Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCallaway Land & Cattle Co (4)BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS D6V£LOPM£NT DIR6CTOR TERRY L. V~RTA February 17, 1989 Callaway Land & Cattle Co. BY AGENT: R. Karner & Associates 2162 Reserve Park Trace Pt. St. Lucie, FL 34982 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 CT (Commercial, Tourist) for property located on the southeast side of Glades Cut-off Road, approximately 3 miles south of west Midway Road. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 88-104 adopted by the Board. Very truly yours, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Judy Culpepper, Chairman JC: tk Encl. HAVERT L. FENN, District No. 1 · JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. Distric~ No. 5 County Administrator WELDON BE LEWIS 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Director: (407) 468-1590 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 ORDI C .. 88- 08 FILE NO.: PA-88-008 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 86-01 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE GLADES CUT-OFF ROAD, ROAD (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM SU (SEMI-URBAN) TO'CT (COMMERCIAL, TOURIST) MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie cOunt-y, Florida, has made the following determinations: I. Callaway Land & Cattle Co., presented a petition to amend the future land use classification set forth in the St. Lu¢ie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CT (Commercial, TouriSt) 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 a~!~east seven (7) days prior to said hearing and all owners of property within five hundred (500') feet were notified by mail of said hearing, has recommended that the Board amend the future land use classification set forth in the Sro Lucie CountyGrowth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi - Urban) to CT (Commercial, TouriSt) for the property described below. 3. The Board held a public hearing on December 15, 1988, after publishing notice of such hearing in the Ft. Pierce News to unincorporated areas~f'~"S~<~-D~'~e~-County~ County Ordinances and County-Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not effect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not effect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstances. F. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraph A. G. FILING WITH. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. H. FILING WITH T~E 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, Tatlahassee, Florida, 32399. RESERVE P.U.D. SECTION III COMMERCIAL TRACT A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTIONS 26 AND 27, TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. ST. ~UC}E- COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 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 667 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 LINE OF SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 985.04 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENCE NORTH~89'03~42' EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23, A DISTANCE OF 96.0! FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF A LIGHT COMPANy RIGHT-OF-WAy, AS RECORDED IN O.R. BO0~ PAGE 504 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTX, FLORI 00'00'11- WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE THE FLORIPA~POWER AND LIGHT COMPANy RIGHT-OF-WAy, AND ALSO THE OF A ~FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT.coMPANy iRiGHT_OF_WAY AS .R~ BOOK'120, PAGE 199! THROUGH 201, PUBLIC FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF io,2o6..el FEET TO A POINT~ITH THE OF-WAY OF THE INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE ~ARCEL ~ DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON A BOUNDARy SURVEY BY A BETHAM, P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. ~19 DAVID AND KNOWN AS THE "INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL' SAID POINT BEING TH'E~POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11- WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF~ THE FLORIDA p( :LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, ADISTANCE OF 326.33 FEET; ' 1,479.24 ,FEET; THENCE' SOUTH 85'25'09- 794.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION ~2TH THE PUBLIC R WAY LiNE OF A PROPOSED 120.00 FOOT 2GHT-OF- SAID POINT BEING ON A :CURVE C THE i'iCH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTHWEST AND TO Will NORTH EAST SAID CURVE ~AVIN~ ~:iRADIUS OF 1;060.00 FEET; ANDALONGDISTANCEs~SAID PR( EASTERLY RIGHT-O.F~WAy THE FOLLOWING COURsEsLY THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 123.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39'37-; THENCE NORTH 18'31'10- WEST, 353.66 FEET TO ~ 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 272.46 FEET, THROUG~ A ANGLE OF 28'54'31,; THENCE NORTH 10'23'2 109.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 50'54'50- EAST. 6. FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE 'SOUTHERLY I.INE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF "RESERVE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST.~ LI~ COUNTY, ~ Date: December 15, 1988 convened: 7:19 p.m. Tape: ~1, 92, 93, ~4 adjourned: 1:42 a. mo Commissioners Present: Chairman Judy Culpepper; Vice Chairman Havert L~ Fenn; Jim Minix; R. Dale Trefelner; Jack Krieger. Others Pres ent: Tom Kindred, As s t. County Admi nis trator, 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 Riley, City of Port St. Lucie; Councilman Tom Hooper, City Of Port St. Lucie; .Q.louncilwoman Shirley Conti, City of Port St. Lucie; Qouncilman Bob Davis, City of Port St. Lucie; Wayne Algire, IClty Manager; Roger Orr, City Attorney; Patricia A. Tobin, City Planner; Hazel Harriman, Sheriff's Office; Noreen J. McMahon, Deputy Clerk. The purpose of this meeting is to hold public hearings for Community Development - Planning. & The Reserve. Proof of Publication was presented for each df the following petitions. 3. ~ LAND ~ Q~ COMPANY (1-0323) Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to 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 CT (Commercial, Tourist). John Holcomb, President of Callaway Land & Cattle Company was present to address this issue. (Reserved Comments.) It was moved by Com. Fenn, seconded by Com. Minix, to adopt Ordinance No. 88-104, an ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan, Ordinance No. 86-01 by changing the land use designation of the property located on the southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road, approximately 3 miles south of West Midwa~ Road (more particularly described herein) from SU (semi- urban) to CT (Commercial, Tourist) making findings; providing for making the necessary changes on the St. Lucie ~ounty Zoning Atlas~ providing for conflicting provisions and severabiiity; 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. Florida Depa?tn ent of Ent?iron nental Regulation Txx, in Towers Office Bldg. ~' 2600 Blair Stone Road ~ 'f:atlnhukssec, Florid3 32399-2400 Bob blartlnc2 Govcrm)r Dale Twachtmann. St:crctarv John Shearer Assislanl bcc'rctar¥ September 16, 1988 Ms. Susan Williams Department of Community Affairs Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning The Rhyne Building Tallahassee, -Florida 32399 Dear ~I~-49i-{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. All of the three parcels in question contain extensive low-lying areas. This will undoubtedly dictate extensive drainage work and/or wetland alteration to facilitate development. Drainage will likely be directed to the C-23 or C-24 canals, and ultimately to the St. Lucie Estuary, which is already stressed due to the impacts of agricultural and residential drainage. Said impacts have been in the form of decreased salinities, increased silt loading, and additional nutrient loading. It is not known whether the wetlands contained on these properties are jurisdictional (with the exception of the Reserve, for which a pre-Henderson Act jurisdictional determination was performed which claims no jurisdiction). It appears from aerial photography, that there may be connections (ditches or drainage ways) between wetlands contained on the Duda and McCarty properties and waters of the State (C-23 or C-24). A jurisdictional determination may be needed at a future date to further determine any eventual involvement we might have. Ms. Susan Williams September 16, 1988 Page Two The Depar.tment is very concerned about the impact on the community infrastructure and the deficit which will be created by the development of the 8,700 acres encompassed in these three amendments. If I can be of further assistance please call. Richard W. Deadman Planning Manager RWD/pph enclosures Flor~da Department of £nvironmental Regulation Southeast District ~ 1900 S. Congress Ave_, Suite ^~ x~/csr Palm Brach, Ft6~ 354~403964-~8 September I,!988 ~4s. L. Chr{stine Bedit= !Treasure Coas= Regional Planning Council i3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205 'P.0. Box 1529 Palm City, Florida 33490 Subject: The Reserve Dear Christin~: I have revi%wed the Sufficiency Response (dated July 19, !988) referenced ahoy@ and have the following comments: !. The applicant stated that 3 new wells ar~ being ad~ed to plant capacity which are capable of producing higher yields than t~ose wells tested in the !984 study. Please provide the Department with the new test well data. Please keep in mind that applications for pumps and raw water mains must be ~braitted for any new wells.' ~. As the soils in St. Lucie County are ~!l.most unlformily rated as unacceptab!@ for septic tank usage by the U.S. Soil and Conservation Service, why are Saba! Creek Phases I, I~ and ~V and Reserve Plantation Phases i and II not proposed for sewers (gravity or low pressure)? Riveria sand is ponded for 6 to 9 montks annually in the proposed septic tank area according to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 3. If irrigation reuse cannot be utilized f. or'wellfieid recharge, when and where is the R.O. industrial injection we!! 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 limited areas unless reuse will cost more than two times the cost of the combined Utility systems. TO: : FKOM: / Program Administrator L.J. Devillon DATE: September 1, 1988 SUBJECT: The Reserve DRI f The following comments are made relative to the potable water supply for the above projec~ and are made based on a cursory review of the D~i Sufficiency Report: - Assdming an average production of 60 gpm for the 25 potable wa~er wells proposed, total production may not be capable of meeting maximum day demands -of the water systum. Based on 100 ~pcd or 300 gpd for each DU, maximum day flow requirements may be as high as *2.7 MGD. Total product/on of the proposed we!!field would be approximately ' .( 24 hour flow X !50~ X 150% = max. daily flow) _ The existing water treatment plant has been issued a construction permit for .432 MGD using a lime ~oftening/ filtration treatment system. To date this facility has not been released for service. Additional treatment capacity will be required to meet the demands of the ultimate .project. Depending on the raw water source encountered, treatment other th~n lime s~ftening/filtration may be required. In the case of reverse osmosis treatment, consideration must be given to proper disposal of the rejec= water. - Appropriate plans, specifications and application for water plant expansion should be submitted to the Department upon the existing water treatment facility reaching a finished ~ater maximum day equal to 80~ of the Departmen~ rated plant capacity. Cons%ruction of the expansion should begin before or when the ~acility achieves a maximum day ~inished water production equal to 90~ of the Deparzmanu approved rated plant capacity. Failure to meat either _the 80% or 90~ c-_retie should be 3us~ cause for disapproving water distribution system applications submitted to the Departmen~ Pursuant to Ch. 17-22. 5. At what flow on the wastewater management facility is.the nlternmte means of effluBnt disposal/reuse proposed to be constructed7 6. would the Reserve U~l!l~y agree ~o a wastewater treatment plant expansion schedule based on the following: a. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) reach 60 % of permitted capacity, a consu!tan~ will have been chosen. ~ i b. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) !reach 70% capacity, plans and specifications for.new permit applications will be submitted. c. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily) reach 75%, construction shall begin and be completed prior to flows reaching 95% permitted capacity. 7. I have enclosed further comments from the Department's Drinking Water Section (September 1, 1988 memorandum). If you have any further questions regarding the Department's commentm-, please feel free to call me at (407)964-9668 or SUNCOM #32t-5005. /~arton Y. Hedgepet~ Coordinator MYH:mh:88 cc: South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Smith St. Lucie County, Office of Planning and Zoning Pete McDonough, Te~m Plan Inc. -John Outland, DER Tallahassee iucie treasure coax. l: ,rcg o. nai p ann ng 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 ;'~'" LOC,-,,_. Subject: St. Lucie County Local Government Comprehensive Plan Documents Dear Mr. Hook: Pursuant to the re~airements 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~, Plorida 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 on Council action at the September 16, 1988 meeting: Based on additional information presented at the Council meeting, there are potential conflicts with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan relative to proposed Plan Amendment PA-88-013. 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suite 205 - p.o. box 1529 Jim mtnlx thomas g. kenny, III Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning September i6, 1988 Page Two Enclosed is a copy of the transcript of the comments received relative to this item. The petitioner (land owner) will also be provided with a copy of the comments from the meeting and asked for a response. If you need additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. X~iy~ r DMC:lb / / EncloSures TREASIrRE 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 Depar~ment of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship of the proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. If a conflict with adopted plans or policies is identified, the regional planning agency is to specify any objections and may make recommendations for modifications. Council also provides informal comments to the local government through a spirit of cooperation, and technical assistance on matters related to the proposed amendments. These advisory comments are aimed at providing coordination between the local and regional comprehensive plans. 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 0 fl. 0 0 LO 0 '0 0 0 0 (SD 0 C~ I ! I I ~) O~ O0 (IS) OD ~0 ~0 O0 (ID (Ii (SC (/i ~li (IS ! I I I ! I I I L 0 '93 c' In order to assist t'~ Council in their review, the fo!lowing definitions from the ~t. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are included: LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE ST. LUCiE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLkN 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 a-n 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 (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. Ail 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 consistent with the DRI approvals, when they are rendered. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, a complete analysis of consistency is impossible until the completion of the DRI process. The assessment report and recommendations may have some bearing on the proposed land use changes. Since DRI review is not yet complete, a complete assessment of consistency would be premature. It is recommended that no change in land use be considered until Council has completed its assessment report. Because this is a DRI, the County may address proposed land use changes simultaneously with its review of the project. Item 4 (PA 88-009) This amendment involves a very large tract (approximately 4,300 acres) of land lying west and south of the 1-95 interchange at Gatlin Boulevard, just west of the City of Port St. Lucie. According to the County staff, it involves a land use reclassification of approximately 3,000 acres to RL (low density residential), and the addition and reconfiguration of approximately 1,300 acres of "Interchange" land use. The ~nterchange category provides for land uses which require a high degree of accessibility to limited access highways. The petitioner/owner, who actually holds a total of 10,000 acres at the site, has indicated that RL is a more appropriate land use, given "activity" in this area. The actual use of the property at present is as citrus groves and a sod farm. The redesignation of this tract as proposed is not consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Planning Policy, nor does it appear to be consistent with good planning practice. The proposed change should not be approved for the following reasons: The ability of local government to upgrade the perceived development potential of land and, therefore, its market value by granting changes in land use designation gives 10~al government the power to mint a form of currency. No local government shoed 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 thi~ property has re~estad that the land use be c~anged from A~ricuktura! Productive (4,300 acres) to Low Density Residential (3,000 acres) and Interchange Oriented Commercial (1,300 acres). NothinU is beinq offered to the community in return for J~h/s land use change, not even an intelligent, wall-conceived plan for development. To grant the requested change would enhance substantially market value and perceived development p~t~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~uested density without negative impact. Until such time a~ government has sufficient data to assure the public that the change is in their interest and that negative fiscal and environmental i~p~cts will not occur, the change should not be ~e. Granting the proposed change would interfere with the planning of an ~portant future growth area in an intelli~err~, ~omprehensive, and positive manner. Inte~-f~_nc~ would occur for two reasons: 1) because, as mentioned above, the local government*s neuotiating power would have been compromised prior to a plan being developed; and 2) because the ch~ge would encourage the breakup of what now is a very large tract of land ~n single ownership (10,000 acres). Many planning techniques wki~h 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 a~ricultural importance of the land, that development should ideally occur only within a two-mile rad/us of the interchange. If the entire 10,000 a~-res is single ownership, the local government is in a position to approve development in the form of a mixed use, compact community that provides futn~r~ residents a place where they can live, work, ~nd shop without having to commute excessively long distances, in return for an -~greement that remaining portions of the property are dedicated to ecological preserve areas, as 5o 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 c~nsiderably; the citizens are happy because land is set aside for ecological and agricultural purposes, and the community that results is well planned; and future residents of the new community are happy because they have a well planned potentially wonderful place to live. Such opportunities may be lost if land use is enhanced on one portion of -the property without considering the future of the entire property. Instead, the enhanced portion-of~ the property could be sold and any opportunity for transfer of ~evelopment rights from one property to the other as 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 syste~. Just to support approved development it appears an additional east/west roadway or expressway will be needed and many existing roads will need to be substantially expanded. To encourage even more growth prior to determining an efficient and cost effective method of paying for existing needs would not be prudent and would potentially increase per capita costs by expanding the area needing to be served. Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000 acres of residential) should be discouraged and mixed use encouraged. Planning that provides people opportunities to live, work, and shop in reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems and provides for the more efficient delivery of infrastructure. Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for essentially every need. Separation of uses is today blamed for the traffic problems in places like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to follow the methods of development that have created the kinds of problems that exist in these areas would be to ignore history and give away the future of this Region. The need for more than 600 acres (existing) .of Interchange Commercial at this one location is unclear and needs to be considered in terms of its comprehensive effect and relationship to surrounding areas prior to approval. According to both the City of Port St. Lucie and the County, no such study has been proposed. The redesignation of land use is inappropriate at this time (for reasons noted above) and unnecessary. Although not represented in the review package submitted, this property has already been granted 600 acres of interchange oriented potential and the existing Agricultural Productive category allows for large- scale, self- contained development. The only thing required to obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable development plan. Since reasonable use is already allocated, it is not clear why the County should agree to upgrade substantially land development potential in the absence of a plan. The owner of this property has already been alerted that a DRI review would be recruited to receive development auprova1 on this property. Since the owner has indicated that the property is no~ to be developed at this time, changes to the land use designation would see~ more appropriate at the time of DRI review. 8. Approval of the project could create a domino effect that would encourage other requests for entitlement increases prior to questions being answered regarding the best future for the entire Undeveloped portion of the County. 9. The proposed change could negatively effect Martin County (see attached comments from Martin County). If the State of Florida and this Region are to achieve their goals, we must insist on better planning than has taken place to date statewide. No planning has been done for this property, and no land use change is therefore warranted at ~his time. Item 5 CPA 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; 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 4 o reasonable proximity alleviates the need for costly road systems ,~.nd provides for the more efficient delivery Of infrastructure. Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for essentially every need. Separation. of uses is today blamed for the traffic problems in places like Los Angeles and Dade County. To continue to follow the methods of development that have Created the kinds of problems that exist in these areas would be to ignore history and give away the future of this Region. No assessment has been done of the costs or methods of providing transportation, sewage, water supply, park, drainage, school, or medical facilities to this part of the County. There are presently no services in the area.- The 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. All 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 given the size of the tract), the proposed land use change promotes the development of the tract at a density which would cai! for a very inefficient and costly delivery of sea--vices (less than one dwellin~ unit per acre). The t}~e of single use sprawl proposed by the o~er is counter to principles of~ balanced, planned development. A mixed variety of land use is essential, pa~ticularly in such a remo~e location. 5o The redesigna~ion 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. 6o 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 .~nfrastruc~ure 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. Finally, Council recognizes that the proposed land use category appears to allow little or no additional diversi~y in land use types and densities. The existing land use category should be retained because it allows for large-scale, self-con~ained 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 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 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 89-012 and PA 88-003) These parcels (14.5 and 10.0 acres respectively) lie along St. Lucie Boulevard (C.R. 608) in the vicinity of the St. Lucie County International Airport. Both lie immediately west of the airport in a main approach/take-off zone. Although public services (sewer and water) are not yet available in this area, they do lie in the Planned Service Area for Fort Pierce Utilities. Commercial and industrial uses will probably become prevalent in this corridor. Improvements to St. Lucie Boulevard have been programmed by the County. Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Items 10, 11, and 12 fPA 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 otherwise disturbed, especially on Item 11. There are no public facilities (sewer or water) avail- able to any of these sites. Ail 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 10 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 amendmen~ does not appear to be in conflict or inconsisten~ 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. Ail four quadrants of the intersection area now have commercial land use. This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast quadrant. A traffic study should be submitted for the review and approval of the County Engineer. The study should address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on the applicable roadways and intersections. The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to the 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 th~s property. However, the exac~ use for this parcel and the way in which these cons%taints are considered are local government consideraticnso Based on the information provided, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. ~ecommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Attachments 14 - -- "~' ~~ '~-"=" '-:-'~ "- 0 -- LU~ COUNTY ST. IE - .._~ COMP PLAN AIdENDMENTS '~'~- 1 2 ..... ~ - - ' ' -" - ~ ~:~: ~::~:~ :1 ---'-- ~" ~ ~ t~ "~' '~ ¢~ = .. , .... 9 ~. -~.~ .... ~,~ 13 '6", COUNTY OF MAJ TIN STATE OF FLORIDA August 29, 1988 rjr. Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Coordinator Treasure Coast_Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 1529 Palm City, Flomida 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. 1. IMPACT ON MARTIN COUNTY'S PLANS, POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES: 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 l-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 Hartin County in proximity to this parcel. If this change is accepted it will set the stage for a potential urban type development abuting agricultural areas in Martin County. The second proposal which wilt 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 at a maximum density of one dwelling unit pe~ acre. This property is located between the East Coast Railway Line and Hr. Terry L. Hess, AICP August 17, i988 Page Two CR 609 (Range Lin~ Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin County tine. 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 Count}, 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. Th~'potential impact of uroan development west of the Gatlin Boulevard interchange at 1-95, the potential widening of CR 609 and the deveIopement 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 CDNFLICT: The current land use designation amendment without any specific development plans, is not expected to have any immed%ate 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. ~ trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. S~ncerely, Harry'. King, Planning Administrator HWK/ERC/dlw [0t46] CC: Board of County Commissioners Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Development Department Henry ller, 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 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 a~pearing 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 t.he 3 that we are taking up at this time. Seeing no public comment is there any... Kenny: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding these are not in conflict with the Regional Policies and that the land use amendment can be crossed simultaneously with the DRI, is that the way it is? I move staff comments on item 1, 2, and 3 of the St. Lucie County Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Eggert: Seconds. Minix: Okay, we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion? , Marcus: 1, 2, and 3. Kenny: 88-007, 88-008, 88-006. Minix: Any further discussion? signify by saying aye. Oppose no. Minix: Now Pat, you may come up. Ail in favor of the motion Motion carries. 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 packet. The packet that I handed to both Conum~ssioner 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 ~mpacts 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 t~ie Regional Planning Staff and Council, but I don't believe they have been. Therefore, I am going to, can you hear me? I guess you can't if I leave the podium. The particular property in question is this property right here. Once you come in for a commercial land use amendment from 900 feet, you will look on your o~aps that I have provided you with back to approximately this p int. At the time they came in to St. Lucie County to do this, the regulations of St. Lucie County say that they must have had a conceptual sent to the board. When they came in this property showed that on-site sewage treatment plant on a conceptual, I have a copy of the conceptual if you all would like to see it. Back here in this portion and this portion which is adjacent to the river you are not seeing today, but it is part of the overall package and you come to the irreverent part of your decision, even though it is not supposed to be admissible. This property~ here has wetlands on it in here, they intend to put multifamily quadplexes, triplexes, and duplexes in this particular section. They intend an ingress and egress, this multifamily complex off of Midway Road, a two-lane road opposite the aquatic preserve. There are no shoulders hardly to the road down here to allow egress and ingress of this property. I have brought along a picture to show you, if you will pass it around. The pictures will indicate the areas in question and they will indicate on the bottom serious flooding that has occurred in the particular area--1985. My property adjoins this parcel. I own this property colored on this map here in green. I own the north 125 feet of these parcels of property. Your staff comments and St. Lucie County staff comments say that this will complete an urban core in this particular vicinity. At the present time there are already 60 acres zoned in a commercial core in this area. Ail 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 m~nt a form of currency. It does the same thing when you change and allow a speculative land development to come in with no constraints on the flood hazard areas in this particular area. If you will notice the handout I have given you on the second page shows the flood plain area. This property is wholly located in flood hazard zone A6 in St. Lucie County. This is one of our prime concerns and it is also a prime concern of your regional plan. There are certain sections in your regional plan that say this should be addressed prior to development. This is not being the case. Florida Statutes 187 which is your Florida Comprehensive Plan, says in several instances that these things should be addressed· In particular, there about five elements that require addressing of this in the State plan. These have not been addressed, because when they come in for these particular changes, all they come in is with a conceptual and it does not show, allow you all the availability to see what is exactly in that area nor unfortunately do the maps that you are provided when you get this. You don't see but a small portion, you don't see that the fact that on here it abuts the North Fork of the river, we have serious drainage problems in the area. At the present time the positive drainage for this parcel of land ends right here. The water at that point comes backwards and either goes this way to the river or tries to go across the street, head south, And then east into the river. It has created potential problems before and it has now. If any amount of development in this area will increase these potential problems ten-fold. At the: present in St. Lucie County we have approximately 2,508 ac~es zoned commercial in St. Lucie County. That amounts to approximately 827 square feet zoned commercial for each man, woman, and chiid in S~. Lucie County. We have a problem keeping the buildings we now have rented, new s~opping ~enters 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 currenc wit in re · · i_ _ . Y hout assurance that . . turn the cltlz~n~ of the area will also benefit, the report aavlses. Well, I am sorry to say this one is not going to ~ave the citizens of St. Lucie County, it is going to create a Problem for the adjacent pr6perty owners. If you W~ll note. o - . have copies of i~ ~L~ ......... . y u do not petition of opposition from the White m~,.s ~f a ~y~ c~u~ ru~ ~ropeuty owners, and you also have a petition with zb signatures from all the adjacent property owners here within 500 f~et who we~e.~otified 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 ' t ~R~_ ~_~ ~ ~ into our area. One of he ~=~ ~u · :nave s~ x~u=lesueu in zoninq since I mov~ = = Zoned ~ ~, x'u. ~uu=ruale eno 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 dUess when it was given to the by the State of Florida. O~e of the faults I find with different things is in planning concepts. Right have been advising agaiinst urbann°w in planning concepts planners 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 mu:ch encroachment of commercialism into neighborhoods. This in turn forces the people that live in those neighborhoods to move away from all the adverse impacts it brings with them--the incompatible land uses, the increased noise, the pgllution, and increased crime. Where do these people ~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 plantin--~--, so they have plenty of open space for their children. They moved there to protect their lifestyle and they did indeed move there from other areas for this reason. They do not want to move again. Urban Sprawl is caused by this. People do not want to live there and this is what causes urban sprawl, not the fact that is something good for a neighborhood, it is something that is not good for a neighborhood, they...(CHANGE TAPES - #1, SIDE 2)...the thing that is not being taken into consideration under State rules is the fact that you can't say: "well, I don't want to live next to a bar, I don't want to live next to an adult place;,, but these things are allowed in commercialism. People do not want them in 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 comPlete without 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 developments that can control these things. This is one of the main reasons that I appear here this morning. We have another problem, Midway Road, which is this road right here, there have been several comments in your DRI, previous DRIs, which concern the Sharrett Development, which concern The Reserve, which will concern the projects of the McCarty Bros., and these say that before any development occurs in their areas, that Midway Road has to be improved. Well, attached to the pack that Mr. Cary has is a letter from the Engineering Department that appeared in the News Tribune. It states In there that in order to facilitate development, Mid,ray Road will not be able to be developed because of State standards unless you go to and culverts or if you take and you put ~ retention pond to run your water, excuse me I am getting feedback herer to run your water into that retention pond. There is no available land there at the present time to run water in and purify the water because as you know 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. Ail 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 thatl 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 big hazard, it may awhile, but to those of us it ~as occurred, walked out in 1985 with water this high North Fork of the St. Lucie River, as you can and I appreciate your concerns and I this particular amendment not consistent this morning and I would ask that you deny much for your time. dredge an area that drains into the aquatic preserve. Ladies and gentlemen, I will close this morning and I 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 soma 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 only once in devastating. I I live on the from my parcel, you find of these plans s. Thank you so 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 inconsisten~ 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? ' ofTerry: days. We have to submit our comments to DCA in the next couple Cary: Under that circumstance, in other words, we are under a time frame. We haue to get our comments to have them mean anything to DCA within a certain time constraint. Based on what t 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 without impacting, there are some pretty good issues brought up. In a situation like this when we have a tight time clock, all I can say is you need to base your recommendations to us on what you have heard and the total information available to you. We can redo an evaluation on this thing, if that is what you want us to do based on what you've heard and send it up there. It will be a complex analysis because these issues are complicated. I think, all I can say is I have doubt in my mind at this point whether this thing is consistent and I have doubt about whether the Council should support it. You may want to direct us to study this report to make, I guess, staff comments. We can make DCA recognize and explain to them what's happened. These are staff comments. Pass on any recommendation that you feel comfortable with today and then bring those back to Council next month for formal approval unless you are comfortable with the position at this point. Eggert: Are you saying that you'd pass, you would send these up the way it stands saying it is consistent and then add staff comments to that. Cary: I am saying you need to give us direction on this. Based on what I have heard, I have doubts about whether this proposal is in fact consistent with the plan. We didn't have this information. Everything that Pat said made sense to me. It put a lot of doubt in my mind. I am not sure what we have here is this,information, is a problem we typically get into with incomplete 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 commen~s that we ask the petitioner if they have some comment. Minix: Is the petitioner, a representative of the petitioner here today? Is there anyone here representing the petitioner? Dagney: And the third thing that I look at which is interesting for from the staff comments, it says the County staff supports the petition and what you are saying that you'll... Minix: The County staff supports the petition, the Planning and Zoning Board on five to one denied the support. It has not been formally decided by the County Commission. There will be a last public hearing before the County Commission. I am not sure of the date right now, but in the very near future. Dagney: After everybody speaks, I suggest a motion, that we follow Roger's suggestion and detail the policies that this proposal is in potential violation and submit the lady's comments and ask the petitioner for their comments. Eggert: I have got some problems With sending anything up that says this is consistent and making a little thing saying we are sending you other information. That never quite arrived together. Is there something totally neutral we can say further information to follow, I would rather have something like that than have this is consistent go up, except that we may change our minds about this. Saberson: What we are really saying is that the initial review by the staff based on the information the staff had indicated it was consistent; however, there was information that was received at the Council meeting which we are not really in a position to judge the validity of at the present time. That raises questions as to whether the original recommendation was correct or not. Eggert: I am having problems sending this kind of statement forward With this kind of situation. Kenny: It appears to me that items 4, 5, and now 13 appear to be inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan, and I think in addition to staff comments, in making an additional comment on 13 pointing out where it is inconsistent we recommend to local government that those land use amendments be denied. I would like to have some conversation on 10, 11, and 12. Minix: Let's go ahead and finish this one. Helm: Are these two roads mentioned 25th Street and Midway Road- -are they regional roads? Cary: Midway is. Helm: Also with the St. Lucie Planning and Zoning board voting five to one denying this, did staff know that? Marcus: There was some discussion about us not postponing this for 30 days. - Cary: Technically to have our comments be incorporated what is sent to the local government, they have to be up to DCA in a couple of days. What I said was, based on what I have heard, I am inclined to think this is consistent with the Regional Plan. I think we can say this appears to be, based on information provided at the Council meeting, it appears to be in conflict with the Regional Plan. The Council can say that we haven't had a chance to study. Marcus: So they can't postpone it? There is no opportunity to review any of the information, then I agree to take that statement about consistency out of there. Elmquist: I think if we are compelled to move forward due to the constraints that rather than saying it does not appear I think we should make a stronger statement that we have reservations about it. Sometimes they don't get past the first line. Minix: Let me ask, I think we are pretty much all in attune here, I think it is just a matter of getting a motion of getting...Roger or Dan will you give us motion that you think answers the concerns of the Council at this time. Minix: The applicant isn't here and we haven't heard that side of it. 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 alt purpose what we call general commercial to a lesser intensity of this type use and then into residential. It's a classic transitioning that time wise happens over and over again and at least from the information we have to use it appears that is a logical sequence that is takin~ place, that is supposed to take place in this location. Kenny: Do you have a basis for recommending more commercial. It seems like you have a lot of vacant commercial in this immediate area. Is there need based on future growth in that area? Is there some sort of projected public interest that 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 it says here, the petitioner has received communication from an interested out- of- town insurance company regarding leases facing this area. They are trying to change the land use so they can be... Jochem: I think we have some good information and some lack of information which puts us at a disadvantage, what we need to do is say that this parcel is a potential conflict with specific policies of our RCPP which include traffic, the aquatic preserve, drainage, whatever they may be, say potential because that is what it is. We know that sometimes you can solve problems, sometimes you can't and we need to... Minix: You want to make that a motion Dagney? Dagney: Yes. Move that is what we say. That there is a potential conflict and send on the comments that were presented today, ask the petitioner if they have additional comments, and send those on as well to DCA. 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. 274O STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY C E N ~' E R V ! E VV D R I V E T A L L A H A S S E E , AFFAIRS FLORIDA 32399 BOB MARTINEZ 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 PLANNING 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. ~--~--~ul R. Br d , Division of Resource Planning and Management PRB:jhr Enclosures cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council FLORIDA -- ~-~-~ DE~?.~RTMENT OF TRANSPORT&TI ~,~ ? ~ : ON 780 Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837-5290 Mr. RalPh K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dear Mr. Hook: ~P ~or 1988 BUREAU OF LOCAD RESOURCE PLANNING September 21, 1988 RE: Land Use Amendments _ St. Lucie.County. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163 F.S. and Chapter 9J-11 FAC Interim Review Requirements, the comments of the FDOT to the proposed St. Lucie County Land Use Amendments are enclosed. If you or Your staff have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me at (305) 522-4244 extension 214 or John Anderson at (407) 837-5290 (S/C 245-5290). Sincerely, ?u.s.~a~o Schmidt, p. E. Ac 'ng District Plann] ~]c.?ttrn~ct 4 ng Administrator 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 Acre~. The amendment is a part of the Reserve Development of-Reqional 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 cor-ridor 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 Veto Beach urban area. It is anticipated that this corridor will interchange in the North County area with both the Florida Turnpike (SR-91) and 1-95 (SR-9) in the vicinity of Orange Avenue. The proposed development is the forerunner of other proposals extending urbanization west of the present urban limits and the developed or programmed transportation system. The St. Lucie County Planning Department is now in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and the Traffic Circulation Element in accordance with the 1985/86 Growth Management Legislation. Also, the St. Lucie County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as a part of this comprehensive planning effort, is updating its transportation plan for the St. Lucie Metropolitan Area. The FDOT, in conjunction with the St. Lucie County MPO, is in the process of evaluating the present and future transportation network in St. Lucie County, Indian River, and Martin Counties using the Florida State Urban Transportation computer model. A preliminary report is expected to be available by the end of September. ,% Amendment No. PA-88-007 (cont'd) We cannol 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 w~li 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-~08 - Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc. From SU (Semi-Urban) to CT (Tourist Commercial~ - 40.52 Acres See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-0D7. Amendment No. PA-88-009 A Duda and Sons, Inc. From AG (Agricultural) to RL (Low Density Residential) and X .(Interchange Devetopment~ - -4,300 Acres The state facility directly affected by this proposed amendment is 1-95 (SR-9) which it adjoins on the east. Included is the existing interchange at Gatlin Boulevard and two proposed interchanges between Gatlin Boulevard and the Martin County Line. (Two proposed interchanges, one approximately in the center of Section 23, Township 37S, Range 39E and another at approximately Parr Drive at the northeast corner of Section 35, 37, 39, are shown on the current Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, Florida dated March, 1987.) As with Amendment No. PA-88-007, 006 and 008 this Department cannot comment on the impact of this proposed land use amendment on the State or Regional Transportation System without-more detailed information concerning traffic generation and an evaluation of the impact of future vehicle trips on the existing and the proposed future Transportation Network. The Department's comments on Amendment No. PA-88-007 with regard to deferral of final action until an evaluation of this impact on the Highway Network apply to this petition as well. Since this proposal is a DRI, it would be advisable for the land use amendment to be withdrawn a~ 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) - -3r000 Acres There are no state facilities directly impacted by this proposed amendment, however, the same comments as were made by this Department with regard to Amendment Nos. PA-88-007, 006, 008, and 009, are applicable to this proposed amendment. The Department believes that there would be substantial impacts on the public transportation system and transportation needs which should be included in the transportation planning process of the St. Lucie County MPO and Planning Department as well as overall systems planning by the Florida Department of Transportation. There is a possibility that development based on the proposed land use amendment would be considered a DRI, the determination of which would have to be made by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council at such time as development as defined in Chapter 380.04 F.S. is initiated. Insufficient information has been provided this Department for it to make a determination of the impact on the state system or the state regional and local transportation network. Amendment No. PA-88-00] - St. Lucie Investment Corp. From CG (General Commercial) to IL (Light Industrial) 21.55 Acres US-1 (SR-5) is the state facility directly affect_ed by this proposed amendment. P~operty included in the amendment does not have direct access to US-/ at this time, however, property to the East fronting on US-1 is part of the same ownership. US-1 (SR-5) is a Principal Arterial in the state Functional Classification and is a Statewide and Interregionat 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. Lncie 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-1 is now operating at a LOS E. Under future conditions it will also be operating at LOS E based on the assumption that there are no more than 2.5 signalized intersections per mile. If the frequency of signals increases as a result of an expansion in the number of high traffic generating uses the LOS will be further reduced. LOS D is the minimum acceptable operating LOS for US-1 in this area. It is strongly recommended that in any subsequent review of Applications for Development Permit a frontage road system (which may require additional right-of-way), or a cross-access drive be required interconnecting all property and development on the west side of US-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-1 and the entry to the Home Center Plaza. Prior to any subsequent development review the proponent should meet with representatives of this Department (Traffic Operations) as well as the County ~Engineer concerning access and egress to the site from US-1. 5~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 Boulevard/Immokoiee Road lies midway between Indrio (CR-614) and OrangeAvenue (SR-68) and will interconnect Dixie Highway and US-l, 25th Street (SR-615), 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 connect ultimately with the north-south regional corridor, Rangeline Road (CR-609A), which extends from Indian River County (CR-615) to the Beeline Highway (SR-710) in Martin County along existing and proposed alignments. St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road is now a state facility (SR-608) from 25th Street (SR-615) to US-1 (SR-5) and may be extended as such in a future year functional classification as least as far west as Kings Highway (SR-713). The proposed amendment lies at the intersection of St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road and Keene Road which is a logical extension of Jenkins Road (CR-61I) to Kings Highway (SR-713), a preliminarily designated local corridor. The existing right-of-way on St. Lucie Boulevard/Immokolee Road ranges between 40 and 80 feet in width in the segment between US-1 and Kings Highway in which the proposed amendment is located. The adopted Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie County, dated March, 1987 indicates a minimum right-of-way of 276 feet for a proposed six lane divided expressway. In view of the significance of the St. Lucie County International Airport now undergoing expansion and the several points of intersection with statewide and interregional as well as regional and local corridors and potential future designation of this facility as a state route, a minimum 242 foot right-of-way should be protected for a six lane divided facility in a rural section. If an urban section is to be constructed a minimum of 130 feet should be provided for 6 lanes with dual left turn capability at principal intersections. In addition, frontage roads, or at a minimum, cross-access drives may be required to provide land service between intersecting streets and major driveway access to abutting property. The same minimum right-of-way is recommended for the Jenkins Road/Keene Road Corridor. In a review of subsequent applications for development permit the County should obtain right-of-way protection for both St. Lucie Boulevard/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-D12 are applicable to this amendment as well with the exception that the potential northerly extension of Keene Road is depend~nt 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-88-01t - HarbOr ~anch Oceanographic Institution, Inc. From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General) - 51 Acres This proposed amendment has direct access to and impacts US-1 (SR-5), a statew~de/interreg~onal transportation corridor designated in the Transportation Corridors Planning Program now underway in the five counties of District 4. The proposed amendment 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 of Florida RL (Low Density Residential) tO CH (Highway Commercial} - 13.34 Acres This proposed amendment fronts on and has access to Old Dixie Highway (CR-605) which is designated a rural major collector on the Highway Functional Classification of April 15, !988. 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-D1] are applicable to this proposed amendment. If the proposed application is approved access to the site from US-1 should be restricted. Median openings are indicated at approxLmately the south line of the proposed amendment site and approximately 800 feet north. If approved the entire site including the property fronting on US-1 should be included in a planned non-residential development {PNRD) in subsequent permitting in order to insure environmentally sensitive design and adequate access control in the interest of protecting the traffic carrying capacity of US-1. Amendment No. PA-88-004 Matthew and Marie Schneider From RL (Residential Low Density) to CG (General Commercial) - 14.53 Acres The proposed amendment does not directly impact any'state facility, however, it lies only a short distance from US-1 (SR-5) and has frontage on Old Dixie Highway (CR-605). There is noted in the backup material furnished this Department that the applican% for this proposed amendment is also the owner of land fronting on US-t. The same comments made by this Department with regard to Amendment No. PA-88-0tO are applicable to this proposal. The Department is concerned about the number of points of access from US-t 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 recon~ended 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. Lucie. Midway Road/White City Road (CR-712) is also preliminarily designated a regional corridor in the Transportation Corridors Plan now in development, minimum right-of-way width 120 feet. Current right-of-way width is 80 feet. In review of the staff con~nents 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 Density Residential) - 113.9 Acres This proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly impact any state facility. The Department has no comment. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pti. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TERRY L. VtRTA September 22, 1988 John W. Anderson, AICP Transportation Planning Florida Department of Transportation 780 SW 24th Street Ft. Lauderdate, Florida 33315-2696 SUBJECT: Your Letter Dated September 9, 1988 Dear John: Thank you for your letter regarding the thi use plan amendments currently being reviewed for County. Unfortunately, you should have virtually information that staff has access to for revie requests. As you suggested in your letter, the on can develop any estimate of impact is to make assumptions and develop numerical estimates of i that basis. I am forwarding your letter to Dennis my staff and ask him to send any additional info might have. rteen land St. Lucie all of the wing these ly way one some basic mpact from Hurphy of rmation we If you have further questions or if I can assist you further, please let me know. Sincerely, Terry L.~V r Community IDevelopment Director TLV/seb cc: Planning Administrator MPO Supervisor ~VERT L. FENN. Dlsrnct No t ® JUDY CULI:~PI:~P~ D~str,cl' No. 2 · JACK KP, JEGER. Dlsmct NO. 3 · R. DALE TR:EFELNER. Distnct No. 4 · JiM ,'~Nb~. D,srnc~ No 5 Coun~ Ac~m~mstrato~ - W'ELDON B LEW~S 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce FL 04982-5652 Director: (407) 468-I 590 e Building: (407) 468-1550 · Planning: (407) 468-1576 Zoning: (407) 468-1550 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571 FLOI{ID DEP T T OF TRANSPORTATION 78[) Southwest 24 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696 Telephone: (407) 837,5290 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 Proposed 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 Community Affairs (DCA) by local jurisdictions. We recently 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 in 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 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 docu3nentation supplemental to an application for change. Sincerely, Transportation Planning JWA/mg cc: Mr. Gus Schmidt Mr. Jim Scull¥ TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E,M O R A N D U M To: Council Members AGENDA ITF q 5D From: Staff Date: September 16, 1988 Council Meeting Subject:. Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Thirteen Amendments to the St. Lucie .County Future Land Use Element Introductio~ 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. Background St. Lucie County is considering 13 amendments to 'their~ Future Land Use Element. The locations of the properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying map, and the number of acres and proposed changes in land use designations are summarized on the following table: In order to assist the Council in their 'review, the following definitions from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are inclUded: LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AG - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for the production of citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries, forestry, cattle and stock raising, dairy farms and other direct agricUltural uses. Dwelling units at a density of one per acre and large-scale, self-contained developments. SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban development (less than one dwelling unit per acre), generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural character of the area. RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 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 Plano~ 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 (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 ~targe 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 3 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 from Agricultural Productive (4,300 acres) acres) and Interchange acres). Nothing~is being off in return is 2 To grant the requested substant va of nt ~ for the citizens impact. (3,000 (1,300 to the community not even an development.' ~nge would enhance and perceived land, without added value and the~..landowner do anything of even intelligently negative Until such time as government ent data to assure the public that is in their interest and that negative fiscal and environmental impacts will not occur, the change should not be made. 2. 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 (I0,000 acres).. Many planning echniques which can assure intelligent and ositi~e 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 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 5 efJ method o be prudent e per capita needing to be served. 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 orexpressway~will be and~ many existing roads will need to be To encourage even more an efficient and cost for existing needs potentially expanding the area Generally, large blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000 acres .al) should be discouraged and mixed Pi~ that provides opportunities to live, , 'and shop in le proximity alleviates~.the need for costly road systems and provides for the more efficient delivery of infrastructurel Large blocks of low density, purely residential land require people to get in their cars and drive for es~ amed loll the methods of .s o be to ignore history future off.this Region. of uses is in places continue to that have in these give away the The for more than 600 acres (existing) of Int Commercial at t~ location is uncl ~ar and needs to be consid 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 rewiew package submitted, this property~ has already ~been granted 600 acres of interchange oriented potential and the existing Agricultural Pr°ductiv~ 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 reasonab2 use is already allocated, it is not clear why th, County should agree. ~o upgrade substantially 1~ development p6tentiial 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 supply, park, drainage, school, or medical facilities to this part of the County. There are presently no se~¢ices 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 abil~ity to deliver servlces ~concurrent ~with. ne~-~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 orexpressway will be needed, and many existinq roads will need to be substantially expanded. To encourage even more growth prior to determining an efficient and cost effective method of paying for existing needs would not be prudent ~nd would substantially increase ~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.~ All roadS are two-taned. No assessment is provided address the serious east/west capacity deficien 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 a new town given the size of the tract) proposed land use change promotes the 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 appears to allow little or ~no additional in land use types and densities. The existing land use category should be retained because it allows for large-scale, self-contained developments, while be more limiting and could result in single use sprawled development. Martin county staff has expressed concerns relating to the impact of this and the previous change on that County's plan policies and Urban as would be in with the Marti~ [an ~). 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 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 t ~ he '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. I should be carefully considered. Based on the information~.~provided, the proposed -- amendment does not appear to' be in c~nflict 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 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 apply~to Items 10 and 1i if scrub habitat exists. Prior to development a traffic analysis should be prepared for each site and s%~bm to the County Engineer and Florida Department of )ortation. The analysis should address impacts on ' intersections (U.S. 1) in order to define relating to signalization, turn~ngmovements, and 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. Ail four quadrants of the intersection area now have commercial land use. This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast quadrant. A traffic study should be submitted for the review and approval of the County Engineer. The study should address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on~ the applicable roadways and intersections. The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to the eas~. There have been frequent-.storm water management problems in this area. A'study.-is currently underway on how to manage such problems in the North Fork drainage area. County staff supports the petition, citing the logic of developing a compact core to the commercial area while recognizing the environmental constraints and potential conflicts of continued commercialization. Perhaps reflecting the long standing community opposition to 13 ST. LUCIE COUNTY ,~W~r~w1 1' COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS 1 2 13 123 .1 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 Hartin 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 envirQnmental 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 Euta R. Clarke, Transportation Planner Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coordinator Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie 3 st. lucie August 4, 1988 fecj[gnal plann[ .n. cj council 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 of the:-'Local:-'Government Comprehensive 'Planning'a'nd~Lz~Td~O~ve~oPm'ent Regulation Act, ChaPter 163, Florida Statutes. It is anticipated that the report and recommended comments will be presented to Council at its meeting on September 16, 1988. Prior to the Council meeting, the meeting agenda, report, and recommended comments of the staff will be transmitted to you. You or any representative of your local government are invited to attend the meeting and will be afforded an opportunity to address the Council. Following the Council meeting the adopted comments will be transmitted to DCA. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,/D ~ erry 6. Hess, AICP Planning Coordinator TLH:lb cc: Dennis Murphy, AICP 3228 $.w. marlin downs blvd. tulle 205 · p.o. box t529 palm city, florida 34990 phone [40'~ 286-33t3 Jim minix thomas g. kenny, III chalmtan vic:® cholrrn~. john acor daniel m. cary secr®laryllreasurer ®xecuflv® cllr~c:l~r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION(ERS JACK KRI G£R CH AIR/,/us, N 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 1988'. On Tuesday, July 12,. 1;988, 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 requir-ements 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 HAVER? L FENN D~strict No ~ · JUDY CULDEPDER D~s';,ct No 2 ® JACK KRJEGER D~str,ct NO J · R DALE TREFELNER D~stn~ NO 4 · JIM ~NIX D~stn~ No 5 Counr¢ Ad'mn,stro'or '~ ~DOf~ ~ 2,300 V~rq~ma Avenu~ - Fo-' P:erce FL 34982 5052 · ' ~0~; 466 100 or r nn- ~ - ~ ~ ' ,~3, 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 ~th~a~t?~°ffice t° c°nta~t~w°ulid'~be~Mr' TerrY'Virta~D~i~ec~tor 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 We appreciate the time you will be spending on these petitions, and look forward to receiving your input on these requests. JK/DJM/meg TRANSl(B30) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Development Director Petition Files Sinc_e4~e ly, J_~.k Kri~er i~nairma~f, . Board of County Commissioners AGENDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 14, 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 CT (Tourist Commercial Development) for the following described Property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) (Location: Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve Development) 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-88-008 RESERVE P.U.D. SECTION III COMMERCIAL TRACT B-SOUTH A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTIONS 26 AND 27, TOWNSHIp 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONNENCE AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF 'THE RESERVE PoU.D., PAGEsDEScRIBED667 INTHROUGHRESOLUTiON672 NO.PuBLIC84,129 AND RECORDED IN ~.R. BOO AS FLORIDA, LYING 0 . RECORDS OF K 442 8 ' · , N THE NORTH LINE ST. LUCZE CO 9 45 43 E OF SAID S UNTY, ...... AST, ALONG SAID No~?~ r ...... ECTION 22~ TNENCR ur ~5.04 FEET TO THy ~,~ ..... ~-" '~-~ OF SECTION 2 DISTANCE OF 96.0' ~ _~O~_?HE NORTH LINE OF a~?~ OF ' ,-~ ~u THE INTER ~'~ o~ION 23 LORIDA~ THEN RECORDS OF IN TH _~E SOUTH O0'O0'll. ~T. LUCIE COUN E THE FLORIDA PON NEST ALONG SAID T ER AND LIGHT ESTERLY LIN HE NEST LINE : _ COMPANY RI .... E OF : OF A FLORIDA PONE GHT OF NAY, aND AS RECORDED IN 0 R AND LIGHT CO, ALSO RECORDS OF S - ,..:~: _eo0~ Z20, PAGE Z9 ;.,Jill OF-WAy OF T ! WITH THE ,206.8! DE HE INTERSTATE 95 INT P~POSED ~ESTERLy ~SCRIPTION ' ERCHANGE RIGHT- SHO~N ON PARCEL AS D ..... A~ P.L.S. w~TH FLO~,-- ..... ~RVEy PREPA.RED w~ THOMAS J. "'~ v~aTIFICATE NO. ~ z~ERSTAT . RATZON, DATE . . SAID POINT BEING THE ~)N? n~E,,~ CALLAWAY & PEACO D ? 10 87 PO ...... ~vlNNING~ CK PARCELs, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11' NEST ALONG SAID NESTERL¥ · THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO 326.33 FEET~ mu~t,~ .._~£_ HPANY RIGHT-O - _ LINE OF; SOUTH , , '"~"~_~TH 88'51' · F_NAy, A DISTANC 85 25 09' : 34 NEST, E OF NE~T, 1794 1,479.24 FE - ~UBLIC RIGHT-OF ~av .... -,z ~a OF A P TRISECTION SOUTHWESTAND TO'-"''---~AzDNHI i POINT BEING ON A cuRROPO~ED 120.uo FOOT sAID CURVE .AV--~ -' ?:~__~ADIAL LINE BEARS .0 v. cp~c~y~ To ALo,~ sAID p,~;~'"~?llus oF ~.o,o.oo F---- ,~_78 Os IS'EAST-. AND DISTAN ..... ~ ~TERLY RIGHT "~-~..~-~CE NORTNNESTE CES~ -OF-NAy T~= FOL-^~ .... R__ THENCE NORTHWESTERLy ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A 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 NORTHNESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANOLE OF 28'S4o31.~ THENCE NORTH 10'23'21, EAST, 109.98 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 50~$4,S0 EAST, 64.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION NITH THE SOUTHERLy ~,INE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 'RESERVE ? BOULEVARD, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURV~ CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 01'26'19, VEST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUs OF 1,033.8'4 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EA PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-W STEELy RIGHT-OF. AND THE SO AY AND SOUTHEAS WAY LINE OF ~' UTHERLy LINE -- TERLy ALONG TU~ --- THE PROPOSED ~ DISTA,CE OF 27.92 ~,.~F ~E SAID 'RESERV "o --c O{ ~AID CUR · ,~NCE NOR ~ ~.:--~=~, ~H~OUG ' ~_~OULEVARD. 'RESERV T,, o~ ~3'28- EAST H A CENTRAL ANGLE EXTENSION, E BOULEVARD, · ALONG SAID OF POINT ON THE . E~TENSION nv .... SOUTHERLy ETHAn, P.L.S. ~ ...... a ~OUNDARy SU~V AS VEST THOMa~ _ _ "~ FLORIDA C~..-~_ EY. PREPARE~ ~ .... BY A KNOWN ~ ~.~._ WHITE DEVE£op.~z~ATE NO, 319 A~ ~ "INTERS "~"~ uuRPORAT 9_~'*n ~T. LU TATE - 95 ION, DA CIE CALLAWAy TED 6-10-8 ~CE SOUTHERL~ A~O- .... ' ~ PEACOC~ PARCEL,. ? AND ~,u z~E PROPOSED WESTERLy RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THENCE CONTINUE NORT THENCE SOU , __ H 89 53'2 ' _ 66'o6,s2. TH os 4s~e. WEST, 6,e.. 55~T, eO0.oo CURVE C ~AST,_geo.gs FEET -^ :'~_~sST; THE,C FEET..~E To THE SOUT,,,:: ~ ~o~Nr OF DISTANCE OF SOUTHEASTERLy. ALONG-TJ,EGA~CR~ OaZD CURVE' A I~.pF 6OD.So 626.0! FEET. 59'43'46' TO A POINT OF THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF CONCAVE TO THE $OUTHWEsTCHO~PouND CURVATURE OF A CURVE FEET; THENCE SOUT" ..... VING A RADfUs OF 1,295.. "~A~rERLy ALONG THE A 00 A,DISTANCE OF 57.31 FEET THROUGH A CENTRALRC OF SAID ANGLE CURVE, 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 BEGINNING.RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTy, FLORIDA, AND'THE201pOiNTPUBLICoF CONTAINING 40.52_~_ACRES HONE.oR LESs ~ uc~.. /~ q4 )_ u~ ' C~ ~ o~ '~c. .~o0 ~'ha~be~~,. Decemb~~ the ne.~' Z300 ,~. o, third ~yc 14 ~'t~Cion .... ~ Will b~ ~Venue ~ ~ount~, ,_. c. LUci~ -~u at 7 ~ · ~ ~ ~ given ~ ~o~t pi~mi~i.~+~~ t'oun~, ~u p _ co ~ _~Ote t ~, _ tunxty ,_~O~da ~S~ZOne~h-~ all ~ .... ~ Lo be h~f all i~g Ann~ Zf You ~ 'dual t-'ll be ~:~ ring w~. ty to +~h t~e =~ 'cfi °btafi-~_.l~.. _ hav~ °~wa~d +~e~tY. a~ hea~i~~ zty to _Any ~. Y Cal/~ qU~st~- not~ce ~ t to .~ n ~,,~ ~0 ~Y '~ u'o ~uit~_ Y new- _ ARD O~ · de 4g7 .~al , ~av£Rr L. F~N~ D ' . FILE NO ~, Oisrri DtreCror. ~, _ 2000 Vi~-. . ct ~o. 2 ~ ~ oUII~io~' ~.__~, ,u~ I F~ ~. m~nistroto. :.O~strict N ~ 9. ~t. O-'~"'f6 ~0~2 · Phon~ - - · o~rr,~'-- No. 4. ~/~ ,. ~ t. 044 . Code ~: v UO No. 5 ~ r°rcement: Ext. 294 A ,NE IN , OF 4LSO '-WAY iBLIC IOHT- iD W. LUCIE ~-10-87 ARCEL", LINE OFf /ANCE OF t) THENCE' ~.00 FOOT ;E TO THE '28" EAST, tTXWESTERLY COURSES gRVE A aLE OF FEET TO ~E EAST .WESTERLY .46 FEET, CE NORTH '50'54'50" WITH THE 'RESERVE The St. Lucia County Board of County Commi ~ers proposes to change the use of land within ~ ~rml shown: in the map in this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held before the St. Lucia County Board of County Commissioners on! Tuesday, July 12, 1888, at 1:30 P.M.. in Room 101,= St. Lucia County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue,; Ft. Pierce, Florida. The purpose of this meetingis !o consider the comments and recommendations of the St. Lucia~. County Local Planning Agency and determine' WhGther or not to transmit the proposed land use plan amendment toi the Florida Department of Community Affairs :for' further agency review in accordance with the requirements ofI Chapter 163.3184 Florida Statutes. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a personi decides to appeal any decision made by the Boa~d 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 sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is mede, which record includes, the testimony. .end. evidence upon| which the a ~peal is to be based. U pon the request of any party t.o the proceed, lng, individuals t.es~fyin~ d~ ~ ,r~n,g e. ing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be grantecI an opportunity to cross-examine any inon~UUel fying during e hearing upon request. -. - Copies of the proposed amendments to thb' St. Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan ere available fori public review in the St. Lucia County Office of Community Development, Building and Zoning Division, Room 201,: 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft, Pierce, Florida, during normal business hours, . . _...AJI ifl.t~reSted persg. Ds may appearand will be oiven,a, opp .ortu.!? to b.e has. rd.~mt :.ha{-time. - ............. ,"-:~ If ~-t becomes necessaw, these public hearings ~ay De continued tram time To ~ . · ST. LUCRE COUNt. FLOm A -. ..... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .i /SI JACK KRIEGER · CHAIRMAN COUNTY From RL flow Den~ly Residential) m CG iCom~o~cial Genial): Locnt~n: 11,~ n~e ~ct lying baleen N~ U,S, 1 a~ FEC Railroad, ~ fee: flo~h of Turnpike Feeder R~d. IOpposile Orch~ Acres M,H .P,) HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INST~UTION, INC.: From RL (L~ Den~tX fleuidenflal) Io CG (Commokc~al General): LocaTion: ~ 8c~s plus, menus, ~n Ho~h HiGhway, aT ~he existinG Harbor BranGh Facilhies, ~ Old Dixie HiGhway NCNB OF FLORIDA: From RL (Low Density Residembl) ~o CH (CommeYciai HiGhway): Location: 11 plus, m~us acres, I~ No~h U.S. 1 ~fl~ Old Dixie HiGhway, at Wilcox Road. ' U.S. COMMUNITIES, INC.: ' From SU (Semi UrbanJ To CG (Commer~al General): Laconia: 14.5 acres, lying al soulhw~t com~ Road. H[MI~WAY CORPORATION; From SU (Semi Urban) to CG (Commercial GenerelJ: Location: I0 acres, lylnG along ~e no~h ~e of St. Luc~ B~v weal of Keen Road. - H.J. ROSS & H.J. ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC.: "' ~ ~ . ' From SU (Semi Urban) ~o RL (Low DeflsRy Reside~l): Local~n: 73.6 ICm, II~ G~est ~m~ of AnGM R~d I~ ~ FFA STUNT ..FT. PIERCE PARTNERSI Road. '-"~: /, P ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~( ~ .... From IL (~ndultrbl L~ht) t0 CG (Commercial Gi~rMi:-LQ~d~n: 15 acres, along ~e west ~e of Sarah Markol Avenue. · THOMAS ZAYDON: ~'" 6~ feet no~h of We~t M~wey Road. ST. LUCRE INVESTMENT CORP.: ". ' ' ~ ' . From: CG {Commercial General) to IL llndustrial Li~h Location: 21/6 e~res, ~ng W~t of South U.S. 1, neon Bou~vard. .:: JANE W. TURMAIL= : '"-' From SU (Semi Urbanl ,o RL (Low Density Realdeff~?~) Loca~n: = acres. ~ing at n~he.t co~ Lane. (Hetbour Ridge/Wide Waters)~ :. :. CALLAWAY LAND and CATTLE ~OMPANY: -~. From SM (Semi Urbanl to RL CLaw Den~ty Residentbl), CT [CommerctalTourisfl and CG [Comm~l General): minus acres, lying between I~terstat~ 95 and Glades Cut-O~ Re~d. Petition is pa,.of D~ment of R~i~l : THE RESERVE. From AG (Productive Agricul~ural) :o X (l~Te~chango) and RL {Low ~en~W Re~en~l): L~n: 3,~ plu~, m~us a~, of In~erst~e ~ a~ Gaflin Boulevard. JOHN M. McCARTY~ . - , * .~.., .: ~ .-.,. From AG (Pr~uc~e A~rtCul~ral) ~o SU iSemi Urban): Location: 3,~ plus, minus 8crfl,'~ng so~h of Gbdes Cut~ff R~d, Wm i of RanGe L~e Road. ~ ....,~.,~. ~ . ~s~,- ~ ...... . L BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: July 12, 1988 convened: 9:08 a.m. Tape: ¢1 - #3 adjourned: 5:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Jack Krieger; Vice-Chairman Havert L. Fenn; Jim Minix;_R. 'Dale Trefelner; Judy Culpepper (as noted) :' Others Present: Weldon Lewis, County Administrator; Dan Kurek, Assistant County Administrator; Dan Molntyre, County Attorney; Krista Storey and Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator; Jeff Ketteler, County Engineer; Howard Kimble, Public Works Oireotor; Lew England, Acting Property Administrator; Walter Smith and Evan Costopoulos, Sheriff's Office; Jane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk (b) ~ Land and Cattle Com~ Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated July 6, 1988, subject "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 CT (Tourist Commercial Development)". It was mbved by Com; Fenn, seconded by.Com. Minix, to transmit this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for commentsL and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. .... TUESDAY AGE'NDA - BOARD OF COUNTY 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 CT (Tourist Commercial 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-88-008 RESERVE P.U.D. SECTION II COMMERCIAL TRACT B-SOUTH A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTIONS SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 26 AND 27° TOWNSHIP 36 COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE 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 667 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 LINE OF SECTION 22° A DISTANCE OF 985.04 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENCE 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 COMPANY 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 ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE THE 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 201o PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUClE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 10,206o81 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. BETHAMo P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J. WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND KNOWN 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 OFf THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 326.33 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 88'51'34. WEST, 1,479,24 FEET~ THENCE' SOUTH 85'25'09. WEST, 794.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120.00 FOOT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 78~08'28, EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEETj THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES{ THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE'ARC OF SAID CURVE A ' 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 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28~54o31.~ THENCE NORTH 10'23'21" EAST, 109.98 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 50~54,50- EAST, 64.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY ~.INE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 'RESERVE BOULEVARD,, BAlD POINT BEING 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 1,033.84 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 01'32'51.; THENCE NORTH 89'53'28. 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 BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W. BETHAM, P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 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 DISTANCES~' THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 89'53'28" EAST, 300.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05'45'38" WEST, 64.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86'06'32" 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 ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 626.01 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59'43'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,29S.00 ' FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 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 RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 40.52 ACRES MORE OR LESS