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