HomeMy WebLinkAboutCallaway Land & Cattle CoCOUNTY
O MISSIONCRS
D6V£LOPM6NT
DIR6CTOR
TERRY L. VIRTA
February 17, 1989
Callaway Land & Cattle Co.
BY AGENT: R.!C. Karner & Assoc.
Karner & 'Associates
2162 Reserve Park Trace
Pt. St. Lucie, FL 34986
Dear Petitioner:
Road.
is t,
that on December 15, 1988 the Board of
approved your petition to amend the future
from SU (semi-urban) to CG (commercial,
locaated on the southeast side of
approximately 3 miles south of west Midway
Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 88-103 adopted by the Board.
Very truly yours,
BOARDOF ;SIONERS
ST. LU~ )A
i Judy Culpeppe
JC: tk
Encl.
HAVERT L. FENN. District No. 1 · JUDY
strict No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 ".JIM MINIX. Distric~ No. 5
County Administrator -- WELDON BE LEWIS
inia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652
i90 · Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-t576
~') 468-1553 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
POLICY PLAN, ORDINANCE
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF GLADES CUT-OFF
OF WEST MIDWAY ROAD
DESCRIBED HEREIN)
TO CG (COMMERCIAL. GENERAL)
PROVIDING FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY
LUCIE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS;
PROVISIONS AND SEVERABILITY;
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND FORAN
DATE AND ADOPTION.
FILE NO.,: PA'88-006
County Commissioners of St. Lucie
the following determinations:
Co., presented a petition to
use classification set forth in the St.
Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban)
pal) for the property described below.
December 15, 1988
~3.,. :~2, .~3, ~4
convened:
adjourned:
7:t9 p.m.
1:42 a.m.
missioners Present: Chairman Judy Culpepper; Vice Chairman
L. Fenn; Jim Minix; R. Dale Trefelner; Jack Krieger.
hers Present: Tom Kindred, Asst. County Administrator,
eration; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney; Terry Virta; Community
velopment Director; Dennis Murphy, Planning Administrator;
~yor William B. McChesney, City of Port St. Lucie; Councilman
Lvid Riley, City of Port St. Lucie; Councilman Tom Hooper, City
Port St. Lucie; Councilwoman Shirley Conti, City of Port St.
Councilman Bob Davis City of Port St. Lucie; Wayne
' Patricia A.
~gire, City Manager; Roger Orr, City Attorney;
City Planner; Hazel Harriman, Sheriff's Office; Noreen J.
Deputy Clerk.
purpose of this meeting is to hold public hearings for
ommunity Development - Planning & The Reserve. Proof of
ublication was prBsented_ for each Of the '.following petitions.
2. ~ ~i]~ ~ ~ ~ (1-0229)
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 CG
(Commercial General)."
John Holcomb, President of Callaway Land and Cattle Co., was
present to address this issue. (Reserved comments.)
was moved by Com. M~nix, seconaed by Com. Krieger, to adopt
t ~ ~ e amending the St. Lucie county
I - 3 an ordlnanc - 'b changzng
Ordinance No. 88 10 ~ ~ 1 . ordinance No. 86 01 ._Y.
_ . ement pul~cy P a~. _ ted on tne
urow~h ~.Ma~ag . ion of the prop~r~Y !oca . . uth of Wes~
the lana use de~xgna~ ~'~ a~roxima~ely 3 mzles so .
side of ades Uut-o~z ~u~, ~ (s
MidWaY ~ad (more particularly described herein) from SU emz-
urban) to CG (Commercial, General) 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; and,
upon roll call, motion carried unanimously-
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
November 21, 1988
D V6LOPM6NT
DIR6CTOR
~L
In compliance with the provisions of the Florida StatuTes, you
are hereby advised that,Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by
Agent: Regina C. Karner, has petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to CG-(General Commercial Development) for the following
described property:
(Location:
Development)
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Southwest of Glades Cutoff Road in the Reserve
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M. on
Wednesday, December 14, 1988, in St. Lucie County Commission
Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex,
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested per-
sons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is~to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding,
iDdividuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any
party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If
you should have any questions, additional information may be
obtained by calling Area Code 407, 468-1553.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, ~LQRIDA
JaCk Krieger,~hairman
FILE NO. PA-88-006
HAVERT L FENN, District No. t ® JUDY CULPEPPFR, DistrictCountyN°' 2 ®AdministrarorJACK KRIEGER,_ WELDoNDistrict No.Ei. 3LEWiSe R. DALE/'REFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100
Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294
A PARCEL OF LAND LYrNG WITHIN SECTION 2?° TOgNSHIp 36 SOUTH
RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ·
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~ MORE PARTICULARLy
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,
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 201, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET
TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY
DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON A BOUNDARy SURVEY PREPARED 'BY DAVID
BETHAM, P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 WITH ST LUCIE
WEST THOMAS j. WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION '
AND KNOWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE _ - DATED 6-10-87
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLy ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTErly RI~''- _~EL
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCEg~:CALLAWAY: & PEACOCKvn~_uF.WAyPAR
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARs SOUTH 47'47'15. EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.-50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE'
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10.; THENCE SOUTH 58"S9'55.
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST W~TH A RADIUS OF 621.42 FEET
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35,15. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE A DISTANCE OF 182.64 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 16'50'23.; THENCE SOUTH 20'34'17, WEST,
532.11 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUs OF 131~00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 149.35 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
65'19,i1.; THENCE SOUTH 85'53'28# WEST, 388.39 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0S'$8'51. EAST, 64.11 FEET; THENCE S6UTH
B9'53'28. WEST, 300.01 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED INTERCHANGE PARCEL AND ALONG THE
NORTHERLy RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD.
EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES;
CONTINUE SOUTH 89'53'28. WEST, 405.62 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 76t40,16· WEST, 414.04 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 515.59 FEET~ THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42.,11,20m TO A POINT
COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST,
WITH A RADIUS OF SO.O0 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLy ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 74.S4 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85~24,41.~ TO A POINT ON
THE EASTERLy RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF 'LEGENDS DRIVE. AN 80 FOOT INGRESS
AND EGRESS EASEMENT.
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE PROPOSED
'RESERVE BLVD' AND EASTERLy ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF 'LEGENDS DRIVEr THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
CONTINUE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 1.01
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'~4-, THENCE
NORTH 52,04,58m EAST, .Z28.01 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLy ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 571.91 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40~21,09, TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 272.57 FEET,
THROUOH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25t31,30.~ THENCE NORTH
66'54°39. EAST, 405.25 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF
A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
735.00 FEET; HAVING A RADIUS OF
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'26'55.~ THENCE NORTH 86~21o33,
EAST 474.55 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 876.94
FEET~ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC.OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
08~09'23';
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT~OF-WAy OF 'LEGENDS
DRIVE' SOUTH 31'44,36. EAST 116.53 FEET 'TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THE AFORE SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE
PARCEL AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING 30.30 ACRES MORE OR LESS
POINT OF
INTERCHANGE
2740
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
CENt' E RV f E W DRIVE
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
T A L L /A S S E E_ F L O R I D A 3 2 3 9 9
/
/
t. OMAs G. ?eL~am
october 11, t988
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
concerning88-013. amendments 88-007, 88-008, 88-006, 88-009, 88-014 and
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 e. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Jack Krieger
October 11, 1988
Page Two
Staff co~ents point to the "detrimental effect" that the
redesignation would have on the existing and future residential
areas by the intrusion of co~ercial land uses. Agency co~ents
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. '
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
PRB: j hr
Enclosures
cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
J[f(DC U f(D
'1'1
)lanni g
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
Subject:
St. Lucie County Local Government Comprehensive Plan
Documents
Dear Mr. Hook:
Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use
Element of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan at its regular
meeting on September 16, 1988. Please excuse the delay in
getting the comments to you.
The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal
to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) pursuant to
Sections 163.3184(1) (c) and (2), Florida Statutes, and for
consideration by the County prior to adoption of the documents.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element have been
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's
adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the complete
agenda item as presented to Council. Council's action was to
adopt the comments and approve their transmittal to DCA.
However, the following additional comments are also to be part of
our transmittal, based 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.
Jtm mlntx thomas g. kenny, Ill
~228 s.w. marlin downs blvd. cholrmon vice cholrrnon
suite 205 - p.o. box 1529
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
September ~6, 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.
~ly,
/
DMC:lb /
/
Enclosures
TREASUR~ COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Council Members
AGENDA ITEM 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
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 information forwarded by the Depar~nent
of Community Affairs 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 adopEed 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:
hi
r~
r~
0 ~
0
ul C
"~ 0
C ~
m C
U
UI
C
0
C
C~
L.
~E
0
CJ
uI
0
I.--
C
N
L.
C
'G
0
C
L.
!
L~
&
1,1 ~0
~ U
C2 L.
0 ?
L.
0
C~
CS)
C
U
L.
C
C
C C C
L.
!
LiQ L~I
o o - o o - o o - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 C~ 0
0
I I ~ I t t [ I I I I
C~ C~ CC CC CC CC CI: CI: C~C CI: CC
1:2. CL [2_ [2_ CL. CL Ct_ 13_ CL 1:2. CL
In order to assist ~ Council in their review, the fcllowing
definitions from the ~t. Lucie County Comprehensive. Plan are
included:
LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM THE
ST. LUCRE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AG - AGRICULTLrRAL PRODUCTIVE: Areas used for the production of
citrus, vegetables and other produce, nurseries,
forestry, cattle and stock raising, dairy farms and other
direct agricultural uses. Dwelling units at a density of
one per acre and large-scale, self-contained
developments.
SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban
development (less than one dwelling unit per acre),
generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural
character of the area.
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development category
that allows for residential development projects having
an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review
procedures, and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy
Plan. The following comments are offered as a result of that
review.
Many of the parcels under consideration are covered
with native pine flatwoods vegetation. These
properties have the potential for containing species
listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council
encourages the development of site plans that are
sensitive to the needs of any listed species and which
preserve'as much native vegetation as possible.
Items 1, 2, and 3 ~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
3
miLigative measures to maintain Level of Se_~vice C/D on
the regional roadway 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 Interchange 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 local government the
power to mint a form of currency. No local
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 thi~ prDperty has requested that the
land use be c~anged ~rom Agricultural Productive
~4,300 acres) to Low Density Residential (3,000
acres) and Interchange Oriented Commercial (1,300
acres). NothinU is bein? offered to the community
in return for T~uts land use change, not even an
intelligent, w~ll--cDnceived 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 ci~£~ns of the area--not even
demonstration ~h~t development could intelligently
occur at the requested density without negative
impact.
Until such time ~ government has sufficient data
to assure the public that the change is in their
interest and that negative fiscal and
environmental i~s will not occur, the change
should not be ~.
Granting the proposed change would interfere with
the planning of ~n important future growth area in
an intelligerrt, comprehensive, and positive
manner. Inte~-f~_~ce would occur for two reasons:
1) because, ss mentioned above, the local
~overnment's negotiating power would have been
compromised prior to a plan being developed; and
2) because the Ch~l~ge would encourage the breakup
of what now is a very large tract of land ~n
single ownership (10,000 acres). Many planning
techniques wh/~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 agricultural importance of the land,
that development should ideally occur only within
a two-mile radius of the interchange. If the
entire I0,000 ~res is single ownership, the local
government is in a position to approve development
in the form of a mixed use, compact co--unity that
provides fut-nre 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
4 o
agricultural areas, or some combination of both.
Essentially all future development rights would be
transferred into the zone that was most
appropriate for development, and additional
development potential would be added to that zone
to the extent necessary to make the dedication of
remaining land acceptable to the owner and to make
the community created function as a mixed use,
somewhat independent place. The landowner is
happy because the market value of his land has
been enhanced considerably; the citizens are happy
because land is set aside for ecological and
agricultural purposes, and the commun~ity 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
development rights from one property to the other
is less likely if not impossible to negotiate.
Approval of the proposed change would negatively.
effect the value and development potential of land
that should be encouraged to be developed or
redeveloped prior to opening new areas to
development. By way of example, Fort Pierce is an
area that has tremendous potential for
redevelopment, but which is not likely to
redevelop if uses we would like to see in Fort
Pierce are made excessively abundant elsewhere on
less expensive land. Likewise, Port St. Lucie has
very large amounts of undeveloped land which
should be encouraged to develop, thereby reducing
the cost of services. Infill will not occur
rapidly if new areas are continually granted
development potential.
State and Regional Comprehensive Plans discourage
urban sprawl and encourage the infill of existing
communities. For reasons stated above, granting
of the proposed change will discourage infill.
Approval of development potential in this area, at
this time, would encourage leapfrog development
and sprawl.
Responsible growth management requires that local
governments understand fully the costs of
providing infrastructure and services to new
development and demonstrate an ability to deliver
services concurrent with need, Prior to taking
7 o
action to encourage development. Based on
development approvals that have to be granted to
date in Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie Coun~y~ it
is clear that substantial expenditures will be
necessary to expand the existing roadway system.
Just to support approved development it appears an
additional east/west roadway or expressway will be
needed and many existing roads will need to be
substantially expanded. To encourage even more
growth prior to determining an efficient and cost
effective method of paying for existing needs
would not be prudent and would potentially
increase per capita costs by expanding the area
needing to be seI-ved.
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 required to
receive development auproval on this property.
Since the owner has indicated that the property is
not to be developed at this time, changes to the
land use designation would see~ more appropriate
at the time of DRI review.
8 o
Approual of the project could create a domino
effect that would encourage other requests for
entitlement increases prior to questions being
answered regarding the best future for the entire
undeveloped portion of the County.
9e
The proposed change could negatively effect Martin
County (see attached comments from Martin County).
If the State of Florida and this Region are to achieve
their goals, we must insist on better planning than has
taken place to date statewide. No planning has been
done for this property, and no land use change is
therefore warranted at ~his time.
Item 5 (PA 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 ic~rrent land use and zoning categories
assigned to the ~and 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 isi 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 olf 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 bela 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
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 neares~
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 Ch/t-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 g~ven the size of the
tract), the proposed land use change promotes the
development of the tract at a density which would
call for a very inefficient and costly delivery of
se~vices (less than one dwelling unit per acre).
The t}~e of single use sprawl proposed by the
older is counter to principles o~ balanced,
planned development. A mixed variety of land use
is essential, pa~ticularly in such a remote
location.
5o
The redesi~nation of land use is inappropriate at
this tim~ (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 ls not clear why the County should
agree to upgrade substantially land development
potential in the absence of a plan.
The owner of this'- property has already been
alerted that a DRI review would be required to
receive development approval on this property.
Since the owner has indicated that the property is
not to be developed at this time, changes to the
land use designation would seem more appropriate
at the time of DRI review.
The proposed change could negatively affect Martin
County (see attached comments from Martin County).
The review materials indicate that the developer/owner
intends to develop this property at a density of one
dwelling unit per acre. The size of the tract and the
number of potential units call for the consideration of
a DRI. Given that a DRI will be required, the
appropriate time for the consideration is concurrently
with the DRI approvals. In the preparation of the DRI
(pre-submission), the owner will be encouraged to
develop a project which contains the variety and mix of
uses (living, workingl 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) amendmen~ represent an
announcement by the local goverrnnent of at least
partial responsibility to provide the needed
~nfrastructure in this area. The costs of providing
10
that infrastructure in an area which is not only well
removed from existing urban facilities, but is to be
characterized by sprawling, low densities will be
extremely high.
Finally, Council recognizes that the proposed land use
category appears to allow little or no additional
diversity in land use types and densities. The
existing land use category should be retained because
it allows for large-scale, self-contained developments,
while the proposed use appears to be more limiting and
could result in single use sprawled ~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. Ail opportunities such as this to
reduce stress on U.S. 1 should be carefully considered.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Item 7 CPA 88-002)
This amendment involves a ll4-acre parcel which the
petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home
community. The property is adjacent to another
manufactured home development and lies along the
ll
Florida Turnpike. Given the size of this parcel and
its relative isolation, the developer should be
encouraged to request some limited commercial land use
to be used for neighborhood service type uses.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in .conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Items 8 and 9 (PA 88-012 and PA 88-003)
These parcels (14.5 and 10.0 acres respectively) lie
along St. Lucie Boulevard (C.R. 608) in the vicinity of
the St. Lucie County International Airport. Both lie
immediately west of the airport in a main
approach/take-off zone. Although public services
(sewer and water) are not yet available in this area,
they do lie in the Planned Service Area for Fort Pierce
Utilities.
Commercial and industrial uses will probably become
prevalent in this corridor. Improvements to St. Lucie
Boulevard have been programmed by the County.
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment does not appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with the policies contained in the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Items 10, I1,
PA 88-O10)
and 12 (PA 88-004, PA 88-011, and
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 amendment does not appear
to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies
contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
~tem 13 (PA 88-O13)
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 amendmen= 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
Wes= 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 connnercial 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 ioc~t planning
agency voted five to one to deny the petition.
There are environmental constraints which apply to this
property. However, the exact use for this parcel and
the way in which these constraints are considered are
local government considerations.
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
L
· '~ ........ ,--,-~--.~ ..... ~ -,,-- !~ ~_.-,
-' ~ '- I '~'- ~_ _~--~ =Ir_ ::~_ ;~,j~;..~-~:_ ._ ~
-- .LUCI_ COUNTY' -,.,o
'- I ' ~ ~ --~ .... ] ..... :~1 '~ ~
COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS
. ~. ~ ,.~.
9
COUNTY OF MARTIN
STATE OF FLO R! DA
August 29, t988
Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Coordinator
Treasure Coast_Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, Florida 34990
RE: St. Lucie County Land Use Amendment for PA 88-009' and PA 88-014
Dear Terry,
I apologize that we will not be able to agenda the subject items before the
Martin County Board of County Commissioners prior to September 13, 1988. In
the interim, I am supplying these comments from the Community Development
Department. The Board may have more specific comments for your September
Council meeting.
1. IMPACT ON MARTIN COUNTY'S PLANS, POLICIES AND ACTIVITIEs:
ae
The first proposal in PA 88-009 is to change approximately 4,300 acres
of agriculturally designated lands to interchange oriented development
{X} and Low Density Development {RL 1-5 upa). This may have
significant impacts on Martin County's plans, policies and
activities. The applicant is not proposing a specific development at
this time and the existing Agricultural zoning (AG) will remain
intact. This complicates the existing agricultural zoning in areas of
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 will have an impact on Martin County is
PA 88-014. This amendment request is to change approximately 3,000
acres of Agricultural (AG) to Semi-Urban (SU) land uses. Generally,
there are no urban concentrations in this area which is considered
rural and agricultural. The application indicates that the land use
change will not provide any increase in density, since both the
Semi-Urban and Agricultural land use categories permit development at
a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre.
This prooerty is located between the East Coast Railway Line and
Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP
Aumus~ t7, i988
Page Two
CR 609 (Range Line Eoad) approximately two miles north of the Martin
County line. Land uses to the south in both Martin and St. Lucie
County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida
Department of Corrections facility is operating immediately to the
south of the County line west of CR 609.
These changes would be incompatible with the Martin County Land Use
Plan and may lead to potential adverse traffic impacts and
environmental degradation to Allapath Flats. Consideration should be
given to the placement of east-west routes connecting to major
thoroughfares in the Port St. Lucie area. If these are proposed on
the Major Thoroughfare Plan then developemnt of these roadways should
be concurrent with development of these and surrounding properties.
Th~'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 ~ilt have to be
coordinated with Martin County at the time of development review for
this property, The magnitude of traffic, which could be produced by
this land use change, was not envisioned in the development of the
Martin County Thoroughfare Plan and Year 2005 Transportation Plan and
coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be
jeopardized.
2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT:
The current land use designation amendment without any specific
development plans, is not expected to have any immediate significant
social, economic, or environmental impacts on Martin County. Should
an urban type development occur in this area, the impact on Martin
County and surrounding areas will have to be closely evaluated.
I trust that these comments will assist your review of this land use
amendment. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Harry ~. King,
Planning AdminisTrator
HWK/ERC/dlw [0t46]
CC;
Board of County Commissioners
Wm. Robert Alcott, County Administrator
Michael F. Sinkey, Acting Director, Community Development Department
Henry ller, Growth Managemen~ Plan, Appointee
Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner
Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coordinator
Patti Tobin, City of Port St. Lucie
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
PORTION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Pat Ferrick: My name is Patricia Ferrick, 4802 S. 25th Street,
St. Lucie County. I am appearing this morning on my behalf of a
couple of organizations in the area of plan amendment 88-013,
before I begin I would like to give you some handouts.
Cary: That is Item ~9 on the list of items.
Mini×: We are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first.
Kenny: You want to do 1, 2, and 3 first.
Minix: Pat, we are going to do 1, 2, and 3 first because Dagney
has a conflict on those 3, so we are going to do those and get
those passed so she can then discuss on the rest of them. Anyone
interested in discussing PA 88-07, PA 88-08, PA 88-06, those are
the 3 that we are taking up at this time. Seeing no public
comment is there any...
Kenny: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding these are not in
conflict with the Regional Policies and that the land use
amendment can be crossed simultaneously with the DRI, is that the
way it is? I move staff comments on item 1, 2, and 3 of the St.
Lucie County Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Eggert: Seconds.
Minix: Okay, we have a motion and a second is there any further
discussion? '
Marcus: 1, 2, and 3.
Kenny: 88-007, 88-008, 88-006.
Minix: Any further discussion?
signify by saying aye. Oppose no.
All in favor of the motion
Motion carries.
Mini×: Now Pat, you may come up.
Pat Ferrick: Again, for the record my name is Patricia Ferrick,
I reside at 4802 S. 25th Street, Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County.
I am appearing this morning on petition number 88-013 and I would
like to give you those handouts.
Cary: That's. 12.5 acres which is currently at low density
residential being proposed for commercial general. That is
discussed on page 13 of the report.
Ferrick: I want to thank you all for letting me appear this
morning before you. I have some comments on 88-013. I have
prepared a packet. The packet that I handed to'both Commissioner
Mini× and ExecuTive Director, Dan Cary, has copies of information
thaL was provided to DCA and it had been my understanding I had
requested the information be transmitted to this board, but
looking at the package you received I notice that you had very
little information and the maps are so small that you are all not
getting a true picture of the problems that we have. My letter
states, "Dear Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, potential
inconsistencies and adverse impacts upon adjacent~property owners
were identified and documented in packets sent to the LPA, St.
Lucie County Commissioners, and the Department of Community
Affairs." And I hope they had been sent on to 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 maps that I have provided you with
back to approximately ~this point. At the time they came in to
St. Lucie County to do this, the regulations of St. Lucie County
say that they must have had a conceptual sent to the board. When
they came in this property showed that on-site sewage treatment
plant on a conceptual, I have a copy of the conceptual if you all
would like to see it. Back here in this portion and this portion
which is adjacent to the river you are not seeing today, but it
is part of the overall package and you come to the irreverent
part of your decision, even though it is not supposed to be
admissible. This property, here has wetlands on it in here, they
intend to put multifamily quadplexes, triplexes, and duplexes in
this particular section. They intend an ingress and egress, this
multifamily complex off of Midway Road, a two-lane road opposite
the aquatic preserve. There are no shoulders hardly to the road
down here to allow egress and ingress of this property. I have
brought along a 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. All of these colored in red on the map are now in
commercial general. They're only approximately seven acres
utilized of this commercialism in this intersection at this
present time. I read with interest the comments that were in
your staff 'report, particularly the ones that said, regional
planners say that when local governments increase the market
value of land by granting land use changes he uses his power to
mint a form of currency. It does the same thing when you change
and allow a speculative land development to come in with no
constraints on the flood hazard areas in this particular area.
If you will notice the handout I have given you on the second
page shows the flood plain area. This property is wholly located
in flood hazard zone A6 in St. Lucie County. This is one of our
prime concerns and it is also a prime concern of your regional
plan. There are certain sections in your regional plan that say
this should be addressed prior to development. This is not being
the case. Florida Statutes 187 which is your Florida
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 acres zoned commercial in St. Lucie County.
That amounts to approximately 827 square feet zoned commercial
for each man, woman, and Child in St. Lucie County. We have a
problem keeping the buildings we now have rented, new shopping
centers are half vacant, and this is something that we don't need
to increase. Again, I will go back to, referring to staff
comments and they say on another issue, it says no local
government should give away that currency without assurance that
in return the citizens of the area will also benefit, the report
advises. Well, I am sorry to say this one is not going to have
the citizens of St. Lucie County, it is going to create a problem
for the adjacent property owners. If you will note, you do not
have copies of it, but Mr. Cary and Mr. Minix have copies of a
petition of opposition from the White City Improvement Club, from
the North Fork property owners, and you also have a petition with
26 signatures from all the adjacent property owners here within
500 feet who were notified of this change. We have enough
commercialism in the area to qualify for keeping our area in our
own area and not bringing adjacent traffic into our area. One of
the problems that I have seen over the years and I have been
interested in zoning since I moved to St. Lucie County 20 years
ago. I found out that I had got zoned out in Ft. Lauderdale and
I bought property that had zoning on it which I needed which was
agriculture. My property has been zoned agriculture since zoning
came into being and prior to that it was in an agricultural sort
of classification I guess when it was given to the by the
State of Florida. One of the faults I find with different things
is in planning concepts. Right now in planning concepts planners
have been advising against urban sprawl. Planners have not taken
into consideration which causes urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is
caused in part by the planners themselves. You ask, why do I
emphasize this? Urban Sprawl is caused by planning concepts
which allow too much encroachment of cor~mercialism into
neighborhoods. This in turn forces the people that live in those
neighborhoods to moue away from all the adverse impacts it brings
with them--the incompatible land uses, the increased noise, the
pollution, and increased crime. Where do these people '~ove?
These people move to progressive and innovative developments such
as The Reserve or other developments west of town which limit
housing types and activities to sections restricting
commercialism aspects to the fringes now placing them on every
street corner and behind every nice subdivision. At the present
time subdivisions in this area have houses that have a good
quality of homes and they sell anywhere in the neighborhood up to
$200,000. The north side of Midway Road, which is this road here
and this is S. 25th Street, has mainly people who moved in there
and bought property zoned agricultural. They bought because they
liked the rural , they have farm animals, ~they have tractors
for their planting, so they have plenty of open space for their
children. They moved there to protect their lifestyle and they
did indeed move there from other areas for this reason. They do
not want to move again. Urban Sprawl is caused by this. People
do not want to live there and this is what causes urban sprawl,
not the.fact that is something good for a neighborhood, it is
something that is not good for a neighborhood, they...(CHANGE
TAPES - #1, SIDE 2)...the thing that is not being taken into
consideration under State rules is the fact that you can't say:
"well, I don't want to lire'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 a retennion pond t6 run your water, excuse me I
am getting feedback here, to run your water into that retention
pond. There is no available land there at the present time to
run 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 liands necessary to develop Midway Road,
40 feet of this brand new shopping center here would have to be
torn down because they can't take tropics on the !south portion,
as included in that letter in the News Tribune, because it will
be putting a very bad curve in the road in order to stay away
from the aquatic preserve. All the land must be purchased from
the north side of the road. These are problems we are facing in
our County, and unfortunately with the packets you get, I know
you are all from different counties and I am going to try and
rush them up because I know I am long winded and when you get
into these things, we need to take careful look at why we are
allowing speculative development. We have no control and, okay I
will point out something else, just recently in 1986, this parcel
here and this parcel here came before this board and the State
board for plan amendments and the St. Lucie County Commission.
At that time, the recommendations were to approve these parcels.
JUst recently, because we have no control over any rights-of-way
or anything, this parcel here, 40 feet of right-of-way, cost St.
Lucie County and the tax payers $200,000 because we had no
provision to get that right-of-way in our County. This parcel
here cost our County approximately an additional $168,000. This
is tax payers money, we have no control. There is no control on
this parcel here or this Parcel here. I know that, speaking in
multifamily again, it's not something you want to look at today,
but it is an overall picture, that is one of the fallacies in the
way we are doing planning. You are not seeing the overall
picture when these things come before you. You are only seeing
commercialism being approached to put on a road that is a minor
or major artery in St. Lucre County , my mind has gone a
little blank this morning, I don't recall which it is. But we
have had these problems in this County, and instead of making a
decision on this today, yes or no, I would think that this could
be postponed until other things are researched. Staff has
indicated in this very minute report that they put in for 88-013,
that there are improvements going to be made to the corridor
there that there are also going to be improvements to the river.
Yes that is true, they have tried to apply for permits, but I
live in St. Lucie 'County and they've tried--because they have to
dredge an area that drains ~nto the aquatic preserve. Ladies and
gentlemen, I will close this morning and I will ask that you do
no~ 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 somQ improvements in the flood hazard areas
and be in compliance with both the State statutes and your own
Regional Plan. In my packet I have prepared both the numbers
which affect both the State and the Regional whick is 187 and
F.S. 163, 9J-5, and your own section 16.113. Now I don't want to
go into those and belabor the point and tell you what they are,
but your plans, the Regional Plan, and the State Plan have
indications that this project should not go forth until there are
more restraints and you find out what is going to happen because
as you know, flooding is a big hazard, it may occur only once in
awhile, but to those of us it has occurred, it is devastating. I
walked out in 1985 with water this high because I live on the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River, as you can see from my parcel,
and I appreciate your concerns and I would appreciate you find
this particular amendment not consistent with any of these plans
this morning and I would ask that you deny this. Thank you so
much for your time.
Minix: Let me explain something about how St. Lucie County
handles these things. The Planning and Zoning Board goes to the
first public hearing, and as you can see that was five to one in
opposition. The County Commission automatically sends the
petition then to the State and when it comes back from the State
the County Commission will have a public hearing and make a
decision on it. So, at this point in time, in fact, that's true
of all of these you will be hearing from St. Lucie County. The
County Commission has not made a final decision on this matter.
Cary: I wish this information, what Pat has said is exactly
true. The information that we get to base our review on is often
extremely limited. It may just say: "here is the piece of land,
here is what is proposed.,, To my knowledge we didn't receive
this report, did we Terry?
Terry: No, we didn't.
Cary: Based on a very good presentation Pat made today, I mean,
she raised some issues which suggested this thing is inconsistent
with the comprehensive plan. That information was not available
to us when we made that recommendation. What's the deal on the
timing on this?
Terry: We have to submit our comments to DCA in the next couple
of days.
Cary: Under that circumstance, in other words, we are under a
time frame. We have to get our comments to have them mean
anything to DCA within a certain time constraint. Based on what
I have heard, I am convinced that there is reason to believe
there is some problems with this and it potentially, in fact is,
inconsistent with the Regional Plan. We haven't had the
opportunity to study this information, but based on what I am
hearing, any kind of arguments, there is reason for concern. If
there isn't room for drainage out there to take place 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, is a problem we typically get into with incomplete
information.
Minix: What we are going to do is continue with public comments.
I am sure there are other comments that we are going to hear,
then we will come back to questions and comments from the Council
and then we will make a decision based upon what you have learned
here this morning and what our executive director has said. Pat,
thank you very much. Is there any other comments from the public
on this issue? Seeing no one in the public, I will open it up to
questions and comments from the Council.
Cary: Roger suggested something that might be appropriate. One
thing we could do, is transmit the comment with a cautionary note
that a presentation was made at the Council meeting and we would
detail that has raised serious concerns about whether this is in
fact consistent.
Jochem: I found the presentation extremely impressive and
extremely appropriate because it detailed the particular policies
that this proposal was in violation to and I think two comments:
1) I think every comment we send to the State should do that,
should say Policy ~ is this, is in potential violation or
in violation of that policy and I think that is the way we should
proceed; 2) I certainly hope someone lets the petitioner know
because we are not hearing from the petitioner. It has always
been my experience that there may be two sides to the story and
we should make sure if we are going to send forward these
comments that we ask the petitioner if they have some comment.
Minix: Is the petitioner, a representative of the petitioner
here today? Is there anyone here representing the petitioner?
Dagney: And the third thing that I look at which is interesting
for from the staff comments, it says the County staff supports
the petition and what you are saying that you'll...
Minix: The County staff supports the petition, the Planning and
Zoning Board on five to one denied the support. It has not been
formally decided by the County Commission. There Will be a last
public hearing before the County Commission. I am not sure of
the date right now, but in the very near future.
Dagney: After everybody speaks, I suggest a motion, that we
follow Roger's suggestion and detail the policies that this
proposal is in potential violation and submit the lady's comments
and ask the petitioner for their comments.
Eggert: I have got some problems With sending anything up that
says this is consistent and making a little thing saying we are
sending you other information. That never quite arrived
together. Is there something totally neutral we can say further
information to follow, I would rather have something like that
than have this is consistent go up, except that we may change our
minds about this.
Saberson: What we are really saying is that the initial review
by the staff based on the information the staff had indicated it
was consistent; however, there was information that was received
at the Council meeting which we are not really in a position to
judge the validity of at the present time. That raises questions
as to whether the original recommendation was correct or not.
Eggert: I am having problems sending this kind of statement
forward With this kind of situation.
Kenny: It appears to me that items 4, 5, and now 13 appear to be
inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan, and I think in
addition to staff comments, in making an additional comment on 13
pointing out where it is inconsistent we recommend to local
government that those land use amendments be denied. I would
like to have some conversation on 10, 11, and 12.
Mini×: 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 ~nd what is being reviewed, the
expansion in what is intended to be a less intense manner, a
transitioning down from a very high intensity typically all
purpose what we call general comme~'cial to a lesser intensity of
this type use and then into residential. It's a classic
transitioning that time wise happens over and over again and at
least from the information we have to use it appears that is a
logical sequence that is taking place, that is supposed to take
place in this location.
Kenny: Do you have a basis for recommending more commercial. It
seems like you have a lot of vacant 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...
Commission.Virta: 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.on 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 ~o 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.
Florida Department of z lation
Twin Towers Office Bldg. e 2600 Blair Stone Road e 7hllah~ssee, Florid~ 32399-2400
Bob Mar[inez. Oovern:)r Dale TwacJllmann. Secretory
John Shearer. Assistant Secretary
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-l-i~ms:
RE:PA-88-014Future Land Use Amendments File #PA-88-007, PA-88-009, and
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 n_9o 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 Deparjtment is very concerned about the impact on the
infrastructure and the deficit which will be created
development of the 8 700 acres
amendments. ' encompassed in these
If I can be of further assistance please call.
Richard W. Deadman
Planning Manager
community
by the
three
RWD/pph
enclosures
'trI°r/ Ia Department of Environmental Regulation
Sou theast Dis tricr. I900 $. Congress ^v=, Sui~ a e ~t ~m B=ch, FI6rl~ 334~ e 407-~4-~8
Jo~n ~heur~r, ~s~s~r ~eeret~
September 1,1988
.Ms L Christine Bedit_-
~Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
i3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd. Suite 205
'P.0. Box 1529 ·
Palm City, Florida 33490
Subject: The Reserve
D~ar Christine:
! have reviewed the Sufficiency Response (datEd July 19, !988)
referenced above and have the following comments:
1. The applicant stated that 3 new wells are being added to
plant Capacity which are capable of producing higher yields
than ti~ose wells tested in the 1984 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
~brnitzed for any new wells.
5. As the soils in St. Lucie County are m!l.most uniformily
rated as unacceptable for septic tank usage by the U.S. Soil
and Conservation Service, why are Saba! Creek Phases I, ii and
IV and Reserve Plantation Phases i and II not proposed for
Sewers (gravity or low Pressure)? Riveria sand is ponded for 6
to 9 months annually in the proposed septic tank ares according
to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
~. If irrigation reuse cannot be ut~ ~
, -l~zed Cot weltfieid
recharge when and Where is the R.O. industrial injection well
planned to be built? Please explain how this project wilt
comply with the pending requirement of Florida Administrative
Rule 17-40 which requires reuse in wa%er limited areas unless
reuse will cost more than two times the cost of the comb!hsd
utility systems.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Don White, P.E. /
Program Administrator ~J
L.J. Devi!lon
September 1,
The Reserve
The following comments are made relative to the Potable Water
supply for the above pro,ecg and are made based on a cursory
review of the DRi Sufficiency Report.
- AssUming an average production of 60 gpm for the 25 potable
water wells proposed, total production may not be capable of
meeting maximum day demands -of the water system. Based on 100
gpcd or 300 gpd for each DU, maximum day flow requirements may be
as high as ~2.7 MGD. Total product/on of the pro. Dosed we!Ifield
Would be approximately 2.1 MGD.
~ .( 24 hour flow X 15.0% X 150% = max. da~!y flow)
The' existing water tre
onstruction ~erm~ ~ atment plant h-~ ~ -- ·.
~eased for serv~-~ .~t.~'o ~a~e this fac~., j
~equ!red to m~- ~' a~tional tr~a~ .... -~z nas not been
...... u~ ~emands of .... ~=~u capacity will
~ne u!tzmate .project.-Dependin~
raw water source encountered, treatment other than lime
ns~filtration may be required. In the case of reverse
smosisthe reject treatment, water, consideration must be given to proper disposal
APPropriate Diane, specifications and application for water
.ant expansion shOUld be submitted to the Department upon the
g wa~er treatmen~ facility reaching a finished water
day equal to 80~ of the Department re=ed plant capacity.
nstruction of the expansion should begin before or when the
citify ach!eves a maximum day finished water Production equal
90% of the Department approved rated plant capacity. Failure
meet either the 80% or 90% criteria should be 3us~ cause for
g water distribution sYStem applications Submitted =o
Department Pursuant to Ch. !7-22. -
5. At what flow on the wastewater management facility is.the
alternate means of effluent di~p'osal/reuse proposed to be
constructed7
6. Would the Reserve U~i!lty agree to a was~ewater treatment
plant expansion schedule based on the following:
a. When ftowE (actual 3 peak month average daily) reach 60 %
of permitted capacity, a consultant will have been chosen.
~ ;
/ i b. When flows (actual 3 peak month average daily)
:reach 70% capacity, plans and specifications fornew permit
applications wilt 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
comments., please feel free to call me at (407)964-9668 or
SUNC0M #£2t-5005.
Sincerely, ~~
l~arion y. He0gepet~
DRI Coordinator
MYH:mh:88
cc: South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Smith
St. Lucie County, Office of Planning and Zoning
Pete McDonough, Team Plan Inc.
-John Outland, DER Tal!ahassee
FL DEF?LRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
80 Southwest 24 Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
Telephone: (407) 837-529D
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Hook:
BUR~,U OF LOCAD
RESOURCE PLANNING
September 21, 1988
RE: Land Use Amendments St Luc
- . ie Cqunty.
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1631F.S. and
Chapter 9J-11 FAC Interim Review Requirements, the comment~ of the
FDOT to the proposed St. Lucie County Land Use Amendments a!re
enclosed.
~f you or your staff have any questions concernin§ these
comments, please feel free to contact me at (305) 522-4244 [xtension
214 or John Anderson at (407) 837-5290 (S/C 245-5290).
Sincerely,
.Gun,ave Sc~midt, p. E.
Ac 'n§ District Pla
~?n! nnlnQ Admin!istrator
u]strict 4 "
GS: JA: mg
Enclosure
CC'
Mr. Jim Scully
Mr. Michael J. Take
Mr. John Anderson
Amendment No. PA-88-007 Callaway Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
From SU (Sem~-urban~ResidentialQ__L_l,400 Acre
The amendment is a part of the Reserve Development of-Regional
Impact (DRI) now ~n 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 w~th 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-/ to 1-95 and its extension
northwesterly along Reserve Boulevard, now proposed as a private
street, has been preliminarily designated a regional corridor.
corridor is anticipated to function as an outer circumferential The
highway in the future St. Lucie County urban area, extending
northwesterly ~nd northerly fr?m Glades Cut-off Road (CR-709) along
~he ~ener~l alignment of McCar%y Road and SR-603 into Indian River
uounty and the Veto Beach urban area. It is anticipated that t~is
corridor will interchange in the North County area wit .
-4-- - . h both the
Florida Turnpike (SR-91) and I 9b (SR-9) in the vicinity of Orange
Avenue.
The proposed development %s the forerunner of other proposals
extending urbanization west of ~he present urban limits and the
developed or programmed transportation system.
The St. Lucie County Planning Department is now in the process
updating its comprehensive plan.and the Traffic Circ ' of
in accordance with the 1Q~/~ ~ ..... ~ ,. ulatlon Element
the St Lucie Count- ~' i~'~.uzu"un zanagement Legislation. Also
' ~ ~europoiltan Planning Or aniza ' '
part of this comDrehen~ .... ~ ....... g t~on (MPO), as a
...... ~am~ng ezzor~, is updating its
transportation plan for the St. Lucie Metro olita .
conjunction with th~ ce ~-- . ~ · P n Area. The FDOT. i
...... ~ucle unt M : . . n
evaluating the nres~ ~-= ~ - q0 . Y PO, is in the process of
~ ...... ~ ~,,~ ~nu ~u~ur~ transportation ~~ ~ ' .
~ounly, l~lan River an~ m=~+; ...... . ..... ~ xn St. Lucle
..... , ...... x~, uounnles using the Florida State
urban Transportation computer mo=el A ''
- prellminar
to be available by ~ ~ ~ __~_ -- y report is expected
Amendment No. PA-88-D07 (cont'd)
We cannot at this time and without additional information
determine the impact development traffic might have on stale and
regional transportation facilities. The question of whether the
proposal would result in an orderly and logical development pattern
will depend upon the public infrastructure __ including transportation
facilities -- available, or programmed to serve it.
It is recommended that any final action on this and related land
use amendments in the area west o~ I-~5 (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.
Fr°mSU~-S-S-~_m_i-Urban~ to CG (General Commercial) - 30.3 Acres
See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007.
Amendment No. PA-88-008 - Callawa L
~em2-Urban) to ~ ,~ Y. and and Cattle Co
-- v~ £OU ' . -,
r/st Commercla~
See comments for Amendment No. PA-88-007.
Amendment No. PA-88-009 - A - Duda and Sons. Inc.
FrOmTn AG (Agricultural) to RL (Low Density Residential) and X
~hange'Devel°--~-ment~~300 Acres
The state facility directly affected by this proposed amendmen~
is 1-95 (SR-9) which it adjoins on the east. Included ~s the ex~sting
interchange at Gatlin Boulevard and two proposed interchanges between
Gatlln 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-D07, 006 and 008 this Department
cannot comment on the impact of this proposed land use amendment on
the State or Regional Transportation System without, more detailed
information concerning traffic generation and an evaluation of the
impact of future vehicle trips on the existing and the proposed future
Transportation Network.
The Department,s comments on Amendment No. PA-88-007 with regard
to deferral of final action until an evaluation of this impact on the
Highway Network apply to this petition as well.
Since this proposal is a DRI, it would be advisable for the land
use amendment to be withdrawn at this time and resubmitted in
conjunction with an Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the
DRI, at which time a traffic analysis in r~
be evaluated, spouse to Question 31 can
Amendment No. PA-88-O0] - St. Lucie Investment Corp.
From CG (General Commerciat~_to IL L~ht tndustrial_J - 2].55 Acres
US-/ (SR-5) is the state facility directly affecT_ed by this
proposed amendment. Property included in the amendmeni does not have
direct access to US-t 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 Interregional Transportation
Corridor in the Corridors Plan now underway now in the five counties
of District 4. Also, a detailed corridor study has been done on US-1
from Hobe Sound north through Indian River County. The
recommendations of that study in this location are improvement of US-1
to a six lane divided facility. It is also recommended that wherever
possible frontage roads be provided within the existing 200 foot
corridor right-of-way.
The proposed amendmen~ 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. L~cie County and the Port St. Lucie area.
~987 traffic counts south of the intersection of Prima Vista Boulevard
at approximately the site (Station 265) indicate an ADT of 37,200
vehicles -- an increase of 55 percent over the 24,000 vehicles in this
segment in 1985. According to the H.W. Lochner Corridor Study US-1 is
expected to carry 61,400 v.p.d, by the year 2020 in this segment.
US-/ is now operating at a LOS E. Under future conditions it will
also be operating at LOS E based on the assumption that there are no
more than 2.5 signalized intersections per mile. If the frequency of
signals increases as a result of an expansion in the number of high
traffic generating uses the LOS will be further reduced. LOS D is the
minimum acceptable operating LOS for US-1 in this area.
tt 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-/ should include correcting the intersection of Mediterranean
Boulevard South with US-t and the entry to the Home Center Plaza.
Prior to any subsequent development review the proponent should
meel with representatives of this Department (Traffic Operations) as
fromwell US-l.as the County Engineer concerning access and egress to the site
f%mendmen~ No. PA-BS-O12 -U.S. Community, Inc.
From SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial Ccneral
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/Immokolee Road lies midway between Indrio (CR-614) and
Orange Avenue (SR-68) and will interconnect Dixie Highway and US-],
25th Street (SR-615), Kings Highway (SR-713). It is indicated as
extending in the future from Mings 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
is now a state /Immoko~ee Road
facility (SR-608) from 25th Street (SR-615) to US-1
(SR-5) and may be extended as such in a future year functiona1
classification as least as far west as Kings Highway (SR-713).
The proposed amendment lies at the intersection of St. Lucie
Boulevard/Immokolee Road and Keene Road which is a logical extension
of Jenkins Road (CR-611) to Kings Highway (SR-713), a preliminarily
designated local corridor. The existing right-of-way on St.
Boulevard/Immokolee Road ranges between 40 and 80 feet in wi~ in the
segment between US-I and Kings iHighway in which the proposed ~ndment
is located. The adopted Thoroughfare Network, St. Lucie Count dated
March, 1987 indicates a minimum right-of-way of 276 feet for a
proposed six lane divided expressway. In view of the significgnce of
the St. Lucie County International Airport now undergoing expansion
and the several points of intersection with statewide and '
interregional as well as regionaI and local corridors and potential
future designation of this facility as a state route, a minimum 242
foot right-of-way should be pro~ected 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 les turn
capability at principal intersections. In addition frontage r, ads,
or at a minimum, ,
cross-access d~ives may be required to provide land
service between intersecting streets and major driveway access t
abutting property. The same minimum right-of-way is recommende~ 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 Keehe 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 opera~ion of the intersection of Keene Road
and st.. Lucle Boulevard at ultimate development. Right turn lanes
Should De provided at principal drives and Keene Road.
Amendmenl No. PA-88-003 - Hem~nway Corporation
From SU lSemi-Urba_gn) to CG_~_9_mmercial Generall
10.02 Acres
The comments on Amendment No. PA-88-012 are applicable to this
amendment as well with the exception that the potential northerly
extension of Keene Road is dependent upon airport development plans
and the adopted policies related thereto by the St. Lucie County Board
of Counly Commissioners. The same right-of-way protection concerns
are applicable for St. LucieBoulevard/Immokolee Road, as well as the
restriction of access to a safe location West of the intersection of
Keene Road, and right turn lanes at principal drives. Driveway
connections to this .site should also be coordinated with those which
provide access to the US Community Site on the south side of St. Lucie
Boulevard. The County should give consideration to reservation of
right-of-way for the potential northerly extension of Keene Road at
the southeast corner of this site.
Amendmen% No. PA-88-011 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution
~c. ,
From RL (Low Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General) -
5] Acres
This proposed amendment has direct access to and impacts US-/
(SR-5), a s[atewide/interregional transportation corridor designated
~n the Transportation Corridors Planning Program now underway in the
five counties of Distric~ 4. The proposed amendment also has frontage
on Old Dixie Highway (SR-605)2 US-I is currently developed as a four
lane dlvided 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-/ 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 itwo per mile.
In the review of site plans related'to this proposed amendment
(should it be approved) the DePartment recommends th '
b ' . at access to US-
e restricted to approved med a ' . . . ~ 1
..... ~: n openings, and lmmlted intermediate
raght turn dr!yes that right turn lanes be provided at these ~
together with sheltere~ ~-~ i! ...... drives
~ ~=zu uurns aL meolan openings and that access
also be provided to Dixie HighWay coordinated with access to t~e
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 (HighwayCommercial)'
13.34 Acre~
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. 1988. The site also
has access to and will directly impact US-t (SR-5).
The same comments with regard to US-/ as were made on Amendment
No. PA-88-011 are applicable to this proposed amendment. If the
proposed application is approved access to the site from US-] should
be restricted. Median openings are indicated at approximately the
south line of the proposed amendment site and approximately 800 feet
north. If approved the entire site including the property fronting on
US-1 should be included in a planned non-residential development
(PNRD) in subsequent permitting in order to insure environmentally
sensitive design and adequate access control in the interest of
protecting the traffic carrying capacity of US-1.
Amendment No. PA-B8-004 - 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-/ (SR-5) and
has frontage on Old Dixie Highway (CR-605). There is holed in the
backup material furnished this Department that the applicant for this
proposed amendment is also the owner of land fronting on US-t.
The same comments made~ by this Department with retard to
Amendment No. PA-88-010 are applicable to this proposal[ The
Department is concerned about the number of points of access~from US-1
and long term maintenance of an acceptable LOS on that facility.
Prior to any further application for development permit the owner
should contact and coordinate with this Department and the St. Lucie
County Engineer.
This Department is concerned about the impact that further
extensive commercial designation, zoning and development willi have in
the US-1 (aR-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-wa from ~
Y encroachment and halt degradation of LOS on US-1
(aR-5). We recommend that t~e County take all action necessar i
~,ubsequent reviews of applications for develoDme-+ ...... Y n
~ ,,u ~=~u ~o 'assure
nne 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
12.5 Acres
Commercial) -
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
Becket 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 right-of-way on 25th Street in
this general location is indicated by St. Lucie County as 80 feet.
a .n_d~ed co~rrldor width is a minimum of 120 feet for
=rnerlai and 160 feet acc .......... a 6 lane
uzuxng ~o nne 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) ~s also preliminarily designated a
regional corridor in the Transportation Corridors Plan now in
development, minimum right_of~Way width I20 feet. Current
right-of-way width is 80 feet.
.In review of the staff comments and the record
we no~e that the entire ownership tract comprises 24 of public hearing
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 commer '
(assuming 30% land area c ...... ~ ...... clalpotential
result in nearly 800 0On ...... ! ~ - ~ g ry construction), could
~en_r_== .. , ~ ~qu~re! Iee~ oI commercial s
~ ~ ~u~ng an estimated 28.000 ~f? n~= - quare footage
~oaoway capacity is n~ ---- ili,~ per peak hour) daily triD$.
Pr°Dected' volumes.= ~u now ava~±aD±e or _Programmed to serve t~ese
This Department shares th
Planning staff about further ex
zoned land in this location due
LOS on abutting and nearby arte
of conserving new capacity as i
amendmenl be approved, we recom
subsequent development permitti
that right-of-way necessary fo~
~ concerns of the St. Lucie County
:ensions of commercially designated and
to the present limited capacity and
'ial streets as well as in the interest
is added. Should this proposed
~nd that it be considered a PNRD in
g, that site access be restricted and
the 25th Stree~ corridor be obtained.
Amendment No. PA-88-004 H.J. Ross and Associates. Inc
From SU (Semi-Urban~ ~ .
Residential~-i_~13-9 Acres
This proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly /mpact
any state facility. The Department has no comment.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
John W. Anderson, AICP
Transportation Planning
Florida Department of
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
TERRY L. V1RTA
Transonr~nt ~ nn
'teen land
St. Lucie
11 of the
ing these
y way one
nme basic
pact from
Murphy of
marion we
if you have further questions or if I can assist you
further,, please let me know...
TLV/seb
cc: Planning Administrator
~PO Supervisor
Sincerely,
~mr~uY~~D~ve~oplment Director
HAVERT L. FENN District No. I e JUDY CULPtEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNEK District No. 4 · JiM MINIX. Distrio' No. 5
County Adminlsrratcx - WELDON B. LE-W1S
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Director: (407) 468-1'590 · Building: (407) 468-I 550 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning: (407) 468-t550 · Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
780 Southwest 24 Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
Telephone: (407) 837-5290
September 9, 1988
Mr. Terry Virta
Director of Community Development
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Dear Mr. Virta:
Traffic and Socioeconomic Data
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 documentation supplemental to an application for
change.
JWA/mg
cc: Mr. Gus Schmidt
Mr. Jim Scully
Sincerely,
Transportation Planning
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
ME M O R A N D U ~:i
To: Council Members
From: Staff
GEND ITEM 5D
Date: September 16, 1988 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Thirteen Amendments to the St. Lucie County
Future Land Use Element
~ntroduc~ion
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
~ecommendations 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 advisor~ comments are .aimed at
providing coordination between the local
comprehensive plans, and regional
st. Lucie County is considering t3 amendments.to the~ir' 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
definitionsincluded: from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan are
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
developments. , self-contained
SU - SEMI-URBAN: A concept that refers to very low density urban
deVelopment (less than one dwelling unit per acre),
generally housing, that does not prevail over the rural
Character of the area.
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development category
that allows for residential development projects having
an overall density of up to five dwelling units per acre.
Evaluation
The proposed amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council,s review
procedures, and Council,s adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy
Plan. The following comments are offered as a result of that
review.
Many of the parcels under consideration are covered
with native- pine flatwoods vegetation. These
properties have the potential for containing species
listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Council
encourages the development qf 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
e
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 tha~ the
be from Agricultural Productive
)' to ] Dens
acres) and al (3,000
~r this la]
~t, well-cOnceived
int~
To
sub:
dE
rE
for citi:
demon~
occur at the
impact.
(1,300
~ered to the~community
not even an
development,
change would enhance
and perceived
the land, without
added value and
landowner do anything
the area--not even
opment could intelligently
density without negative
until such time as government has sufficient data
to assure the public that the change is in their
interest and that negative fiscal and
will. Jnot occur, the change
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
~egotiating power would have been
prior to a plan being developed; and
of 2) nowtheisChangea veryW°Uld encourage the breakup
large ~ract of land in
single ownership (10,000 acres) ~Many planning
techniques which can assure intelligent and
positive growth are difficult to implement where
multiple ownership occurs.
By way of illustration, a comprehensive evaluation
of this property might conclude that
ical o~ agricu due to the
ec°lQg ~tural importance of-the land,
that development should ideally occur 'onty 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
aqreement that remaining POrtions of the property
are dedicated to ecological preserve areas, as
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 a~pears an
additional east/weSt roadwayor expresSWay will be
needed roads will need to be
To
even more
ef ant and cost
needs
and would potentially
per capita costs by expanding the area
needing to be served.
Generally, l'arge blocks of single use (i.e., 3,000
acres o] resident should be discouraged and
mi '
Planning. that provides
c¢ and
el of
blocks of low density,
require people to get in
ess. .y need.
like
foll~
cr
area:
future of this Region.
in
for
for the more
~rastructure. Large
~ly residential land
cars and drive for
.of uses is
places
continue to
that have
exist in these
and give away the
The need for more than 600 acres (existing) of
Commercial at this one location is
I needs to be considered in terms of its
lye effect and relationship to
surrounding areas prior to approval. According to
both .t~.e_City of Port St~ Lucie and the County, no
such s=udy 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
al~eady 'been granted 600 acres of~ interchange
oriented potential and the existing Agricultural
Pr°duCtive~category allows for lar e_ sca
contained deVel6mme,~ ..... ~. le, self-
= · ~-. -~'ne on±y ~ning required to
obtain such use would be approval of an acceptable
development plan. Since reasonable use ·
allocated · · is alread
: , It lS not c Y
agree ~to un~ra~A _~=_~a~. ~y t~e County should
-. =~ ~= ~um~an~a~ly land development
po=ential 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 services in the area. The nearest
medical services facility is 14
miles away;
Respons .e growth management requires that local
understand fully the costs of
provi infrastructure and service to new
and demonstrate an ability to deliver
c°ncurrent'~'w~'th~'~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 approved development, it appears
an addit2
roadway or expressway will
be and many existing roads will need to be
lly expanded. To encourage even more
growth to determining an efficient and cost
effectj of paying for existing needs
would not. be Prudent ~nd would substantially
per capita costs the area
n~ served.
The area
can be only y relatively inaccessible. It
via Glades Cut-off Road from
the north, and with a connection to-Glades Cut
Road to, id · ~ . -off
P ed by 'Ran e
All roads ~-~ ~. ~ .~ine Road to~ the ~.sOuth.
~= ~wo-£ane~. No assessment is
provided ~o 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
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
to~ allow little or no additional
dj land use types and es. The
existing land use category should be r~etained because
it allows for
.e, self-contained developments,
while the use appears to be more limiting and
could result in single use sprawled development.
Martin( ~1
the relating to
that Co previous change on
Based on the information provided, the proposed
amendment appears to be in conflict and inconsistent
with le ~s contained in the Regional
2y Plan.
I_tem 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
9ecessary to accommodate wholesale activities planned
an the development. Public water is available at this
site, but c sewage treatment facilities are not.
The County want to evaluate the wetlands
associated with this parcel prior to any development
app] the County Nay want to take a look at
the op~ conjunction With this project, to
provide ce etween the mobile home parks and the
shopping ~. Ail 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 8
....
This amendment involves a ll4-acre parcel which the
petitioner intends to develop as a manufactured home
comm~ni%y. The property is adjacent to another
manufactured home development and lies along the
11
The property associated with Item 12 is covered with
mature sand pine scrub habitat. It should be surveyed
by qualified personnel for the presence of Lakela's
mint, a federally endangered plant species whose entire
population is known to exist only in a few locations
near. the subject parcel. Because sand pine scrub habi-
Council
encourages the preservation of as much-of this habitat
llaS possible, if scrub habitat .These exists, comments also apply to Items 10 and
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 ions
(U.S. 1) in order to define to
signaliZation, turning movements, and median cuts.
Based on the information provided and the concerns
expressed above, the proposed amendment does not appear
to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies
con=ained 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 ma]or improvements. All four quadrants
of the intersection area now have commercial land use.
This amendment would make an expansion to the northeast
quadrant.
A traffic study should be submitted for the review and
approval of the County Engineer. The study should
address traffic impacts on South 25th Street and Midway
Road. Both roads will be heavily impacted by St. Lucie
West and The Reserve. Mitigative measures should be
proposed to maintain acceptable levels of service on
the applicable roadways and intersections.
The St. Lucie River (North Fork) lies immediately to
the east. There have been frequent storm,.-water
management problems in this area. A.studyis 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 commercializa=ion. Perhaps
reflecti'ng the long standing community opposition to
13
-T-- . .~-- -- ~--.*----,,-~,
. .. . . ~ .... ~. .... ~ ~ *-,:-:--*--*--*--*--*--*--=c.--~_... ~ , . . .,,
- - ,, '*: .... ~ *-'- :*-.:~:*~-~ '/ "~¢T' -
LUCIE CO '"'- '*_._ _.
UNTY ~/~-.':--a~ 1 1
'., I ' '~ .-,.
OOMP:PLAN AMENDMENT~ 12
9
3
6
Mr. Terry L. Hess, AICP
August 17, 1988
Page Two
CR 609 (Range Line Road) approximately two miles north of the Martin
County line. Land uses to the south in both Martin and St. Lucie
County would remain agricultural. Also, please note that the Florida
Department of Corrections facility is operating immediately to the
south of the County line west of CR 609.
These changes would be incompatible with'the ~lartin 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.
c. 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 ~¢ill 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
jeopardized,coordination that exists between the two county's plans may be
2. IDENTIFY AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT:
The current land use designation amendment without any specific
development plans, is not expected to have any, immediate significant
social, economic, or environmental impacts On ~4artin 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 tler, Growth Management Plan, Appointee
Eula R. Clarke, Transportation Planner
Terry L. Virta, St. Lucie County Community Development Coordinator
Patti Tobin, Cfty of Port St. Lucie
-~ WEDNESDAY'
AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION'RRS DECEMBER I4, 198-8
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 CG (General 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 testifyin9
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-88-006
CONTINUE SOUTH 89,53o28· WEST, 405.62 FEET~ THENCE
NORTH 76,40o16· WEST, 414.04 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF S15.59 FEET~ THENCE NOR?HWESTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42ti1,20· TO A POINT OF
COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST,
NITH A RADIUS OF SO.O0 FEET~ THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 74.S4 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85'24'41.~ TO A POINT ON
THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF 'LEGENDS DRIVE' AN SO FOOT INGRESS
AND EGRESS EASEMENT.
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-NAy OF THE PROPOSED
'RESERVE BLVD' AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED NESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF 'LEGENDS DRIVE' THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
CONTINUE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'09'14., THENCE
NORTH $2'04'$8- EAST, .128.01 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET~ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 571.9! FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21'09. TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET~ THENCE NORTHBASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 272.57 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2S~31,30,~ THENCE NORTH
66'54'39- EAST, 405.25 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF
A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
735.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'26o55.~ THENCE NORTH S6'21'33.
EAST 474.55 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF S76,94
FEET~ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALON~ THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL'ANGLE OF
08t09'23"~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF "LEGENDS
DRIVE. SOUTH 31'44'36. EAST 116.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WI?H THE AFORE SlID WESTERLY LINE OF THE INTERCHANGE
PARCEL AND THE POINT OF BEGINNINO
CONTAINING 30.30 ACRES ~ORE OR LESS
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTION 27,
RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH,
MORE PARTICULARLy
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 Z01, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF B,Z15.66 FEET
TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE"PA'RCEL 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 SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WA~
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.'50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10"; THENCE-SOUTH 58'$9'$S" .
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 621o42 FEET
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTHWESTERLy ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE A DISTANCE OF 182.64 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 16'50'23.; THENCE SOUTH 20'34'17. WEST,
532.1i FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 131.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 149.35 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANOLE OF
65'19'11-; THENCE SOUTH 85'53'28. WEST, 388.39 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 05'58'51. EAST, 64.11 FEET; THENCE s6UTH
89'53'28. WEST, 300.01 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED INTERCHANGE PARCEL AND ALONG THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE PROPOSED "RESERVE BOULEVARD.
EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES;
Date:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
.S.T. LUCIE COUNTY, ..FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
July 12, 1988
convened: 9:08 a.m.
Tape: #1 - #3 adjourned: 3.:25 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Jack Krieger; Vice-Chairman
Havert L. Fenn; Jim Minix; R. 'Dale Trefelner; Judy Culpepper (as
noted) -
Others Present: 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 Director; Lew England, Acting Property
Administrator; Walter Smith and Evan Costopoulos, Sheriff's
Office; Jane C. Marsh, Deputy Clerk
(c) ~ Lan_ d and_ C-__attl~ ~ (2-1869)
Reference was made to memorandum from Planning Administrator,
addressed to the Board, dated July 6, 1988, subject "Petition of
Callaway Land and Cattle Company, to amend the-Future Land Use
Classification of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy
Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG (Commercial General),,.
It was moved by-Com. Minix, seconded by Com. Culpepper, to
transmit this petition to the Florida Depar.tment of Community
Affairs for review and comments; and, upon roll motion
carried unanimously call,
TUESDAY
AGENDA - 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 CG (General 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-88-006
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTION 27,
RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: '
TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH,
MORE PARTICULARLY
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF "THE RESERVE P.U.D.' AS
DESCRIBED IN RESOf. UTION 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 CONPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO
THE WEST LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy
AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET
TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
-WAY OF THE INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED'..-By A
DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID W.
BETHAM, P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 WITH ST. LUCIE
WEST THOMAS J. WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87
AND KNOWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL",
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15- EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.'50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE'
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10.; THENCE SOUTH 58'59'55.
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 621.42 FEET
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ~
21'35'15- TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE A DISTANCE OF 182.64 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 16'50'23"; THENCE SOUTH 20'34'17" WEST,
532.11 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 131.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 149.35 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
65'19'11.; THENCE SOUTH 85'53'28' WEST, 388.39 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 05'58'51- EAST, 64.11 FEET; THENCE SdUTH
89'53'28. WEST, 300.01 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED INTERCHANGE PARCEL AND ALONG THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD-
EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES;
A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET~ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 571.91 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21,09, TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET~ THENCE NOR?HBASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 272.57 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25t31,30,~ THENCE NORTH
66~$4°3g' EAST, 405.25 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF
A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
735.00 FEE?; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 24g.49 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1g'26'55'; THENCE NORTH 86,21o33,
EAST 474.55 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 876.94
FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLy ALON~ THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF
DRIVE' SOUTH 31'44'36- EAST 116.S3 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THE AFORE SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE
PARCEL AND THE POINT OF BEGINNINO
CONTAINING 30.30 ACRES MORE OR LESS
CONTINUE SOUTH 89'53'28. WEST, 405.62 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 76'40'16' WEST, 414.04 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF $15.59 FEET~ THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42,~o20, TO A POINT OF
COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST,
WITH A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTHERLy ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 74.54 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85~24,41,; TO A POINT ON
THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THE PROPOSED
ANDEXTENSIONEoRESS EASEMENT.OF 'LEGENDS DRIVE, AN 80 FOOT INGRESS
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE PROPOSED
'RESERVE 8LVD' AND EASTERLy ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY
OF-WAY OF "LEGENDS DRIVE' THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
CONTINUE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 1.01
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01,09°14,, THENCE
NORTH S2'04'S8. EAST, -128.01 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING
'LEGENDS
POINT OF
INTERCHANGE
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONCRS
July 1, 1988
D6V6LOPM6NT
DIRCCTOR
In compliance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, you
are hereby advised that Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by
Agent: Regina C. Karner, has petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the
Stu 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
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 1:30 P.M. on
Tuesday, July 12, 1988, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Admin-
istration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard
at that time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding,
individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any
party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If
you should have any questions, additional information may be
obtained by calling Area Code 407, 466-1100, Extension 344/41.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
FILE NO. PA-88-008
HAVERT L. FENN, District No. t e JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE FR£FELNER. D strict No 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5
County Administrator - WELDON B. LEWIS
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 466-1100
Director: Ext. 398 · Building: Ext. 344 · Planning: Ext. 316 · Zoning: Ext. 344 · Code Enforcement: Ext. 294
The St. Lucio County Board of County Comml~ mrs proposas to changa the use of land within ~ ~rea ehown:
in the map in this advertlsomen,t.
A publh' hearing on the proposal will be hold before the St 'Lu~;,, ~' .............. ~'..
' · ~.,,~ ..uu.~y uuara u~ ~.ounw Coml~laSlOrle
_Tuesday, July 12, 1988, et 1:30 P.M,, In Room. 101. St. Lucia County Administration Buildinn ~qnn ~,z..l.:.
I1. I'ierce, Florida. The purpose of this meeting'is to consider Ihe comments and rec0mme~"~a'~ons .... of.;~'""the St.'~vu'uu'!Lucle.
County Local Planning Agency and determine, whether or not to transmit the proposed land uae plan amendment toi
the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency review in accordance With the requirements of,
Chapter 163.3184 Florida Statutes.
Please note that all proceedings before the BOard of County Commissioners are electronically recorded If a ·
decide, s to appeal any decision made by the BOa~d of Count~ Commissi,,n,,-~ wit~, ............... ' ~e, rso~
. meetm,g or hearing, he. will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, he may*need to
sure that a veroatim record et the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony end e~JdenCe upon
which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals t in durin
lng will be sworn in. Any party to the proceed(ne will ha nrnnt~ nn n~nn..+,*,l~, *~. ..... .e~ify' Q .. g 8 hear-
fying during a hearing upon request. - ..... " ......... ~,~,,.~ ..... v .... u~-exemme enymdividual telti.,
Copies of the proposed amendments to the St. Lucia County Growth Management Policy Plan are available for
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.
_.,.Ali irj~rested Para,Ds may appear.and will be~Iiven an opportunity to be heard at ~hattim~ ............ ~
If Ft becomes necessary, these public hearings nay be continued from time to time.
...... ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ·
~. BOARD OFcOUNTY COMMIS$1ONEI~
.', lei JACK KRIEGER '|
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY
FLORiDa
A MATTHEW I. and MARIE T. SCHNEIDER, et &l: - '
Railroad, ~ feet no~h of Turnpike Feeder R~d. (Oppos,e Orchl
..... -~.- ~c; I~ng ~een N~ U.,S 1 and FEC
B NARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC iNET~UTiON, iNC~ Acres M.H.p.)
Highway at the existing HarbOr e;a~c~ Fe~ilJfies 56~ Old Dlx; .. .
~CNB OFFLOEIOA~ , ' 'eHtghway ' - ' · .
No~h U S 1 and Old ~t~ie Hi ' , .. ~n ~ommetclal HtgnwayJ; Location: 11 lea, m' . · ·
D ~g~ COMMUNITIES, I.C.~nwey' a, W,lcox Roed~ p taus acres. ~ng
$U (Semi Urban} to CG (Commercbl Genera~)~ ~oc--;- ' '- - ' ' ~ -
Reed· .. ' u.on= i~.= acres, lying at southwest com~ of
E HEMINWAY CORPORAT~N= .-" '
From S~ (Semi Urbanl to CG (Commercla Genera/')~ Location: I0 a~es lying along ~e,o,h ~e of
west of Keen Road.. ~
[rom SU (Sem~ Urban m RL (Low Densitv Resid~ht~l · .
,gad - ~. ). Laotian: 73.6 acm ' ~ ' '
PIERCE
PARTNERS~
F~om RL (Low Density Residential) to CG ':'" ' .
6~ fee~ north of Wear M~way Road. (Commercml General}: Loca~on: 11.2 ac~, ~cated a~ the ~
I: ST. &UCIE INVESTMENT CORP.:
neenFr°m:Boulevard.CG (Commercial General) ~o IL (Industrial Light) Location: 2i:6 ac~es, ~ng W~t of South U.S. 1, Op~e ~ M~.
I:; JAN[ W, TURMAIL:
~rom ~ (Semi ~rban) to flL (~ow ~ensJ~ fleaidentjalJ: Locaflom 20 ~ ' ' ' '
~ CAL~WAYLane' (HarbOUrLAN~ and CATTLE COMPANysRidge/Wide Waters}. ~ acres. ~ng at ne,beast co,er ~
[~m SU (Semi Urban) to RL (Low Den~- R~.:- ........... ; ~ ' '
THE RESER~ g baleen Jn,orstate 95 end Glades CUt-Off RoId ~,~[~7~'~[La~G {~ommer~l Ge.e~l}:
ofFr°mlnterata~AG (Pmducfive~i at Gatl~Agricultural)Boulev~d.t° X (Interchange)'and. _ RL (Low DenNw ReNden~iJ: ~n: 3.~ plus, minul
4 JOHN M, MgCARTY: , ~'*~' .
From AG (P~duc~e Agti~uf~raJ) to SU (Semi Urben):*Location: 3,~ plui, minus ' I ' 9 if
of Range Line Road.
.cr~. i~.g so~th of G~des CUtOff R~d. W~
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:
COHMENCE AT THE NORTHEASTERL
DESCRIBED IN RESOLUT?~ .... Y CORNER OF 'THE o~ ......
PAGES 667 THROU~u .... 84-129 AND REC n~ .... .D. AS
FLORIDA. rv?t,~ ^,.~2__uzz PUBLIC RECnDn- 2~u z~ 0.~. BOOR
89'45'43. EA~ .~___NORTH LINE OF $~ID ~?^~.~,LUCIE COUNT~,
OF 98~''~^~ r~i~'-TO~O~ SAID NORTH .... ~?~E~ OF ....SECT'Yg ~&~ THENCE SOUT~
DISTANC& ~ ~ _~o ALONG THE NOR ~ ¥~ °~u SEC?Io~ 22, TH£N
O.R. BOOK 9?uw;~-~ND L~GHT COMPANY RI~T O~ ~A~HE-~E~TERLY LINE
PLO · u~ S04 PUBLIC - '" · a~ REC
, i RIDAo THENCE S~"~,, ~,-- RECORDS OF ~ --- ORDED
THE T~E FLORIDA p~ ¥~ OO'~Z' WEST ALONG s.~i'..-~IE COUNTY.
~E WEST LINE OF A F'~ ..... HT COMPANy RIGHT-~ ,~-- LY LINE OF
~$ RECORDED IN 0.~ ~2~ ~OW£R AND LIGH~ C8.~[~zZ_ AND: AlSO
RECORDS OF ST ,..-T~ ovuK 120, PAGE ~n _..~nZ ~IGHT-OF-WAy
FEET TO ~ n^.~- ~={E COUNTY, . FLO=?~T *=~ _zN~OUGH 201, p~nr?~
- ~z~r OF INTERSECTIO~ ~?~_ a DISTANCE OF .
-- --~n ~.= PRORO=~ o ..... ~0.206.8!
OF-WAy OF THE~ INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL''~ASW=~RLYDESCRiBED_B~RZGHT'A---
DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON A BOUNDARy SURVEy PREPARED. BY DAVID
BETHAM· P.L.S. WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 WITH ST. LUCIE
WEST THOMAS j. WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87
AND ENOWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE _ 95 CALLAWAy & PEACOCK PARCEL
SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEG~NNING~
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'1~, WEST ALONG SAID WEST
THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT'OF ~AY, AERLY LINE
3 6.33FEE+, THENCE , .
~OUTH eS'2S,09, W~- ~.ae SZ 34, WEST. ~ . .... ~ZSTANCE OF
WITH THE .... i--' ~4.83 FEET ~ Zi~ _-'~'~.~4 FEET,
~r-OF-W ~z~ OF A ~GTION
SOUTHWEST AND -^ ~:__S~ID POINT ~EING N A~°p°SED -[20.00 FOOT
ALONG S DI~S OF ! 0 ~ RTH 78 08~
AID PROPOSED EAS · 0.00 FEET T.EEAST,
- ~v~UWZNG COURSES
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 123.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
06'39'37,; T~ENCE NORTH 18'31°lOm WEST, 353.66 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST
HAVING A RADIUs OF $40.00 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~$4,50,
EAST, 64.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERL~ LI~E OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD. SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTHEAST TO WHICH A
01'26°19' WEST, SAID CURVE HAVING RADIALA RADIUS LINE BEARS OF 1,033 -SOUTH.- 84
FEET; .
PUBLICTHENCE DEPARTING SAID AND EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF THE PROPOSED
RIGHT-OF-WAy 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 01,32o51.;
THENCE. RESERvENORTHBouLEVARD.Bg,S3,28.EXTENSioNEAST, ALONGA SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
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
DESCRIPTIONp. L.s.SHOWNwiTHONFLoRIDAA BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID
BETHAM, 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
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 1,295.00
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
RECORDEDoF INST. O.R.LUciEBOOKcouNTy120, PAGES 199 - 201 PUBLIC
RECORDS FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. '
CONTAINING 40.52 ACRES MORE OR LESS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
AND
SPECIAL REVIEW OF LARGE AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: J. P. Terpening, Mabel Fawsett, Patricia
Ferrick, Patricia King, Ralph Flowers, Joseph Sciturro, and
Douglas Skidmore.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Carman - excused illness. Jo Ann
Allen - excused, illness. ' ·
OTHERS PRESENT: A~sistan~ County Attorney, Krista Storey;
Planning Administrator, Dennis J. Murphy; Assistant Planner,
Donna Scanlon; and, Assistant Planner, Ray Skorzewski.
PRESS ATTENDANCE: Susan Burgess News Tribune (for a portion
the meeting) '
of
TAPES: 1, 2, 3, & 4
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23; 1988
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: FILE NO. PA-88-006:
Petition of Callaway Land and Cattle Co., by AGent: Regina C.
Karner, to amend ~he Future Land Use Classification of the St.
toLUCieCG County (General Growth Management Policy Plan from.SU (Semi Urban)
com~ercial'Development) for property located on
the southeast side. of Glades Cut-Off Road approximately 3 miles
south of West Midway Road. '
Ms. Regina Karner presented the petition. She requested to
address this agenda item and the following two items as they are
all by the same petitioner. The next plan amendment request for
Callaway Land and Cattle Co. is from SU (Semi-Urban) to RL (Low
Density Residential Development), and the followinG plan amend-
ment request for the same petitioner is from SU ,Au;fSem~-Ur~an-
CT (Commerical To6~ist Development). Chairman Terpening said to it
is possible to hold, discussion for all three; however action by
the Board must be/taken separately. ·
Ms. Karner said ail three'petitions are in compliance with the
Development of Regional Impact the Treasure Re~onal=_.
Council requirements. She'~indicated for the Board thePianninGarea that
is an existing PUD. The future plan will include future PUD's.
The density of those proposed will be the same as it exists in
the existing PUD. The proposed commercial tract is north of the
proposed interchange. A minor shopping and office area is pro-
posed.
Mr. Les Bennett, a~ resident of The Reserve, felt the developer
has done a terrific job. The plans to proceed will
~.9~pr°perty values, enhance the
Messrs. Buck Bradley and Bill Condien, residents of The Reserve,
also spoke in favor of the petition, citing the same reasons as
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Joe Paprielli, ~also a resident of The Reserve, said he had no
idea what is going to happen on the subject property. Mr. Murphy
said-The Reserve is currently undergoing a Development of Re-
gional Impact review which is a detailed review. The purpose of
tonight's hearing is but one component of that review. There are
mutliple volumes of plans, documents, environmental assessments,
traffic assessments available in the Planning Office for review
by the public. The developer has submitted conceptual land use
plans. Site specific plans have not been submitted; however,
they are working on them and as they move into the later stages
of the process, those plans will be submitted. Many of the
concerns raised by Mr. Paprielli are in the process of being
addressed. Ultimately, all development specifications and condi-
tions of approval in book form will be presented rio this Board
and the Board of County Commissioners. This book will be the
blueprint for the project. There are certain parcels that the
exact architectural style is not known. Those will be left to
future dates.
Mr. Paprielli stated his concern that adjacent Property owners
were not given a ~%an showing intent and how the quality of life
of the existing r~idents Will be preserved.
Mr. Carl Ravasi agreed with Mr. Paprielli. He had no objection
to what the developer is planning; however, he feels the petition
would allow a freedom of action in the land use portion that
appears as if it could increase and double the density of the
current land use.- He has been assured by the developers that
they are not going to develop any differently than they already
have. He did object to the lack of communication. If the pro-
ject is going to Continue at the same level of ~density that is
currently in existence, Mrl Ravasi said he would have no objec-
tion.
Regarding Staff comments, Mr. Murphy the three petitions are an
integral part of the DRI application. The intial plans for the
project indicate the commercial areas as shown on the overview.
The project density as submitted is running at approximately 2
units or 2.25 units to the acre. The project wilI consist of a
combination of single family detached residential lots, as well
as attached multi-family structures in a variety of styles'
Staff has reviewed~the plan amendments in conjunction with the
DRI application, and would at this time have no objection to
forwarding them on to the DCA for further review
Mr. John Holcomb, President of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., said
his firm has no i~tention of changing the density in The Reserve.
The intention is t'o maintain the same densities, the same quality
of life, and the same style of building and construction that has
been developed. They are looking for less than two units per
acre, not the maximum of five units per acre. There will be some
areas that have five units per acre, but those exist on the golf
course presently. The boulevard has a 100 ft. median, and there
is a 50 ft. buffer on either side of that.
Ms. Karner exhibited a drawing to indicate the areas of change.
The CG area will be north of the interchange. Mr. Murphy indi-
cated the area of~ ~he existing golf course, the Plantation area
and Sabal Creek. He also indicated the area of construction of
the Prima Vista Blvd. interchange. He then indicated the area
for the application from SU to CT (hotel site), and the other CG
site would lie to the north side of the roadway in the cross-
hatched area. The balance of the area is requested for land
change from SU to~RL in order to achieve the gross density of
just above one uni~ to the acre.
20
In response to questioning by Mr. Sciturro, Ms. Karner
the CT area Will include 40 acres.
Hearing no further public comment in favor of or in
the petition, Chairman Terpening ClOsed the
hearing.
After considering, the testimony presented during the
lng, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of
in Section 5.3.300., St. Lucie County Zoning Ordinance,
made a motion that the St. Lucie County Local Planni
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that
of Callaway Land and Catt.le Co. for a change in land
(Semi-Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential) be a
transmitted to the~ Fl°rida~. Department
further review and evaluation Under the°frequirementsC°mmuni~tY
163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Mr Sciturro Seconded
and Upon roll call the Board VOted unanimous]y 'in fay
mOtion. · '
Chairman Terpening informed the Petitioner,s agent that
tion will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissi
a recommendation of approval.
to~
the
Agenda Item:
File Number:
PA-88-006
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE;
SUBJECT:
Local Planning Agency
Planning Administrator
June 16, 1988
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., by Agent:
Regina C. Karner, to Amend the Future Land Use
Classification of the St. Luoie County Growth
Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-Urban) to CG
(General Commercial Development)
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING GMPP:
PROPOSED GMPP:
PARCEL SIZE:
PROPOSED USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
WATER/SEWER SERVICE:
Southeast side of Glades Cut-Off Road,
approximately 3 miles south of West
Midway Road.
AR-1 (Agricultural,
du/ac)
Residential _ 1
SU (Semi - Urban)
CG (General Commercial)
30.30 Acres.
To construct a community sized shopping
center, in conjunction with the
development of The Reserve DRI/PUD
St. Lucia County: AG, AR-l, RS-2 and PUD
Port St. Lucia: GU, HI and I
See Comments.
Station #6 (White City) is approximately
8 miles away.
Facilities to be provided on site.
Ju6e 16, 1988
Petition:
Page 2 File No.:
Callaway Land"and Cattle Co.
PA-88-006
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
In reviewing this application for proposed amendment to the
Growth Management Policy Plan, the Local Planning Agency shall
consider and make the following determinations:
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with
all elements of the St. Lucie Growth Management
Policy Plan;
The proposed change in land use is generally
consistent with the Commercial Development
Policies of the Growth Management Policy Plan.
.Specific policies in support of this petition are
#34, #39, and #40.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment is consistent with existing and proposed
land uses in this area;
The proposed amendment is consistent with
existing and proposed land uses in this area.
the
Whether there have been changed conditions
require an amendment;
that
See Comments
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment "would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether or to the ext'ent to which
the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity
of such public facilities, including, but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities;
See Comments
Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in an orderly and logical
development pattern, specifically identifying any
negative effects on such pattern;
The proposed amendment represents an orderly and
logical development pattern in this area.
3u6e 16, 1988
Page 3
Petition:
File No.:
Callaway and Cattle Corp.
PA-88-006
COMMENTS
The petitioner, Callaway Land and Cattle Co., proposes to
change the land use designation from SU to CG for a portion of
their property located at the interchange of West Prima Vista
Boulevard and 1-95. This Petition is being filed as a part of the
Application for Development Approval (DRI), The Reserve, in
accordance with Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The
property under petition is not located within a designated area
of Critical State Concern. This property does not qualify as a
small area or emergency plan amendment under Chapter 163.3187,
Florida Statutes and is not proposed for adoption under a Joint
Planning Agreement pursuant to Chapter 163 3171,
Statutes. · Florida
As 'this Agency may be aware, the developers of The Reserve
are presently in the midst of the Development of Regional Impact
review process with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and St. Luoie County. The Reserve is a proposed 4,100 unit
residential development that will include four golf courses, one
of which is existing, a variety of housing types and styles
centered on both the golf courses and necessary lake drainage
system. As presently envisioned, the residential density for this
project is approximately 2.0 du/ac.
This particular petition is for property located near the
interchange of West Prima Vista Boulevard and 1-95. This area is
located in the northwest quadrant of the interchange and is
Planned to be developed with a community sized shopping center.
As a Development of Regional Impact, this p~ojeot must
demonstrate that it will not adversei.y impact on the community
infrastructure. If it is found tO impact these facilities,
mitigative steps must be taken to compensate for that lmpact.
Through the final reviews of this app!ioation a series of
conditions/requirements will be developed to be included in any
approval order for this project.
In general, the application for change in land use is
consistent with the development philosophy of the St Luoie
County Growth Management Policy Plan. '
Under the requirements of Rule 9J-11, Florida Administrative
Code, the State of Florida requires a recommendation from this
Agency, as well as staff, prior to the Board of County
Commissioner,s consideration on whether to transmit this petition
for further agency review. At this time, staff would recommend
June 16, 1988 Petition: Callaway and Cattle Corp.
Page 4 File No.: PA-88-006
that the Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of
approval for this petition and that it recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners that this petition be transmitted to the
State of Florida for further agency review and comment.
Although staff is 6ffering a preliminary recommendation of
approval, we would advise the petitioner that should the Board of
County Commissioners agree to transmit this petition for further
review, St. Luoie County reserves the right to amend this
recommendation pending completion and review of the required
agency comments.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact this
office.
DJM/DBS/seb
Attachment
CAL-CGl(B-DEC88)a
cc: County Attorney
Regina C. Karner
Christine Beditz
SAMPLE MOTION:
MO~TION TO TRANSMIT:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCiE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
CO. FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN)
(COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) 8E APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER
AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER
380, FLORIDA STATUTES.
TO CG
TO THE
REVIEW
163 AND
MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HERESY MOVE THAT THE ST. CURIE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE 80ARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO
CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL), NOT 8E TRANSMITTED TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND
EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA
STATUTES; BECAUSE...
SAMPLE MOTION:
.MOTION TO. TRANSMIT:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
CO. FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO RL
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BE APPROVED AND TRANSMITTED TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER
REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTERS
AND 380, FLORIDA STATUTES.
MOTION TO DENY TRANSMITTAL:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF, COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AS SET IN SECTION 5.3.300, ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THAT THE PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND AND CATTLE
COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE FROM SU (SEMI - URBAN) TO
RL (LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT), NOT BE TRANSMITTED
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FURTHER
REVIEW AND EVALUATION UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 153,
FLORIDA STATUTES; BECAUSE...
THURSDAY
~CENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JUNE 23, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Petition of Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., by Agent:
Regina C. Karner, to amend the Future Land Use Classification of
the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan from SU (Semi-
Urban) to RL (Low Density Residential Development) for the
following described property:
(SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
(Location: Southwest of Glades Cutof Road in the Reserve
Development)
Please note that all proceedings before the Loc'al Planning
Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur-
pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of
any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying 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 June 1, 1988. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988.
FILE NO. PA-88-007
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:
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 LXN~ 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 201, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 10,206.81
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
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',
SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING~
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11' WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF:
THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT.-COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, A DISTANCE OF
$26.33 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 88'51'34' WEST, 1,4T9.24 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 85,25,09.~WEST, 794.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLy RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 120.00 FOOT
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 78'08'28- EAST,
SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID PROPOSED EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES~
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 123.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
06'39'37-~ THENCE NORTH 18'31'10. WEST, 353.66 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG TH~ ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'54'31.) THENCE NORTH
10'23'21- EAST, 109.98 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 50'54'50'
EAST, 64.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLy [.INE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD, BAlD POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE. NORTHEAST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH
01'26°19' WEST, SAID CURVE HAVING A EADIUS OF 1,033.84
FEET~
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLy RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE PROPOSED
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy AND SOUTHEASTERLy ALONG THE ARC OF SArD CURVE
AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID "R£$EEVE BOULEVARD- EXTENSI-ON,
A DISTANCE OF 2?.92 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
TH£NCE NORTH. 89'53o25. EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLy LINE OF SAID
"RESERV£ BOULE~'ARD- 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
BETHAM, P.L.S. ~ITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 3199 WITH ST. LUCIE
WEST THOMAS J. WHITE DEVELO~NEN? CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND
KNOWN AS THE 'INTERSTATE - 9S CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL..
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF
SA~D INTERCHANGE PARCEL THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 89'53'28, EAST, 300.00 FEETj
THENCE SOUTH 05'45'3B- WEST, 64.~1FEET~ 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 SA~D CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 626.01 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
$9'43'46. TO A POINT OF COMPOUND'CURVA~URE OF A CURVE_
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,295.00
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 ~N O.R. BOOK 120, PAGES 199 - 20! PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTy, FLORIDA AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ,
CONTAINING 40.52 ACRES MORE OR LESS
15/21/22 23129/27128/29/33/34/35-36-39
SU-I~L x~x'X,'"'xx'xx, x'Xx'x,~ RS-2 : PURPLE
SIJ-CG ~~ P.U.D. = RED
OETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND & CATTLE CO.,I~I
BY AGENT: RE6i~A KARNER, P.L.S.
FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE -L/Lt~D USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO ~L
FROM SU TO CG
FROM SU TO CT
~5/2]/22/23/2~/27/28/29/33/34/35-36-39
SU-RL ~x',,,"X~x'X"~"'~ SU = ,BLUE
SU-CG jt~j"a~ RL = RED
SU-CT
PETITION OF CALLAWAY LAND g CATTLE CO.,Ih
~Y AGENT: REGINA KARNER, P.L.S.
-FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL
FROM SU TO CG
FROM SU TO CT
CC
OC
IrT pTFerr.
7~e3 ~a~LfSTpN ~l¥
Ft Pi ~cr. ~t 3~ere-~e30
332] 60] CC~& ~001~ CO
CALlaWAY t~wP K C~TTLF CP
2~6C N~ e¢~F~Vr p~
FT PIERC[,~FI
3321
CO
CALLAiAY tak~ £ CJTTLF CC lkC
F ~IE~CF, Fl 34~e~-9634
3321 PCI CC~ CC¢11
cc
3321 POI O04P COOl2
cc
PALM ECHJ FL 3342]-CCC~
CO
33H ecl 0C5! CCCle
CC
v
3321 lO1 C¢53 CCClC O0
2400 5 ~CEAK DP CT71~2
FT PIf~CEp FL 349~9-8C1~
CC
13o 5~ r"~T ~T tLCIF I~V STF a
~r~f ST IrcTr~ PL ~4q~-O000
O0
0¢
lAND
SEPIO, S~IVATOPE P g
t~6 HA~TH~FNF IV
IStlP, NY 11730-0000
332] ecl" eO~q CC012
CO
C0
JC~ES, GLFEN H [ JU£Y D
7729 bEXF£F~ k~Y
PCGT ST LUCIE~ FL 3~0e6-CCC¢
Cc
3321
CC
721& ~rvr~ rAY
PO~I ST LUCIPp Irt ~963-2213
O0
3321
CO
3321 PC! CC63 CC¢!3
CC
~IFLLr, 'd
Co
1161 PC~T ST LUCTf RV
PORT ST II~CIF, FL 34952-C0C0
3321 CO! 0065 00017
CO
PYDF PA~Kp NY
3321 801 0C6~ CCCt~
CC
rC
1503 S; rnvat CeEFN CTla ~PT P-IC~
PCi, T ST tI?elF, FL 74, q52-COC0
3322 313 ¢C03 OOCiC
CO
7qC3 PLANTATICk LA~FS C~
PC~T ST LUCTF,FL
7ec5 PuTtEe IN
TIITI'I% I~FN f
¢C
crc? ccc;?
cclc CCC/! CC
ctl~ CCC/~
CITY, P~ILLfPPIkF$
fTO lYI? POOl~
t73 2~?0 COCl~ CO
'lmFl, ft 33131-~c!~
610 ~,eOnl? co
e?o I?~ OrC#~ co
,o,,,, ·
~liPle FL
23;1 PeT CCI& CC¢1! C:
});! POi CC;.: Cells J':
3171 Pc% C¢~ fOCI3
c~
IT PJl$CI. II ?l([C-¢[C{
Oe ))?7 eot O~O earle c~
§UtIL ki~ff l~
~C !]?I Ill CrC] ~f¢l~ CO
ICi CCl~ (C~l? C¢
ecl OC)f C¢Clff cr
tel CC~I CCCl?
· 3~J Li
??? Cccl (C¢1C
~?i CCC! CCCIC
0¢
0¢
CC
(G
I~? q|lvfetll¢~- ay
CO
CO
c(
3!?f ?Cl Cc?? cc(Il cr
CC
lfCg, ISle
?i;c e?o I~l~ cc¢/I ct
0¢
iff,
I
el'
CC
Ct'
re
l
~ll~I,
t~t~t[L. C!
t flil~!
Co
¢¢
¢¢
/ i
])£J ~Cl Cell ~!~11 ¢~ ])21 ~l ICl1
I
CO
ItlC ell%T? I~c
???C US
ec
O0
TPIIIll, PITt! (
?);! tel CC~t ¢CC~7 ' Ct
~11 ~c? CCCl Ccc/3
73;I ?C? CCC? (CC/5
Ifil SI tO¢ll
CO
0¢
~C
el'
0¢
iii '""
ilAJ,C I$C/, Cl
2,'
Cf'
?l~ S lc ST
AGENDA - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
THURSDAY
JUNE 23, 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 CG (General 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 Local Planning
Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such pur-
pose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of
any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying 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 June 1, 1988. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie County, on June 2, 1988 and June 15, 1988.
FILE NO. PA-88-006
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21, 22, 23,
33, 34 AND 35 OF TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST.
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, THENCE NORTH
89'03'42- EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23, A
DISTANCE OF 96.01 TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 170.00
FEET EAST OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO. 9 ( 1-95 ) AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAy
MAP, SECTION 94001-2412 DATED 6-2-77 WITH LAST REVISIONS ON 8-28-
8:1, BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
EASEMENT, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 97, PAGE 504,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
00'00'11- WEST, ALONG SA:ID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID.FLORIDA POWER
A~D LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAy, AND ALSO THE WEST LINE OF A
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 120, PAGE 199 THROUGH 201, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 8,215.66 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy OF THE
INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED BY A DESCRIPTION
SHOWN ON A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY DAVID 'W. BETHAM, P.L.S.
WITH FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 319~ WITH ST. LUCIE WEST THOMAS J.
WHITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED 6-10-87 AND KNOWN AS
THE 'INTERSTATE - 95 CALLAWAY & PEACOCK PARCEL', THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
26, 27, 28, 29,
LUCIE
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS SOUTH 47'47'15" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 600.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 175.93 FEET; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16'47'10'~ THENCE SOUTH 58~59'55-
WEST, 462.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 621.42 FEET~
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID! CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 234.14 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21'35'15";
THENCE DEPARTING SAID PROPOSED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy NORTH
31'44°36' WEST, 116.53 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF A PROPOSED 80.00 FOOT INGRESS AND
EGRESS EASEMENT HEREON AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROPOSED .'LEGENDS
DRIVE" EXTENSION, 'THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY'RIGHT-
DISTANCEs~OF-WAY LINE OF SAID 'LEGENDS DRIVE' THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
AFORESAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS SOUTH 11'47'49- EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 876.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 124.84 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'09'23. THENCE SOUTH 86'21'33"
WEST, 474.55 ~.~EET TO A POINT OF CURVATL~_~ OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 735.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
A DISTANCE OF 249.49 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
19'26'55'; THENCE SOUTH 66'$4~39· WEST, 405.25 FEET TO
A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 611.85 FEET~ THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 272.57 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'B1'30'
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 812.04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF S71.9! FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40'21'09';
THENCE SOUTH 52'04'59' WEST, 128.01 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET~ THNCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC :OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 1.0i FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ~1'09'14' TO THE POINT O~
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' EXTENSION,
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF SAID PROPOSED
"LEGENDS DRIVE~ SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
OF THE PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD. EXTENSION THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF -74..54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85'24'41' -TO.-.
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NORTHEAST~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 379.64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 42'11'20"~ THENCE SOUTH 76~40'16, EAST,
414.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'53'28' EAST, 405.62 FEET
TO THE-POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THEWESTERLY RIGHT,
OF-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD' SOUTH 00'06'32' EAST, ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERCHANGE PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF ~40.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy
LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE BOULEVARD"~; THENCE SOUTH 89~53'28-
WEST, ALONG SAID'SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy L~NE, 562.93 FEET, TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,033.84 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy LINE, 27,92 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'32'51" TO A POINT. OF INTERSECTION WITHL THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAy L~NE OF A PROPOSED 120 O0 FOOT PUBL'IC
RIGHT-OF-WAY. ·
THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED 'RESERVE
BOULEVARD" EXTENSION, SCUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES~
THENCE SOUTH 50'54'50" WEST, 64.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
10'23'21" W~ST, 109.9~ FEET TO,~ A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
!
CURVE CONCAVE~:~-~O THE EAST [lAVING A RAD~ ~S OF 540.00
FEET~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 272.46 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28'54'31'~ THENCE SOUTH 18'31'10' EAST, 353.66 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,060.00 FEETI THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF '123.22 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06'39'37'~
THENCE DEPARTING .THE EAST LINE OF SAID PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH 85'25'09' EAST, 794.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88'$1'34' EAST,
1~,479.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF AFORESAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED
IN O.R. BOOK 120 PAGES 199- 201, THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00'00'11'
WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 97 PAGE 504, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 1,918.$B FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-
WAY AS RECORDED IN .O.R. BOOK 468 PAGE 2897, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE T~HE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES~
SOUTH 04'50'26' WEST, 637.01 FEETI THENCE SOUTH
12'25'58' WEST, 640.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19'28'24"
WEST, 683.65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 79'27'56' WEST, 55.51
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10'32°03' EAST, 50.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 79'27'i$6" EAST, 55~39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
40'32'32" EAST, 146.64 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 23'34'44'
WEST, 422.43 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LXNE SOUTH 89~52'24"
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER
(1/4) OF SAID SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF ~$29.49 FEET~ .-THENCE
NORTH 43'08'22' WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CANAL NO.
C-24, A DISTANCE OF: 2,36[.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 298 PAGE 1016,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH
61'51'34' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
6~.9.04 FEET= THENCE SOUTH'40'58'54- WEST, ALONG THE-NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL , 958.79 FEET TO THE 'POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHEASTSRLY ~IG~T-~F-WAY LINE OF AFORESAID ~CANAL N.O.
C-24~ THENCE NORTH 43 08 22 WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 73.6 FEET TO THE POINT OF I"TERSECTIO. WIT.
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF ' LAND~ DESCRIBED IN~ A
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BO0~ 344~ PAGES 1093 - 1095,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH
46'44'37' EAST, A THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL,
1260.91 FEET; T NCE NORTH 43'08°40' WEST, ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF 'SABAL Cf PHASE IV' AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 PAGE
17, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF
5,082.07 FEET~
SAID SOUTHERLY
SOUTHERLY LINE
T ENCE NORTH 43'34'09" WEST,
LI OF SAID SABAL CREEK
OF SABAL CREEK PHASE
CONTINUING ALONG
PHASE IV AND THE
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF° AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL A DISTANCE OF, $,340.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAIL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY~ THENCE NORTH 44°45'58' EAST, ALONG SAID
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL ROAD, AND
THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF "SABAL CREEK PHASE I", AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 32, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF "THE RESERVE
P.U.D." AS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 84-129 AND RECORDED IN
OoR. BOOK 442 PAGES $6? THROUGH 6?2 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF ?984.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION- WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .21, AND~ ?HE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D."; THENCE NORTH B9'21'$2" EAST,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SA'ID SECTION 21 AND THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID "RESERVE P.U.D." A DISTANCE OF 109.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH B9'23'26" EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH L-INE' OF-SAID SECTION 2.2 AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID."RESER.VE
P.U.Do" A DISTANCE OF 2°639.20 FEET~TO ~THE NORTH .ONE QUARTER
(1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 225 THENCE SOUTH 89'45'43" EAST,
.CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AND ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID "RESERVE P.U.D.", A DISTANCE OF 269S.20 FEET
TO THE NOR~THEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22 AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2397.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
NOTE~
THIS LAND DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE LAND
SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM SU TO RL-LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE LANDS CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED AS RL.