St. James Drive, Airosa
Boulevard. From Port St. Lucie Boulevard the corridor continues south
along Floresta and Riverbend Boulevard to and into Martin County via
Becker and Murphy Roads. The 25th Street corridor is expected to be
used extensively as an alternate to US-1 as the principal facility
becomes more congested. The present rfght-of-way on 25th Street in
this general location is indicated by St. Lucie County as 80 feet.
The recommended corridor width is a minimum of 120 feet for a 6 lane
urban arterial and 160 feet according to the Map, Thoroughfare Network,
St. Lucie County dated March, 1987. Midway/White City Road is and
will continue to be a heavily travelled'east-west corridor between
US-1 and 1-95 lying at the north line of Port St. Lncie. Midway
Road/White City Road (CR-712) is also preliminarily designated a
regional corridor in the Transportation Corridors Plan now in
development, minimum right-of-way width 120 feet. Current
right-of-way width is 80 feet.
In review of the staff comments and the record of public hearing
we note that the entire ownership tract comprises 24 acres and that
there are apparently 60 acres presently designated and zoned
commercial at the intersection of 25th Street and Midway Road. The
area presently designated if developed to its commercial potential
(assuming 30% land area coverage and single story construction), could
result in nearly 800,000 square feet of commercial square footage
generating an estimated 28,000 (2,445 per peak hour) daily trips.
Roadway capacity is not now available or programmed to serve these
projected volumes.
This Department shares the concerns of the St. Lucie County
Planning staff about further extensions of commercially designated and
zoned land in this location due to the present limited capacity and
LOS on abutting and nearby arterial streets as well as in the interest
of conserving new capacity as it is added. Should this proposed
amendment be approved, we recommend that it be considered a PNRD in
subsequent development permitting, that site access be restricted and
that right-of-way necessary for the 25th Street corridor be obtained.
Amendment No. PA-88-004 - H.J. Ross and Associates, Inc.
From SU (Semi-Urban} to~RL (LOW D~nsity ReSidential} _ 113.9 Acre~.
This proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly impact
any state facility. The Department has no comment.
Florida Depa?tment of Entdronmental Regulation.
Tv,in Towers Office Bldg. ~, 2600 131air Stone Road o 'i!atlahassec, Ftorid2~32399-2400
Bob M~r~inez. Governor Dale Tv.'~.chm~,nn. Sccrct:~rx' .John Shearer. Ass~stan~ bccrcturv
September 16, 1988
Ms. Susan Williams
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local Planning
The Rhyne Building
Tallahassee, ~Florida 32399
De a r ~9~--W-~q-i~ms:
RE:
Future Land Use Amendments File #PA-88-007, PA-88-009 and
PA-88-014 '
I have reviewed the above referenced land use amendments and am
enclosing a letter from Marion Hedgepeth to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, and a memorandum from Lou Devillon to
Don White, which deal with the Reserve (Amendment File #PA-88-007).
With regards to the McCarty and Duda properties, problems with
potable water sources could be encountered due to the quality of
aquifer water in this general area.
Ail of the three parcels in question contain extensive low-lying
areas. This will undoubtedly dictate extensive drainage work
and/or wetland alteration to facilitate development. Drainage
will likely be directed to the C-23 or C-24 canals, and ultimately
to the St. Lucie Estuary, which is already stressed due to the
impacts of agricultural and residential drainage. Said impacts
have been in the form of decreased salinities, increased silt
loading, and additional nutrient loading.
It is not known whether the wetlands contained on these properties
are jurisdictional (with the exception of the Reserve, for which a
pre-Henderson Act jurisdictional determination was performed which
claims no jurisdiction). It appears from aerial photography, that
there may be connections (ditches or drainage ways) between
wetlands contained on the Duda and McCarty properties and waters
of the State (C-23 or C-24). A jurisdictional determination may
be needed at a future date to further determine any eventual
involvement we might have.
Ms. Susan Williams
September 16, 1988
Page Two
The Depar.tment is very concerned about the impact on the community
infrastructure and the deficit which will be created by the
developmentamendments, of the 8,700 acres encompassed in these three
If I can be of further assistance please call.
Richard W. Deadman
Planning Manager
RWD/pph
enclosures
Florida Department of £nvironmental Regulation
Southeast Dis rricr. 1900 S. Con~ Ave. Suim A ~ ~r ~m B~ch, Fldrt~ 334~ a 403964-~8
September 1,1988
Ha. L. ChrLstine Befit=
jTreasure Coast Regional Planning Council
13228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd. Suite 205
'P.0. Box 1529 '
Palm City, Florida 33490
Subject: The Reserve
Dear Christina:
I have reviewed the Sufficiency Response (dated July !9, !988)
referenced above and have the fallowing comments:
!. The applicant stated that 3 new wells ars being added to
plant capacity which are capable of producing hi~her yields
than th~oss wells tested in the 1984 study. Please provide the
Department with the new test well data. Please keep in mind
tha~ applications for pumps and raw water mains mus~ be
~braitted for any new wells.
2. As th8 soils in St. Lucie County are all.mosT uniformily
rated as unacceptable for septic tank usage by the U.S. Soil
and Conservation Service, why are Saba! Creek Phases I, i~ and
IV and Reserve Plantation Phases i and II not proposed for
sewers (gravity or low pressure)? Riveria sand is Ponded for 6
to 9 months annually in the proposed septic ~ank area accordin~
to the U.S. Soil Conservatien Service.
3. If irri~a.tion reuse cannot be =~ '
- u~-lized f. or wetlfieid
recharge, when and where is the R.O. industrial injection wet!
planned to be built? Please explain how this project will
comply with the pending requirement of Florida Administrative
Rule !7-40 which requires reuse in wa~er !~mited areas unless
reuse will cost more than two times the cost of the combined
ut~2ity systems.
TO:
FKOM:
Don ~White, P.E. /
Prog_am Administrator ~/
L.J. Devillon ~'~
DATE:
September 1, 1988
SUBJECT:
The Reserve DRI
The following comments are made relative to the potable water
supply for the above project and are made based on a cursory
review of the DRi Sufficiency Report:
- Assdming an average production of 60 gpm for the 25 potable
water wells proposed, total production may not be capable of
meeting maximum day demands -of the water syst=m. Based on 100
gpcd or 300 gpd for each DU, maximum day flow requirements may be
as high as w2.7 MGD. Total production of the proposed we!!field
would be approximately 2.1 MGD. -
* .( 24 hour fl0w X !50% X 150% = max. daily fl0w;
_ The existin~ water treatment plant has been issued a
construction permit for .432 MGD using a lime softening/
filtration treatment system. To date this facility has not been
released for ~ervice. Additional treatment capacity will be
required to meet the demands of the ultimate .project. Dependin~
o~ the raw water source encountered, treatment other than lime
softening/filtration may be required. In the case of reverse
osmosis treatment, consideration must be given to proper disposal
of the reject water.
- ~PPropriats plans, specifisations and application for water
plant expansion should be submitted to the Department upon the
existing water trea~men~ fac~!ity reaching a ~inished wa~er
maxlmum day equal to 80% of the Department rated plant capacity.
Construction of the expansion should beQtn before or when the
facility achieves a maximum day finished water production equal
to 90% of the Department approved rated plant capacity. Failure
to m~et either _the 80% or 90%
c~-teria should be 3ust cause for
disapproving water distribution
the Dapartmen~ pursuant to Ch. !7-22.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION(ERS
7
D6V6LOPM£NT
DIR6CTOR
TERRY L 'vIRTA
September 22, 1988
3ohn N. Anderson, AICP
Transportation Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
780 SW 24th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
SUBOECT: Your Letter Dated September
Dear John:
9, 1988
Thank you for your letter regarding the thirteen land
use plan amendments currently being reviewed for St. Lucie
County. Unfortunately, you should have virtually all of the
information that staff has access to for reviewing these
requests. As you suggested in your letter, the only way one
can develop any estimate of impact is to make some basic
assumptions and develop numerical estimates of impact from
that basis. I am forwarding your letter to Dennis Murphy of
my staff and ask him to send any additional information we
might have.
If you have further questions or if I can assist
further, Please let me Rnow.
you
TLV/seb
cc: Planning Administrator
MPO Supervisor
Sincerely,
~oe~mruy~~rv~ea~~opA~Dire'ctor
HAV[RT L. FENN. Oistnc~ No I · JUDY CULP[PI~R. D,$tr,ct No. 2 · JACK KRIEG[R. Olsmct No 3 · R_ DALE TR[FELNER. Distnct No. 4 · JIM MIND(. D:stn~ No. 5
County Adm~nlsttOtO,- - W[LDON B LI~WIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652
Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1550 e Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
780 Southwes% 24 Street
Fort LauderdaZe, Florida 33315-2596
Telephone: (407) 837-5290
OF TRANSPORTATION
0t.988
September 9, 1988
Mr. Terry'Virta
Director of Community Development
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
For~ Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Dear Mr. Virta:
Traffic and Socioeconomic Data
Pr_ oposed Future Land Use Land Amendments
I was glad to have the opportunity to meet and talk with you
briefly at the St. Lucie County MPO meeting last week and I look
forward to working with you in the future on transportation corridors
and related matters of mutual concern.
Among my responsibilities other than corridors is review and
comment for District 4 on proposed future land use plan amendments
transmitted to Department of Co~unity Affairs (DCA) by local
jurisdictions. We recer~tly received from DCA thirteen (13} proposed
amendments in St. Lucie County -- of which five have the potential of
a very significant impact on the St. Lucie County transportation
network and the state system itl the County as a part of it. The staff
reports on the three Reserve Land Use Amendments (No. PA-88-007), the
Duda Amendment (No. PA-88-009) and the McCarty Amendment did not
include the petitioner's and/or staff's est/mate of future dwelling
units, population, and square feet or acres of commercial development
or traffic impact analysis. These are essential to our assessment of
the impact on the state and regional system as well as the feasibility
of proposed future interchanges with 1-95 (the Duda Amendment). We
assume numbers if they are not provided. If not provided by the
applicant, you may have developed these figures in conjunction with
your evaluation of the impact of the proposal on public
infrastructure. We would very much appreciate copies of applicant
submittals or staff memos or reports which can provide us with this
information on the adopted Thoroughfare Network, St Lucie County,
Florida. -
Mr. Ter£y Virta
September 16, 1988
Page 2
We would also appreciate clear and more explanatory maps of
proposals -- especially when a specific or diagrammatic site plan has
~beensubmitted as documentation supplemental to an application for
change.
JWa/mg
cc: Mr. Gus Schmidt
Mr. Jim Scully
Sincerely,
/
Transportation Planning
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
DEV£LOPMENT
DIRECTOR
TERRY L. ~RTA
September 22, 1988
Oohn W. Anderson, AICP
Transportation Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
780 SW 24th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
SUBJECT: Your Letter Dated September 9, 1988
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter regarding the thirteen land
use plan amendments currently being reviewed for St. Lucie
County. Unfortunately, you should have virtually all of the
information that staff has access to for re¥iewing these
requests. As you suggested in your letter, the only way one
can develop any estimate of impact is to make some basic
assumptions and develop numerical estimates of impact from
that basis. I am forwarding your letter to Denni~s Hurphy of
my staff and ask him to send any additional information we
might have.
If you have further questions or if I can assist you
further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
TLV/seb
cc: Planning Administrator
HPO Supervisor
HAV[RT L. FENN. District No. I · JUDY CULI~I~ER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEG£R. District No. 3 · R. DALE TR~FELNER. District No. 4 e JIM MINI~ District No. 5
County Administrator - W[LDON B. LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-t 550 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
FLORIDA OF TRANSPORTATION
780 Southwest 24 Street ~ 9
0'1988
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
Telephone: (407) 837-5290
Septe~er 9, 1988
Mr. Terry Virta
Director of Community Development
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Dear Mr. Virta:
Traffic and Socioeconomic Data
Pr~osed Future Land. Use Land ~nendments
I was glad to have the opportunity to meet and talk with you
briefly at the St. Lucie County MPO meeting last week and I look
forward to working with you in the future on transportation corridors
and related matters of mutual concern.
Among my responsibilities other than corridors is review and
comment for District 4 on proposed future land use plan amendments
transmitted to Department of Com~aunity Affairs (DCA) by local
jurisdictions~ we recently received from DC2t thirteen (13) proposed
amendments in St. Lucie County-- of which five have the potential of
a very significant impact on the St. Lucie County tr.ansportation
network and the state system in the County as a part of it. The staff
reportson the three Reserve Land Use Amendments (No. PA-88-007)~ the
Duda ~endment (No. PA-88-009) and the McCartyAmendment did not
include the petitioner's and/or Staff's estimate of future dwelling
units~ population, and square feet or acres of commercial development
or traffic impact analysis. These are essential to our assessment of
the impact~on the state and regional system as well as the feasibility
of propoSed future interchanges with 1-95 (the Duda Amendment). We
assume numbers if they are not provided~ If not provided by the
applicant, you may have developed these figures in conjunction with
your evaluation of the impact of the proposal on public
infrastructure. We would very much appreciate copies Of applicant
submittals or staff memos or reports which can provide us with this
information on the adopted Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County,
Florida.
Mr. Terry Virta
September 16, 1988
Page 2
We would also appreciate clear and more explanatory maps of
proposals -- especially when a specific or diagrammatic site plan has
been submitted as documentation supplemental to an application for
change.
Sinc~rely,
Transportation Ptan~ing
cc:
Mr. Gus Schmi~4t
Mr. Jim Scully
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
~EMORANDUM
To:
From:
Council Members
Staff
AGENDA ITE .t 5D
Date:
S.ubject:
September 16, 1988 Council Meeting
Local.Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Thirteen Amendments to. the St. Lucie County
Future Land Use Element
~ntroduction
Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to
review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments prior to
their adoption:. St. Lucie CoUnty has submitted proposed
amendments to the State Department of COmmunity' Affairs, which in
turn is seeking Council,s comments.
Council,s review of the information forwarded by the Department
of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship of the
proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. If a conflict
with adopted plans or policies is identified, the regional
planning agency is to specify any objections and may make
recommendations for modifications. Council also provides
informal comments to the local government through a spirit of
cooperation, and technical assistance on matters related to the
Proposed amendments. These advisory comments are aimed at
providing, coordination between the local and regional
comprehensive plans.
St~ Lucie County is considering 13 amendments to.i their Future
Land Use Element. The locations of the properties under
consideration are shown on the accompanying map, and the number
of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are
summarized on the following table:
In order to assist the Council in their review, the following
definitions from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are
included:
LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for the production of
citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries,
forestry, cattle and stock raising, dairy farms and other
direct' agricultural uses. Dwelling units at a density of
one per acre and large-scale, self-contained
developments.
SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban
development (less than one dwelling unit per acre),
generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural
character of the area.
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development category
that allows for residential development projects having
an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review
procedures, and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy
Plan. The following comments are offered as a result of that
review.
Many of the parcels under consideration are covered
with native pine flatwoods vegetation. These
properties have the potential for containing species
listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council
encourages the development of site plans that are
sensitive to the needs of any~listed species and which
preserve as much native vegetation as possible.
Items ii 2, and 3 (PA-88-007, PA 88-008, and PA 88-006)
These three parcels are related directly to The Reserve
Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The large area~
(1,400 acres) is being proposed for low density
residential development'. The smaller parcels at the
future interchange of 1-95 and Prima Vista Boulevard
proposed for commercial land use, are proposed to be
used for a resort hotel (40.5 acres) and a shopping
center (30.3 acres).
The proposed land use changes would result in a greater
intensity of development, therefore generating higher
traffic volumes~ All traffic impacts and appropriate
government should give away that currency without
assurance that in return the citizens of the area
will also benefit. To do so would not be prudent.
The owner of this property has requested that the
land use be AgricUltural Productive
(4,300 acres Density Residential (3,000
acres Oriented-c~mmercial (1,~300~ .
acres), affered to the community
in not even an
intelligent, development.
To grant the .requested change would enhance
deve
for
de~
value
al of the
Lt in return
potential, the
'tizens of the
~ that development
the requested densi~
and perceived
land, without
added value and
do anything
area--not even
intelligently
negative
time as government has sufficient data
the public that the change is in their
interest and that negative fiscal and
environmental impacts will not occur, the change
should not be ma~e.
Granting the proposed change would.interfere with
the planning of an important future growth area in
an intelligent, comprehensive, and positive
manner. Interference would occur for two reasons:
1) because, as mentioned above, the local
government's negotiating power would have been
compromised prior to a plan being developed; and
2) because the change would encourage the breakup
of what now is a very large tract of land in
single ownership (10,000 acres). Many planning
techniques which can assure intelligent and
positive growth are difficult to implement where.
multiple ownership occurs.
By way of illustration, a comprehensive evaluation
of this property might conclude that due to the
ecological or agricultural importance~of the land~
that development should ideally occur ~onlY within
a two-mile radius of the interchange. If the
entire t0,000 acres is single ownership, the local
government is in a position to approve development
in the form of a mixed use, compact community that
provides future residents a place where they can
live, WOrk, and shop without having to commute
excessively long distances, in return for an
agreement that remaining portions of the property
are dedicated to ecological preserve areas, as
Se
action to encourage development. Based on
deVelopment approVals that have to be granted to
date in ~Port St. Lucie and St~ LUcie County, it
is clear~ that substantial expenditures will be
necessary to expand the existing roadway system.
Just to approved development it appears an
additional roadway or expressway will be
needed and many ~existing roads will need to. be
expanded. To encourage even more
determining an efficient and cost
ef~ of paying for existing needs
wou be prudent and would potentially
lita costs by expanding the area
needing to be served.
Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000
acres should be discouraged and
mixed Planning that provides
pc to live,, work, 'and shop in
proximity alleviates the need for
costly systems and provides for the more
effici delivery of infrastructure. Large
blocks of low density, purely residential land
require people to get in their cars and drive for
e every ne~d. S~paration of uses is
[ for the traffic problems in places
and Dade COunty. To continue to
the of d~velopment that have
the k ~ problems that exist in these
areas would be to ignore history and give away the
future of this Region.
The more than 600 acres (existing) of
Int~ e Commercial at this one location is
needs to be considered in terms of its
.ve effect and relationship to
surrounding areas prior to approval. According to
both the. City of Port St~ Lucie and the County, no
such Study has been proposed.
The redesignation of land use is inappropriate at
this time (for reasons noted above) and
unnecessary. Although 'not represented in the
reviE p~Ckage submitted,, this ~property has
atre~ been granted 600 acres of. interchange
orJ potential and the existing Agricultural
:lye category allows for large- scale, self-
contained development. The only thing required to
obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable
development plan. Since reasonable use is already~
allocated, it is not clear why the County should
agree to upgrade substantially land development
p6tential in the absence of a plan.
reasonable proximity alleviates the need for
costly road systems and provides for the more
efficient delivery of infrastructure. Large
blocks- of low density, purely residential land
require people-.to get in their cars and drive for
essentially every need. Separation of uses is
today blamed for the traffic problems in places
like Los Angeles and Dade County~ To.continue to
follow the methods of development that have
created the kinds of problems that exist in these
areas would be to ignore history and give away the~
future of this Region.
No assessment has been done of the costs or
methods of providing transportation, sewage, water
school, or medical
the County. There are
presently no services in the area~ The nearest
fire/emergency medical services. ~facility is 14
miles away;
Respons e growth management requires that local
understand fully the costs of
providing infrastructure and service to new
development and demonstrate an~ability to deliver
services concurrent~-~i~h.~need~ prior to taking
action to encourage development. Based on
dew approvals that have to be granted to
Port St~ Lucie andrSt. Lucie County, it is
clear that substantial expenditures will be
necessary to expand the existing roadway system.
Justlto ,support approved development, it appears
an addi 1 east/~west roadway or expressway will
and many existing roads will need to be
y expanded. To encourage even more
growth to determining an efficient and cost
e method of paying for existing needs
wou~ be prudent ~nd would substantially
per capita costs by expanding the area
be served.
The~are presently relatively inaccessible. It
can be only via Glades ~Cut-off Road from
the with a connection to Glades Cut-off
-~Road~ ~ded by Range Line Road to the s~uth._
All ro two-laned~ No ~assessment is
provided to address the serious east/west capacity
which already exist in this area of
St. COunty; and
While t~ ~roperty may lend itself in the future
to the pment of a mixed-use community (or
literal to a new town given the size of the
tract), the proposed land use change promotes the
9
that. infrastructure in an area which is not only well
removed~ from existing urban facilities, but is to be
characterized by sprawling, low densities will be
eXtremely high.
Finally, Council recognizes that the proposed land use
category appears to allow little or no additional~.
diversity in land use tYPes, and _densities. The
existing land use category should be retained because
it allows for large-scale, self-contained developments,
while the proposed use appears to be more limiting and
could result in single use sprawled development.
Mart
the
that
has expressed concerns relating to
act of this and the previous land change on
plan policies Urban
as proposed would be [ict'with the
County Land Use Plan (see letter).
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment appears to be in conflict and inconsistent
with the policies contained in the~ Regional
comPrehensive Policy Plan.
Item 6 (PA 88-001)
This amendment is for a 22-acre parcel of land
immediately west of U.S. 1, between a shopping plaza
and tw° mobile home parks. County staff states that
the petitioner intends to consolidate parcels in order
to develop a Planned Non-residential Development
(PNRD). The proposed Industrial Light (IL) land ~use is
necessary to accommodate wholesale activities planned
in the development. Public water is available at this
site, but public sewage treatment facilities are not.
The CountY will want to evaluate the wetlands
associated with this parcel prior to any development
approvals. Also, the County Kay want to take a look at
the opportunity, in conjunction with this project,~ to
provide access between the mobile home parks and the
shopping plaza. All opportunities such as this to
reduce stress on U.S. 1 should be carefully considered.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict- or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Item 7 CPA 88-002)
This amendment involves a ll4-acre parcel which the
petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home
communi%y. The property is adjacent to another
manufactured home development and lies along the
11
The property associated with Item 12 is covered with
mature sand pine scrub habitat. It should be surveyed
by qualified personnel for the presence of Lakela's
mint, a federally endangered plant species whose entire
population is known to exist only in a few locations
near the subject parcel. Because sand pine scrub habi-
tat is becoming extremely rare in the Region, Council
encourages the preservation of as much of~this habitat
as possible. These comments also apply to Items I0 and
11 if scrub habitat exists.
Prior to development a traffic analysis should be
prepared for each site and submitted to the County
Engineer and Florida Department of Transportation. The
analysis should address impacts on nearby intersections
(U.S. 1) in order to define problems relating to
signalization, turning movements, and median cuts.
Based on the information provided and the concerns
expressed above, the proposed amendment does not appear
to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies
contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Item 13 CPA 88-013)
This parcel (12.5 acres) is located immediately north
of the 25th Street/Midway Road intersection which is
rapidly evolving into a major intersection in St. Lucie
County. The intersection and both roadways are
programmed for major improvements. All four quadrants
of the intersection area now have commercial land use.
This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast
quadrant.
A traffic study should be submitted for the review and
approval of the County Engineer. The study should
address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway
Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie
West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be
proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on
the applicable roadways and intersections.
The St. Lu¢ie River (North Fork) lies immediately to
the east. There have been frequent storm water
management problems in this area. A study is currently
underway on how to manage such problems in the North
Fork drainage area.
County staff supports the petition, citing the logic of
developing a compact core to the commercial area while
recognizing the environmental constraints and potential
conflicts of continued commercialization. Perhaps
reflecti'ng the long standing community opposition to
13
- ~ .:-5.9
-%,-
'r.
123
3~
_ =-=- __-- =:
~ 9 E
PORT ST,
I .
.q
Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP
August 17, 1988
Page Two
CR 609 (Range Line Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin
County line. Land uses to the south in both Martin and St. Lucie
County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida
Department of Corrections facility, is operating immediately 'to the
south of the County line west of CR 609.
These changes would be incompatible with the Martin County Land Use
Plan and may lead to potential adverse traffic impacts and
environmental degradation to Allapath Flats. Consideration should be
given to the placement of east-west routes connecting to major
thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. If these are proposed on
the Major Thoroughfare Plan then developemnt of these roadways should
be concurrent with development of these and surrounding properties.
The potential impact of urban development west of the Gatlin Boulevard
interchange at 1-95, the potential widening of CR 609 and the
developement of major thoroughfares in this area will have to be
coordinated with Martin County at the time of development review for
this property. The magnitude of traffic, which could be produced by
this land use change, was not envisioned in the development of the
Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year 2005 Transportation Plan and
coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be
jeopardized.
2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT:
The current land use designation amendment without any specific
development plans, is not expected to have any immediate significant
social, economic, or environmental impacts on Martin County. Should
an urban type development occur in this area, the impact on Martin
County and surrounding areas will have to be closely evaluated.
I trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use
amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Harry ~. King,
Planning Administrator
HWK/ERC/dlw [0146]
cc:
Board of County Commissioners
Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator
Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Development Department
Henry Iler, Growth Management Plan, Appointee
Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner
Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coordinator
Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21. 22, 23,
33, 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST.
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, THENCE NORTH
89'03'42" EAST, ALONG THE, NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23, A
DISTANCE OF 96..01 TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 170.00
FEET EAST O'F, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO. 9 ( 1-95 ) AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAy
MAP, SECTION 94001-2412 DATED 6-2-77 WITH LAST REVISIONS ON 8-28-
81, BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
EASEMENT, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 97, PAGE 504,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
00'00'11" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID-FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, AND ALSO THEi!WEST LINE OF A
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy AS RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE
INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A DESCRIPTION
SHOWN ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W. BETHAM, P~L.S.
WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 319~ WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND KNOWN AS
THE "INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL", THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15. EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600..50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE~OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10.; THENCE SOUTH 58'59'$5'
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE
TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 621.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15";
26, 27, 28, 29,
LUCIE
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-'OF-WAY NORTH
31'44'36" WEST, 116.53 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROPOSED "LEGENDS
DRIVE-- EXTENSION, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG'THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
DISTANCEs~OF~WAY LINE OF SAID "LEGENDS DRIVE" THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS SOUTH 11'47'49. EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET.; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'09'23.; THENCE SOUTH 86'21'33"
WEST, 474.55 ,~.EET TO A POINT OF CURVATUres. OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 735.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
19'26'55'; THENCE SOUTH 66'54'39' WEST, 405.25 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 272.57 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'31'30-
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 812~04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 571.91 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21'09';
THENCE SOUTH $2'04'59" WEST, 128.01 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF SO.O0 FEET; THNCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE ~ DISTANCE OF 1.01 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'14' TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION,
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED
'LEGENDS DRIVE~ SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
OF THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARCOF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 74.54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85'24,.41' TO... .....
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NORTHEAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 42'11'20'; THENCE SOUTH 76'40'16' EAST,
414.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'53'28" EAST, 405.62 FEET
TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT~ ....
OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' SOUTH 00'06'32' EAST, ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 140.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD'; THENCE SOUTH 89'53'28'
WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 562.93 FEET, TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,033.84 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE, 27.92 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL . ANGLE OF 01'32.'51' TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION -WITH THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy L~NE OF A PROPOSED 120~00 FOOT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED "RESERVE
BOULEVARD" EXTENSION, SCUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES~
THENCE SOUTH 50'54'50' WEST, 64.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
10'23'21" WEST, 109.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE ...... ~0 THE EAST )lAVING A RADk_i~.J OF 540.00
FEET) THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54°31') THENCE SOUTH 18'31'10' EAST, 353.66 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39°37';
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09" EAST, 794.83 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 88'51'34' EAST,
1o479.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199 - 201, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 504, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.$8 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCESt
SOUTH 04'50°26' WEST, 637.01 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
12~25'58' WEST, 640.99 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 19'28°24#
WEST, 683.65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 79'27'56' WEST, 55.51
FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 10'32'03' EAST, 50.00 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH' 79'27°56' EAST, 55'o39' FEET~ ' THENCE SOUTH-
40'32'32' EAST, 146.64 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 23'34°44'
WEST, 422.43 FEET~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 89'52°24"
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER
{1/4) OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 1529.4.9 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 43'08°22" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CANAL NO.
C-24, A D~STANCE OF 2,361.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY
'LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTH
61'51'34' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
619'.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40'58~54' 'WEST, ALONG THE-NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL o 958.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF 'INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID CANAL NO.
C-24~ THENCE NORTH 43'08'22' WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 173.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE ~OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED ~N O.R~ BO0~ 344, PAGES I093 - 1095,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE NORTH
46'44'~7' EAST, ALONG. THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
1260.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'08'40' WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF 'SABAL CREEK PHASE IV' AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
~7o PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
5,082.07 FEET~
SAID SOUTHERLY
SOUTHERLY LINE
THENCE NORTH 43'34'09' WEST, CONTINUING ALONG
LINE OF SAID SABAL CREEK PHASE IV AND THE
OF SABAL CREEK PHASE II, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE l, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL A DISTANCE OF, $,340.4? FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAIL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 44'45'58" EAST, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY RIGHT'OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL ROAD, AND
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE I', AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 32, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF "THE RESERVE
P.U.D.' AS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK 442 PAGES 667 THROUGH 672 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 7984.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
I. NTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .21, AND-THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID 'RESERVE P.U.D.'; THENCE NORTH 89'21'52' EAST,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 AND THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID 'RESERVE P.U.D.' A DISTANCE OF 109.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER' OF SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'23'26' EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE. OF SAID SECTION 22~ AND THE NORTH LINE.OF SAID. 'RESERVE
P,U,D.' A DISTANCE OF 2,639.20 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE QUARTER
(1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'43' EAST,
CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AND ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID ':RESERVE P.U.D.', A DISTANCE OF 2693.20 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22 AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2397.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
NOTE:
THIS LAND DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE LAND
SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED AS RL.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
November 21, 1988
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you
are hereby advised that Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by
Agent: Regina C. Karner, has petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential Development) for the
following described property:
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
(Location: Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve
Development)
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on
Wednesday, December 14, 1988, in St. Lucie County Commission
Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex,
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested per-
sons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding,
individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any
party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If
you should have any questions, additional information may be
obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1553.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jack Krieger,V Chairman
FILE NO. PA-88-007
HAVERT L. F£NN. District No, t ® JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 ® JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5
County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100
Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21, 22, 23,
33, 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST.
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, THENCE NORTH
89'03'42' ~T, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23, A
DISTANCE OF B6.01 TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 170.00
FEET EAST OF~ AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF ST~E ROAD NO. 9 ( 1-95 ) AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAy
MAP, SECTION '94001-2412 DATED 6-2-77 WI~H LAST REVISIONS ON 8-28-
81, BEING ~HE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
EASEMENT, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 97, PAGE 504,
PUBLIC RECO~S OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
00'00'11" W~--~ST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID.FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT ~MPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO THE WEST LINE OF A
FLORIDA POW~iR AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy AS RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 120, ~AGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE
INTERSTATE ~5 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A DESCRIPTION
SHOWN ON A ~OUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID 'W. BETHAM, P.L.S.
WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 319~ WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND KNOWN AS
THE "INTER~'TATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL", THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~ ~ - .....
26, 27, 28, 29,
LUCIE
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF t75.93 FEET; THROUGH Al
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10"; THENCE SOUTH 58'59°55-
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 62~.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15'; '
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy NORTH
31'44'36" WEST, 116.53 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROPOSED "LEGENDS
DRIVE" EXTENSION, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLy ALONG.THE SOUTHERLY
OF-WAYDisTANCEs~LINE OF SAID "LEGENDS DRIVE" THE'FOLLOWING COURSES AND
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS SOUTH 11'47'49- EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE.~: OF 08'09'23-; THENCE SOUTH 86°21,33-
~WEST, 474.55 ~eEET TO A POINT OF CURVATU.,~,~ OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 735.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SArD CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
19'26'55'; THENCE SOUTH 66'54'39' WEST, 405.25 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, ftAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 272.57 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'31'30'
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 571.91 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
T~ENCE SOUTH $2'04'$9" WEST, 128.01 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF SO.O0 FEET; THNCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE ~ DISTANCE OF 1.0i FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'14' TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF
THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION,
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF SAID PROPOSED
'LEGENDS DRIVE' SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
OF THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 'CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 74.$4-.FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85'24'41'.T0..
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NORTHEAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLy ALONG THE ARC OF
S~ID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET T~IROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 42'11'20'; THENCE SOUTH 76~40'16, EAST,
414.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'53'28' EAST, 405.62 FEET
TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT,
OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD. SOUTH 00'06'32- EAST, ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 140.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD'~ .THENCE SOUTH 8g~5.3,28.
WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE, 562.93 FEET, TO ~A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,033.84 FEET~ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY R~GHT-OF-WAy LINE, 27.92 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'32oS1- TO A POINT OF !'NTERSECTION ~ITH THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120 O0 FOOT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAy. ·
THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHERLy LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD- EXTENSION, SCUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy THE FOLLOWING COURSES
DISTANCES~ ' AND
THENCE SOUTH 50'54'50" WEST, 64,98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
_10'23'21' WEST,.~ 109.9e FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
~URVE CONCAVE ~'-~'0 THE EAST llAVING A RAD~ ....... OF 540.00
FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54°31"~ THENCE SOUTH 18'31'10' EAST, 353.66 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39°37'~
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09" EAST, 794.83 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 88'5X'34' EAST,
1,479.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
oF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199 - 201. THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11"
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 504, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.58 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R. 800K 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUClE COUNTY, FLORIDAj THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
SOUTH 04'50'26' WEST, 637.01 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
12'25'58" WEST, 640.99 FEETj THENCE SOUTH 19'28°24"
WEST, 683.65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 79~27'56· WEST, 55.51
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10'32'03' EAST, 50.00 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 79'27'56- EAST, -. 55.,39 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
40'32'32' EAST, 146..64 FEETz THENCE SOUTH .23'34'44--
WEST, 422.43 FEET~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 89~52,24-
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER
(1/4) OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 1529.49 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 43'08'22" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CANAL NO.
C-24, A DISTANCE OF 2,361.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY
'LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTH
61'51°34" WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
619..04 FEET= THENCE SOUTH 40~58'54' WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY
L/NE OF SAID PARCEL 958.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID CANAL NO.
C-24~ THENCE NORTH 43'08'22' WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 173.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A'
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 344, PAGES 1093 - 1095,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH
46'44'37" EAST, ALONG. THE SOUTHEASTERLy LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
1260.91 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 43'08'40" WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE IV" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
17, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
5,082.07 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 43'34'09' WEST, CONTINUING ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SABAL CREEK PHASE IV AND THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SABAL CREEK PHASE II ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
#
THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE l, PUBLIC 'RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL A DISTANCE OF, $,340,4? FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAIL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 44'45'58" EAST, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL ROAD, AND
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE I", AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 32, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF "THE RESERVE
P.U.D." AS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK 442 PAGES 667 THROUGH 672 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 7984.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .21, AND, THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D."; THENCE NORTH 89'21'52" EAST,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 AND THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID "RESERVE P.U.D." A DISTANCE OF 109.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'23'26" EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE.OF SAID SECTION 22 A-ND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE
P.U.D." A DISTANCE OF 2,639.20 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE QUARTER
(1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'43" EAST,
CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AND ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D." A DISTANCE :OF 2693.20 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID S~CTION 22 AND THE POINT: OF
BEGINNING.~
CONTAINING 2397.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
NOTE:
THIS LAND DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE LAND
SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED AS EL. ·
-.
st. lucie
August 4, 1988
coa/.t
regional
planni.n.9
cour'lcil
The Honorable Jack Kreiger
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie .County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 33450
Subject:
St. Lucie County Local Government
.Comprehensive Plan Documents
Dear Commissioner Kreiger:
This is to notify you that the Regional Planning Council has
received a request from the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for comments on the following comprehensive
planning document:
Amendments to Future Land Use Element (13)
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan
Council staff will review the documents in accordance with
the.:requirements 'o'f t.he .Local, Government comprehensive
Planning and Lan~,~)eve~opmen~-:Regulation .ACt, .... ChaPter i63,
Florida Statutes. It is anticipated that the report and
recommended comments will be presented to Council at its
meeting on September 16, 1988.
Prior' to the Council meeting, the 'meeting agenda, report,
and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to
you. You or any representative of your local government are
invited to attend the meeting and will be afforded an
opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council
meeting the adopted comments will be transmitted to DCA.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,/Q/~
Terry . Hess, AICP
Planning Coordinator
TLH:lb
cc: Dennis Murphy, AICP
3228 s.w. martin clowns blvd.
~uite 205 · p.o. Ix~x 1529
palm city, florida 34990
phone (407) 286-3313
jim minix
chalrmon
john acor
thomas g. kenny, III
vl~® chalrm~n
donlol m. cory
,BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION6RS
JACK KRI6G£R
CHAIRMAN
July 19, 1988
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Division of Resource Management
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Subject: Transmittal of Winter 1988 Proposed Amendments to the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan
Dear Mr. Hook:
Enclosed, please find ten (10) copies of the thirteen (13)
proposed Land Use Amendments to the St. Lucie County Growth
Management Policy Plan scheduled for final review in December of
.1988L On Tuesday, July 12; 1988, the St. Lucie County Board of
County Commissioners, after holding a public hearing on each
petition, voted unanimously to forward each of these petitions to
the Department of Community Affairs for further review in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes.
As cited in the staff reports for each of these petitions.,
three (3) of the thirteen (13) proposed changes are related to a
Development of Regional Impact submission (The Reserve); none are
considered to be a small area amendment under the requirements of
Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; none are considered to
be emergency plan amendments; none are proposed for adoption
under a joint planning agreement pursuant to Chapter 163.3171,
Florida Statutes; and none are located within any designated Area
of Critical State Concern.
Since three (3) of the submitted Land Use Amendments are
related to the submission of a Development of Regional Impact, if
permitted, we would appreciate an expeditious review of those
Land Use Amendments associated with Callaway Land and Cattle
Company, so that if the Application for Development Approval
(ADA) is completed, both the land plan amendments and the
proposed development order for this project may be heard at the
HA'/~R'r L FENN District No 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER D~smct No 2 · JACK KRI['GER D.stncr No ,.% · R DALE TREFELNER D.stn~ No 4 · JIM MINIX D~str,ct NC 5
Count', Ad
2300 V~rg~n,aAvenue · to-' P:erce FL 34982 5¢~52 · '%05) 406 "100 or f305) 878-4898
July 19, 1988
Page 2
Subject: Winter 1988 Plan Amendments
same time. As of July 14, 1988, this application was determined
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as insufficient
and additional information requested.
If during your review of these proposed amendments you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of
Community Development for assistance. Specific individuals in
....-~..~%ha~-~>office to'Contact~iwDuld be Mr. Terry~Vt~a~Diirector of
CommhnitY Development or Mr. Dennis Murphy,~ ~"Planning
Administrator. When your Agency returns its review comments to
St. Lucie County, I would appreciate it if you would also include
copies to Mr. Virta and Mr. Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney, as
-.well.
We appreciate the time you will be spending on these
petitions, and look forward to receiving your input on these
requests.
Sinc~ely,
J~9~.k Kri~er
~hairma~,
Board of County Commissioners
JK/DJM/meg
TRANSi(B30)
cc: County Administrator
County Attorney
Development Director
Petition Files
AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WEDNE'SD;~
DECEMBER i~, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by Agent:
Regina C. Karner, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of
the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential Development) for the
following described property:
(Location:
Development)
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides
to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,
he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request
of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a
hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be
granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners November 21, 1988. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie County, on December 6, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman
FILE NO. PA-88-007
BOARD
ST.
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~UCIE ~OUNTY, FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
Date: July 12, 1988
convened: 9:08 a.m.
Tape: #1 - #3
adjourned: 3:25 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Jack Krieger; Vice-Chairman
Havert L. Fenn; Jim Minix; R. 'Dale Trefelner; Judy Culpepper (as
noted) ' -
Others Present:
Assistant County
Krista Storey and
Virta, Community
Administrator; Je
Public Works
Administrator; Wa
Office; Jane C. Ma
Weldon Lewis, County Administrator; Dan Kurek,
Administrator; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney;
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Terry
Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Rlanning
~f Ketteler, County Engineer; Howard Kimble,
Director; Low England, Acting Rroperty
lter Smith and Evan Costopoulos, Sheriff,s
rsh, Deputy Cierk
(a) Callawa~ ~andign~ Cattle. ~ (2-1840)
Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator,
addressed to the 8card, dated Su!y 6, 1988, subject "Petition of
Callaway Land & Cattle Company, to amend the future land use
classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy
Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential)-.
It was moved by Com. Minix, seconded by Com. Culpepper, that this
petition be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs for comments; and, upon roll call,
_unanimoosly' motion carried
C ~ TUESDAY
AGENDA - BOARD OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 12, 1988
1:30 P.M.
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by Agent:
Regina C. Karner, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of
the St. Lucie CounTy Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential Development) for the
following described property:
(Location:
Development)
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of CounTy
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides
to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,
he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request
of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a
hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be
granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners July 1, 1988. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie CounTy, on July 5, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ Jack Krieger, Chairman
FILE NO. PA-88-007
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21, 22° 23,
33, 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST.
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, THENCE NORTH
89'03'42' EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23° A
DISTANCE OF 96.01 TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE
FEET EAST OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO. 9 ( 1-95 ) AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT'OF-WAy
MAP, SECTION 94001-2412 DATED 6-2-77 WITH LAST REVISIONS ON 8-28-
81, BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
EASEMENT, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 97, PAGE 504,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
00'00'11' WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID.FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, AND ALSO THE WEST LINE OF A
FLORIDA POWER AND 'LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy AS RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE
INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A DESCRIPTION
SHOWN ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W. BETHAM, P.L.S.
WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 319~ WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-I0-87 AND KNOWN AS
THE 'INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL", THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A'
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10"; THENCE SOUTH 58'59'55.
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 621.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.I4 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15";
26, 27, 28,
LUCIE
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED
31'44'36- WES . _ WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy N
~u~USED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFERRED
DRIVE ">EXTENSION, THENCE S TO A~__~HE PROPOSED "LEGENDS
_ OUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE .... ~'~ '~
OF WAY LINE OF SAID - .-_ SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
DISTANCES~ LEGENDS DRIVE- TM~ FOLLOWING COURSES AND
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS SOUTH 11'47'49- EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'09'23"; THENCE SOUTH 86'21'33
WEST, 474.55 ~.~EET TO A POINT OF CURVATU~ OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 735.00
FEET~ THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
19'26°55'; THENCE SOUTH 66'54~39" WEST, 405.25 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 272.57 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'31'30"
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIVS OF 812.04 .FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 571.91 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21'09";
THENCE SOUTH 52~04'59" WEST, 128.01 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET~ THNCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE ~ DISTANCE OF 1.0i FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'14' TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE PROPOSED "RESERVE BOULEVARD" EXTENSION,
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED
"LEGENDS DRIVE~ SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF THE PROPOSED "RESERVE BOULEVARD, EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES~
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 74.54 FEET THROUG~ A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85~24'41· -TO
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NORTHEAST~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 42'1~'20'~ THENCE SOUTH 76'40'16" EAST,
414.04 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 89'53'28' EAST, 405.62 FEET
TO THE POINT.OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY
OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' SOUTH 00'06'32' EAST, ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 140.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
LINE OF SAID.PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD'~ THENCE SOUTH 89~53~.28-
WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, $62.93 FEET, TO'A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,033.84 FEET~ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE, 27.92 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'32'51" TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH. THE'
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120.00 FOOT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD' EXTENSION, SCUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES~
THENCE SOUTH 50'54'50' WEST, 64.98 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
10'23'21" WEST, 109.9~ FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE~,.L~O THE EAST [lAVING A RAD,~.~ OF 540.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54'31'~ THENCE SOUTH 18'31'I0' EAST, 353.66 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEETI THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39'37'~
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09' EAST, 794.83 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 88'51'34' EAST,
1,479.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199 - 201, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11'
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE $04, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.58 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES=
SOUTH 04'50'26" WEST, 637.01 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
12'25'58' WEST, 640.99 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 19~28'24'
WEST, 683.65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 79'27'56' WEST, 55.51
FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 10'32'03' EAST, 50.00 FEETJ THENCE
NORTH 79'27'56" EAST, 55.39 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
40'32'32" EAST, 146.64 FEETz THENCE SOUTH 23t34,44-
WEST, 422.43 FEETj
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 89t52,24-
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER
(1/4) OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF .1529.~49 FEET~ ~.THENCE
NORTH 43~08'22' WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CANAL NO.
C-24, A DISTANCE OF 2,361.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY
'LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTH
61'51'34' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
619.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40'58'54, WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLy>~
LINE OF SAID PARCEL', 958.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF AFORESAID CANAL NO.
C-24~ THENCE NORTH 43'08'22" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE, 173.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED. I'N. A
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 344, PAGES 1093 - I095,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE NORTH
46'44'37" EAST, ALONG. THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
1260.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'08'40' WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL .AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE IV' AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
17, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
5,082.07 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 43'34'09~ WEST, CONTINUING ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SABAL CREE~ PHASE IV AND THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SABAL CREEK PHASE II, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
?HEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL A DISTANCE OF, 5,340.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAIL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 44°45°58" EAST, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL ROAD, AND
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE I", AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 32, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF "THE RESERVE
P.U.D." AS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK~ 442 PAGES 667 THROUGH 672 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 7984.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTIiON WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .21, AND~ THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D."; THENCE NORTH B9'21'$2" EAST,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 AND THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID "RESERVE P.U.D." A DISTANCE OF 109.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER' OF SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'23'26" EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OFSAID SECTION 22 AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE
P.U.D.", A DISTANCE OF 2,639.20 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE QUARTER
(1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'43" EAST,
CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTI~ON 22 AiND ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D.", A DISTANCE OF 2693.20 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2'2 AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2397.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
NOTE:
THIS LAND DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE LAND
SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL LESS AND EXCEPTING ~THEREFROM THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED AS RL.
BOARD OF COUNTY
D V6LOPM6NT
COMMISSION£RS DIRECTOR
July 1, 1988
In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you
are hereby advised that Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by
Agent: Regina C. Karner, has petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential DeVelopment) for the
following described property:
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
(Location: Southwest of Glades'Cutoff Road in the Reserve
Development)
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 1:30 P.M. on
Tuesday, July 12, 1988, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Admin-
lstrarion Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
atAil that interested time. persons will be given an opPortuniTy to be heard
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of CounTy
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding,
individuals testifying during ~a hearing will be sworn in. Any
party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross,
examine any individual testifying during a hearin9 upon request.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If
you should have any questions, additional information may be
obtained by calling Area Code 407, 466-1100, Extension 344/41
Sincerely, -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST.~LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jack Krieger, C~airman
FILE NO. PA-88-007
HAVERT
L.
FENN.
District
No.
·
JUDY
CULPEPPER. DistrictCountyN°' 2 eAdministrarorJACK KRIEGER,_ WELDoNDisrrict No.B. 3LEWIS ® R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100
Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zen rig: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28,
33, 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIp 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLy DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
89'03'42" E OF SAID SECT '
AST, ALONG THE ION 23, THENC
DISTANCE OF 96.n- - ........ NORTH LINE OF SAID .E NORTH
FEET EAST OF, AS MEASURED AT RI
O[~WAy OF STATE ROAD . ~T ANGLES TO THE W ~.00
Ma~, SECTI ~0. 9 ( I-~5 ) AS S EST~RLy RIGHT-
ON 94001-241 HOWN ON THE
81, BEIN 2 DATED 6-2-77 WI RIGHT-OF-WAy
~;.._~_ G THE WESTERLY LINE 0 TH LAST REViSiONS ON 8-28-
~n~, AS RECORDED IN OFF,~i~LF~~ POWER AND
~U~LIC RECORDS OF ST. --- - "~u~uS BOOK 97
LIGHT
CO.
O0 00'~1. . LUCIE COUNTY · PAGE 504,
ANn .....- W~T, ALONG SAID WEST' · FLORIDA; THENCE S
~zua POWER AND · aNu ALSO THE W -"~"
BOOK 120, P" .... ~GHT COMPANy RIGHT-OF 0.~ T_ ~ST LINE OF
,u~ l~g THROUGH 2 '--z a~ RECORDED
~OUNTY, FLORIDA, A D?~' ..... 0~, PUBLIC RECORDS ~- -- IN O.R.
~NTERSECTION WIT" m..,~oi~ OF 8,2~5.66 F~m -~~- ~r. LUCIE
INTERSTATE 95 .,,2--~ wRoPOSED WESTERLY ~ j~ a POINT OF
· ~zm~C~ANGE PA
s.owN ON A BOUN DESCRIBED ^
WITH FLORIDA CERTI NO 319~ ' ..... BETNAMo P.L.S.
' WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS j.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-B7 AND KNOWN AS
THE "INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAy & PEACOC~ PARCEL"
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~ · THENCE
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47,47015. EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUs OF 600.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 17~.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10-; THENCE SOUTH 58'59'55.
WEST, 462.06 FF~T TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THERADIUS O~ 621.42 FEET;
ARC OF SAID CURVE
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15.; '
THENCE DEPARTIN~ SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-oF-wAy NORTH
31'44'36. WEST, 116.53 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WIT~
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-oF-wAy LINE OF a PROPOSED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFER~ED TO AS THE PROPOSED "LEGENDS
DRIVE - EgTENSION, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY'RIGHT_
OF-WAy LINE OF SAID "LEGENDS DRIVE. THE FOLLOWING COURsEs AND
DISTANCES~
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS SOUTH 11'47'49- EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE,:. OF 08'09'23-~ THENCE SOUTH 86'21'33-
WEST, 474.55 ",.~'EET TO A POINT OF CURVAT~ OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 735.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
19'26'55'; THENCE SOUTH 66'54'39" WEST, 405.25 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 272.57 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'31'30'
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 571.91 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21'09';
THENCE SOUTH 52'04'59' WEST, 128.01 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET; THNCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE .A DISTANCE OF 1.0! FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'14- TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD. EXTENSION,
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED
'LEGENDS DRIVE~ SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF,WAy
OF THE PROPOSED "RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 74.54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 85'24'41'
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE~OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO_
THE NORTHEAST~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 42'11'20"~ THENCE SOUTH 76'40'16' EAST,
414.04 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 89'53'28' EAST, 405.62 FEET
TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-.
OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' SOUTH 00'06°32, EAST, ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 140.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD's; THENCE SOUTH
WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 562.93 FEET,~ TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,033.84 FEET~ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 27.92 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL~ ANGLE OF 01'32'5~- TO A P,OINT OF INTERSECTION ,#ITHo THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120 O0 FOOT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY. '
THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD- EXTENSION, SCUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES~
THENCE SOUTH 50'54'50' WEST, 64.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
10'23'21' WEST, 109.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CON~AVE ...... ~0 THE EAST tIAVING A RAD.,~_~S OF 540.00
FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54'31'~ THENCE SOUTH 18'3I'10" EAST, 353.66 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39°37'~
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09' EAST, 794.83 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 88'51'34' EAST,
1,479.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199 - 201, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 50.4° PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.58 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
SOUTH 04'50'26' WEST, 637.01 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
12'25'58' WESTI, 640.99 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 19~28°24·
WEST, 683.65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 79 27'56' WEST, 55.51
FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 10°32'03~ EAST, 50.00 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 79'27'56' EAST, 55.3-9 -FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
40'32"32' EAST', 146.64 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 23'34'44'
WEST, 422.43 FEET~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 89t52,24·
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE OUARTER
¢1/4) .OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 1529.49 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 43'08'22" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CANAL NO.
C-24, A DISTANCE OF 2,361.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTH
61'51'34' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
619.04 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 40'58'54'-WEST,: ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY-
LINE OF SAID PARCEL , 958.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION.'
WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID CANAL NO.
C-24= THENCE NORTH 43'08'22' WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 173.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL/OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 344, PAGES 1093 - 1'0'95,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH
46'44'37' EAST, ALONG. THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
1260.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'08'40' WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF 'SABAL CE] PHASE IV" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
17, PUBLIC RECORDS
5,082.07 FEET~
SAID SOUTHERLY LI
SOUTHERLY LINE OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
:NCE NORTH 43'34'09' WEST, CONTINUING ALONG
OF SAID SABAL CREEK PHASE IV AND THE
CREEK PHASE Il, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
{
THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL A DISTANCE OF, 5°340.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAIL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 44°45'S8, EAST, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL ROAD, AND
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF 'SABAL CREEK PHASE I', AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 32, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF 'THE RESERVE
P.U.D." AS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK 442 PAGES 667 THROUGH 672 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 7984.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .21, AND. THE
NORTH LINE OF' SAID 'RESERVE P.U.D.'; THENCE NORTH 89'21'52" EAST,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 AND THE NORTH LINE, OF
SAID 'RESERVE P.U.D.' A DISTANCE OF 109.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORONER' OF SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'23'26' EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE-OF SAID SECTION 22, AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID."RESE. RVE .....
P~U.D.'. A DISTANCE OF 2,639.20 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE QUARTER
(1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'43" EAST,
CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AND ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID 'RESERVE P.U.D.", A DISTANCE OF 2693.20 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22 AND THE POINT OF
BEGIiNNING.
CONTAINING 2397.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
NOTE::
THIS LAND DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE LAND
SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE LANDS~CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED AS RL.
The St. Lucia County Board of County Comn~' '~ers proposes to. change the use of land within t,~-~rea shown
in" the map in this advertisement. · '
A public hearing on the proposal will be haiti b~e~re the St, Lucia County Board .of Ceunty Com~iasionem on
Tuesday. July 12, 19~, at 1:30 P.M.. in Room 101. St. Lucia County Administration Building. ~ Virgin~ Avenue.
Ft. Pierce. Florida, The purpose of this meeting:is tO consider'the comments and recommendations of the St. Luc~
County Local Planning Agency and determine whether o~ not to transmit the proposed ~nd u~ plan amendment to
the Florida Depa~ment of Community Affairs for fu~her agency review in accordance with the requireme~
Chapter 1~.31~ Florida Statutes.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electroni~lN recorded. If a
decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any maker Co~ered~
at such meeting or hearing, he will need a reco~d of the proceedings, and that for such pu~se, he may n~
[.~ ~i? b~ swozn i~. Any pa~ to the proceeding will be granted an oppo~u.l~ to cro.-.a~i.~-9~,~
Tying During a nearing upo~ request, .' . ; .,,-..~u.,
Copies of the proposed amen~ents to the St. Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan are ava~ble for~
public review in the St. Lucia County Office of Community Development, Building and Zoning Divan. R~
2~ Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce. Florida, during normal busine~ hours. -
1
irested per~s may appear.and will be:.[ven an oppo.uni~ to be h.rd at that~m~.I ...................
becomes necessa~, these public hearings ~ay be continued from time to time.
.... ~: ' ' - ST. LUCIE COUNt, FLORIDA -
BOAR D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER~
. /S/JACK KRIEGER
-. CHAIRM AN
I i COUNTY
~.a acm ~ct lying bl~n No~ ~.~.' 1. ~d FEC
Railroad. ~ feet no~h of Turnpike Feeder Road. (Oppo~;e Or,id Acres M.H P.)
B HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INST~UTION, INC.~
From RL (Low Density ReMdenflal) to CG (Commdr~l GeneralJ: Location: ~ acme plus. ' :'
Highway, at the existing Harbor Branch Facll~ies, ~ Old D~xte Highway minus, be~n No~h
C NCNB OF FLORIDA:
From RL ILow Density Residential) Io CH {Commerc~t Highway}: Location: 11 pl~s, minus acres, ~
No~h U.S. 1 end Old Dixie NIghwey, al Wilcox Road,
D U.I. ~O~UNITIiI, INC.:
From SU {Semi Urban) to CG lCommerc~l Gener~j;;Locet~: 14.5 acme lying at ~uthw~t com~
From SU ISemi Urban) to CG (Commercial Genere~}~ Loca~o~: 10 acres. ~ing along ~'no~h ~de of St.
F N.J. ROSS A H,J, ROSS ASSOCIATE~, INC.:
R THOMAS ZAYDON:
~[~ R~ {Lo~ ~e~.sity Re~dential} to CG (Commerces ........... : · -'
nean Boulevard.
From SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low Density Reside~]~: Loca~n* ~ acres ~ing at ' ' * ~ * * *
Lane. (Harbour Ridge/Wide Waters). ' ~ · · nonhe~t com~
<' CALLAWAY LAND and CATTLE COMPANy=
us acres, lying between Interstate 95 -~ .... ~ ~L - ~ommercial Tou~;) and CG {Cam . . .
THE RESERVE. --u ~m;es:~t-Off Read. Petition ~ Dan ~; ~---,-- mer~Ge~eml). Lo~n: 2.~
From AG (Productive Agr~ultural] to X (Interchange)and RL ILow De~ Re~e~i): ~: 3,~ pl~, m~ui
of Inter~tate ~ at Gallin Boulevard
4.JOHN M. Mg~ARTY~ ,' ':~:
3.~ plus. mlnu~ acr~ ng ~uth of ~des Cffi~ff R~. W~
of Range L~e Road·
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
AND
SPECIAL REVIEW 'OF LARGE AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: J' P' TerpeninG, Mabel Fawsett, Patricia
Ferrick, Patricia King, Ralph Flowers Joseph Sciturro and
Douglas Skidmore. ' ,
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Carman - excused illness; Jo Ann
Allen - excused, illness. '
OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant County Attorney, Krista Storey;
Planning Administrator, Dennis J. Murphy; Assistant Planner,
Donna Scanlon; and, Assistant Planner, Ray Skorzewski.
PRESS ATTENDANCE: 'Susan Burgess News Tribune (for a portion of
the meeting) '
TAPES: 1, 2, 3, & 4
DATE OF HEARING: <~JUNE 23, 1988
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: FILE NO. PA-88-007:
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co. to amend the Future Land
Use Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management
Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential
Development) for Property located on the southeast side of Glades
Cut-Off Road, approximately 3 miles south of West Midway Road.
Regarding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy said Staff Chose to stand by
comments made in the previous petition (Calaway Land & Cattle Co
File No. PA-88-006). .
Hearing no further public comment in favor of or in opposition to
the petition, Chairman Terpening closed the public portion of the
hearing.
After considering the testimony presented during the public hear-
ing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set
in Section 5.3.300, St. Lu~ie County Zoning Ordinance, Mrs.
Fawsett made a motion that the St. Lucie County Local Planning
AGency recommend to the BOard of CountY Commissioners, that the
petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co. for a change in land use
from SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential) be approved
and transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
for further review and evaluation under the requirements of
Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Mr. Flowers seconded the
motion,of the motion, and upon roll call, the Board voted unanimously in favor
Chairman Terpening.informed the petitioner,s agent that the peti-
tion will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
a recommendation of approval
Agenda Item:
File Number:
PA-88-007
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Local Planning Agency
Planning Administrator
June 16, 1988
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., to Amend
the Future Land Use Classification of the St.
Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan from
SU (Semi-Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential)
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING GMPP:
PROPOSED GMPP:
PARCEL SIZE:
PROPOSED USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
WATER/SEWER SERVICE:
Southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road,
approximately 3 miles south of West
Midway Road.
AR-1 (Agricultural,
du/ac)
Residential - 1
SU (Semi - Urban)
RL (Low Density Residential)
Approximately 1,400 acres.
See Comments.
St. Lucie County: AG, AR-l, RS-2 and PUD
Port St. Lucie: GU, HI and !
See Comments.
Station #6 (White City) is approximately
8 miles away.
Facilities to be provided on site.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the
Growth Management Policy Plan, the Local Planning Agency shall
consider and make the following determinations:
June 16, 1988
Page 2
Petition:
File No.:
Callaway Land and Cattle Co.
PA-88-007
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with
all elements of the St. Lucie Growth Management
Policy Plan;
The proposed change in Land Use is consistent with
the General and Residential Land Development
Policles of the St. Lucie County Growth Management
Policy Plan. Specific policies in support of this
petition include; #2, #5 and #11.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment is consistent with existing and proposed
land uses in this area;
The proposed amendment is consistent with
existing and proposed land uses in this area.
the
Whether there have been changed conditions
require an amendment;
See Comments
that
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and Whether or to the extent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity~
of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities;
See Comments
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in an orderly and logical
development pattern, specifically identifying any
negative effects on such pattern;
The proposed amendment represents an orderly
logical development pattern in this area.
and
June 15, 1988 Petition:
Page 3 File No.:
Callaway and Cattle Corp.
PA-88-O07
COMMENTS
The petitioner, Callaway Land and Cattle Co., proposes to
change the land use designation from SU to RL for a portion of
the property located along the southeast side of Glades Cut-Off
Road, approximately 3 miles south of Nest Midway Road. This
petition is being filed as a part of the Application for
Development Approval (DRI), The Reserve, in accordance with
Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The property under
petition is not located within a designated area of Critical
State Concern. This property does not qualify as a small area or
emergency plan amendment under Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes
and zs not proposed for adoption under a Joint Planning Agreement
pursuant to Chapter 163.3171, Florida Statutes.
As this Agency may be aware, the developers of The Reserve,
are.presently in the midst of the Development of Regional Impact
review process with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and St. Lucie County. The Reserve is a proposed 4,100 unit
residential development that will include four golf courses, one
of which is existing, a variety of housing types and styles
centered on both the golf courses and necessary lake drainage
system. As presently envisioned, the residential density for this
project is approximately 2.0 du/ac.
In addition to the residential aspects of this development,
the project is proposed to offer approximately 80 acres of
commercial preDerty (refer RA-88-O0~ and RA-88-O08), as well as
approximately 250 acres of industrial property, within the
corporate limits of the City o~ Rort St. Lucie.
As a Development ' of Regional Impact, this project must
demonstrate that it will not adversely impact on the community
infrastructure. If it is found to impact these facilities,
mitigative steps must be taken to compensate for that impact.
Through the final reviews of this application a series of
conditions/requirements will be developed to be included in any
approval order for this project.
In general the application for change
consistent with the development philosophy of
County Growth Management Policy Plan.
in land use is
the St. Lucie
Under the requirements of Rule 93-11, Florida Administrative
Code, the State of Florida requires a recommendation from this
Agency~ as well as staff, prior to the Board of County
Commissioner,s consideration on whether to transmit this petition
for further agency review. At this time, staff would recommend
that the Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of
approval for this petition and that it recommend to the Board of
3une 16, 1988
Page 4
County Commissioners, that this petition be transmitted
State of Florida for further agency review and comment.
to the
Although staff is Offering a preliminary recommendation of
approval, we would advise the petitioner that should the Board of
County Commissioners agree-to transmit this petition for further
review, St. Lucie County reserves the right to amend this
recommendation pending completion and review of the required
agency comments.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact this
office.
DOM/DBS/seb
Attachment
CAL-RLl(B-DEC88)a
cc: County Attorney
Regina C. Karner
Christine Beditz
SAMPLE MOTION:
MOTION TO TRANSMIT:
AFTER CONSIDERING ..THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCtE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
CO. FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO RL
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BE APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER
REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTERS 163
AND 380, FLORIDA STATUTES.
MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTE~D DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO
RL (LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT), NOT BE TRANSMITTED
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER
REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163,
FLORIDA STATUTES~ BECAUSE...
THURSDAY
AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JUNE 23, 1988
7:00 PoM.
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by Agent:
Regina C. Karner, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of
the sro Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to CG (General Commercial Development) for the foilowin§
described property:
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
(Location: Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve
Development)
Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning
Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with
respect to any matter considered at such meetin§ or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur-
pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of
any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying durln§ a
hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be
granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners June 1, 1988. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988.
FILE NO. PA-88-006
RESERVE P.U.D. SECTION III
COMMERCIAL TRACT B-SOUTH
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTI.ONS
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~
26 AND 27, TOWNSHIP
COUNTY, FLORIDA, HONE
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF 'THE RESERVE P.U.D.' -AS
DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 442
PAGES 66? THROUGH 672 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LYING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22~ THENCE SOUTH
89.'45'43' EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH~LIN~ OF SECTION 22° A DISTANCE
OF 985.04 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENC~
NORTH 89~03'42· EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23~ A
DISTANCE OF 96.01 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LiNE
OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CONPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, AS RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 504 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. .LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA~ THENCE SOUTH 00'00'11' WEST ALONO SAID WESTERLy LIN~ OF
THE THE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CONPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, AND ALSO
THE WEST LINE OF ~ FLORIDA POWER A~D LIGHT COHPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy
AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 10,206.81
FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTErLy RZGHT-
OF-WAY OF THE INTERSTATE 9S INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A
DESCRIPTION SHOW~ ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID
· ETHA~o P.L.S. W~TH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. ~199 WITH ST. LUCIE
WEST THOMAS J. WHITE DEVELOP~.ENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-I0-87
AND K~OWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL'
SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING~
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11' WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF'
THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, A DISTANCE OF
326.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH B8~$1o34· WEST, 1,479.24 FEET~ THENCE'
SOUTH~ E5'25'09' WEST, ?94.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
~TH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120o00 FOOT
PUBLIC R~GHT-OF-WAy, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS ~ORTH 78~08,28- EAST,
SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTHWESTERLy
ALONG SA~D PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES~
THENCE NORTHWESTERLy ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
DISTANCE OF 123.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
06'39'37'~ THENCE NORTH 18'31'10' WEST, 353.66 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 540-.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTHWESTERLy
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 27~46
THROUGH A CENTRAL AN~LE OF 28'54'31'~ THENCE NORTH
10'23'21' EAST, ~Og.9~ FEET~ THENCE NORTH 50~54~50·
EAST, 64.98 FEET TO THE PO~T OF INTERSECTION ~ITH THE
SOUTHERLy I. INE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ~RESERVE
BOULEVARD' SAID POINT BEINO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE- NORTHEAST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH
01'26'19' WEST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS~OF 1o033.84
FEET~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THE PROPOSED
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
AND THE SOUTHERLY .LINE OF THE SAID 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION,
A DISTANCE OF 27.92 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01~32,S1-~
THENCE NORTH.89'$3'28- EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
'RESERVE BOULEVARD- EXTENSION A DISTANCE OF 562.93 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
OF THE INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A
DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON A 80UNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W,
BETHAM, P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO, 319'9 WITH ST. LUCIE
WEST THOMAS J, WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND
KNOWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL'.
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF
SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCESz
THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 89~S3°28. EAST, 300.00 F~ET~
THENCE SOUTH 05'45'38' WEST, 64.11FEET~ THENCE SOUTH
86'06'S2' EAST~ 960.95 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.50
FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLy ALON~ ~{E ARC OF SA~D CURVE A
DISTANCE OF ~26.0~ FEET, THROUGH A CEHTRAL ANGLE OF
59'43°46~ TO A POINT OF CO~POUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RAD~U~ OF 1,295,00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SA~D CURVE, '
A DISTANCE OF 57.31 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
02'32'09' TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLy
LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy AS
RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 120, PAGES 199 - 201 PUBLIC
R~CORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE POINT OF
CONTAINING 40.52 ACRES MORE OR LESS
i5121122123t26/27/28/29/33/34/35-36-39
SU- L
SU-CT
RS-2 =, PURPLE
P.U.D. : RED
AR-1 : BLI
~ETITION OF CCALLAWAY LAND & CATTLE CO,,
:BY AGENT: REGINA KARNER, P.LoS.
F~ CH~'NGE IN FUTLFR:E LA~I) USE CLASSIFICATION
~ROM SU TO ~L
FROM SU TO CG
'PROM SU TO CT
~512]122t23t2~/27/25129/33/34/35-3~-39
s u-R u *"%,'X"X"~
S~-CG
SU-CT
SU = BLUE
RL = RED
PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND & CATTLE
-~Y AGENT: ~REGINA KARNER, P.L.S,
FOR CHANGE IN FUTU'R~E LAND [FSE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TORL
FROM SU TO CG
FROM SU TO CT
3321 ~01 e~44 O001&
CO
3321 ~Cl CC4~ CeCil
CC
OC
CALLAkAY L~N~ ~ C~TTLF C~ IHt
F~ PIE~C~ F!
CO
PC$CCk. PA 1~444-96~?
3321 CO! O0*P C0012
CC
FT PT[~r, ~L 34~50-4P70
FI PI~C~, ~t
640 ~t P~LH ~CH RV STF
~O¥*L PALP 8CH~ ~L
CO
33~1 ecl OCS1 CCC/b
CC
2~2~, 8CI ¢C~4 C00t7 CC
~3o 5~ r~T qT LLCJ~ {~¥ sTY A
pOpT ST t~'C~r~ FL 3~n~-O000
OC
O0
CALLAbAY t~O E CJTTLE CO
3321 8Gl 0050 OC012 O0
PO~T ST LUCIF~ FL 3~983-2213
332~ EOf CC~P CCOle
CO
3321 COl 0052 CCC/8
3~?1 COl ~06C COC/Z CC
[~LLA~A¥ [~N~ ~ CATTLF C~ I~C
leO ~ PESF~VE P~ TP~CF
T PIEPCE~ FL 3q~e6-q~3~
3321 ~Ol 0C63 CCC/3
CC
O0
llbl PURT ST LUCI[ 8V
FORT ST tl!CI[~ FL 34952-C000
3321 801 0065 O0017 CO
CALVA~C. rPNFST F £ SHIPLEY J
15e3 SF ~nYat G~EFN CIP APT P-IC~
PC~T ST LUCIF~ FL 34q57-0000
3322 313 CC03 OOCIP
O0
3321 801 0C6/~ CCC/6 CC
7qC3 PLANTATION LAKF$ DP
C¢
TIIT~K~ ~N C
CC'
O0
~C£CK ~11 ~ C~1T~
f-C~i~ C-L
!~EP ??~ CCCi CC¢~f cc
¢1~ ¢~Cv~ ~) TE~ I~C-PC~$~~
flJ~I, FL
~Z~ ~11 CCC! CCCle
3~;~ ?Cl C~C~ ¢CC~? CC
~;. zo~ cc~2 cccs~ er
332~ 7Cl OClq CCC~
ec
C~
OC
PI~i~F~ F'icJ~frT P t ~&~'T t
O~
Oc
~C
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
~lST~k~ CT
C¢
(t
~;i P¢l CCI! CCC/~
~T e
CO
Ig
o
3322 ~C! CCZ~ CCCll
CC
CO
CC'
CC'
0¢
cc'
33~ 7Cl CfC? CCC/? CC
CO
¢C
CC
f~ ~IiI-?GIG
t¢
tC
33~I ~Cl CC~C CCC~ cc
~ ~ ~ CO~ST t~
~f
cc
O0
~3ZI ~OZ ~CO~ CCCI~
?]~! ~t? C~C? CCC~ ct.
~C
O~
OC
CC
CC
?J~ S ST