The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 8, 1999 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA JULY 8, 1999 - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ~BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stefan Matthes, Ramon Trias, Diana Wesloski, Albert Moore, Charles· Grande, Ed Lounds, 'Carson McCurdy BOARD-MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Merritt and Noreen Dreyer (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: James. Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney; David Kelly, Planning Manager; ~Cyndi Snay, planner ii; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Kellystated that there was.a conflict with meeting moms tonight. He stated.that this room was double scheduled for this meeting and a.meeting of the Ft. Pieme ~et Boat Ramp Group. He stated that the Ft. Pierce Inlet Boat Ramp Group meeting is being held in Conference Rooms B and C .in the Civic Center. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 1 APPROVAL ,OF LOCAL PLANNING A~NCY MINUTES' - SPECI~ ~ ETING 'OF MAY I3,. 199,9 ..Chairman Wesloski aSked if them were .any ,additions or co~ections'to the minutes. There being no ,additions..or co~ections ::to. the minute's. '.of. the May 13., 1 Wesloski asked for~a motion. ~. LO :. ~ds'made amofion :for Moore. , Chairman Upon.roll call, the motion was :apprOved 6.0, with Mr. McCurdy :abstaining, ~ APPROV~ OF:LOC~ pLaNiNG AGENCY :~MINUTES- SPECI~,';M~TING .OF MAY 27, 1999 ' ' chai~an Wesioski asked if:~here, were any.' additions Or There being no additions or co~ections to. 'the minutes of'the' May '27,~ 1999 ~efing, Chai an Weslosh .asked for amotion' ~. M°ore"made a motion for approval, =d it was seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon roll call, .the .motion was approved.6-0, with Mr, McCurdy abstaining., .July 8, 1999 LOcal Planning. Agency Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING DATA AND ANALYSIS Mr. Kelly stated that Ms. Snay-will cover most of the changes. He has a few comments that he · would like to state. Mr. Kelly stated.that this is an ,update.of the prior ~plan. He stated that he believes he should-make a comment about the twenty year old population .data that is included in the draft. He stated the population info.~ation has been .completed by the. Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing as contracted with the. State 'of F!orida, Department ~of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that the updated by 2003 or as soon~ the:2000: Census Data'becomes available." Mr. Kelly stated .that the footer ~of'the :Housing Element reads April 12, 1999. This Element.was actually produced last week, ~t has .not been around since April. Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff Comments. Ms. Snay stated that the.Housing Element deals primarily with the Unincorporated areas of the · County. She stated that each municipality is required by law ~to have their own Housing Element. She stated that this element covers the unincorporated area of.the County and' St. Lucie Village, because of its size. St. Lucie Village has approximately 520 residents. Ms. Snay stated that an overview of the data indicates population has risen from 150,17! in 1990 to 179,133 in 1:997. She stated"the primary growth occurred in the City of Port St. Lucie, which added-approximately 15,128 .residential units between 1985 and 1995, which equates to approximately a 46°/6 increase. Ms. Snay stated that ~e'uninco~orated area ofthe County increased by 1,954 rots, a 6.5% increase. Of the existing-~.ts, approximately 55.5% were built between 1960 and I995 and of these 70.3% are occupied, 17,6%are renter, and:'l'2.1% are vacant. Ms. Snay stated that she would be happy to answer any. questions. Chairman. Wesloski asked if there were any questions ~'or Ms. Snay. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. 'Snay'if this element takes into consideration the aggressive annexation of Fort Pierce within .the County. Ms. Snay stated that this element was created with data from the Shimberg Study and the 1990 Census. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Lounds :asked Ms. Snay if.the first'six months of l~999'.annexation figures are reflected in.this .element, -: ~' ~ Ms. Snay stated.no. Mr. Tfias stated ~that according to the U,S. Census, the~, to. 1998. He statedthat given the fact?~at the City .ofFo~ of land'in that period, he finds it:hard to believe ~thm these City.of Fort Pierce is concerned .1990 andreseareh .more.becausehe dOeSnot beli~ accurate. ~.i ~: ~,' , Chai~an WeslOski asked if-there wereany fUnherqueSti°ns .for MS. Shay :.: Mr. Matthes..refereneed Table 5,5,: ratios, For'ex e, to see Where.the real average Ms. Snay stated', that ?the'datasources were 'set up this way, ~as well as the 1990. Census. ,He the dom ~more Mr. Matthes asked Ms'. Snay 'if this was a figure that staff came up with, Ms.. Sn. ay.~st:ate~d no,~ it :was .'data chosen from Mr. Lounds stated.,that Mr.' Tfias' co:~em regarding understated populati°n ~~s concern him if we are using 1980 data. · Ms. ~Snay stated that the' S erg smdy' uses 1990:Census as:the.basis:and ~o rinfo~ationthey received ~om the State ~ofFlofida. .- Mr. Lounds stated ~ that -he realizes ' staff put~ realizes :that the ers are ¢onstant!y eh~ging. He asked Ms, _ · . . .... ,.. ~ . ~ ~ . ,: ,, . .. ., . :.. changing numbers have .in the..next four or fl~e ~yearS on this continues at its pace and what'happens to this ~dra~ docment occurred, Ms. Shay stated that .once the 2000 Census is available, staff will have in£o~ation that is more defined.about who is annexing, 'and other issues as well. Mr. Lounds asked:Ms. Snay if staff will readjust-this -available. Ms. Snay stated yes. [:,he becomes July 8, 1999 Local ~Planning Agency Page 4 Mr. Lounds asked .Ms. Snay if'she believes the changes will be as drastic as they were from 1980 to 199t). Ms. 'Snay stated that she is not sure. The-statistical data is based on 'the Census, which is the most readily available data. Chairman Wesloski asked'Ms. Snay when will the 2000 Census .data be available. Ms. Snay stated ~that the data is usually available in 'three years. Mr. Trias stated that the 1998 .esfimates are available today fi'om the U.S. Census. He stated that he read:that data earlierthis week, so he assumes that it is very recent. He stated-that many people have told him. that Fort Pierce is undemounted by perhaps 10'000 to 15,000 people because ofmi~ant issues.or whatever issue .that.may.be the case. He stated that the 'City of Ft. Pierce is trying to look more closely at the way that the Census-is being done and 'talking to residents in the community. Mr. Trias stated.that-the reason this is so important is there is a lot of public-money that is allocated to Cities according to population. In past experiences, this has worked against the older Cities of Florida and in favor of.new deVeloPment. He stated~that this is an incredibly serious issue if We are trying to encourage're-development in the Cities. He ~stated that he-would really hope that everyone pays close attention and we j. st don t take numbers from third.sources :at face value, given the fact that we 'have s'erious'concems about them. Chairman Wesloski-asked if there were any further questions for Ms. Snay. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened 'the public heating on the Housing Element. Chai~an Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this element. Ms. Jeanne Hem, Who resides in Indrio, ad&essed the Board. Ms. Heam stated that she has some questions and cone.ems. She stated that population counts are very important in regards to grants, etc., and we really need to make sure our numbers are as accurate as possible. Ms. Heam stated that .she is concerned about mobile homes. She referenced Table 5-3 and asked if staffis stating that there are the same number of mObile homes in the unincorporated area as there are County-wide. She interprets that.as there are no mObile homes in the other Cities. ,. Ms. Snay stated that .at the time this element was created she was waiting on information from the GIS Department. She stated that 'today there are 13,467 units in the entire County and of those, 10,841 are located in 'the unincorporated area. Ms. Heam stated that there are a gmat deal 'more in the unincorporated County than in-the Cities. Ms. S nay stated yes. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Heam staed that She: disputes ifthere are that .many ~Coun :y :, Ms' Heam stated base. is..so low, tax,base, :~en we supporting: the'Co~ty ~and. are. pa~ng~.. . yew. ii~le:t~, mobile homes, ~, Ms. Heam stated~.that :Table 5~3 states .the: co.orated area of ~$1t. mobile home units. ~State~ide'i stated 25% in is St,ate and .Federal level as possible. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. ~Kei!y if he: could-cheek the homestead'exemptions. Mr. Kelly stated that:he woUld cheek. Hedoes~ not believe you can homestead amobile home., Chairman Wesloski stated that she.does not believe mobile.homes can claim'homestead. Mr. McC~dy ~stated that he does not be!ieve you can claim homestead, mobile homes in parks may be a different situation. Ms. Heam stated ~that many.. ~ o· f the. parks ~own their pmpe~y~ .. Chai~~ WeSloS~ statedthat ~he major parks, such as Spanish ~Lakes, ,.~e- 'o d, She would assume that these :make up the.bUlk of the percentage. Ms. Hem ~ked ~. Kelly if the Census fl,g~es or voters regis~ation would ~W:Whether they are . Mr. Kelly stated that ~he. didnot ~ow ifhe couldcro-ss reference it in ~any way but Staffwil! cheek into it. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. Shay how she arrived at this~data. Ms. Snay stated that it is listed in the.Census data as full time, Mr. Grande stated that hehad ~a couple of questions. He falls into the mobile home catego~,'are homes that have what own the Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 6 property, it is unimproved property, or in Spanish Lakes when they rent the property, the property tax is paid by the park owner. He stated that his impression is that mobile homes were not being .taxed as .homes, they are being 'taxed ona sticker basis as vehicles. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr, Grande 'is correct. The typical mobile home on a rental lot is treated as a motor vehicle..He..stated that there are probably mobile homes, or at least manufactured homes, and the property, the home is permanently tied dom, the be no d~scUssi0n and staff would not.be able to separate it. Mr. Grande stated'that since the property h~ a temporary vehicle, as~opposed to a ~building, the park owner ~ paying unimproved property rates for tax rates, which are relatively wrong and nobody is paying what would.you think of as 'the improvement or the house part. He stated that he believes that What Ms. Heam was trying to say is that the County has a disproportionately high nmber of truly mobile ' homes (tax sticker vehicles) and the tax rate is disproportionately low which-explains a lot of our tax deficits. Mr. Kelly stated that certainly that has .been a ~discussion over the years .about mobile homes .and do they or do they not.pay their fair shoe. He stated that-he doubts that a mobile home park and the owner of the park is paying for "unimproved r - "' ~ · p operty, with the improvements not being as substantial as those made on~ another prope~. He' stated that he is only' speculatmgtomght'~? ....... ~' .... and.staff can look into these issues. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Ms. Sh.rley Burlingham, 5312 :Loggerhead Place, Fort Pierce, addressed the ~Bo~d. Ms. Burlingham stated that population isa big issue, .the County is losing funds from the State and Federal government. She stated that the method of counting is not good 'due to multiple residences. When the Census people come t~ough, .they are not asking where a resident is and iftheyclaim this as their homestead or not. The County should be concerned ~about the Census. mobile home has bec°me taxed ,real prope~y. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else Who would like to speak on this element. Ms. Lisa Butler, an attorney With Florida Rural Legal Services, addressed the Board. Ms. Butler stated that-she wanted, to address the issue of the portion of the Housing Element that covers Migrant Farm Worker Housing. She stated that there is a preSsing need for housing that needs to be addressed .by the Comprehensive Plan. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 7 ms~ that ,-:on based on the,198'0' Census., Ms, h there were Ms, ,Butler, the need .f°r- whie. h, states 187 -She urge ,'the migrant .farm w°rkers in Chai~an Wes!Oski.staed'thathere is..~o~er pm, m this elemem, Chai~~ ~Sloski .askedMs,. Butlerifshe has~seen it, '- Ms. Butler statedthat ~she has seen., the~ outline:.of, the Goals,~. ObjeCtives, and;. P°licies.~ ~ Chai~an-'Wesloski staed 'that. ~she,recallS adding a whole page ad&essing this..issue. Mr. Kelly stated'tha there is ~ inconsistency be~een, page.: 13 and '18. Ms, Butler picked. . ~up an ·area where' the number. . is.too small... ~ Ms. Butler..stated ,,that, the figure ,that really, got .'her ..attention County. most :-He:,stamd that in 'St, Lucie there-is aneed, .... a!~h 'he.. is not.really, comf0~,able.. . . with what the a number from the Shimberg Study and as.we talk to various.people number, but there is a number, andit is a need. Mr. Kelly .stated that this has been ~discusSed prior to tonight.and there is Policies to: re-establish the Low to come up-With 'a solution, to the problem,: .He we need tO pr°vide h°using t° 7,000 people, because som housing .market. We really .need to look at the numbers and what do Local Planning Agency that is the of the and .believe July 8, 1999 Page 8 Ms. Butler stated'that it was a mandate ~om the State that the County should address the needs of the: migrant farm workers because there have ~been problems in the past with their needs not being met. She stated that they may endup in other rental situations, however it is apparent there are a large I~umber of people who .need~ housing, She stated that there is housing which needs improvements as .well as ~there is a lot of~ money Coming into the City of Fort Pierce to address some of the neighbOrhood .problems. Ms. Butler stated there is legislation:that may be proposed.at the State and Federal level to develop more farm worker'housing. She believes the City and the County need to address what is considered a glaring need this point and she would be happy t.o provide'additional, ' '' info~ation that she has access She stated that in St. Lucie CoUnty the number of permanent units: greatly since 1995. She stated that She called the Health and as yearthere are under 200 housing units available. Ms. Buffer statedthat she.would, be happy, to provide more information. She ~asked Mr. Kelly if the narrative would be further refined. Mr. Kelly Stated that this draft will be further refined and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as a-whole plan 'instead of presenting it piece by piece. ~He stated that 'his recommendation will be :that we re-establish the Task Force, take a look at the need, figure out if there is adequate housing being provided that should remain in place, do we need to provide 7,000 units, wlaat do. we really need to do, and then come up with a plan to accomplish that. Ms. Butler stated that she would urge that. Her main concern was that she didn't see a plan to provide more housing. Mr. Kelly stated .that this does. not contain a plan 'to provide more housing, it contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies that .state we need to get together and come up with that plan. Ms. Butler stated that she :would be happy to help. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Butler for her definition of migrant housing. Ms. B ~ utler stated that the definition that would' be best in this context is the definition used in the Shimberg S~dy, which is a person who migrates in agriculture, traveling over 35 miles from their permanent residence. Mr. Lounds asked Ms, Butler to describe migrant housing. Ms. Butler stated that farm~.work housing/migrant housing can vary with the characteristics of the individual. She stated that it needs to be decent, safe and sanitary, it could be a combination of single-family units, duplexes, it should be ~residential housing. She stated that there is one housing development in Homestead Which is a combination of duplexes, single-family homes, and some homes for single workers to share. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. would outOf Mr, the Lu¢ie doe County. th:at- that tara! or will.be.legislation for hnding to back it up. Mr.. Lounds ~aSked Ms. BUtler if the legislation'-is coming for the of their urban :farm :areas that'they have ~exed or is it also available to the theirs. Ms. Butler stated th:at ,State .Representatives are cons idefing .presenting it is whatever ~they~decide. She stated that Govemor Bush put Disaster Aid ~om.Congress this year. Chairm~an Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who' would like 'to spe~ on ~s element. . Ms. Be~.Lou Wells,~ 1-124 l~mine' Avenue, Fo~ Pierce, she had a .couple of questions the League:of Women.Voters:today and a mention was made that a group in and the phase om of Section development of affordable housing esp some ~-to improve ¸,SO ~and Federal based and the Wells asked Chai~.an Wesloski stated that she believes-there-is someone .in the Cou~ Who works with affordable housing. July 8-, 1999 Local Planning ~Agency Page 10 Mr. Kelly stated that Human se~iCes Dep~ent had input in the Goals, Objectives, :and Policies. Chairman Wesloski suggested that Ms..Wells contact the Human Services Department. Ms. Wells stated that Tables 5-12 and 5-13 on page 13 'have been struck through and asked Mr. Kelly .if they will be replaced. Mr. Kelly stated that they will. not be replaced. He stated that once the Task Force is re-established the intent'would be to.develop new.statiStics to replace-those in the Tables 5'12 and 5-13. He stated that he has never been fully comfo~able with the overall statistics, locally we should be able to figure out where 'we are, and .address the need. Ms. Wells asked. Mr. Kelly .if this will force a renumbering of the other tables, Mr. Kelly stated that staffhas not renumbemd anything through'this portion of the process because things are changing,, and 'we would be renumbering cominually. Ms.. Wells .asked Mr. Kelly for cl~fication of the statement on page 13 "Of course migrant workers pa~icipate in :the general housing market, as well as finding shelter.in units designed for seasonal or migratory o · ~" ccupancy. Mr. Kelly stated ~at he believes they are the units that Ms. Butler spoke~of, where she stating that in 1995 we had approximately 700, and a few years we had 4'00, and now we have 235. He stated that he may have some of the.numbers wrong, but there are some in the County, and that number is apparently dwindling. Ms. Wells asked Mr. 'Kelly what is the definition of"units designed for." Mr. Kelly stated that they are migrant wOrker' units that Ms.. Butler spoke of, they could be single- family homes, duplexes, or a mt designed for four, six or eight single workers to share while they are in town. They are units that were'built to be migrant housing. Chairman WesloSki .asked ifthere was anyone else who would like to speak on this element, Ms..Marge Thomas, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Thomas stated that she wondered about the concept ora small town where there would be multiple units, single-family ~ts, a grocery store, etc., where the migrant farm workers would feel comfortable being together. Chairman Wesloski stated that she recalls Ms. Thomas and Mr. Trias discussed this and it was decided that the:Task Force would'get together and decide if that was a solution. Mr. Kelly stated that' this was discussed and Mr. Trias brought up the fact that many of the surrounding Counties have a historic town, St. Lucie County does not have anything parallel to that, and would it be possible to go outside of the urban service boundary to do something like this. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Kelly stated .that. his matter. He stated that:this all of its have Ms. Thomas asked Mr, Kelly if:gove~ent would be able to help with this. : :. Mr..Kelly stated'that will be part of the.discussion. Chairman WeSloski asked if~r¢: was ~ e,else Hearing no ~further cOmments in favor or in opposition to ,the element,. closed the public p.ortion of the ;hearing. Chairman Weslosh-asked 'Mr. Kelly if staff will update ~the .numbers on pages !3 Mr. 'Kelly stated yes. Chairman .... wesioski, asked ':Mr, Kelly,. if staffwilI r al!- of~ the tables. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Chaim~.~ WeS!oskiasked ~. ~Kelly if ~there.-is:a way. tO ad&ess perhaps the Board :would like to :spe¢i~ fhat a. 'er of the Census B~eau. Mr. :Kelly stated that the: CenSUs is critically impo~a_nt, he is.not s~e that it isa Objective. or' Policy. important to-the ciW, County,. ~dthe Censu~s Bureau. the Census Bureau, he. Plan. ~ of · Chairman Wesloski aSked Mr, Kelly' if possible when discussions take Commission level that he could express the concern .of the Planning the audience. at the County Mr. Kelly they could have .only gleaned'by reading the minutes. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr, Kelly how often the Comprehensive. Plan is UP~di which ~. Kelly Stated He pointed, out that. . . we are now updating, the examPle of how it is not always .on schedule. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 12 Chairman Wesloski statedthat she would like to make a suggestion to revisit the Comprehensive Plan when the 2000 Census data is' available. ~ Mr. Kelly Stated that would be wit~nthe five year cycle. He stated that he does not think that it is in the best interest to wait for every five years, but to ContinuallY update the plan as the information becomes avaitab le, Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds asked Mx. Kellyifit would be wrong in,presenting this to the County Commissioners, for the need for a joint.Task Fome to address the migrant problem in St. Lucie County as.a whole including Port St. Lucie and the ~City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Kelly. stated that he'~belieVes the County Commission will establish its own policy and that policy will recommend having a low cost Housing Task.FOrce. He .stated that the policy may be specific enough to specify membershp on the TaSk Fome, having a representative ~om each of the cities. He.stated'that he is .not.sure if the policy will be that detailed, As we establish the Task Force we will need to look.at the players in the process and bring ~them together. He stated that the need for the policy is .apparent and it ~will not-work .without a broad range of pe°ple. Mr, Lounds stated that he believes this document is .a good piece of work and.he compliments staff. He has a problem with the ~ambi~. ity of the numbers in the document. He stated that he was not sure ifhe'would like to :make a motion that this Board forward this element to the County Commission intact for their .approval, feeling at ease with the figures in the element. He understands the figures are the best staffhas available. Chairman Wesloski· stated that he could make a motion to adopt the element as is, with .the reservation that he-would like to .see updated data, if possible. Mr. Kelly stated that 'the-motion may contain language stating that the. Board would like-to see it updated as soon as the 2000 Census information is available, including updates of ranges as mentioned by Mr. Matthes. Mr. Lounds stated that he. would like language in a motion to that effect. He stated that he would also like to note, inthe record, that staff be complimented for putting this together so they are not criticized for.the falsehood of.figures cmxently available. He stated that staff gathered information based on what was available and he does not want that to go back to haunt staff or this Board. Mr. Kelly' stated that staff appreciates that. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Lounds if that was a motion. Mr. Lounds stated yes.. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 13 in ~som¢ issue. He ~stated that there ~ is only so much the Mr, Kelly stated.,thatat ~' e" Data becomes avml.abl .... ement shall Mr. Tfias stated that it does..not cfitique~:the data,: Mr. Kelly~asked Mr. Tfiasifhe w°uld likethe Para~~h Mr. Tfias ;stated yes. Mr, Lounds stated, yes.. 2000 .Census ~one, Mr, Trias.seconded .the motion. .... Mr. Moom-stated',that heh~ a ~problem with p He .stated that it is.not the' l~t~ updated. Chai~'aa~ Weslos~~ , statedthat. ~ . ~this is all .~the Board has, and.~ the. Board is stating,., ~ they ~estion. the Census numbers, Chairman Weslosh: stated th.at her poim of view is 'that the Board.'underst~as ~s is ~all they.have, Mr. Moore stated that.Mr. Lo~ds Wasn't. questioningthe data, he stated is:Was inaccurate. Mr. LoUnds stated that . he feels it is inaccurate but that it a critique as suggested' by ~, Trias-would cover a lot of issues. City has.concerned several. ~ people., as it changes, the :t won't be available until the year 2003, .m~es it a couple of years ~down the:road, Mr. Moore stated tha the language in the element states .that it is based on is not updated. He stated that a mentiOn is made when the data He. stated that from the t~en in 2000 obviously 'it July 8, 1999 Local Planning Agency Page 14 will be updated. He .stated that it seems like there is a more ~diplomatic way of saying that "our figures are inaccurate, but here you go, approve it." Mr. Trias stated that he would not P~ase it like that because we do not know if the figures are wrong. He stated 'that he would phrase it "some people have questioned some of the figures and at face value exactly as presented, He ~does 'not believe that would be fair, given the fact that some people believe that.there ~are other opinions, Chaiman Wesloski asked.Mr, Lounds if he':would consider .changing his motion to state that he questions .some of the'data. Mr. Lounds stated yes. Chairman Weslosh cl~fied thatMr. Lounds is not stating that the data is wrong, he is stating that he is not sure it is correct- Mr. Lounds stated that heis not sine the data is correct because the data being used is 20 years old. Chairman Wesloski asked:Mr. Lounds if'he would like to rescind his motion, or leave it ~ is, discuss it and vote. . '.Mr. ~otU~ds stated that he would .like.m hear what Mr. Grande has to say. He stated that his motion ~s to forward the element to 'the Board of County Co :mmissioners as ~tten with comments, and the comments .are: The Planning and ZOning .Co .mmission feels-the figures are possibly not current. That a frequent upgrade needs to be done. Chairman Wesloski clarified Mr. Trias second. Mr. Tfias stated.yes. Mr. Grande stated that rather than '" ' ' ~" ~naccurate if the Board stresses that the figures are not current the Board has covered everything without being directly negative. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. Grande is correct. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any further discussion. Upon roll call the motion was approved, 7-0. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 15 PUBLIC HE~NG ST. LUCIE PEN S DATA AND ANALYSIS Mr. Kelly.staed co~ents, m~any of in no-particular :order. He stated that the .County eonfmues to .have a Recreation ~and Open Comprehensivel Plan even the ~Co.unty believes that., it is .impo~ant~ m look, at.Recreation ~and Wells provided ~m with~a.memor : st it in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that.he w~oUld like to read a p~agraph~. quality of life. and thek .ecOnomy,-that we.request that you not ~only.retain a that you improve it'by :se g.the recreation. ~ong thoSe groups Should Acquisition Co~ittee, Land.Manager etc." PLAN in the ~that Ms, states. ,the ~the bm in local the L~d Mr. Kelly 'stated 'that..the ~bottom line. ~is staff has.put'together a suggesting time' verify its accuracy. He' stated that. as he number ofquestions, primarily on'the Tables, He Wells is had a The :County seek Land' Acquisiti°n :Selection Co tree-, ation Advisory Restructure the .Park Types by ~ncfion. ~ Mr. Kelly Tables there are'letters and ers, S= Special Facilities, P = Pocket .Parks, R = 'Regional Parks, and C = does not 'at the He 'there is no neighborhood for it'to serve, Ms. of the parks' and regroup them. Clarify the map reference, so othem can ~understand what the reference letters stand for. Local Planning Agency july 8, 1.999 Page 16 On page 9'8 the list .of City Facilities is not up-to-date. For example, Kimberly Bergalis Park is not listed. Mr. Kelly stated that these lists need to be :accurate for inventory purposes. Needs Analysis Section, staff.stated that no surveys had been taken. Ms. Wells would like to know when will surveys be done. Mr. Kelly stated that it was not the intent to d° surveys, Mr. Kelly stated that the intent Was to look to. the national standards for v~Ous items which are based on population, and as Ms. Wells indicated, staff will go back to the Recreation Advisory Board to make sure the standards make sense. Indicate the need for additional boat ramps, more pools and mom lifeguards/lifeguard hours. Ms. :Wells ~questioned only going out to 201:0 with the planning period. Mr. Kelly stated that staff will look at ~this. There.is an inconsistency with the total beach frontage within the Plan. Describethe type of:recreational activities that go on at the various 'St. Lucie County facilities. Mr. Kelly stated that there are als° :a number of detailed questions that were posed by Ms. Wells. They are as follows: Indian .Hills :Golf Course Public or'private. Table 9-3 acreage and parking on some of the columns, a definition of shelter, and some 'blanks.that need to be filled in. Recommended changes to the column headings. She Would like to see a col~ that - indicates' funding soume (i.e. was the.property purchased with Enviromentally Sensitive Land funds, Beach' Bond, etc.) so that we have an inventory of where we got the money from. Recommended. columns to indicate whether there are lifeguards, the hours the parks are open, who owns..the parks, who ~maintains them, and how to contact someone about the park. She recommended deleting t~ee~columns _ Amphi-Theaters, Camp Sites and Boat Ramps. She suggested mentioning the numbers for these items in a footnote. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes he mentioned all of Ms. Wells comments, if he missed anything Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 17 it was .not deliberate, and~that'-Ms. Wells would have .a chance, to speak later if them was ing that he missed. · Mr. Kelly. stated that he would ~be happy to answer any questions, ~; Chai~an .Wesloski askedifthere were .any questions :for Mr. Kelly, Mr. Tfias stated that.hebe!ieyes'the Fort ~Pierce Libr~ Park'should be since it,Will sOon disapPe~., He stated eXiSting Libra~. Mr. Kelly stated that the Fort Pierce Libr~park is a One acre site' ~. Kelly a general update is needed and he would like m. request that Mr. Mr. Tri~ stated that-he would be happy to'help. Mr, Kelly if he would cOnsider a cotum to show ifany ofthese Mr. Kelly stated .that is a good idea. Mr. Lounds referenced page 9~11, Table 9-4, ,Mr, decrease ~in.population projeetions for Foa ~Pie:rce if they co Mr. Kelly stated that the changes'in'co, orate !. imits ~e.not reflected in ~the stated these fig~es :~e ~om the ersity of Florida and, Shimberg Center knowledge to-the Table, and under the source ,the Mr. Lounds state'd.'that hehas .~o..con¢ He stated that we have discussed this in otherse s o ~e :~om the Table he beliewes Lounds .asked arrived at the :ch es. He Ai~ort. there.is not a facilities.. Mr. Lounds-.~ked ~. be addressed in :this elemem. Mr, Kelly stated.that it could .be put in this'element, He.stated recreation, either .one haS been .acceptab!e..,~ He stated that. .... public :ownership for recreation and comP~e it t° pOPulation,. . and the County h~ gained'land at a rate that is-even in excess of our~ years. He-stated that the County had enough land in 1990 and if shape. Mr. Kelly stated-that the other method-is .to measure facilities. He ~stated that of vacant unimproved land at this ~time. ~. He-'stated that if.' f land in He stated 'that .the last few are in good County has a lot them., Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 18 we~are in good shape. He stated that when we look. at what facilities are available, there are a lot of Places where we are not in good shape,.and the funds are not available to bring .all of them up. He stated that in 1990 .the decision was made to compare acres and this document continues to compare acres.. He stated'that hebelieves acres are the most important, because it is a starting point. If you do not Bave -acres, ~you. can't develop facilities. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt.the Board should know about the other method. He stated that the County is be~d in some areas. He stated that Recreation has put together a Capital Improvements Element with as~aw :forthe Bo~d to'see as they look at the' element. He stated that this element ~s the one.that really lOoks at facilities and a :very large capital need (at present an unfunded need). He stated that when we look at facilities we look at not only their capital portions but their long term 'operation and 'maintenance. Mr. LO~ds ~ked Mr. Kelly how staff ad~esses the improvements ~of facilities in this document to upgrade the. land use. He stated that for example, the nOrth County~has and abundance of land, and he feels a shortage of facilities. He stated that there are no picnicking and small community activities in Lakewood Park and the'nOrth County area. Mr. Lounds .stated that he would like this'element to address County,wide facilities as he.believes it takes .a message to the Board .of County Commissioners and the people. He stated that if we can have ~ in public places', we should beable to have Recreation in public places. Mr, Lounds stated that'this element does not address the Savannah Recreation'Park. Mr. Kelly asked Mr, Lounds which Savannah. Mr. Lounds.stated .the campground on Midway Road. Mr, Kelly'asked Mr. Lounds if he was speaking of the County portion. Mr. Lom~ds~ stated yes. He stated that he because of its uniqueness it should be.addressed separately in this element. ~' Mr. Trias stated that he believes it would.be useful to have a maintenance column. He stated that. some of the County :parks are in pretty bad shape, from the landscaping and access point of view. He statert that he believes it would be very useful in the inventory to note this, which may help prioritize some of the projects. Mr. Grande stated that he believes this element should be reviewed by Jim David in Mosquito Control. He stated that if he understands correctly, the vast majority of the facilities that have been purchased with ESL funds are being opened as public parks] He stated that there is an existing fishing pier at 'Bear Point. He stated that there are fishing platforms at Bear Point, Middle ~Cove, and Blind Creek. He stated that there is a tremendous amount of acreage and he believes there is an entire section of Recreation.and "parkland" that is disgUised as a Mosquito Control Facility. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 19 Mr,: ~Kellystated that he did not:read-the .entire He stated that'they ~are o f the Island.. ~ Control, Mr. Grande .stated that in regards to .Mr. Lounds concern; ir'would launch. Mr,.Kelly .~e~fereneed the commem ~made: Mosquito ,Con~'01.- He west; He statedthat inthe?eastem:- Grande · Mr. Matthes ~asked.Mr. 'Kelly if he :said~that there :are ~o measurable ways to p~.~:~he:'recreation. Mr;. Kelly answered yes~ · Mr. :Matthes re~ 'edthee .madeby~, Ket¢ ~atin 1990 a conscious s~.on w~ made to go by landacreage. HeaskedMr, Kelly if he:could exp!ainwhy, · Mr. Kellystated that he.. w,~ not employed by. ~ the '-Co at ~ithat time, ~ today, the Co ~ lookedat-the :total tee n a .plan could be with :a level'ofse~iee standards ~.Chat spoke to 'Iine~: thousand population:. a fewyears we woUld~be~ · back eXplaining to. ~ . the State.why, 1990 as well that orb'ail fields, bask~ba!l-Corns, tems.co~s, .etc,., and ~..~nd on the County. have ~o ways., to. :set level Ofse~ieesmnd~ds, you. 'are. probably .going... meet. wou!d that.put that if you you .can Mr. Matthes asked ~, Kelly if there is another.conduit 'that the County. ¢~.i~lement. t° set these st~dards .not ~ in' the. Comprehensive'' PI~:- Mr.' Kelly 'really don't need to set-level of semite standards in sounds-bad, bUt it may giVe the' Co~ty the :oppo W. to write criticized, if you don.':get~ all the way there. ¸we that it needs withoUt being Mr.' Matthes Mr. Kelly :stated ~that he will have to check with~DCA. It. may give the. Co ~the opportunity to July 8, 1999 LOcal, Planning Agency Page 20 put in the inventor, Goals, ObjectiVes, and 'Policies, and to :speak to the importance of recreation within 'the. community. Mr. Trias as'ked Mr: Kelly if it would be possible to have ~some of these as requirements in the Land Development COde, particularly when talking about neighborhood parks, it maybe another way to provide for recreation that the County would not have to fund. Mr. Kelly stated~that he dOes not understand 'what Mr. Trias is asking. do any good to have 1,000 acres of neighborhood parks if no child can walk there. He stated that one way to accomplish this'.is through the-development review process. Mr.'.Kelly asked Mr. TfiaS if he is stating that :the requirements be placed on the-developer rather than the looking-to the government, Mr. Trias stated that he did not know if this is what the County wants ~to do, but:that it maY be ,one way.to do it. ' ' Mr. Kelly stated that this is :done t~ough.the P~ process. 'He stated that the County does not do this with..a straight zoning or sUbdivision, and maybe that is a way to look at it. Mr. Trias stated that this is a huge loophole and every municipality and County has the-same prOblem. He.stated that a development with ~ straight zoning with no requirements for the open space then becomes the responsibility of the County to provide the open space. Mr. Kelly stated that the only place to date where this has been addressed is the Recreation Impact Fee. For' examPle' each home that is, built,the County collects a fee and attempts-to put parks in place, Hie stated that you don't get little neighbOrhoOd parks you tend to get an accumulation .of dollars Wi~ch leads to bigger parks. 'He stated'that the CoUnty has. made an attempt, but maYbe we should go fu~her. ~ ~Chairman..Wesloski asked if there ~were any other questions from the Board. Chairman Wesloski..asked Mr. Kelly if the County has parks in the city limits. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Trias stated that the general philosophy has been that a beach park, which can 'be used by the whole community, it makes sense, to be a County facility. He stated that the COunty also has neighborhood parks such as Maravilla Park which has a gazebo, .which at one point was a County park, He stated that there is a real question as to why some are considered County parks and why some are not. He stated that in the 'last few years there has been a "swap" in terms of who is in Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 21 charge of.the .mi~ntenance.: he thins that .some of by the Co and Which.are Mr. Kelly stated~that he couldnot.say owned the City, Chairman Wesloski stated that there is not any maimenance on South Beach, in'the City limits, ~d the County owns the'p'ark. that there .is the Mr. because it is that could be.. one. of the reasons.. Mr. Kelly stated thatMS, Wells reco~endation to add Vwo col .~ ~.ttmn~ ~ s.: . a "swaD" will allow staffto dete~ine:ifthere should'be ~. ,. ,[,: both. :e or CounW, and the ciwis'doing some ~ofthemaintenance' -in the end, He stated that.the uttimate result .is usually a lack of quality. to clarify some'Of this info~ati°n- Mr. Kelly stated.that the first step ism figure out who oWns ~hat park. Chai~an Westoski~asked if there were any more ~questions .~om the Board. At this point, Chairman Wesloski opened the public potion of the heating. Chai~.an Wes~oski'asked~ .. if there· was anyone whowould like~ to speak. _ on. ~set~ent.,~ ~ · o~r~, Ms. S~rleY B~lingham, 5312 Log~ead'Place, asked Mr. Kelly if bicycle paths would be under Transpo~ation or, there are bicycle Mr. Kelly :stated that in:general the¥~are paths that are strictly recreational and they need to :be. reflected Ms. Burlingham stated that theylare a big asset to the community. Ms. Burlingham stated that there are some nice ~fishing piers at Pepper~ P: ~ ~and they are· not mentioned. She 'stated that. . if a co!umn for fishing is added, it would be impo ..: ::to .mention them because peoPle need to know' they are there. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions or comments ~om~:,. .. public.. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 22 Mr. Bill Heam, whO resides.in Indfio, addressed 'the Board. Mr. Heam' stated that Ms. 'Wells did a lot .of work~o.n this element which should be recognized and Mr. Kelly reflected such in his presentation. Mr. Kelly-stated that he hoped he .gave. that impression. Mr. Heam stated 'that ~ a :20 year foyer member.of the ~Recreational Advisory Board of St. Lucie County. He.stated that based on his knowledge of the Advisory Board's ability to provide Leisure Services DirectOr, Jack Doughney, 'who has indicated publicly that'he would be more than happy to comribute inany way 'he Possibly can. He stated that Mr, Doughney still lives in the County .and is very knOWledgeable of the facilities. He stated that ifmore information is needed, he. would be the first person to.~ to based on ~s extensive knowledge, and definitely:Don McLam. ~. :Heam referenced ~, Matthes comment about the decision made in 1990. He stated that ~he was involved in the discusSions ~d it was ~p~ely.a decision made on trying to lo'ok as good as we could. He stated that the' County had this huge ~Savannah State Park which contributed a tremendous amount ofacreage to recreation facilities ~and it ~appeared to give a lot of credibilitY:to the County in terms of'the recreation ~that.was available. He stated that he is not sure this is 'the best way 'to judge what yo~ ~recreation facilities provide fOr the co--unity ~because everyone isnot interested in that typ; of thing. He. stated thatt he believes We need to have standar~ts to gO by because, personally speaking,, he doesn't th~ we would do as good of a job if we didn't have some type of standards to.guide us and something to shOot for. He stated ~that as an Advisory Board member, they were continually lOoking at putting out fires ail the time. 'He stated there ~e always a bunch of people coming to yo'u with deficiencies in the .recreation area. He'stated that he believes we need to have standards, ~ i~npmssion we m~e on visitors that they may return and spend a lot of money · on the community.. : Mr. Heam referenced the IndfiO North Savannahs. He stated :that there is a half of a mile long trail that goes out into 'the Savannah that would add a lot of linear feet to the statistics .on that facility.' ~He Stated that we may.alSo want to include the roads that are going to be abandoned and can be used for hiking, horseback riding, etc. Mr. Heam stated that he would like to comment' on Ms. Wells efforts again, and also thank the oard s interest ~n this. Mr. Lounds. asked Mr. Heam .when the decision was made in 1990 if~they also addressed the facilities as well, in a relationship to the-size of land. Mr..Hearn stated that his comments tonight were based on what was included in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the decision was 'made to use the amount of acreage because of the huge size of.the .Savannah State Reserve that appeared to make the County look acceptable in CA s eyes. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 23 Chai~an Wes!oski ,asked if there was'~anyone else who would like.to speak on ~s: elemem. Hearing no further comments in .faVOr or in .opposition to the element' .chairman WeslOski closed the public portion of~the hearing.~ Chairman Wesloski provided a recap: Mr. 'Heam Suggested adding the roads in the Savannahs, Chai ~rrnan WeSloski .asked ~Mr, .Kelly.if this was cogect, Mr,, Kelly stated. ~ .that is acetate, H a much better ~vento~, He referenced the discussion about Housing we .shOUld be able to pull them together, He stated ~that we ,have ch~ges or.leads~to~eh~anges. ~ . in·policy otherthanlevel.of,~ ' versus facilities issue, He stated that· if the. Board.. were .to. direct staff to fix the'best. He stated the po!icy· ~. issue would be .acreage, versus' hCilities,. H, wished to make .a,reco~endation or send'a.message, Chaiman Wesloski asked Mr'. Kelly if'he the,Board decides to make a policy change make this here that Board be. staff is riot"sure hoTM DCA ~ill lo'ok at it, if Mr, Kelly .stated that if we pull it out problem because the"County is not required to do it. He. ,stated, that :he make a st~ent that.St. he.believes we need to continue to have.Goals and Po!icies, the oppo tyro set o~.,st~dards .either He .stated that ~he wi!t verify these, thngs bm he bell to see and ~staffwill work toward that. . .., Chairman Wesloski-asked if~there was any discussion. have a impo~ant to. and we will have, mandates. would like 'Mr. Lounds stated that he believes a statement .addressingfaciliti9s facilities to the population need, so that-we reflect the need. He a colum to show income generating:. ~ Mr. Lounds stated that 'he feels ~strongly towed the facility needs comp~ed~ to .the~ -~ ~- ·land_. acreage, and he'is not sure how to ,.word such in this document, Mr. Kelly stated that he .will work on some wording. He stated .that the B°ard Will have another July 8, 1999 Local Planning Agency Page 24 opportunity to look specifically at 'facilities ~because the caPital Improvement Element will have a very long list of recreation'faCilities with dOllar amounts. He'.stated that he believes there are $3 million dollars in facilities on the list that are not funded. He stated that the Board will have the opportunity to address, that very specifically at that Point. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. 'Kelly if heis suggesting that the Board leave-it out of the .document. Mr. Kelly.stated no. He stated that it should be put in the document in a general manner to indicate the recognition thatwehave .adequate acreage of Environmentally SenSitive Lands, we are pleased with the acreage ~d the.quality of the 'acreage, but if we are not able to develop itand let the public on the acreage, 't:' ' ' ~ 'really ~sn .t very' worthwhile. 'He stated ~that there is still a need for mom ballparks. Mr.~Lounds asked Mr..Kelly about ballparks, covered picnic areas, camping facilities, trails. Mr. 'Kelly stated. . that - covered picnic areas, camping facilities, and trails could' '.be put on Environmentally :Sensitive Land. He stated that we may not have enough land' for'ballparks. ~He stated that he would try.~d word .something general ~in 'the docment that states this BOard believes facilities are an impo~ant p~. Mr. Lounds.asked ~.' Kelly if the Board should'be concerned with the County versus City or is this a housekeeping issUe and should not be :addressed here. Mr. Kelly stated that he,does n°t belieVe it would h~'for' this Board to indicate that there may be some confusion, and as Mr.. Trias stated, confusion leads to a lessened quality, and if we all understand our roles better, we might do 'a better job. Mr. Trias stated ~that it may be easier to fix the facts if we do. it by talking to differem people as opposed to the Board t~ing to tell yOu what the facts are. Mr. Kelly .stated that he didn't believe Mr. Lounds asked about what the facts were, but if we understood~the factS,-should the City and ~County get together and coordinate better on those parks. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels there should be 1.anguage in this document that addresses the fact that there are discrepancies in land use maintenance and shared responsibilities that need to be constantly monitored. ~ Mr. Trias stated that he believes that is a good way to explain-it. Chairman Wesloski asked if.someone would like to make a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion to accept the Recreation and Open Space Data and Analysis with the following comments: Include the co~ections made by staff. Local Planning Agency July 8, 1999 Page 25 Include the corrections and comments ~made by. Ms. Wells. Mr. Heam suggested.adding the.roads in ~the ~Savannahs. Ms, Bur!ingham ~suggested bicycle.: .paths and· . the fishing piers.. · at pepper. Park. Mr. Tfias ~seconded the motion, Mr. Kelly stated that he believes the ~motion is to~fix the facts and on the reference, the need for. ~facilities, .and 2)~monitor the ownership ~of ~shared prope~ieS in the City and the Co~ty. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr:. Kelly if.Sportsman Park is in the CitY of Po~ St, 1) Mr. 'Kelly stated~yes. Chairman WeStosk_i ~stated that Spo~sman's park West is ,on .the is located on Prima Vista 'Boulevard- Mr. Kelly st.ated that it is .in the corporate limits, but it may.be owned by the C°~.. Mr. Matthes stated that it is not owned bythe County, Chairman Wesloski :asked Mr, Kelly,about the ~Stadium at St. Lucie West, Mr. Kelly.. stated ~that~is. a special park, it is shown..on page~ 9.-~3~. ~as $5, St. Lueie,...~ ~ ·~County Spots Complex. Chai~an 'We'sloski clarified that them was a motion and~a second. ;. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any'discussion. Upon roll call the motion was approved, 7-.0. July 8, 1'999 Local Planning Agency Page 26 OTHER BUSINESS: Chai~an WeSloski asked Mr. Kelly about the packets the Board was given tonight. Mr. Kelly stated'that the.packets are for next Thursday evening. He stated that staff originally had Transpo~ation Data and ~alysis and Concurrency System planned because it was a light meeting. He stated that-'the Board no longer has a light meeting so staff will reschedule Transportation Data and AnalySis and Concurrency System. Chairman Wesloski asked' Mr. Kelly if they need to discuss additional meetings at this point. Mr. 'Kelly :stated that at.some time, but~they do not need to do it tonight. Mr. LOunds stated that he will not be.able to attend the July 15th meeting, he will be out of State. Mr. Trias stated.that he will not.be able to :attend the July 15th meeting,'he will be out of town. 'Mr. Kelly stated that the next Comprehensive Plan meeting is scheduled for July 29th to review Infrastructure Elements. -.'-"~ . ... Chairman WesloSki Cl~fied the .meeting .dates of July 15th and 29th. Chairman Wesloski asked.if there was .any other business. There being-no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Local Planning ~Agency July 8, 1999 Page 27 St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Roger Poitras Administration Annex Building- Room 101 July 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: AGENDA A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1~ MINUTES OF THE MAY 13, 1999, MEETING · Action Recommended' Approval · Exhibit # 1' Minutes of May 13, 1999, Meeting AGENDA ITEM 2~ MINUTES OF THE MAY 27, 1999, MEETING_ ® Action Recommended: Approval ® Exhibit #2' Minutes of May 27, 1999, Meeting AGENDA ITEM 3:~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN Consider Housing Data and Analysis of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Staff comments by David Kelly. · Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 4: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI~AN Consider the Recreation and Open Space Data and Analysis of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments by David Kelly. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report OTHER BUSINESS1 A. ADJOURN Other business at Commission Members' discretion. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency meeting will be held on July 15, 1999, in Room 101: of the St. Lucie County Administration Building. NOTICE: All proceedings before the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, 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 purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the prOceedings, 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 heating upon request. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586. PLANNING & ZONING PACKET CONTENTS COLOR CODE CONDITIONAL USES - BLUE REZONINGS - PINK PLAN AMENDMENTS - GREEN MOBILE HOMES - YELLOW ORDINANCE - WHITE . Master Agenda (Get ord,er of Agenda from Planner) Copy of Previous Month s Minutes Staff Comments Memorandum (per petition) ^) Copy of 'l-mnspamncy (location map first - per petition) B) Detailed Agenda (per petition) C) List of Adjacent' Property Owners (per petition) D) Legal Ad Affidavit EACH OF THE FOLLOWING RECEIVE A PACKET: EACH of the nine P & Z Members Planners (Hank and Cyndi) Linda Pendarvis Planning Manager (DaVid Kelly) Board of County Commissioners (5) Community Development Director (Julia Shewchuk) Assistant Community Development Director (Dennis Murphy) Assistant County Attorney (Jim Lancaster) County Administrator (Mr. Anderson) & Phil Freeland Conner Consultants (fax Agenda to Karen @ 465-9904) Deighan Appraisal Property Acquisition Manager (Don Cole) [)on Cooper, City Manager (City of Port §t. Lucie) Mazella Smith (City of Fort Pierce) Press/Public Box Southern Real Estate Group Inc. (344-0166) (fax Agenda to Amanda @ 337-9774) Secretary Copy and mail staff comments to the Petitioner TOTAL OF 32 FULL PACKETS Mail agenda only to: Terry Hess Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 300 Stuart, FL 34994 Charlie Scholnover SUNTRUST BANK/TREASURE COAST 111 Orange Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Dave Melnick 120 Estia Lane Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 Wynne Building Corporation Rev. 6/99 - h:\wp\wp\p&z\pz-docs\packet, pz HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/Fax/CopieffScanner Last Fax ' ' Date_ Tim~ Tvve Identification Jul 1 9:34am Sent 94659904 Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax Fax History Report for St. Lucie County Florida 4621581 Jul 01 1999 9:35am ,Duration Pages Resul_ t 0:54 2 OK HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner . ~!~. st Fax~ Date Time Type Identification Jul 4 3'30pm Sent 93379774 Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax Fax History Report for St. Lucie County Florida 4621581 Jul 04 1999 3:30pm Duratiog Pages Result 0:36 1 OK LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAY 13, 1999- SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Men'itt, Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds, Diana Wesloski, Albert Moore, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ramon Trias and Carson McCurdy (both excused) OTHERS PRESENT' Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Cheryl Thole, Summer Intern; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page I PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Mr. Kelly discussed the Public Participation Process and reviewed what has been done with the process, in order to keep the public aware. He mentioned that what will have to be sent to DCA will be a complete document. He thinks the document that is being presented on this date is fairly complete, but there may be some typos. He also mentioned that there has been work done with the Women League of Voters, the School Board television programs, and the Study Group has comments on this as well. Chairman WeSloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on the Public Participation Process. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak on the Public Participation Process. Mrs. Shirley Burlingham, 5312 Loggerhead Place, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mrs. Burlingham, who is part of the Study Group, stated that there were concerns related to the third page of the packet, a "final graph of all elements is complete," and that review in public heating would be in June and July. Along with that, the Study Group is concerned with the fact that they did not receive the 90 pages of information until Monday night and that they feel that does not allow enough time for the public to prepare and get ready for public participation of this meeting. Mrs. Burlingham stated that she believes that the County has the ability to ask for an extension of time, and that she believes this matter does not need to be completed until December. Mr. Kelly corrected Mrs. Burlingham and stated that it must be done by this summer. Chairman Wesloski reminded Mrs. Burlingham that this will be reviewed before the Board of County Commissioners as well, and that this is not the only review that is going to be done. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to further comment on the Public Participation Process~ Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Public Participation Process, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Matthes made a motion to approve the Public Participation Process. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Gr~mde seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION DATA AND ANALYSIS ELEMENT Mr. Kelly briefly reviewed the Intergovernmental Coordination Data and Analysis Element. Mr. Kelly stated that page 10-2 and 10-3 were missing and what was supposed to be there was Table 10-1. The table was the "Elements of the Comprehensive Plan", a summary of the 90 pages that follow in the appendix. He stated that some title changes were' HRS, is listed in the table as the Health Department which is just a change in their title. UMPTA, the Urban Mass Transit Administration listed in the appendix is listed as the Federal Transit Administration on the table. In general, the table is a summary of how the County coordinates with other agencies. The document contains ninety pages of data and analysis. Pages 1-3 are the Goals, Objectives and Policies. There is most likely no comment necessary since this has been reviewed and voted on before. This is followed by an 80 page appendix that lists each of the coordinating agencies, and the method of coordination. Ms. Young, the Assistant County Attorney, had made a list of agencies that may have been missed, so a couple of pages may need to be added. Those Ms. Young listed are: the Housing Finance Authority the Erosion District the National Estuary Group the TD Commission Water and Sewer Authority needs to be deleted from the appendix Mr. Kelly said that he is willing to answer any questions. Chairman Wesloski asked if there are any questions from the Board. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if Florida Power and Light are part of the Utilities. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that is in the text and not on the list and that coordination with Florida Power and Light would be similar to that of FPUA. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if it would be almost duplicate. Mr. Kelly stated yes it would. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly in reference to adjacent counties, if the only thing under infrastructure that the County has in common with Okeechobee County would be Orange Avenue and Highway 70. Mr. Kelly stated that they would be the only items that are related since they are State Roads. He stated that coordination goes through FDOT. Chairman Wesloski asked the Board if there were any more questions. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Kelly if there was a reason why the recreation area had been left out because there have been informal talks about a joint effort between St. Lucie County and Martin County for a park. He was wondering why the COunty wouldn't encourage discussions and consideration. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not aware of these talks and stated that if that was going to occur, this would need to be included in the table. Mr. Moore stated that he didn't know that much else about the issue, but he was wondering if it was possible to put it on the table to encourage discussion. Mr. Kelly stated that he would look into the matter. Mr. Kelly stated that if that were done with Martin County could a similar linkage be put in for Indian River County, in relation to adjacent parks on North Beach fight at the County line. Chairman Wesloski referenced a park which is located on county lines on North Beach, that is owned by Indian River. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly whether or not 1987 Census information was the most recent information that was available, in reference to a paragraph located on page 10-1, which describes population in the County. Mr. Kelly stated that more recent information was available. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Dreyer mentioned a few typos' Local 'Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 5 The Saint Lucie County School District is a more accurate name fOr Saint Lucie County Public School System The Fire District changed its name to Saint Lucie County Fire District, Fort Pierce is no longer part of its name There are now 15 fire stations Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly what BIAS located on page 10-6 was. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that it stands for Bridge Impact Assessment Statement. Ms. Dreyer stated that the statement in the last paragraph on page 10-6 contains the words "commencement level" and that she is not aware of the what exactly this is. Mr. Kelly summarized the meaning. He stated that the island is split into three areas. In each of these areas, impacts of development were looked at, and how much development could be accommodated without speCific improvements to traffic systems. What they had on the "ground" were considered commencement level-and those developments were allowed by percentages. The commencement level was the level by which you could build by right with no alternated development fee. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly if only the Goals, Objectives and Policies are adopted by ordinance, and therefore the rest of the document is background. Mr. Kelly stated that it is background and that it was in the past as well. He also mentioned that he will recommend to do that again. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly about page 10-6 which is related to Hurricane Evacuation, and stated that there are two paragraphs. The second one is consistent with items that have been worked with to date, yet the first paragraph, which is rather detailed about the Walton Road Bridge, is believed to be eliminated from areas of the Comprehensive Plan and that it is not consistent with the Transportation Element which no longer contains the Walton Road Bridge. He suggests that the first paragraph be eliminated. He also believes that the transportation study, in reference to hurricane evacuation calls for another lane and that it is an assumption that Walton Road would be the place where it would be placed. Mr. Kelly stated that the Study Group has similar comments. Mr. Grande stated that he would wait until the Study Group provides their comments to answer the question~ Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any more questions from the Board. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 6 At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on the Intergovernmental Coordination Data and Analysis Element. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on the Intergovernmental Coordination Data and ~alysis Element. Mr. Jotm Arena, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: Page 10-6, Hurricane Evacuation, he would suggest removing the first paragraph, or tud " keeping it and change the word "planning" to "conduct and st y, and to change "repaid" to "prepaid." Page 10-7, Growth and Development, he would suggest that communication process should be included for the present. Mr. Kelly clarified the issue to the Board in explaining that Mr. Arena is referring to an issue that pertains to the Chamber's Landfill on Berman Road in Okeechobee County fight on our boundary. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if it was a private landfill. Mr. Kelly stated that it was private, but there are many governmental permits required to open such a facility. It is not only a boundary between two County lines but it is also a boundary between two Regional Planning Councils, so they did not get that much information either. He believes that Mr. Arena is fight in saying that we need to reference the problem within our Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Chairman Wesloski stated that on the table, landfills are listed as infrastructure, and she suggests adding that to the Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that he would agree and also suggested adding it under Growth and Development and Data and Analysis in some manner. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly if there was no input put in to the landfill information and if there was no communication held concerning this issue. Mr. Kelly stated that there was very little input. Mr. Men'itt asked Mr. Kelly if there were provisions made. Mr. Kelly stated that there were but that they were not adequate because the communication between the Planning Councils was not good. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Arena to continue. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Arena continued with the following suggestions: Page 3, Policy 10.1.4.3, he believes that this is new and would like to know if it is new or not. He also stated that he believes it is against State law. Mr. Kelly stated that it is new under the direction of Mr. Trias. Mr. Arena continued with his suggestions: Page 10-12, Additional Coordinating Entities, he believes that "Port/Airport Authority" needs to be removed. Page 10-14, Nature of Relationship, he would suggest adding "bi-monthly" into scheduled interaction to ensure the occurrence of interaction. Page 10-17, Recommendations, he would suggest substituting the word "mutual" for "local". Page 10-29, Deficiencies and Needs, he would suggest adding "as" in-between "so" and "to". Page 10-40, Existing Issues or Problems, he would suggest adding Taylor Creek and Sediment Transport. Page 10-43, Additional Coordinating Entities, he believes that the Florida Game and Fresh Fish Water Commission has changed its name to Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, but he is not certain of the exact words. Page 10-44, Existing Issues and Problems, he would suggest adding air quality. Page 10-46, Coordinating Agencies, again the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This is also located in Participating Entities as well. Page 10-48, Existing Issues or Problems, he would suggest adding air quality. Page 10-50, Additional Coordinating Agencies, the change to the name of Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. Page 10-55, Existing Issues or Problems, he would suggest substituting "Amtrak" for "High Speed Rail". Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Matthes suggested substituting "Alternate Rail Systems." Mr. Arena continued with his suggestions: Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 8 Page 10-63, Existing Issues or Problems, he would suggest the addition of tourism to the list. Mr. Kell.y asked Mr. Arena if this was to be under the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Arena stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Arena how this pertains to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Arena referenced the work that the Army Corps of'Engineers had done to South Beach. He stated that they made a "beautiful beach there". Mr. Arena continued with his suggestions: Page 10-71, Existing Method of Coordination, he believes that "exits" should be "exists". Page 10-77, Existing Issues or Problems, he believes that erosion control should be added to the list. Page 10-79, Existing Issues or Problems, he believes that erosion control should be added to the list. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Mrs. Shirley Burlingham, 5312 Loggerhead Place, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Burlingham suggested the following: Mrs. Page 10-7, Growth and Development, in the second paragraph, she believes that there are more areas than the Okeechobee Road corridor with an aggressive annexation policy and that North and South Beach should be added as well. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Grande asked Mrs. Burlingham whether there was a reason to add North and South Beach to the annexation list. Mrs. Burlingham stated that this is an issue that seems to come up every two years. Mr. Grande stated that he believes that by adding the beaches to this document for this issue, it would in turn give it greater weight than if it were to be left out, and that he believed that the majority were opposed to the annexation. Mrs. Burlingham stated that the City Commission considers the annexation when dealing with the Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 9 use of the water for new development, then that is aggressive. She stated that she feels that the County should be aware of the position of the residents of the beach and that something should be done. Mr. Kevin Stinnette, 10303 South Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Stinnette stated that he is also concerned with the annexation and referred to page 10-14. He stated that the Study Group has examined and inquired intergovernmental communication between the municipalities and the County concerning their annexation plans. He stated that it says that the Comprehensive Plan states that the County will work towards establishing a dialogue with communities as to where their annexation plans are. He believes that this has not worked very well. He believes that annexation is an important issue. The other issue that Mr. Stinnette addressed is the bridge and hurricane evacuation. He stated that the Study Group had developed a list of questions prior to beginning the Comprehensive Plan amendments. A lot of the questions were based on evacuation and preparedness. He stated that they were assured that the infrastructure was adequate to meet the needs of evacuation that is allowed by future land use plans. There was also a deficiency of storm shelters for 5,000 people and the group questioned whether this has been made up and then they were told that it hasn't. Mr. Stinnette stated that this has not been addressed, yet the Walton Road Bridge has, and that he believes that this is not really a relevant issue. Mr. Stinnette stated that he believes that text for the bridge is subject to a lot of interpretation. He stated that this issue does not belong there. In the next paragraph (BIAS study), these studies were done before the Environmental Lands Acquisition Project and most of the acquisition of the seven miles of preserved land on the beaches, so furore development is now more limited than it was at the time of the studies, therefore the studies listed are not pertinent to the issue. On page 10-7, Mr. Stinnette states that he was not sure whether an additional bridge was called for, because he searched through his copy of the Comprehensive Plan and all that he found was a suggestion for an additional lane. He urged removal of mention of the Walton Road Bridge from the new Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Mr. Edward McKay, 9550 South Ocean Drive, Hutchinson Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. McKay referred to page 10-6 Hurricane Evacuation. Mr. McKay stated that the Walton Road Bridge would not be beneficial if it were built today during a hurricane. He stated that the bridge that would be used would be South Beach bridge in Fort Pierce because it brings one to a less traffic congested area. In reference to the shelters, Mr. McKay stated that Martin County has ones that are available, but our County does not. Mr. McKay expressed his thoughts on how he disapproved that the numbers that are being used are Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 10 those that were determined in 1986. He also disapproved that the Expressway Authority, in their traffic studies, used numbers that were determined in 1990. Vollmer and Associates who did the traffic studies used 1990 numbers and they also failed to mention that the bridges in Martin County were to be high rise bridges. Mr. McKay also stated that hurricane season is the "dead time on the island" and that he believes that the bridges that currently exist are sufficient. Mr. McKay mentioned page 10-7, North Hutchinson Island. He stated that the data is "bad." Fort Pierce Water wants to annex the land on North Hutchinson Island already and it has already received notification, but the Comprehensive Plan states that no changes will be made. Mr. McKay reinforces his thoughts on how more current numbers and information are necessary. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this Element. Ms.~Marge Thomas, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Thomas stated that she believed that the bridge would not be used for hurricane evacuation, because it is much too close to the nuclear plant. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly asked if the BIAS study was accurate based on 1986 or if it was based on 1990. Mr. Kelly stated that it was a 1986 study that was based on the commencement levels and the levels at which improvements would be necessary has not changed since 1986. The total number of units allowed along the island probably has changed but those levels at which an additional improvement would be made are "still roughly the same." Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the Element. Mr. Stinnette asked to make another comment. In referring to the bridge, development on island is much less constrained by bridges to the island than it is sewer and water infrastructure and according to Commissioner Barnes, the sewer and water facilities are at 95% of their limits and development beyond that is not projected. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this Element. Mr. McKay stated that in response to the comment made by Ms. Thomas, the official Florida Power and Light evacuation route for the Island is south through Stuart, and that one would not be able to go across the bridge for hurricane evacuation. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. McKay if he is stating that if residents were to live south of Florida Power and Light. Mr. McKay stated yes, the evacuation route is on A1A to Stuart. He stated that if a residents were to live just north of Walton Road on U.S. 1, they would have to go south as well. St. Lucie and Local Plan:ning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 11 Martin County Emergency Management and Florida Power and Light has this information. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Hearing no further arguments in favor or opposition to the Intergovernmental Coordination Data and Analysis: Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski provided a recap. A change in population estimates should be done. The addition of the recreation plan to Indian River and Martin Counties. Changes in the names of some agencies and the correction of typos. The addition to Florida Light and Power Plant to Utilities. The correction of the number of fire stations. Questionable matters: Taylor Creek Dredging and Sediment Transport to page 40, Existing Issues or Problems. On page 10-6, work with the paragraph on hurricane evacuation. The addition of air quality to pages 10-44 & 10-48, Existing Issues or Problems. The addition of tourism to page 10-63, Existing Issues or Problems. The addition of erosion control to page 10-77, Existing Issues or Problems. The annexation issue on page 10-7. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to comment on the Hurricane Evacuation/Walton Bridge issue. He believes that the comments not being under a paragraph labeled as "Hurricane Evacuation" is valid. He described it as an "attempt to update the information based on the latest information from the Expressway Authority's consultants." Mr. Kelly stated that he attended the meeting and the report that was made said that the bridge was financially feasible, using a combination of revenues from tolls and loans from FDOT. Long-term, the tolls would be sufficient to pay off the loans. He stated that the report was not an attempt to support a bridge but an effort to record on what the EXpressway Authority had to report. He believes that the comments stating that this paragraph is in the wrong place are valid and the question should now be if it should even be in the Plan at all. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 12 Chairm~m Wesloski asked if it would be the pleasure of the Board to remove that paragraph. Chairm~m Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if, as of this date, the city of Fort Pierce had any information on the matter. Mr. Kelly stated that he knows that annexations have been discussed, including Indian River Estates, and various other areas throughout the County. The intent in the Plan was to list the most aggressive annexation group. Mr. Kelly suggested adding all possible annexation "groups" if it would please the Board. Chairman Wesloski suggested changing the wording. Mr. Grande stated that the municipalities have specifics of their annexation plans and are supposed to share them with the County. He thought the annexation plans, as they are developed, should be shared with the County and the planning process. He doesn't see the need to list specific annexation plans. He does support the idea that something be included in the Plan that would indicate the municipalities to share their plans :with the County. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent was to indicate that there is a lot of annexation along Okeechobee Road yet the land uses, in the city or the County, remain pretty consistent. He stated that the addition of annexation policies may be beneficial. Chairman Wesloski suggested deferring to what the municipalities adopt. Mr. Grande stated that it should not be "deferred", but insist that they comply with the requirement that they share their annexation plan with the County. Mr. Kelly stated that water is not provided unless the annexation agreement is signed, and that annexation agreement is to be annexed once you become contiguous. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that any place that enforces that policy is aggressive. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Ms. Dreyer refers to the paragraph located on page 10-7. She believes that under Growth and Development, second paragraph, first sentence, "to their land use" should be added after the word cha ges , especially if annexation discussion is continued on the next sentence. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. Dreyer is she was proposing rewording. Ms. Dreyer stated that she was only commenting on the first sentence. Mr. Grande suggested to leave the rewording to Mr. Kelly, and just to request that the word changes would :indicate the sharing of the annexation plans as required with the County and omit any references to any specific annexations. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Kelly reminded that Board that most of what was discUssed on this evening was data and analysis and these are not adopted items. The only thing that was discussed on thiS night that is pOlicy was the annexation. He asked if the Board would allow him to take it to the Board of County Commissioners as policy and not as data and analysis. Mr. Grande Stated that he agreed, but he believes that a policy like that already exists and asked Mr. Kelly to find out if it does. Mr. Merritt referred to page 10-55, Existing Issues or Problems. He asked Mr. Kelly why "Port Expansion" was removed from the list. Mr. Kelly stated that the 'port is regulated by the City, while the airport is still regulated by the County. Mr. Merritt referred to page 10-63, Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s). Mr. Merritt pointed out that "Port and Aviation" both are removed from the list. Mr. Kelly noted the mistake. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve the Intergovernmental Coordination Data and Analysis Element with the following changes' deletion of the first paragraph under Hurricane Evacuation, page 10-6. the addition of the list of' amendments made by Ms. Dreyer. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-1, with Mr. Matthes voting against the motion. Ms. Dreyer referred to page 2, Policy 10.1.3.2. She asked Mr. Kelly if the St. Lucie County Fire District should be consulted in this, "for provision of public safety is an important factor in considering land use and zoning." Mr. Kelly stated that he would bring this policy matter to the Board of County Commissioners as he plans with the annexation plan policy. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 14 OTHER BUSINESS' Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any other business. Mr. Kelly stated that he had two things that he would like to mention: The packets for the next meeting were prepared and everything was inclusive in the packets, excluding the minutes from the prior meeting. Cheryl Thole, a Planning Intern for the summer from the University of Florida was introduced. Chairman Wesloski stated that staff has provided new Land Development Codes to the Board. Mr. Kelly stated that there is an error in the footer on pages 407 through 561. He stated that the pages are new although the date shown is Revised Through 11/01/97. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Local Planning Agency May 13, 1999 Page 15 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAY 27, 1999 - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Merritt, Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande, Albert Moore, Diana Wesloski BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Carson McCurdy (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Assistant County Attorney; Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director; Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Cheryl Thole, Planning Intern; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairman Wesloski stated that at the last meeting there was a problem with the recording of voices. She reminded the members of the Board to mm their microphones on and to speak into same. Mr. Kelly said that he had two announcements' The meeting this week is being held in the County Commission Chambers because the sale of Tax Certificates is still being held in Room 101. He is not sure what room the meeting will be held in on June 3rd. He introduced Katherine Mackenzie-Smith from the County Attorney's office. She will be the Attorney for the evening. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIRPORT ELEMENT Mr. Kelly stated that the Airport Goals, Objectives and Policies were introduced at a prior meeting, and at that time, this Board elected not to act since the Board of County Commissioners had not acted on the Airport DRI (Development of Regional Impact). He stated that since then, the Board of County Commissioners had decided to go ahead with the DRI. They are going to leave the major runway at its existing length and they are going to build the shorter, 3,700 foot runway as it is needed. Their decision is consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that his prior presentation was based upon the Board of County Commissioners moving forward with the DRI and that it would be consistent with the Airport Master Plan. He stated that both of these have followed through, the proposed Element is still consistent. Mr. Kelly stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Wesloski stated that on page 2, Policy 4.1.1.6, there is a blank space. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if he knew what this information was. Mr. Kelly stated that this is the completion date of the DRI. Chairman Wesloski stated that on page 3, at the top, she believes there is a typo in the first highlighted Policy, there is an "e" at the end of the word "with" Mr. Kelly stated that the typo will be noted. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions on this element. Mr. Merritt stated that on page 3, Policy 4.1.2.4, he wanted to point out' that he believes the word "will" should be placed after "St Lucie County" in the first sentence. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions on this element. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on the Airport Element. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this element. Mr. Marty Sanders, President of the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board. Mr. Sanders stated that the Chamber recommends the changes outlined in his hand-out. He stated that the Chamber is on the record of supporting the Master 2010 Plan and they would like the language in the hand-out included in the Plan to help implement the Comprehensive Plan. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 2 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions. Chairman Wesloski suggested that Mr. Sanders wait at the podium while the Board has a few moments to review the suggestions. Mr. Matthes recommended that Mr. Sanders read the policies so that everyone understands. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Sanders if he would do that. Mr. Sanders read into the record the following changes: Policy (unnumbered) The Master Plan shall recognize,, ~ .. ................ scope ,,- d.... ~ ..... * be developed to minimize, to the extend practical., environmental impacts and mitigation requirements and ~'~'"*~;" o;~,,,;~,;,,~,,~ noise acts h r~', -, .,-, ,-t ,-,-.; ,--o ~ Policy 4.1.1.5 (Do not strike, rather) The need for expansion shall be monitored initiated on a periodic basis to meet the air transportation needs of the community.. Policy 4.1.3.1 Aviation facilities or airport related activities shall not be located in areas which would results in alteration, degradation or destruction of viable and significant wetlands, coastal scrub habitat, or other unique or special habitat, unless in compliance with Policy 4.!.3.2. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly who would monitor the information in Policy 4.1.1.5. Mr. Kelly stated that it does not specify and that would mean that it must be an internal monitoring in the Airport. Mr. Sanders stated that it was their intent that it would be the County to monitor the needs for expansion in the monitoring of the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 3 Ms. T. A. Wyner, of the Comprehensive Plan Study Group, addressed the Board. Ms. Wyner stated that the Study Group has a few things they would like to mention. Page 3, the unnumbered Objective, they suggest adding "except on environmentally sensitive and "buffer" lands and develop passive recreational areas on the historic coastal ridge and Savannah area". Page 3, Policy 4.1.2.1, the Study Group would like to know where is "airport compatible land uses" defined. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not sure if they have defined that term. He stated that the Industrial areas are zoned Utility. Ms. Wyner continued with the suggestions of the Study Group. Page 3, Policy 4.1.2.2, the first line, they believe "has made" should replace "shall make". They would also like to add "St. Lucie County shall not purchase any additional land outside the present airport boundaries". Page 4, Objective 4.1.3, the second line, they believe "minimize" should be "avoid". Page 4, Policy 4.1.3.1, they believe should read "Aviation facilities or airport related activities shall not be located in areas which would result in alteration, degradation or destruction of wetlands, coastal scrub habitat, the historic coastal ridge or other unique or special habitat protected by State agencies such as Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District and Florida Fish & Wildlife Comausslon" ' ". Page 4, Policy 4.1.3.2, they believe should read "In the event that any wetland, coastal scrub habitat, the historic coastal ridge or other unique or special habitat is degraded or destroyed, St. Lucie County shall immediately restore the degraded habitat to its original condition". Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. Wyner if she could leave the Board of copy of the above information. Mr. Bill Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. He stated that on page 1, Goal 4.1, he would like to see the wording "AND THE AIR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY" deleted. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Grande asked Mr. Sanders if there was a reason for the unnumbered policy in his hand-out. Mr. Sanders stated that there was alternative language at one time and the Chamber subcommittee reviewed it and decided that it was an appropriate comment. The previouS draft did not :state this and they thought the minimizing of the impacts was significant. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Sanders if he is suggesting they plan to contain the noise to the airport property itself. Mr. Sanders stated no. It is not defined what the significant noises were, so keeping that in the airport was recognized that it would not occur. The current noise studies shows that there will be impact outside the current boundaries of the airport and everybody, including the Commission has supported the Master Plan, understanding that the noise impact will be outside the boundaries. Mr. Grande stated that it seems Mr. Sanders is attempting to contain the noise within the airport. Mr. Sanders stated that if someone were to define noise by a certain decibel level and if there is some kind of reasonable backup to that say that an airport' could be developed, then this language would be okay. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Mr. A1 Rivett, Executive Director of the St. Lucie County 'Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board. Mr. Rivett stated that in regard to the last question, it is reasonable that 'there is going to be significant noise. Mr. Rivett referenced Goal 4.1 and the deletion of the language that Mr. Hearn suggested. A 2010 Plan was approved by the County Commission and they voted to remain on the course of the Goal. The 2010 Plan states that this is the development that will occur between now and the year 2010. He believes that it is important to address other transportation needs after that date. He stated that there are' obligations to Florida Department of Transportation. He stated that the State has an obligation to the taxpayers to look at its commitment in regards to the Airport and how we develop it. He stated that they would strongly argue that the wording addressing the future air transportatiOn needs of the community be left in this document for the reasons that he specified. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions. Mr. Grande said that the message he received from the Commission is they are trying to reduce the scope of the airport development from what has been considered in the past. He believes they approved the runway and the DRI and that changes the relationship of the Florida Department of Transportation therefore eliminating any possibility of any payback. He suggested having an agreement between the Commission, the Airport and the Florida Department of Transportation. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Rivett stated that he thinks Mr. Grande missed the point of the gentlemen from Florida Department of Transportation. He stated that his point was, without a continued look at expanding the facility, they would have to readdress their (FDOT) investment in the airport. It is clear to him that St. LuCie County entered into a partnership, St. Lucie County took this money with the idea that they would continue to address the air transportation needs of this area (the Treasure Coast), and if St. Lucie~County does not continue to do that, St. Lucie County would have to look at the financial investment and whether is woUld be necessary to repay the money to FDOT. Mr. Rivett asked Mr. Kelly if the correct language in Goal 4.1 states "and the air transportation needs of the community". Mr. Kelly stated yes and Mr. Hearn has recommended deletion of that phrase. Mr. Rivett stated that they recommend Goal 4.1 remain as Mr. Kelly has proposed. Mrs. Jeanne Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mrs. Hearn stated that she agrees with Mr. Grande. She believes that the Commission has made a stand at keeping the general aviation airport. The 2010 Plan was approved, but with alteration. One alteration was, no more strengthening of the runway and lengthening of the main runway. She stated that the Commission intents to meet further with Department of Transportation because their regulations are filled with uncertainties -"maybe St. Lucie County will:owe this", "or St. Lucie County might", "or St. Lucie County could". The Commission is wondering what will happen if they don't pay back the money. She said that the Comprehensive Plan could be amended later if there is a need and that it should be left as a general aviation airport and not as the furore transportation needs of the community. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this element. Hearing no further arguments in favor or in opposition to the Airport Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if general aviation allows commercial transportation. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that is what general aviation means. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if the Goal stays as written, air transportation, that does not concem the fixed operator bases that are running charter at this time. Mr. Kelly stated that is his understanding. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if air transportation leans toward more commercial type. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Kelly stated yes. Chairman Wesloski provided a recap: The list from the Chamber of Commerce. The deletion of information that Mr. Hearn suggested in Goal 4.1. The information submitted by Ms. Wyner. Mr. Grande stated that he believes there is considerable inconsistency with what has been suggested. He suggested the following: Unnumbered Policy on the memo that was received and Goal 4.1. He suggests treating them as separate entities and leaving the line in Goal 4.1 that is in question. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if he would like to make a motion on the first,page. Mr. Grande stated yes. Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr. Grande could make a motion on all of them as he would like them. Mr. Grande stated that he believes they should leave Goal 4.1 unchanged and not adopt the Chamber's unnumbered policy. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if his motion was to leave Goal 4.1 as is. Mr. Grande stated yes. Mr. Matthes asked about the suggestions made by the Study Group. Mr. Grande stated his motion does not include any of the suggestions of the Study GrOup. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if his motion is to adopt the Element as written. Mr. Grande stated no. He stated that he only made a motion on the paragraphs on page one and three. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande to amend his motion so the Board could vote on the whole Element. Mr. Grande stated that he does not have a conflict with the other proposed changes. He would Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 7 suggest adopting the Element with the changes proposed, except those which relate to Goal 4.1 and the Unnumbered Policy. Chairman Wesloski referred to the suggestion made by Bill Heam that Goal 4.1 be changed. Chairman Wesloski aSked Mr. Grande if he is saying that he does not want to adhere to Mr. Heam's suggestion. Mr. Grande said yes. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if his motion is: Adopt all of Ms. Wyner's changes. Adopt the Chamber' s Policy 4.1.1.5 and 4.1.3.1. Mr. Grande stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was a second. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Ms. Dreyer asked for a recap on the changes that were suggested by Ms. Wyner. Chairman Wesloski provided a recap to the Board. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly in regards to Policy .4.1.2.2 if the suggested change "has made" would be correct. He asked Mr. Kelly if the County has made all the purchases necessary within the original Goals and Plans that were outlined in the 2010 Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes the County has, but he wouldn't swear to it without a review of purchases. Mr. Matthes stated that he would hate to put language in a document that we do not know to be tree and correct. Chairman Wesloski stated that she also has a problem with that. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to state his opposition. He referred to Policy 4.1.2.2. He believes that it is restricted for further development and he would like to be sure that they either have or have not acquired all the land that is needed. He stated that he is not sure about Policy 4.1.3.2 regarding immediately restoring the wetlands. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Men:itt stated that he has a problem with Policy 4.1.2.2. He believes they might pass a policy that might triple the planned development. He believes there are some areas that may need to be developed in the future. He stated that he has a problem with Policy 4.1.3.2. He stated that there may be minor wetlands that need to be mitigated for the runway to be cOmpleted and this would cost the taxpayers more money. He believes Policy 4.1.3.2 shoUld be left as is. Mr. Grande stated that after listening to the Board members, he agrees with Mr. Lounds and Mr. Merritt and would drop the recommended changes to Policy 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.3.2. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Ms. Dreyer asked about the additions to the unnumbered Objective on page 3. She asked if adding recreation areas would create any conflict. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not believe this would create any conflict because the areas that were referenced were not intended for active airport use. He stated that he is not sure that within the Airport Element they wish to commit the County to the creation of recreation areas. He stated that if that were voted on, he would go to the Commission stating this went more appropriately in the Recreation Element. He stated that if this is something the Board wants, he believes the location is wrong, but he can fix that through the process. Chairman Wesloski stated that she recalls Mr. Lounds bringing this up during the Recreation Element, and it was put in then as agriculture. Mr. Lounds stated that he did say that. He also stated that he likes the idea of getting areas for recreational use outside of the central areas of the Airport. He believes the County needs to make use of the land as much as they can. He does believe there was language in the recreational area for that to be considered. The concern for Policy 4.1.2.2 could reflect back to some of the passive or subdued recreation area for that type of land. Mr. Grande stated that after hearing the additional comments from the Board, he would delete the unnumbered Objective on page 3. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Moore if he would like to second. Mr. Moore stated that he would like to amend the second. He stated that he does not mean to speak for the County Commission, but certainly he got the impression that they are willing to go ahead with the studies so they did not have to repay the money. He stated that he belieVes the County would be hard pressed to develop everything that we presently have and he does not have an objection to giving the County some room in the future. Mr. Kelly stated that he needed clarification on the unnumbered Objective on page 3. He stated that Ms. Wyner added two items to this Objective. Local Plannin,g Agency May 27, 1999 Page 9 Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr. Grande has asked that Ms. Wyner's two suggested items be removed and the unnumbered Objective will remain as written. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8-0. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Kelly stated that the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee Report dated January 15, 1999 was brought before this Board on April 15, 1999 at which time the Board asked for additional time to review. He stated that is was suggested this report be considered for possible inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Board asked him to review the report, and he has attached portions of it for their use as they are follows: · The cover sheet Table of Contents The Executive Summary The Legislative Charge The Summary of Recommendations Mr. Kelly stated that the summary of recommendations contains 40 recommendations made by the committee. In reviewing the recommendations, there are 10 of them (located in paragraph #2) which dealt most directly with Metropolitan Planning Organizations and local governments. He stated they were very general and spoke to future requirements, assistance, and empowerment for local governments. He stated that there was nothing very specific for the present day in this plan. Mr. Kelly stated that he attempted to look at the plan and its intent and he provided and Objective and several Policies which were only intended to support the County in its Smart Growth Initiative. He stated that his intent was to provide the Board with something from the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee that could go into the County Comprehensive Plan to indicate the need to coordinate our transportation and land use over time through the initiative, that has been called "Smart Growth" until now. Mr. Kelly stated that there is nothing required, nothing has to be put in, and the plan would not suffer if the Board includes nothing. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly to clarify a few things. This report came from Tallahassee and was formulated there. Someone from the public asked him to review it and present it to the Board to be placed in the in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 11 Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. :Kelly if this was something that could be included in the Comprehensive Plan, but did not have to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly said that is correct. He stated that if the Board looks at the recommendations, they read "the governor should establish", "the legislature should amend", and then scattered among those it says the local government should be encouraged, but even to encourage that is a State action. He stated that there is nothing that says a local government Should do anything at this time. Chairman Wesloski stated that she suggests that they do nothing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if he has thought about any of the specific items. Mr. Kelly stated that at this time staff looked at the general policy. He stated that Commissioner Coward agreed with him that they need to adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan but they could not do both at the same time. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with that comment but he would like to wait until they have the support of the Commission. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly if the Board viewed something like this earlier. Mr. Kelly stated yes, there were a couple of things. He stated there was not as much information as contained in this report. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing on the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee Report. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this. Hearing no comments in favor or in opposition to the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee Report, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what was the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds stated that he thought it prudent to pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners as "read and so noted". Mr. Merritt seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Mr. Kelly stated that this will be a two part presentation. He stated that he will present the Data and Analysis portion and the maps will be presented by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Kelly stated that staff has only changed areas on the maps where changes have occurred since the last Comprehensive Plan. If the County purchased land for preservation, public use, etc. it is indicated on the maps. He stated that staff has not brought to this Board individual requests of the public to have their land changed and the recommendation of staff would be that those who wish individual changes go through the process of amending the Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that there are 24 pages of Data and Analysis with a few blanks left in the text. He stated that the majority of the blanks are for map and figure numbers and until the whole document is together, he is not sure what the numbers will be. He stated that the other blanks are for the population figures, staff is trying to obtain a break-out of population by jurisdictions in the County. Mr. Kelly outlined the Furore Land Use Element. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board should wait to make a motion as a whole or should they haw'~ two motions. Chairman Wesloski stated that she believes two motions would be the best. Mr. Kelly stated that it could be done either way. He stated that there may be questions about the maps which need to be answered through Data and Analysis. Chairman Wesloski asked if the Board would like to ask any questions. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly how one could arrive at a current population count. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Merritt if he was speaking of any particular year or if it was more of a general question. Mr. Merritt stated it was a general question. He asked Mr. Kelly how he would define today's population. Mr. Kelly stated several ways. He stated that the numbers provided are estimates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. He stated that there are also numbers that can be obtained by building permits and using those numbers as multipliers. Mr. Merdtt stated that he has found that the Bureau of Economic and Business Research information is sometimes not accurate and they sometimes do not account for every area. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Merritt'asked Mr. Kelly if there is a map that defines the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Kelly stated yes there is a separate map in the existing plan and staff intends to place the Urban Service Boundary on the Furore Land Use map. Mr. Grande stated that on page 1-5, the Concurrency paragraph, the third line, he asked Mr. Kelly if the word "either" should be there or not. Mr. Kelly stated'that he would strike the word "either". Mr. Grande stated that on page 1-5, the Description of Existing Land Uses, the second line, he believes the word "or" should be "nor". Mr. Kelly stated that he would agree. Mr. Grande stated that on page 1-5, the first paragraph, the fifth line, he believes "required to amend" should read "requires an amendment to". Mr. Kelly stated that he would agree. Mr. Grande stated that on page 1-10, the first paragraph, the fourth line, he believes "traveler" should be "travelers". Mr. Kelly stated that he believes it is fine either way. Mr. Grande stated that on page 1-13, the second paragraph, the last line of that paragraph, he believes the words "complied with" should be deleted. Mr. Kelly stated that he .would agree. Mr. Lounds referenced page 5, the first statement on the page. He said that there was some discussion at one of the Board meetings when the Road and Bridge Department was trying to obtain millings on some roads west of the County's urban development service area. He stated that there were comments from the Board of County Commissioners that they were not really interested in providing any services in that area. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if that statement relates to road developments for developed areas and what limits are provided in the Future Land Use Element for the areas west of the Turnpike. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent of the Urban Service Boundary is to recognize that if the County continues to develop subdivisions in the western part of the County without the ability to provide for themselves, there will be an economic impact which will be difficult to deal with. Mr. Lounds stated that he believes the assumptions he has are different from those of the Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 14 Commissioners for services andhe hopes that this will not negatively affect the citizens west of the Turnpike and 1-95. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not read it that way, but it is based on the Commissioners interpretation. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to ask any questions. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly to explain the first paragraph on page 1-17. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes the statements on page 17 are intended to recognize, as the prior Comprehensive Plan did, that the immediate coastal areas and resources deserve some protection. He stated that the areas between the immediate coastal resources and the urban service boundary is where the most intensive development should occur, and the areas west of the boundaries are the area where the County does not wish to begin extending a lot of services. Chairman Wesloski stated that she recalls at the "Smart Growth" meeting, the Urban Service Boundary would never contain development and that development which has continued to spread that way, results in the need to adopt "Smart Growth". Mr. Trias stated that he believes that the idea here is that the boundary itself was a very imperfect tool for development. He stated that the problem is that there is not a better tool. He believes that it is not a major issue, but he would assume that it would be better to have it than to not have it. Mr. Lounds stated that there are residents that live west of 1-95 and there are some large land owners that may not live there but require county services. They pay taxes, they exist and they contribute to the community. He asked Mr..Murphy if this statement states that it is going to be limiting to the services that they are going to receive. Mr. Murphy stated not their existing uses. He stated that the policies that follow in the rear part of the document provide more detail. He stated that you are allowed maximum utilization of your property. Mr. Lounds stated that the County would not extend water and sewer. Mr. Murphy stated that the County will not take water and sewer out beyond the Urban Service Boundary without the boundary lines being moved. At that point it would be considered an urban development pattern. If that were to happen, this Board and the Board of County Co~ssioners would have to make a decision to change the boundary line. Mr. Lounds referred to changing a development of housing to a commercial development. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if it were placed 1/4 mile west of 1-95 in the Angle Road area, that means the County would not extend water or sewer or other services to that area. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 15 Mr. Murphy ~stated that he is not sure if that area would qualify as commercial. Mr. Lounds stated that' being a major limiting factor. Mr. Murphy stated is- a functiOnal need or demand. Staff recognizes the need for some limited "village tyPe" services. He stated that he does not see anyone in that area in the future aside from scattered houses. Mr. Matthes asked if he should interpret this that staff will not preclude development from coming in with a DRI stares and providing their own services. All staff is doing is precluding the County from spending their funds to provide those services which are outside the boundary. Mr. Murphy stated that is correct. Mr. Murphy then suggested going to the maps. Mr. Murphy referred to his memo dated May 27, 1999 which has 46 sited amendment areas. He stated that the full scale, full sheet maps will be available. Mr. Murphy reviewed each of the maps. Mr. Merritt stated that on Map//31 we are showing two pieces that we have not acquired yet, the Barker and Childress pieces. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if changing Map 4/43 which is Harbor Branch would alleviate a lot of confusion and if it was a gain for the County. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Murphy stated that the Board does not have Map 4/44 which is the Indrio North Savannahs because he is trying to verify ownership. Mr. Kelly informed the Board that there were 24 closings in that area last week. Mr. Murphy stated that the changes being proposed are strictly use changes through legitimate zoning changes and acquisitions by governmental authorities. He believes that the County has more than enough inventory in all land use types to handle the needs of the County. Chairman Wesloski called a five minute break at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Wesloski reconvened at 9:21 p.m. Chairman Wesloski asked the Board if there were any questions. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Gra:nde asked Mr. Murphy regarding Map 4/12 if this change has been agreed to by the developer. Mr. Murphy stated that this change does not take away any development fights or privileges. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to ask any questions. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy regarding Map 4/37 if we are taking away the Mixed Airport Use designation and making it an RE designation. He stated that he wonders why we are taking an area that should be commercial and making it RE. Mr. Mulphy stated yes, we are removing the MXD designation which has the underlying restriction of residential agricultural uses. He stated that the properties that have industrial commercial are not being touched. To extend this any further west would be a fundamental change to the current plan. Fundamentally, there are no changes being made, the uses are the same. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Murphy if changing Maps//22 and #23 from RE and RU to Cpub would affect the Lennard Road extension. Mr. Murphy stated that to his knowledge it would not affect Lennard Road but it would not hurt to cut it out. Mr. Matthes stated that he would recommend doing that. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions from the Board. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this Element. Mr. Bill Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam stated that on page 1-2, the second paragraph refers to the "western terminus..." He stated that he does not believe the western terminus lies along the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. Mr. Kelly stated that he would correct that wording. Mr. Heam stated that on page 1-2, the fourth paragraph, he believes that "115 miles" should be "156 miles". He further stated that in the last paragraph on page 1-2, he believes that "18 miles" should be "21 or 22 miles". Mr. Kelly stated that he would verify these figures. He stated that the whole County is about 21 Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 17 miles and this may be an indication of the County, minus Fort Pierce. Mr. Hearn provided the following additional comments: Page 1-5, the first paragraph, the last line, he believes the word "provided" should be changed to "provide". Page 1-9, the first full paragraph, the sixth line, he believes "Its affect is cause the" should be "Its affect has caused the". Page 1-11, the first full paragraph, the fifth line down, he believes "the County has taken efforts to ensure that..." would read better as "the County has initiated efforts..." and he would like to add after the word "from" (in the same sentence) "encroachment on residential uses" and strike "residential encroachment" because he believes that as it is worded now expresses the opposite of what is trying to be said. Page 1-45, Industrial Extraction is not compatible with residential uses. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this Element. Mr. Vernon Smith. He stated that he owns 300 acres on the Interstate south of Indrio and north of Angle Road on which they operate a nursery tree farm. They would like to put billboards on the property. The property is zoned properly from the County's point of view for billboards. The State requires that the property be zoned Mixed Use. There are billboards in the surrounding area. Chairman Wesloski asked the Board if there are any questions. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Smith what he is suggesting. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to have Mixed Use on his property which is on the west side of 1-95, between Indrio and Angle Road. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if this would be compatible. Mr. Murphy stated that it would not since they are removing Mixed Use from the property across the Interstate. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy which map this would be located on. Mr. Murphy stated Map 4/37. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy how could we remedy this. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 18 Mr. Murphy stated that this is a State zoning issue and he believes the State has regulations that limit billboards in non-residential areas. He believes the State looked at the County Comprehensive Plan on the surface and saw the property across the street from Mr. Smith is non-residential. He stated that not lifting the MXD designation east of 1-95 would be one thing, then you wOuld have to expand back the coverage on the west side of 1-95. He stated that the County cannot just do a little strip or isolate pocket, the State will not accept that for the purposes of billboards. Mr. Smith stated that the area he is talking about is in the southwest corner of Map #37. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if further down the road could billboards be erected in a T/U Land Use. Mr. Murphy stated yes, they are non-residential. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Smith if the land south of him was Mixed Use. Mr. Smith stated yes and that the property they own is part of that. He stated that they bought the north half of what A1 Brown, who had lived there previously, used to own. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Smith if the south half of the property is still Mixed Use. Mr. Smith stated that it was and he would like to extend that further on his property. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if this would be a problem. Mr. Murphy stated that the MXD just below Mr. Smith's property was designated in 1990 as the St. Lucie Boulevard. He stated that the MXD use area was in anticipation of St. Lucie Boulevard extending out to 1-95. He stated that by all rights, since that is not going to be done, the County should probably go and take the MXD off of that property, but then that becomes a property fights issue. He stated that to do what Mr. Smith would like, the County would have to pull the MXD line approximately 3/4 of a mile north of its existing line. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he is saying the County would extend the MXD line north 3/4 of a mile from where the line is currently. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct. He suggested bringing this back next week along with a map to show the Board the exact location and the Board could then make a decision. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the map would show how much acreage is currently in the MXD designation and what Mr. Smith is asking for. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 19 Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if Mr. Smith could.continue his tree nursery if it is not compatible. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to confirm the suggestion made by Mr. Murphy to hear this issue next week when everyone is more informed about the issue. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Grande stated that he would move to table this until next week (June 3ra) and to have staff prepare a routine presentation for the property. Mr. Trias seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski stated that if Mr. Grande is requesting a regular agenda item, it must advertised, and it would not be able to happen next week. Chairman Wesloski stated that if Mr. Grande is requesting that Mr. Murphy bring back the map and the Board discussing the map, she believes we can do that. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if she is correct. Mr. Kelly stated that staff had recommended that individual requests be processed as filed amendments. He stated that if the Board would like to have more information on this, staff can bring it back next week and the Board could approve it as part of the overall Furore Land Use changes. Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr. Grande would need to be more specific in what he is tabling. Mr. Merritt stated that he would suggest waiting until next week. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if waiting until next week would be okay. Mr. Grande stated yes and he would like staff to provide their input on the matter. Mr. Trias stated that he agreed. Upon roll call, the motion to hear this issue on June 3rd was approved 8-0. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this Element. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the Future Land Use Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions or discussion. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 20 Chairman Wesloski asked what was the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds made a motion to approve the Future Land Use Data and Analysis and the Maps. Mr. Matthes seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Lounds if his motion included the suggested changes. Mr. Lounds stated yes. Chairman Wesloski clarified the suggested changes: Suggestions made by Mr. Matthes concerning Maps 4/22 and//23. Remove IX from all residential zoning districts from Table 1-6. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if removing IX from all residential districts would change anything drastic in the County. Mr. Murphy stated that some area would be affected. He stated that the recommendation was to only take it out of the residential land use categories. Mr..Lounds stated that was his understanding. Mr. Hearn stated that if he understands Table 1-6 correctly, it states IX zoning is compatible with residential areas. He stated that he would like to state that it is not compatible. Mr. Lounds stated that it is his understanding that we could still allow it, but we are not going to say that it is compatible. Mr. Kelly stated that if an applicant were to come in an apply for an IX zoning, in the RS land use district, staff would look at this table and say that we are sorry you will have to apply for an IX zoning, and a land use amendment, because this table states that it is not compatible and you may not apply for it. Mr. Lounds stated that if we take the IX out. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Kelly if this affects the present ones. Mr. Kelly stated that it does not affect the present ones, it would affect any new one coming in. Mr. Matthes stated that when he worked for the County the majority of the mines that came in were in residential areas. He stated that it seems that we are taking away the option of using residential land, build a lake, sell the dirt and then come back for development. He is afraid that's what this Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 21 may limit. He stated that he understands Mr. Heam's concern with the negatives of having a mine next to a residential community, but he believes if we go forward with this as it is proposed now, we are going to limit the ability to do any kind of aesthetic improvements in the form of a mine and turn it into a positive for the property. Mr. Heam stated that he believes that you would have to sell more than one hundred cubic yards of dirt from that property to be required to have a mining permit. He stated that his intention is not to keep someone from building lakes on their property, and if this does that he understands, he just has a problem with stating that it is compatible. Mr. Murphy stated that if you look at the list, IX is a use specific zone. He stated that if someone wanted to come in and get a mining permit, this afforded the County the opportunity to entertain that petition on a case by case basis and if the merits of petition were sufficient to warrant it's rezoning to IX to allow for the mining of the off-site material, then the County would be in a position to that. Mr. Murphy stated that if we take it out or if we limit it to the non-residentially classified land use categories, that won't preclude anyone from coming in and applying for a mining permit, it just means they would have to go through an extra step of reclassifying property to industrial to get a mine. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to amend his motion to not include Mr. Heam's concern on the removal of IX from all residential zoning districts from Table 1-6. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Lounds if the changes to Maps 4/22 and 4/23 are still part of this motion. Mr. Lounds stated yes. Mr. Hearn ~thanked the Board for considering his concerns. Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr. Lounds has amended his motion and asked Mr. Matthes if he is keeping his second. Mr. Matthes stated that he would amend his second. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any further discussion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8-0. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 22 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any other business. Chairman Wesloski confirmed the next meeting will be June 3, 1999. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9'56 p.m. Local Planning Agency May 27, 1999 Page 23 Housing Element St. Lucie County Introduction This element examines the provision of 'housing in St. Lucie County. Current housing conditions 'in the .Cou-nty.are :documented and future housing needs are projected to the year 2015. Specific goals, objectives, and policies are established which address potential deficiencies i.n 'the supply'of ~safe, adequate and affordable ho~ Lucie County residents. St. Lucie.County .includes three municipalities Within its and .St. Lucie Village. Each of the cities must prepare 163' ~~., .and:'Rule '9J'5, i.n :recognition of this., County.-deals 'with' ho:using issues some instances, the data includes information on the other cases,, data.'for the unincorporated County is corn County or.the State of:Florida. Such co. mparisons differences be~.eenthe vadous'locations. Conclu= addressing needs ~apply, that overall, the CountY's hoU:sing needs must unincorporated areas, 'It also-should .be popUlation count of :593, ~Due 'to the small Villa! Lucie a · St. Lucie; In and :its In the cities in-the or les for nized and the ~ 1980 Census for the. the cities of Ft. Pieme and ThiS element relies the Census data is scm and R~ Depad:ment ~ Element data and as for housing data.. Although led housing ,data available for St. housing studies, and it does 'not building permit and certificates of sus data has been supplemented with i' Flor da, Bureau of Economic and Business Council (TCRPC); State of Florida Health Housing Authority; and the St. Lucie County sections, The first section is an invento.ry using the the CountY, In the second section housing 'is projected. The third section provides 'a discussion of recommendations on .how to meet those needs. In the fourth are outlined which address, current and potential housing in St.'~Lucie County. Housing Element Page I ' ' April 12, '1999 Housing Inventory This section is a series :of topics Which :provides detailed information on existing housing conditions in. St. Lucie C.ounty. Most of the data in this section is from the 1980 Census, but where practical more current data from local sources was used. Housing Distribution Table 5-1 presents totalhousi,ng unit distribution'in St. within the county for the .years. i':9':80.1:98 i,,: ~~,~, County contained 46,5% of ;the total number.of housi distributed in'Ft. Pierce and 'Po~ St. 'the pedod, t, he construction ef for the .Cities area of the of Lucie. The ~', ~,.,,,~o-, ~,,,, o,~. units 'with 9;e-1-2 increase). In 28,06'2' in-198e ' Table 5.1: ' Loc~tion Ft. Pierce Units Number The ofhOu Port the'County has changed: significantly since 't98e ~. in the propodion of total hOusing units, from 1985. The proporti~.~;,o,~f total housin~units for slightly from ~ ~% in ~ ~~J, to 48:4 al~e~n in Ft. Pi?(~e, but its supply~ declined from o.,.-;-~,~ ~~ ~ ~n ~ ~~, ~ A ~g Units Table 5.2 provides a listing of the number of units constructed by year for the entire County and unincorporated area as of--t98e ~i,:~. This table is reflective of the rapid population grOwth in the County in the last three decades. The age of housing units in the-unincorporated County is Housing Element ' Page 2 · ' Apri112. 1999- simirlar'to 'the age of:housing units.in the entire .Co:unty, Approximately ~ ~ Yo of.the units 'in the unincorporated-county were.built between 1960 and~96e ~. -This compares with ~ ~% for the entire County, indicating a slightly newer housing stock in the unincorpo:rated-area. The .difference results principally from the impact of Port St. LuCie which has been rdeveloped since 196:0. year ConstruCted Units, ,t98e ~~., st. Lucie County Unincorporated 'County Number Percent Percent -1'970 tO' -t9~ 3842 1~940 to 1949 Before 1939 Total Data. are estimates [00.0% Housing Unit 'Type Table 5-3':indicates that the mobile .homes for . St. Lucie County as a whole and ched units. ~'~' : "'"" '~:= ...... "-- in the .unincorporated County ~ ~ proportion of-duplex and r.e. Mrobile homes in the unincorporated County reflect a for the State orthe County as a whole. In 1980, the u housing units, and '~ he State as a whole, ,~ NUmber '~ , percent Number ~ Percent In le.famdy Detac ~ ~ ~.-"~,~ ........... ::~.:~- ~ . ~obile HomeS ~ ~~ ;~ ~'~ ~ ~{~-~ ,~' [°urce: 1980 U..s. "c e nsu s~i~¢' ~'"~"~'::~'¥~"~"~'~'"'~'" ..... ~ '-~ ~a~'~"~'"~'~'~'~'r~;~a~a~ '"~~"~'"'~~'~'a~"'~~~:=:~;;"~i~~a~a Ho:using Element ..... Page 3 April 12, 1999 Many .of the mObile home parks and manufactured housing developments were constructed as Planned Unit Developments (PUD). A 'PUD ,muSt consist of~ minimum of 10 ac'ms. These developments:am usually, developed, at 5 units per acre; thus a. ,typical development_:: ~ ~~r ~cOntains 50 ~, ..... .,--.-, .... ed/mobile?horne~PUDs ca.n'offer res~d~,t,~o ,~f or more units. ~,~,~,,.u,o,,,u, .. family TraditionallY, St-LuCie County has attracted retirees over .condominiums. General deve!opmentOorporation (GDC) developed P single family', lower.cost.housing~in:a rural ,or changing,~ pa~iallY as a result' of,increasi'ng numbem of who are.moving to.the County on a permanent baSis. there will be greater demand-fora variety .of'housing multifamily rental, housing se~e as an~affordable whodo n Housing ~Occupancy Table 5-4 preSents .housing ~..Census data. Shows owner-occuPied .while renters areas. ! cities than 'Pement units and 'families ation increases Typically, or indiViduals in ~ ~~~~. The ~ nincorporated County are Units ~occupied'by for the unincorporated rental units ,within the St. Lucie COunty County-Wide Number Percent 100.0% ends. as reflected in census data indicates that the percentage of owner- ~ on .the decline. Prior to i960, 92% of the housing stock (all types - a ~ ~S ~type is not readily available), was owner-occupied. During the 1960 this ' 's panCY further declined to 77% of percentage declined to 86.9%; During the 1970 , owner-occu the h°¢sing stock, and by'March of 1980, .owner-occupied units were at 68% of the total. This ~S trend has continued through the 1980 as St. Lucie County changes from a rural, low cost retirement and vacation area to a thriving urban area. VVhile a breakdown of occupancy-by Hous-'"'-~ng Ete.m'ent Page 4 April 12, 1999 housing .type is. not readily :availabl:e, the increasing number of rental-occupied .units suggests ongoing-pressures for rental units., either single family, duplex, or multifamily. Housing Cost The cost .of housing in St. Lucie'COunty involves several variables..Rent, value of owner- occuPied units, monthly cost of owner-occupied units, and rent-to-income ratio for renter- - occuPied :units am ,ail~ measures of .ho.using cost. Although the 'hOUsing stock newer in the County as a whole than for the unincorporated County, the unincorporated County am lower. Lowe:rl'and prices, in turn, -costs to be slightly lower-for the u~nincorporated' County. Table 5.5 presents monthly g The County-wide.'mo'nthly gross,rant distribution Analysis .of higher rental.price ranges, while most of the rental concentrated in the .middle, and upper ,middle in incorporated Table 5,5.:~ Monthly Gross Rent Number 100. Pement ~~% 10,0.0% of units have monthly rants ~'"' ....... "'""" "'~"~ ~,.,)q;~; L VV County-wide. The median monthly rent is ~ 'i.'~':'~i unt¥, in: Ft. ~iemo $~xO0 ~~, and in ~ort St. t.u¢i~ g units, in St. Lucie County is presented in Table 5-6. Value distribution is fairly even, with the Gounty-w~de median value being $4.,,,-,,.,,.,~~.1n ~ ~, The ~ Ii~~ med,'an value for the umn?rporated portion of the County is not readily ' ii ble but ap.p~'h~"~'.t° be around $ ~, or about $:1u,500 ~~.less than the County-wide .value. This is in part due to lower land costs, coupled with the higher percentage Housing Element ' Page 5 ' ' ' April 12, 1999 of mobile ' homes in the :County.. ~-,o-,~.,-~,,,,~,,~, ~o,~,,, o,.,.~,,,~,', ,~ ,~' "'~ '"' '"" '""~"°'"'°' "'~ '"'~'~"~" Value Unincorporated Number .Percent L - $1:9'999 446 $20,000'-$29,999 $30,000., $39,999 ~ $40,000- $49,999 $50i000 - $59,999 County-wide Number Percent I $100,000 - $149,000 lO0.O% .Median Source: 1'980 U.S. Another. measure of housing TaMe County.wide. .unincorp com as .a who!.e. ~d.housing units. am generally less than those ed units was Ied area is not y, unitS follow th~ same trend, in in the unincorporated COunty than for the County Some. about housing costs and values in St. Lucie County. It higher median rents and values than either Ft.. Several factors account for this: Ft. Pieme is an older older'hOUsing her land values. However., these higher valued properties a~ ~ut also are being developed for commercial land uses. Port on the ol has very little commercial-land. That City was platted and GDC in advance of saleS. Therefore, while, the housing stock is similar the single family stock in-the unincorporated County, it brings higher due to costs .of.land plus roadways and drainage improvements which we by GDC. Finally, the ~higher number of mobile home units in the unincorporated County, coupled with lower land costs, decreases the overall cost of housing, whenr compared with Ft. Pierce and Po~ St. LUcie. Housing Element '~ Page 6 April 12.'1999 A comparison.between, housing costs and income can provide some insight into ~the affordability of housing in :'St..Lucie County. Table 5-8 pmse'nts median annual income, median housing payments, and the .percentage of'income spent on housing for renter-occupied and owner- oCcuPied units for ~Ft. Pierce, port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie County overall. Median values are not avadable for ~th. unincorporateda.rea of.the County. Therefore, County-wide values and those for:the cities-were reviewed. General conclusions were made for the unincorporated area using these-data. InseA Table.5,8, Median .Income and Housing Housing Cost to Income .Ratio Affo:rdable housing is .generally deft.ned as family'inco.me. Housing costs for owner occupied payments,, property taxes, Utilities, and: any homeowne housi As is wide'cor~Sists ~of ~-' % of median income cities were-.higher than thOse'County'wide, the. uninco value .than County'Wide .rents. This'indicates that renters, who are near County, were.spending ~a reasonable 1980. ..-- Table 5-8 .also estimates the reasOnable owner, occupied ce fees. ,ntal the median rant County- . .re :t valUes for the had a-lower -level in the unincorporated on rant in rtgages by homeownem. to have been spending a 1980. In comparison, residents of come:on mo~gages, while in Ft. C~ ¸th measu, res used to estimate the condition of housing .in St. Lucie'County. kitchen facilities, and overcrowding characteristics were applied to condition of the ,housing stock in 'the County. Table 5'9 summarizes the condition of County housing stock. Housing Element ' ' Page 8 April 12,.1'999 806 1% TOTAL In-~ ~~, the pe.r~ntage lacking complete Units~lacking heating and housing units much less the are data · .~more in the the standard and substandard housing~ ~herefore, St. Lucie County:' Substandard sing: A housing unit shall'be considered substandard if them is visible to the main .structure and/or any additions to the building. ;, walls, porches, steps,' and doom. To be considered standard, the able to protect the. inhabitants from outside elements penetrating doors, roofs, floom or walls of the structure. Dwelling units in the substandard 'category are fudher categorized into those units which are deteriorating and units which are dilapidated. Deteriorating'.Units: Dwelling units that have visible deficiencies which indicate that Housing Element Page 9 April 12, 1999- deterioration, is. present. These units can be economically repaired to provide safe adequate~ousing. Examples of these. ~deficiencies could include loose or missing boards, sagging ~p-omhes, laCk of~exterior paint, etc. These deficiencies are ~signs of neglect and' could lead' to sedous Structural damage if they are not repaired. Dilapidated Units: ~Dwelling units which lack basic facilities and are in such a state of deterioratio.n that it~would not be economically feasible to repair 'them. of deficiencies include: holes; open cra.Cks or missing materials walls or roofs; leaning walls .or structure.s; severely sagging by fire or weather; structur.es'built or makeshift materials, etc. require demOlition.* * These definitions :we-m Development Dep:a~ment. Iii Iit.0 ~ VV t Ii1~! I i T;;~IUi'i ~ (3LLGi II, ltJi I, Pmsent'kno.wledge of substandard units in the .units are concentrated i:n .areas .adjacent'to the that these of theFt. Pierce Su.bsid~zed Public,Housing Currently., a small amount~of County. These units in provides of the unincorporated ommission~ g AUthority. Twen~, four-bedroom, These units are owned by the Housing subsidized by the DePartment of Housing-and Urban g. Program. iow income tenants. Currently, the Authority also under the HUD Housing Assistance Program. Eight (8) With the Section 8 Program, the Authority w-ho leases to Iow income tenants. The Iow income tenant thirty percent (30%) of his 'adjusted gross income, with the the balanceof the rental payment. of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) licenses a number of which are generically referred to as group homes. These homes, which serve both .adults and children, are located throughout St. Lucie County. ~g~~-,~,~.~,,~.m'-~'~ ,.,-~.~',,.,t' Housing Element Page 10 April 12, 1999 Mobile Homes Table 5-,3 .indicates that, in 1980, approximately 27:% unincorporated .part 'of St, Lucie County were mobile and 9.6% in the State. '.Mobile. ~homes cost than site :bUilt housing and ease of ,using units 'in the with 15.7% County-wide including a lower In 1989, them were County-. These sites do not trailers...These and Sunshine State Parkway. of U.S. 1. communities. These' adult unincorporated purpose. desi m both found' on parks the unincorporated and travel between the Indian River one and % miles designed as retirement in the home sites designed for this ' are available which am not ~ and' make 'up 4% of the .total mobile/ Appendix A.provides. a ~mplete listing of es. In addition, mobile-homes are also areas of the County. ~e an im homes am not on the decline as a percentage of numbem they am increasing. In this respect, they continue to ~ing in St. Lucie County. Sign :Housing is the. only site in the unincorporated portion of St. Lucie County the National Register and the .Florida Mastor Site File as being .historically significanLi- The significance of this site is derived from its prominent role in .the .County's history and its Spanish'.Mediterranean architecture. Today, Casa Caprona, located to the southeast of the St. Lucie County International Airport, has been converted to condominiums. Housing Element ' ' .Page 11 April 12, 1999 in .the past, neither .St. ~Lucie County nor any.nonprofit groups have undertaken any co:nse~ation or rehab-Ifit.ation projects.in :the unincorporated 'co-unty. These type projects have been-limited to private, indiVidUal actions. Rural and Migrant Farmworker Housing :I-ClUIC;; ~--//-., J,./Itg;,OT;;;ilL,O T~OLIIIIC;IL~O ~JI LIIT~ Illl,~/llklli~' I~JV¥ ! lll~:Jll ! ClilU ClVC;ICi~C; 'L~./LCII'ilUilIUC;i Housing Element ' Page 12 April 12, 1999 resents residential building permit activity between 1980-1987 for St. Lucie County (County-wide), and between 1980-1988' for the unincorporated County. It provides the number of permits issued for single ,family and multifamily unit type. Housing constrUction has increased steadily in the last decade. In 1987 new building permits in Housing Element Page 13 APril 12, 19.99 the unincorporated COunty al.one, increased by 40%, and again .by 30% 'in 1988. Table 5-14 indicates that between 19'80 'and !~986, most of the. building permits 'in the unincorporated County were for mUltifamily-units, while the majority (62,3%) of single family permits were from the dties, particularly ~Port~.S't. Lucie. The skew in multifamily building permits for the unincorporated County be~een '1980-1986 is due to the construction of a~' large, number of high rise condominium .proiects'~on .the islands. Multifamily housing compdsed 1:8% of new housing permits in 1987, and '33% in 1900. Insert Table .5-14 hem Analysis This section :provides projected population the projected housing delivery system .are discussed. Projected, Pop'ulation and HouSing High County-wide .population Projections from and BuSiness Research (BEBR) were used Persons. per household were then Land 'for private sector Economic St. Lucie County. to determine Futura housing need:'and supply and.mechanisms that delivery systems, lending boundaries the St. are proVided ~5.15. 38097 2:000 ~05 69266 ~ necessary. the e County because.organizations a County-wide basis. Housing do not recognize municipal housing needs .and conditions for one .on a County-wide approach, while ehold, and-housing occupancy for ~St. Lucie'county expected to continue to decline, but at a pemons per household reflects what is occurring in is expected to be tempered in. St. Lucie County by a with children to the ~County.- ' ' g COunts and Projections 1980 - 2015 Persons Per HOuseholds Housing Units Occupancy Rates Household 2.60 14631 19336 75.7% 2.44 2 27110 2.40 28861 33906 8! 2.37 32511 40423 80.4% 35606 47011 75.7% Housing Element Page 14 ' April 12, 1999' 2010 1: ~90511 ~2.35 3868.8 54200-- .- .-. 4 66:5~ 93045 2,34 ' · 39763 5978 .... '201'5 s°urcesi .... ': ~ 1'i ...... ~ Tabie 2.05 Fie;ida StatisticaI Abstract . 2. ~able .1, U, S. COns,us, General Housing Characteristics 3, ~poPUlation. StUdies i, U. F, BUreau of Economic and Business Reseamh Table. 5-15 also provides projections, of the total number of housing units housing units include occupied housing units, Units held for occasional residents, an-d .units- in tranSition .(vacant and for sale or rent). are dependent upon . antiCipated occupancy .rates. High o supply.is tight in relation to. demand. housing, In '1.985,. 1970 rote of 89,-9%, H er,. 1-990, the population .of growth Plac~s occupancy rate 1985 rate. Total housing units mean housing supPly of It should~ be noted that the tempom~ decline early 1.9805 parallels the County s per~od o. rapid socioeconomic Cham:cteristic~. The. ra construction to Which the population~ (and is a common situation 'in an area~that is 19705 and in a boom in .housing now catching up. This -environment. Table 5-16 separates the projected type. The table 'was building permits issued between permits were :issued. Of 1 multifamiiy. units. family and mulfifamily of single family and mUltifamily . a total of 25,563 residential gle familY, and 10,790 of 42% were the County-wide .projected housing 1995 2000 I Units BY' Type, 1990-2015 Unincorporated County Single FamilY Multifamily 29964 12471 14639 16614 17292 21020 19403 25386 21625 30352 23848 '91'249 25110 :ment of'Commun Development - The population of houSing units in the unincorporated County to all housing units within the CoUnty was calculated by dividing total unincorporated building permits by total County-wide permits for the years 1980-87. During this period, the unincorporated County accounted for 38% of all new building permits issued within the County. This proportion was held constant for HOusing Element Page 15 April 12, 1999' ections 'in Table 5-1.6, Likewise., the mlationShip~between building permits by housing for the ,unincorporated. County, between 1980-1988, :was applied to ,proiect new in theUnincorpomted County. This proportion was not-held constant for.~alt actions, building activity in :the unincorporated -Since ~that time single'familY housing construction has especially in thel,ast two 'Yearn. Therefore the.pmpodion family unincorpomted~County~. . ~ .'was~ -gmdual.ly increased, Housing ,Needs un.available, an'estimation such .a way that:hOusing 'cost is about 30% assu.mptions were made .that :listributed across the income These -homeowner, ranter, in--me ~:roup, income range. reasonable for St. Lucie and Housing Element as Lucie were In the table, each and ranter c~st in .Next, are general, each in. the income in that particular ~sibilities for error, they are [. own ,a home with no...mortgage and yet home retirement communities may be Page 16 April 12, 1999 .Given that the table shows :the rbeSt available indication of whether them is a shortfall or surplus of housing for a paAiCular income group, .the COnclusiOn to be drawn from: this: analysis is that the shortfall of apProPriately priced...housing lies~'with~ the lower (less than $10,000 annually) and .higher ($20,000 or more annually)income, ranges. These ~o income ranges show .different housing needs and will .be discussed~ next. The lower i:n:come groups .must~msolve the 'ho'using shortfall situation by their incorne: for housing:. The~:options for solving-this decreasing rents and, .mo~gage costs' for existing housing stock 'through suPply,°f h°using within an affordable pfl~ range. and increaSing the supp!y~of:!.ow'i:n~me than 30% of income '5-17 groups. SU .. limiting To the issue of groups presents a different problem. Table ppmpdate cost m'nges for these income those of more moderate incomes for'the available ,surplus supply.of housing in the middle can. be expected to rise'if higher income households are , the ;lack of executive housing may be a factor g new industry or other economic base activity. for the higher income groups, the Residential Estates (RE).'futu-re introduced in the Future Land Use Element to encourage the ~ need. A' g .need, migrant farmworker housing, can be inferred from comparing the migratory housing units to the number of farmworker households. · showed 1,518 vacant seasonal and migratory housing units. Based on the '"average" estimate of the farmwOrker population form Table 5-12, a high figure of an average of three workers per'household, and all 279 agricultural workers counted in the Census being housed elseWhere, the housing .deficit'for migrant farmworker households is .estimated to be at least 1,970 housing unitS..This deficit increases if the actual farmworker population is higher or if the average Housing Element ....... Page 18 April 12, 1999 number of workers per .household is lower. Of course, farmworkOm~p,articipat~ in the general housing market; as well as finding shelter in u-nits desi'gned for :seaso'nal or~migmto~ occupancy, .but there-is a'shortfal'l or low-income .units likely to be affordable to these workers. A seCOnd techniq, ue: used~ to project iow-in~me 'h°using need was an. indirect methOd using, information from the 'Housing Authority Annual ~RepO~. This ~repo~ started:that their .Section 8 programs had applimntson awaiting list. hOusing a waiting list. !574 pa~iid-pants and This' housing, with 1347 public of the ~total househ01ds in .the. ~'un~, As was stated ~ liSts. paAicipate in am not on the waiting futura. Table need is by analyzing likely income distributions in the .projection. HOusing Element .... Page 19 April 12, 1999 Table 5-19. ProjeCted Households by Income Range 1990'2015, Unincorporated St. LuCie County ,Income Range .% of Total 1990 1995 2005 ~L.T. $5,000 !657 t 1.33 2761 3270 3683 4034 $ 500'1 - 7499 1293 2152 3144 .99(,)9 t 1,19 2727 3220 3638 ~2.1.,,16 6'107 15;95 1980 U..$. Role of the Private Sector .in Meeting This analysis of the housing need of the believe that c~st of rant and distdbution. Table 15-20 shows'the'res produced by the private sector 15. no reason to present by type likely to be Low Moderate ~LoW $10,000 541 Source: 58 1686 !Ultifamily 1983 All; Housin 3669 1980 U. S. Census Ir, , . , 2165 ° 2941 3788 4-446 1643 2546 3458 4455 522.8 1359 2107 2863 3687 4328 1599 2478 3366 4341 5089 1078 1670 2269 2923 3431 1268 1964 3437 i034 116 180 245 315 369 137 212 277 371 434 6125 8322 10719 '12580 4648 7203 14794 8600 13328 18108 23324 27374 ' Housing Element Page 20 April 12'1999 Land ~Requirements for Future' Housing St. Lucie County has ~developed in a rather orderly east to west development pattern. The coastal area, including Ft. Pieme, was the leaderr in County-wide development for a .long time. In more recent years, Po~ ~St, Lucie has grown mPidty to assume a larger percentage of the County-Wide population. Table. 5-2'1 presents 'the histori~l relationship of the municipalities ~ t'ucie County, .After ahigh in '19.80 of 43.7% of the total:population, the po~ion is ~expected.~to dreCm-ase pa~i:cularly as areas of St. COunty's ~rve. ~ The ,unincorpomted. ama,'.is anticipated to' c~ntinue:t°- dee.reasing percentage of the total County. the total'1970 COunty popUlation~ to 28% by 201-5. with a much larger proportion, of the futura population, g Again, thi's c~uld be COnditioned by.annexations. from re of share growth.- LuCie-than to Ft. Pieme. 1960 1980 1985 1:4044 36.0 2035'6 40,4 38097 43 59.0 39294 100.0 5O836 100.0 87182 100.0 116235 [980 .U.S. Census; 1985 ~Florida Statistical Abstract, UF. BEBR.~ Housing Element page.21 April 12, 11999' Methods of Providing Sites to Meet Various Housing Needs Housing. Element I i i , Page 22 April 12, 1999 Means of. ProViding Infrastructure, ~Conserving Housing Housing" Element Page 23 ' April 12, 1999 Housing Element ..... Page 24 April 12, 199'9 Housing Element St. Lucie County Introduction This element examines the provision of housing in St. Lrucie County. Current housing conditions in the. County are documented and future housing needs are projected to the year 2015. Specific goals, objectives, and policies are established which address current and potential deficiencies in the supply of. safe, adequate and affordable housing to all St. Lucie County residents. St. Lucie County includes three municipalities within its boundaries: Ft. Pierce; Port St. Lucie; and St. Lucie Village. Each of the cities must prepare a Housing Element pursuant to Chapter 163, F.,.~_., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. In recognition of this, the Housing Element for St. Lucie County deals with housing issues in the unincorporated part of the County only. However, in some instances, the data includes information on the entire County and its municipalities. In other cases, data for the unincorporated County is compared with the data for the cities in the County or the State of Florida. Such comparisons are intended to identify similarities or differences between the various locations. Conclusions from the data and strategies for addressing needs apply only to the unincorporated County. However, it must be recognized that overall, the County's.r housing needs must be met within both the incorporated and the unincorporated areas. It also should be noted that St. Lucie Village has a 1980 Census population count of 593. Due to the small size and lack of easily comparable data for the Village, it is usually not identified separately in the text. Only data for the cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie are extracted from County-wide data. This element relies primarily upon the 1980 Census as the source for housing data. Although the Census data is somewhat dated, it is the most recent detailed housing data available for St. Lucie County. The County has not perfOrmed any special housing studies, and it does not maintain any data on housing characteristics, other than building permit and certificates of occupancy tabulations. Where feasible, 1980 Census data has been supplemented with information from the following sources: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR); Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC); State of Florida Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS); Ft. Pierce Housing Authority; and the St. Lucie County Department of Community DevelOpment. The Housing Element is divided into four sections. The first section is an inventory using the 1980r Census data on housing conditions in the County. In the second section housing is analyzed and future housing need is projected. The third section provides a discussion of future needs and makes general recommendations .on how to meet those needs. In the fourth section,, goals, objectives and poliCies are outlined which address, current and potential housing needs and opportunities in St. Lucie County. Housing Element Page 1 ' April 12, 1999 Housing Inventory This section is a series of topics which provides detailed information on existing housing conditions in St. Lucie County. Most of the data in this section is from the 1980 Census, but where practical more current data from local sources was used. Housing Distribution Table 5-1 presents total housing unit distribution in St. Lucie County as well as for the cities within the county for the years 1980, 1985 . In 1980 the unincorporated area of the County contained 46.5% of the total number of housing units. The remainder of the units were distributed in Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, at 37.1% and 15.7% respectively. By ~ i~ , the percentage of housing units increased ~ ~ to 48~ g~i!~% of the total. During this housing units increased from 6r4-1-0 28,062 in 1980 61~i~i increase). ' Table 5-1: TOtal Housing Unit Distribution, 1980, 1985, and 1995, St. Lucie County Location 1980 Total Housing 1985 Total Housing Units Units Number % of Number % of County County Ft. Pie rce 15,169 37.1% 17,063 29.4%: Po~"- St. I_ucie 6~410 15.7% '12,910 22.2%~ ' , , St. Lucie Village 286 0.7% N/A N/A, Unincorporated 19,050 46.5% 28,062 48.4°/0 F ACounty-wide 40,915 100.0% ' 58,035 100.0% The pattern of housing distribution in the County has changed significantly since -1980 Port St. Lucie experienced the greatest increase in the proportion of total housing units, from ~ 5TM % in 1980 , to co o ii':'~r:~:~i~io · ~ c~ ?r'~'~i'~'~':~':>~:~ 8'87~?:~ Yo ~n .... ~99~. The ropo~ion of total housing units four the unincorporated County increased ~ slightly from ~ ~8~ Yo in 1980 ~?'~?~Oo ~. ~ . A small increase in housing units was also seen in Ft. ~~, to ~ ~:~ ~ in~ 985 Pierce, but its share of the County's total housing supply declined from ~ ~ ?r::~:~?~'~'~:~° ~ a,n ~~, to ~ % in 1985. Age of Housing Units Table 5-2 provides a listing of the number of units constructed by year for the entire County and unincorporated area as of 1990 . This table is reflective of the rapid population growth in the County in the last three decades. The age of housing units in the unincorporated County is Housing Element Page 2 April 12, 1999 similar to the age of housing units in the entire County. Approximately 78.8 ~~',4 of the units in the unincorporated County were built between 1960 and -1-984) . This compares with · ..... ~~ Ye fo the entire County, indicating a slightly newer housing stock in the unincorporated area. The difference results principally from the impact of Port St. Lucie which has been developed since 1960. Table 5-2: Age of year-Round Housing Units, -/989 ~ 4, St. Lucie County Number Year Constructed Unincorporated County , Percent 3842 549 1960 to 1696 1950 to 1959 1940 to 1949 Before 1939 Total 17,522 , 100.0% County-Wide Number 3872~ 7964 6056 1976 2260 Percent !0.! t ~ "7' O/o O/o 100,0% i' Data are estimates based on a sample and may differ from complete coHnt data Source: 1980 Census Handbook, uF, BEBR; 1980 U. S. Census ~ ~ii~ ~iii!i Housing Unit Type Table 5-3 indicates that most of the housing supply for both St. Lucie County as a whole and the unincorporated part is in the form of single family detached units. Thor9 !s !!tt!e d!fference !n !'¥~:':"'~ ~! proportion of detached single family units in the unincorporated County ~ s.;_ ~ii~, li~.g'l, e~!,~~,¢and the proportion of detached single family units for the entire County. Table 5-3 indicates the unincorporated COunty has ~~~ sinai, lee proportion of duplex and multifamily units than the County at large. Mobile homes in the unincorporated County reflect a higher percentage of the housing stock than for the State or the County as a whole. In 1980, mobile homes constituted nearly 2-7- ~% of the unincorporated County's housing units, compared to ! 5,7 ~% for the entire County and 9~6 i!ii~! Ye for the State as a whole. Table 5-3: Year-Round Housing Units by Type, 1980 ~ , St. Lucie County Type of Unit Unincorporated County-Wide Number 'Percent Number Percent Single-family Detached ~ . 69~ ~% 23,232 ~ 60~ ~% i Total ~ 7,522 ~ 00.0% g8,4~ ~ 100.0% , Housing Element Page 3 April 12, 1999 Many: of the mobile home parks and manufactured housing developments were constructed as Planned Unit Developments (PUD). A PUD must consist of a minimum of 10 acres. These developments are usually developed at 5 units per acre; thus a typical development contains 50 or more units. ~"'~°"*' '""~/':~'"~'"' ~'"":~" c,~ ~r~o ,,~,, ,-,~,,, ,,,o~,~,-,,+o ,~,,-, o.-,,,-,,~+~,-o o~ iMi~ii~iN,,~,Vt,~iAiV~III:IVI~rlIV I IVIIIV l' VImIFV ~'I~,~1 I VIIVI IV~i~I~i~VI Ik~,~ kl IV ~,~IIIVIIIklVV VVI I~lVl I llll ll~l I I Il v Ill~l v~Vl I ~v ~V VI' VvI I II I IVl , ~l V~l l~V] V~Vl I v~vv ~1 v~vj ~1 l~ I vvI V~lVl second hom~. This is an extension of the tendency of the unincorporated family IMng rather than dUplex and multifamily housing. ty toWard single Traditionally, St Lucie County has attracted retirees and vacationers who prefer single units over condominiums. General development Corporation (GDC) developed Port St. Lucie in response to this desire for single family, lower cost housing in a rural or semi-urban setting. However, this trend is changing, partially as a result of increasing numbers of younger working individuals and families who are moving to the County on a permanent basis. As this segment of population increases there will be greater demand for a variety of housing opportunities, including rentals. Typically, multifamily rental housing serve as an affordable housing alternative for families or individuals who do not wish to own a home or can not afford one. Housing Occupancy Table 5-4 presents housing occupancy patterns for St. Lucie County in ~ ~ . The 1990 ~~ Census data shows that ~ ~~ ~ of all housing units in the unincorporated County are owner-occupied while only ~'~ o1~ 7o pied COunty-wide. Units occupied by .... ~~.. are owner-occu ~~ ) than for the unincorporated renters make up a greater percentage County-wide Ye), This indicates that there is a greater availability of rental units within the areas cities than in the unincorporated County. -- Table 5-4: Housing Occupancy Patterns, 1980 ~ , St. Lucie County Ownership Unincorporated County-Wide , N u mbe r' P e rcent N umber P e rce nt "-enter. OcCupied 0,04 n ~ ~ ~ ~:~::~':~ii~'~.¢~:~'~!o~, . =,=,,.-. , , , ~o{al ! 7 .oo ~;~,~,~ 100.0% , , ~oUrce: 1980 U. S Census~:,~:~:~:~~$,~,~.~egs:~s.,.:~,$g ~~g ~.~ ~ ~,~g g. ,. A review of historic trends as reflected in census data indicates that the percentage of owner- occupied units has been on the decline. Prior to 1960, 92% of the housing stock (all types - a breakdown by type is not readily available), was owner-occupied. During the 1960's this percentage declined to 86.9%. During the 1970's, owner-occupancy further declined to 77% of the housing stock, and by March of 1980, owner-occupied units were at 68% of the total. This trend has continued through the 1980's as St. Lucie County changes from a rural, Iow cost retirement and vacation area to a thriving urban area. While a breakdown of occupancy by Housing Element Page 4 April 12, 1999 housing type is: not readily available, the increasing number of rental-occupied units suggests ongoing pressures for rental units, either single family, duplex, or multifamily. Housing Cost The cost of hOusing in St. Lu¢ie County involves several variables. Rent, value of owner- occupied units, monthly cost of owner-occupied units, and rent-to-income ratio for renter- occupied units are all measures of housing cost. Although the housing stock overall is slightly newer in the County as a whole than for the unincorporated County, land prices for the unincorporated County are lower. Lower land prices, in turn, have allowed housing costs to be slightly lower for the unincorporated County. Table 5-.5 presents monthly gross rates of renter-occupied units in the County for 1990 . The County-wide monthly gross rent distribution is more even than the unincorporated County. Analysis of Table 5-5 indicates the incorporated County offers more rental units in the lower and higher rental price ranges, while most of the rental units in the unincorporated County are concentrated in the middle, and upper middle price ranges. Table 5-5: Monthly Gross Rent of Renter-OcCupied Housing Units, !980 , Gross Rent Unincorporated County-Wide Number Percent Number Percent · · , $150.00 - $ I aa nn '~ n,4 ~, -7--.1- ~% -~ ,o-Tn , , ~,. , and up ~ .... ~g~ .... 2,1 , , , , 'No Cash Rent _~ ~ ~ .... ~ ....................... ~ ~ n ~ no ~ ~ 100.0% Total ~ ~.~ 100.0% ...... , ' Median Monthly Rent N/A $ ~ Source: 1980 U. S. CensuseS; ~~ ~~J~P;~;!gg In the unincorporated County, 58.! ~D~ of units have monthly rents ~'-'""'""" compared to 42~ County-wide. The median monthly rent is $294,09 i~iO~!!!~, and in Port St. Lucie the entire County, in Ft. Pierce $205.00 . I~A~l!a.~' r,~nf f~r fhn i,n;nn~-~rn~'~ro~,'~l /~nl Infi~ ;~ n~f on~;f;~ll~ ~;l~kl~. h~,~,~r~ ......... IVlV~ IJ IVI &l IV ~1 III IVVI ~VI~JV~ VVMI Iii IV I IVJ V~VVIIIV~II] ~V~II~IV~ I IVVV VVI Jl IV The value of owner-occupied housing units in St. Lu¢ie County is presented in Table 5-6. Value distribution is fairly even, with the County-wide median value being $ in 4-980 ii~~. The 4980 median value for the unincorporated portion of the County is not readily '~j'iable but app~'ars"~to be around $35,000 ~r~iii!~iiilr~i~i?~!r~r~:'"~~~~, or about $1 n...,......nnn $~,:~!~ii?i~'~ilili""~V'~'i~i~'~'~i less than the County-wide value. This is in part due to lower land costs, coupled with the higher percentage Housing Element ' Page 5 April 12, 1999 of mobile homes in the County ~, ,~.~, .... ~,~ ...... , ......... ~ .............. , ............ Table 5-6: Value of Owner-'occuPied ' ' '~ Housing Units, Value ' Unincorporated ' CoUnty-wide NUmber Percent Number Percent Less than -~1.n nnn~]~ ......... ~'~'~:~":~ ~)6 ~ ~ ..................... o~~°~. ~ ~ ~'~:'~:~O~o $20,000 - $29,999 I -,~.~ ~.. ~ ' , , $40,000 "$49,999 "~'" $100,00 '- $149,000 $~50,000 and up lotal * ~* ~~ 100.0%' ~ ~ ~ 100.0% , ; ~ ,~ , Median N/A $~~ ' , Source:m la 980 U.S. Another' measure of housing cost is the monthly owner cost for owner-occupied housing units. Table 5.-7 indicates that monthly costs for the unincorporated area are generally less than those County-wide. In 1980, approximately 4g~ ~i!% of the mortg ed homes in the unincorporated County had a monthly cost]1~.~..~..~'~"~ .m.~-~,~.. ,~.4m ! ~.~.~=,~.~v,v~.,.=qnnnn ;~i, compared to ~ ~% County-wide. The median monthly cost for mortgaged units was $324.00 iiCounty- wide. 'r'he median monthly cost for the unincorporated area is not available but the data indicate it to have been approximately $300.00 - $ 310.OO i~i! ~. Table 5-7 also shows that non-mortgaged units follow the same trend, in that monthly owner costs generally are lower in the unincorporated County than for the County as a whole. Some general comment can be made about housing costs and values in St. Lu¢ie County. It has been noted that Port St. Lu¢ie exhibits higher median rents and values than either Ft. Pierce or the unincorporated County. Several factors account for this: Ft. Pierce is an older city with older housing stock, but higher land values. However, these higher valued properties are not all being used for housing, but also are being developed for commercial land uses. Port St. Lu¢ie, on the other hand, has very little commercial land. That City was platted and somewhat improved by CDC in advance of sales. Therefore, while' the housing stock is similar in character (size, etc.) to the single family stock in the unincorporated County, it brings higher rental or purchase prices due to costs of land plus roadways and drainage improvements which were put in place by CDC. Finally, the higher number of mobile home units in the unincorporated County, coupled with lower land costs, decreases the overall cost of housing, when compared with Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie. Housing Element Page 6 April 12, 1999 A comparison between housing costs and income can provide some insight into the affordability of housing in St. Lucie County. Table 5-8 presents median annual income, median housing payments, and the percentage of income spent on housing for renter-occupied and owner- occupied units for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie County overall. Median values are not available for the unincorporated area of the County. Therefore, County-wide values and those for the cities were reviewed. General concluSions were made for the unincorporated area using these data. Insert Table 5-8 Median Income and Housing Cost Here Housing Cost to Income Ratio Affordable housing is generally defined as housing whose costs do not exceed 30% of gross family income. Housing costs for owner occupied units include mortgage payments, insurance payments, property taxes, utilities, and any homeowner association fees' Costs for rental housing include contract rent and utilities. As is shown in Table 5-8, the median rent County- wide consists of 23.2 ~!~o ~. ~,,~ Ye of median income for renters. Because the rent values for the cities were higher than those County-wide, the unincorporated area must have had a lower value than County-wide rents. This ~.4, lV~4, Ill~,~l~i,~& I I~,~I, VV ~ IVll~Vl' V'~,l~l.~V &l 1~.4,11 VV~,~l I&l~ l~l~,,~V IVll&~,~l This indicates that renters, who are near the median income level and live in the unincorporated County, were spending a reasonable percentage (less than 23.2%) of their income on rent in 1980. Table 5-8 also estimates the percentage of income spent on mortgages by homeowners. County-wide residents with income near the median appeared to have been spending a reasonable percentage of income on mortgages (25.1%) in 1980. In comparison, residents of owner-occupied units in Port St. Lucie spent 35.6% of their income on mortgages, while in Ft. Pierce 23.9% of income is expended on mortgages · /I IVIVIVIV~ i iVlllVVlll IVl~,~ ii I &l I~.. ~r, ,,, 'VV' [.'V' ~'V'.' ~''''~" 'V '''1~'''' '"'"' '~ ~P'I''' V''''' ' '~'''''J~ '--V Conditions of Housing Several measures were used to estimate the condition of housing in St. Lucie County. Plumbing, heating and kitchen facilities, and overcrowding characteristics were applied to determine the generalized condition of the housing stock in the County. Table 5-9 summarizes the data estimating the condition of County housing stock. Housing Element ' Page 8 April 12, 1999 :iii :;!!:~ hi "corp!!c°u nty cout t;~ide i With COmplete Plumbing 17,551 '100% . '37,693 94% Lackin~ C°mplotO ~lumbing 60 0%' . 80~ 2% ~ckin~ Hoatin~ . 240 1% 00~ 2% kackin~ comploto Kitch°n 82 , 0% 754 , 2% i , , : ' Overcrowded Conditions Renter Occupied . : 258 1% 1,342 3% Owner Occupied . 365 2% ' 678 2% ' " 623 ~ Total Ovomrowdod , 2,020 , ~ ~TOT~k ~IT~ ~ ~7,~20 ~ 40,24~ ~ In ~ , the percentage of housing units in the unincorporated area of the County ~!i lacking complete plumbing was ~ D~9 ~ """'~'"~"~ *" o ~ o/_ ~, ,.,,,_,~,;~ Units lacking heating and complete kitchen facilities combined constituted ~ ~;!:~,~ ~ of the housing units in the unincorporated area and 4.6% County-wide. Overcrowded units are much less prevalent in the unincorporated County (3.5%) than County-wide (5.2%). These data indicate that overcrowded units and units lacking some facilities are concentrated more in the cities than in the unincorporated area. v ~vvv illlVllll~klVl I IV I IVl~l~l III UV~VIlIIII Ill I~ kl IV VyVI~II VVl I~lklVl I el kl VVUllk~ ~ I I I IIIV ~1 I ~~[ ~+~ ~+ ~~ ~+,G~+GR/ ~ ~~,[r~ +~ ~~+ ~F o,t~+~~r~ ~,,~ ~ +~ i iV~ll i~ ~VVl~ i~ uvv~ i ivk i~vi ikll~ i i IV~Ul v kl IV ~1 I IV~I Ik I ~U~Vk~l I~1 ~ I IV~II I~ II I kl IV ,,~~,~-~+~ ~,,~+" There is a need to define standard and substandard housing~ ~1 Ill lVVl ~Vl ~V~ VV~l l~ i V~VV D~ V~VV ~1~ II I ~ 11~ il I~l V~I I V~I~DII~I IV~ I IV~I I ~ IIII IUVI IIVI~ ~1 IV~i I ~': the following definitions will be applied in unincorporated St. Lucie County: Substandard Housing' A housing unit shall be considered substandard if there is visible exterior deterioration to the main structure and/or any additions to the building. 'This includes roofs, walls, porches, steps, and doors. To be considered standard, the structure shall be able to protect the inhabitants from outside elements penetrating 'through the doors, roofs, floors or walls of the structure. Dwelling units in the substandard category are further categorized into those units which are deteriorating and units which are dilapidated. Deteriorating Units: Dwelling units that have visible deficiencies which indicate that deterioration is present. These units can be economically repaired to provide safe Housing Element Page 9 April 12, 1999 adequate housing. Examples of these deficiencies could include loose or missing boards, sagging porches, lack of exterior paint, etc, These deficiencies are signs of neglect and could lead to serious structural damage if they are not repaired, Dilapidated Units: Dwelling units which lack basic facilities and are in such a state of deterioration that it would not be economically feasible to repair them. Examples of deficiencies include: holes; open cracks or missing materials over large areas of floors, walls or roofs; leaning walls or structures; severely sagging roof :lines; damage by fire or weather; structures built or makeshift materials, etc. These units generally require demolition.* * **These definitions were originally developed by the Martin County Community Development Department. Present knowledge of. substandard units in the unincorporated area of the County is that these units are concentrated in areas adjacent to the north and northwest boundary of the Ft. Pierce City Limits. llll I~I I -k-I I~ VV~I Ik~ lllll ~v ~DIV '~V ~ kVl I I lll I ~I IV kM~l IVV~IVI I VI ~ll V~k~l l~l ~I I Il I unin~rn~r~f~H ~r~ Subsidized Public Housing Currently, a small amount of subsidized public housing is available in the unincorporated County. These units were approved by the St. Lucie County ~ Commission~ in 1982 and are administered by the Ft. Pierce Housing Authority. Twenty, four-bedroom, single- family units are located on Juanita Avenue. These units are owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Ft. Pierce and are subsidized by the Department of Housing and Urban DeVelopment's (HUD) Conventional Public Housing Program. The Housing Authority leases the units to Iow income tenants. Currently, the Authority also provides 644 units of'Section 8 Housing under the HUD Housing Assistance Program. Eight (8) of these units are in the unincorporated County. With the Section 8 Program, the Authority contracts for housing from the owner who leases to Iow income tenants. The Iow income tenant then pays the private landlord thirty percent (30%) of his adjusted_ gross income, with the Authority Subsidizing the landlord the balance of the rental payment. Group Homes The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) licenses a number of different facilities which are generically referred to as group homes. These homes, which serve both adults and children, are located throughout St. Lucie County. ~~i~i.~!~,~,~.~ ...... ,,,,,,;,~..o o ~;s+;,-,g ,,~ ,,~,-,, ,,, h,,r,-,.-o ,-, ,.~.-,-*~,, o.-,,,;ng S* ~ ' "'"" r,,.,, ,,,,,, Faro[k, ~,,o,..~ h,,,~,..o o,o,, Housing Element Page 10 April 12, 1999 Mobile Homes Table 5-3 indicates that, in 1980, approximately 27% of the total housing units in the unincorporated part of St. Lucie County were mobile homes, compared with 15.7% County-wide and 9.6% in the State. Mobile hOmes offer several advantages to the owner including a lower cost than site built housing and ease of maintenance. In 1989, there were 12,183 mobile/manufactured home sites available in the unincorporated County. These sites do not include sites that are available for recreational vehicles and travel trailers. These sites are within 29 different parks, which are located between the Indian River and Sunshine State Parkway. The majority of these parks are located within one and Y~ miles of U.S. 1. Most of the mobile/manufactured home parks are designed as retirement communities. These adult communities make up 96% of mobile/manufactured homes in the unincorporated County. There are 11,661 mobile/manufactured home sites designed for this purpose. An additional 522 mobile/manufactured spaces are available which are not designated as adult only. These sites are located within 10 different parks and make up 4% of the total mobile/ manufactured home sites in the unincorporated area. Appendix A provides a complete listing of both types of mobile/manufactured home communities. In addition, mobile homes are also found on individual building sites in many areas of the County. Previo' "-" ~4;o,., ,oo;,,,,o ~,,,.,,,;,~.. o,~,.., ;,,oight ;~,~, ,~,~. ,~oo~.o ~o" *k~ ~' '~~" o¢ ~~;[~ ~~o ;. ' I I ~UVI aU I I kl l~ I lUl I aviaI I I I VII~ I lVl I l~ Il l M~J ~I~V~VIVI IV ~IVVlMV ~VIIIV Il IVI II IkV k IV V the""~"~'"~'o+~a ~.,.,., ~~ ~ ~oblle homes are not on the decline as a percentage of h~usin~ sf~ek~ in ferms ~f ~ofu~l numbers fhe~ ~re increasing. In fhis res~eof, fhe~ o~nfinue f~ ~mvi~e ~n im~~nf s~ume ~f ~ff~r~ble h~usin~ in Bf. Lude Historically Significant Housing Casa Caprona, built in 1926, is the only site in the unincorporated portion of St. Lucie County that is listed on both the National Register and the Florida Master Site File as being historically significant. The significance of this site is derived from its prominent role in the County's history and its ¢' ' opan~sh-Mediterranean architecture. Today, Casa Caprona, located to the southeast of the St. Lucie County International Airport, has been converted to condominiums. In the past, neither St. Lucie County nor any nonprofit groups have undertaken any conservation or rehabilitation projects in the unincorporated County. These type projects have been limited to private, individual actions. Housing Element ' Page 11 April 12, 1999 Rural and Migrant Farmworker Housing ~,,~,,,~t ~1 ivll vi itd~ ~---i v ~,~vivvi iw i i &l iv vi i~)'Qv wvii i Wl~k~,l wi v VIil~,~lV,~VW ii i i ivi i IIIWI IW~VIIWI I I'111 VVVqb41~.?WI. IVI I · I · IVIIVII VI &l IV ~.71&.4, I.W WI~.~V ~IIVIIW ~ · · V VI IWIIIIIIV~J II I IQIWI ~ v mm mmv~ ~mv~v ~vvvm~ mvvvm vvmmm~mv~ ~m~mm m~.~/~ vv'~mm~ v~m~vm · , 'mrol,,m,-;_'1 't I:::,,.nnnr,.,;n t"'h°,.~,.,'l'-'-,;~+;,',D ,",f .m.,., O,,,,~m D,.,,,.I.;,.,.n ,.,,,~ q,l. I ..,.,;--. County, !aah mm Ml. rmv v ·Im kvvmmvmmmmv v'mm'll, mm,l.,..v,m, vm mv[.mvv vm mlv · vm~imvmm vm V~m kMvmv Cmnl~m,~nf · --,, ,iv,v],, ,v, ,,,. Tote. v,, ,I.,,v] v.,.., I..,v, vv, ,v , v $ vv,., v v,,,.., ,..,., ,~ I~orm r'.~.r",,r",m mnof;~'~no z~v~on~ mono~or;ol I ~m m I m vvv~mvm I~ v~vv~ i m l~m m~vm m~. , Total households, in rural area ~A~lon I~[,rol ~,mo~k~l~ In~m~ IIIVWIWI I I IQl WI I IVIQ II IVVI I IV . m l~m~m mmv~vmmvl~ v~mmmmmm~l~ ~mm~mm ~ mv~vvv ~vm ~v~m m mu~ ~ vv~m m~ ...~v m v~vvv ~vm , , m i~m~. m~mmlmmmv~ ~lm~mm mlmvvmmmv~ ~vmv~e ~v~vm~ myer, , ~ mnf~nA,;N~ ~m;I;~ ~,;fh ;n~:m~ h~l~A, n~,~ I~1 vv~m m~m~v mv~ . ~vmv~ ~v~vm ~ 070 ,, m vi vvm vI iv/ I,.I,,/ mm v! m v---.vv migrant ~,~r~r~ in th~ ~~t~..] Th~~t I ,,n;~ ~n, ~nt~ ~h~l ~r~ ~fim~f~ that for v vv l:ll mi M~VIV VV~II~ vvmmvvm ~v~m~ V~IIII~QV ~mm~ I m Mmv lVVV m m mmpi ~m m~ ~Vl i~vm ~ mm m ~1 m i gvg vvii iVVl ]V~lI M~vvv iii1~1~1 i~ vi iil~lVi i II~lV i~vi i~lllV~I iV~l~Vl i~11 i~ i )vgv i ivu~gl iVl~Vi i i iv ~v'vm~v v~m~m~v~ myra ,,~mmm~m v~ i~vmmxv,~ ~m ml~vv/ ~m~ ~mmv ~m~mm~vm vm mmmm~,~mm~ v,m~m~,vm, V~IV Vii I VVIII I I~lV VI ~i IV~Vt I V~ I VV ~VIVVI IV II I I I I1~1 ~i Il I~1 I I I11~1 I~1 I IV~VVI IVI~VI I 1V I1~1 oro os~o;Iohl~ f~r ons~ nroo~hn~l ~h;l~r~n nr o~n~o~o fho~ mos~ h~ o~mnons~;n~ Housing Element ' ' ' Page 12 ' April 12, 1999 ....... I'rll41111flV qV lkl IIl¥11lllll.4111V¥ VI~ I VlIIIil 11114lllYVl Vi IIVIII, VlVl Ill VIII klllVlV VVMIIIIJ~ ¥111IIIIU · IVII~IIIU V¥ il/Vi In~A, I ! ! ,38~ I ' ' ' , I:l~r;~l~ I/~mrn~ ,n;*t, I-I,%ol*h /~_~_n*,~ro In,~ Table 5-!3. =°*;mates of N,.,mber cf .~.".!grant" ..... ~'""~o, _ased on Three Different Assumpt!ene Ah,~, ,, IAl..~..I.-.r~, D~,, u,~, .D-,-hhlri nl~ v ~41 !1 !1 vi i'l, Vl v · vi i ivMvvi ivih , .l'~.4.,ltdrV. .lql,14lllllMrv, Vi 1111~1'1.,4,1 11. I ,Vqli4VVI IVI~,,IIM, . I IVVV · ' ~ K q 7~7 i Housing Activity Table 5-14 presents residential building permit activity between 1980-1987 for St. Lucie County (County-wide), and between 1980-1988 for the unincorporated County. It provides the number of permits issued for single family and multifamily unit type. Housing construction has increased steadily in the last decade. In 1987 new building permits, in the unincorporated_ County alone, increased by 40%, and again by 30% in 1988. Table 5-14 indicates that between 1980 and 1986, most of the building permits in the unincorporated County were for multifamily units, while the majority (62.3%) of single family permits were from the cities, particularly Port St. Lucie. The skew in multifamily building permits for the unincorporated County between 1980-1986 is due to the construction of a large number of high rise condominium projects on the islands. Multifamily housing comprised 18% of new housing permits iin 1987, and 33% in ~1988:. Housing Element Page 13 April 12, 1999 Insert Table 5-14 Here Analysis This section provides projected population and housing characteristics. Land requirements for the projected housing needs and the relationship of the public and private sector in the housing delivery system are discussed. Projected Population and Housing Characteristics High County-wide population projections from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) were used to project housing demand for St. Lucie County. Persons per household were then projected and applied to the total population to determine projected houSeholds or occupied housing units, for the entire County. Future housing need and supply were projected for the entire County because organizations and mechanisms that respond to housing demand do so on a County-wide basis. Housing delivery systems, lending institutions, builders, and contractors do not recognize municipal boundaries in St. Lucie COunty. Therefore, estimating future housing needs and conditions for the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan should be done on a County-wide approach, while recognizing municipal boundaries when necessary. Projections of population, persons per household, and housing occupancy for St, Lucie County are provided in Table 5-15. Persons per household is expected to continue to decline, but at a decreasing rate. A projected reduction in persons per household reflects what is occurring in the State and nation. This trend, hOwever, is expected to be tempered in St. Lucie County by a continued attraction of younger households with children to the County. Table 5-15. Unincorporated County Population and Housing Counts and Projections 1980 - 2015 Year Unincorporated Persons Per Households Housing Units Occupancy Rates Permanent Population Household 1980 . 38097 2.60 14631 19336 75.7% 1990' 59466 2.44 24371 27i 10 89.9% 1995 69266 2.40 ' 28861 33906 85.1% 2000 77052 2.37 32511 40423 80.4% 2005 84029 2.36 35606 47011 75'7% 2010 90511 2.35 38688 54200 71.4% 2015 . '93045 2.34 ' 39763 59784 66.5% Sources: 1. Table 2.05 'FlOrida Statistical Abstract 2. Table 1, U. S. Census, General Housing Characteristics 3. "Population Studies", U. F. Bureau of Economic and Business Research , , Table 5-15 also provides projections of the total number of housing units for the County. Total housing units include occupied housing units, units held for occasional use by seasonal Housing Flement Page 14 ' April 12, 1999 residents, and unitS in transition (vacant and for sale or rent). Projections of total housing units are dependent upon anticipated occupancy rates. High occupancy rates usually mean housing supply is tight in relation to demand. Low occupancy rates usually reflect an over supply of housing. In 1985, the occupancy rate was estimated at 77.3%, a significant decline from the 1970 rate of 89.9%. However, recent University of Florida, BEBR, projections estimate that by 1990, the population of St. Lucie County will have increased by 30.5% since 1985. This rapid growth places a greater demand upon housing supply. Therefore, it was estimated that the occupan:cy rate has increased from the 1985 rate. It should be noted that the temporary decline in occupancy rates during the late 1970s and early 1980s parallels the County's period of rapid growth and subsequent changes in socioeconomic characteristics. The rapid urbanization of the County led to a boom in hoUsing construction to which the population (and subsequent occupancy) is only now catching up. This is a common situation in an area that is rapidly changing from a rural to an urban environment. Table 5-16 separates the projected number of dwelling units into single family and multifamily type, The table was prepared using the County-wide proportion of single family and muitifamily building permits issued between 1980-1987. During this period, a total of 25,563 residential permits were issued. Of this total, 14,773 or 58% were single family, and 10,790 of 42% were muitifarnily permits. These proportions were applied to the County-wide projected housing units. Table 5-16. Projected Housing Units By Type, 1990-2015 County-Wide Unincorporated County ' Year Single Family Multifami. ly Single Family. Multifamily '1990 41378 29964 12471 14639 1995 ' 51750 27474 16614 17292 , 2000 61698 44678 21020 19403 2005 71755 51960 25386 21625 2010 82727 59906 ' 30352 23848 2015 91249 ' 66077 34674 25110 , Source: St. LuCie County Department of Community, Development The population of housing units in the unincorporated County to all housing units within the County was calculated by dividing total unincorporated building permits by total County-wide permits for the years 1980-87. During this period, the unincorporated County accounted for 38% of all new building permits issued within the County. This proportion was held constant for the projections in Table 5-16. Likewise, the relationship between building permits by housing type, for the unincorporated County, between 1980-1988, was applied to project new multifamily and single family units in the unincorporated County. This proportion was not held constant for all projections. Most of the multifamily building activity in the unincorporated County occurred in 1981 and 1983. Since that time single family housing construction has increased, especially in the last two years. Therefore the proportion of projected single family houses for the unincorporated County was gradually increased, from 45%, until it approximated the present Countywide housing mix (58%). Housing Needs HoUsing Element Page 15 April 12, 1999 Since the Census Data on, percentage of income spent for housing by each income group are unavailable, an estimation procedure has been devised to approximate this information. Using 1980 Census data, the households in Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie were subtracted from the income distribution for the entire County. The remaining households, shown by income range in Table 5-17, include the unincorporated County and St. Lucie Village. In the table, each income range was paired with one or more ranges of home ownership cost and renter cost in such a way that housing cost is abOUt 30% of the midpoint of the income range. Next, assUmptions were made that homeowners paying no mortgage and mobile home dwellers are distributed ~ the income groups in the same proportions as the population in general. Thes, range, w income range. Althougt~ the assumptions behind the table allow several possibilities for error, they are reasonable for St. Lucie County, where retirees may well own a home with no mortgage and yet show a low income, and where lots in upscale mobile home retirement communities may be quite expensive. Housing Element Page 16 April 12, 1999 4- -I* , , E : o E -~ 0 ~ ' 0~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ '- ~ m ~E E ~ ~ ~ o '= ~ ~.~ ~z~=6° ~ o ~ ~~ ~~= o ~ E~~ ~ o ~ ~8' · 0~ o ~ '~ ~ o __ ~0 ~~~ ~ ~ o om .__ ~ 0 ~ O~ E= ~ ~ 0 0 ~ = ~ 8 ~ ~~ ['8 ~ 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o~o o o ~ E ~ O~ ~ ~:__ , , ~ 0 0 0 ~.~mS~ ~ ~ ~ m~ m ~ ~ m, - E~ ~ ~ o'E E~~d~ ~ .-~ = ~~ ~8. o ~ ~ ~o~ " ~ - 0 0 ~ ~ o o o o o o = o o o o -- :~ Given that the table shows the best available indication of whether there,isa shortfall or surplus of housing for a particular income group, the conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the shortfall of appropriately priced housing lies with the lower(less than $10,000 annually) and higher ($20,000 or more annually) income ranges. These two income ranges show different housing needs and will be discussed next. The lower income groups must resolve the housing shortfall situation by paying more than 30% of their income for housing. The options for solving this problem include increasing income, decreasing rents and mortgage costs for existing housing stock through subsidies, or increasing supply of housing within an affordable price range. The County has selected increasing income and increasing the supply of Iow-income housing as being preferable to subsidies. The issue of housing need among the higher income groups presents a different problem. Table 5-17 shows a considerable shortage of units in the appropriate cost ranges for these income groups. These households will compete with those of more moderate incomes for the available supply of moderate-income housing. While there is a surplus supply of housing in the middle income ranges, the price of such housing can be expected to rise if higher income households are competing for the same housing units. In addition, the lack of executive housing may be a factor limiting the success of the County in attracting new industry or other economic base activity. To address the issue of housing for the higher income groups, the.Residential Estates (RE) future land use designation has been introduced in the Future Land Use Element to encourage the private sector to meet this need. A third type of housing need, migrant farmworker housing, can be inferred from-comparing the known vacant seasonal and migratory housing units to the number of farmworker households. The 1980 Census showed 1,518 vacant seasonal and migratory housing units. Based on the "average" estimate of the farmworker population form Table 5-12, a high figure of an average of three workers per household, and all 279 agricultural workers counted in the Census being housed elsewhere, the housing deficit for migrant farmworker households is estimated to be at least 1,970 housing units. This deficit increases if the actual farmworker population is higher or if the average number of workers per household is lower. Housing Element Page 18 April 12, 1999 Of course, farmworkers participate in the general housing market, as well as finding shelter in units designed for seasonal or migratory occupancy, but there is a shortfall or Iow-income units likely to be affordable to these workers.. A second technique used to project Iow-income housing need, particularly for subsidized housing, was an indirect method using information from the Housing Authority of the City of Ft. Pierce 1986 Annual Report. This report stated that their Section 8 programs had 724 participants, with 1347 appliCants'on a waiting list. The Authority's public housing program had 850 participating public housing units with 338 applicants on a waiting list. Combined, these two public programs had 1574 tnts and 1685 waiting applicants. This yields a total of 3,179 households in St. Lucie County of the Occurs that h~ lists. :ified as needing public housing assistance in 1986, representing approximately 7.3% Ids in the County. As was stated earlier, a large percentage of this need ~et within the City of Ft. Pierce. This number might not be completely accurate in could be on the waiting list for both programs. Conversely, there may be qualify or would like to participate in these programs and are not on the waiting Another means of projecting future housing need is by analyzing likely income distributions in the future. Table 5-19 presents the results of that proiection. 'Tabie 5-19. Projected Households by Income Range 1990-2015, Unincorporated St. Lucie County , i ' Income Range 1980 % of Total'1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 . 2015 i L.T. $5,000 1657 11.33 2761 3270 3683 4034 4382 4505 $ 5001 7499 ' ~ 1293 8.83 2152 2557 2871 3144 3415 3511 , 7500 9999 1637 11.19 2727 3220 3638 3984 4328 4449 , , 10000- 14999 3096 21.16 5157 6107 6879 7534 8185 8414 ,i 15000 - 19999 2333 15.95 3887 4603 5186 5679 6169 6342 20000- 24999 1632 11.15 2717 32~ 8 3625 3970 4313 443 25000 - 34999 1700 11.62 2832 3354 3778 4137 4495 4620 , , 35000 - 49999 842 5.75 1401 1660 1869 2047 2224 2286 ,, 50000 + 441 3.02 734 869 979 1072 1164 1197 ' ' ' 0 ' 3~758~, Total 14631 100 24368 28858 32508 1 356 1 38675 sOUrce: 1980 U. $. Census; St. Lucie County Department of Community Development Housing Element Page 19 April 12, 1999 Role of tl~e Private Sector in Meeting Housing Needs This analysis of the housing need of the projected population assumes that there is no reason to believe that cost of rent and tenure should be any different in the future than the present distribution. Table 5-20 shows the resulting breakdown of housing units by type likely to be produced by the private sector through the year 2015. Low Single Family 596 1397 2165 2941 3788 4446 Less than 10,000 ' Multi~amily 701 ~ 643 2546 :3458 4455 5228 Moderate L°w Single Family 580 1359 2107 2863 3687 4328 $10,000- 19;999 Multifamily '' 682 1599 2478 3366 4341 5089 Moderate Single Family 383 1078 1670 22692923 3431 $20,000 - 49,999 MUlti family 541 1268 1964 2669 3437 4034 High single Family 50 116 180 2'45 315 369' $50,000 or more .. . M uitifam ily 58 137 212 277 371 434 Sub Total '~ ' ' Single Family 1686 3952 6125 8322 10719 125'80 Uuitifamily' 1983 4648 7203 9786 ' 12605 14794 " , ~ , Total ' All HouSing types 3669 8600 13328 18108 23324 27374 Source: 1980 U. S. Census Land Requirements for Future Housing St. Lucie County has developed in a rather orderly east to west development pattern. The coastal area, including Ft. Pierce, was the leader in County-wide development for a long time. In more recent years, Port St. Lucie has grown rapidly to assume a larger percentage of the County-wide population. Table 5-21 presents the historical relationship of the municipalities and unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. After a high in 1980 of 43.7% of the total population, the unincorporated County's portion is expected to decrease particularly as Port St. Lucie continues its high growth curve. ~ V~l I il I~ ~ ~''V~l~lVI I IVl~tlVl I~1 I1~1_ ~VtllV~l I IVV~lv~V~Vl I III1~1 li~ II I il I~ VV~I ll~ '~lllV ~l~V~lV The unincorporated area is anticipated to continue to grow although it will represent a slowly decreasing percentage of the total County. This translates into a decrease from a 40% share of the total 1970 County population to 28% by 2015. The two cities will share the remaining growth with a much larger proportion of the future population going to Port St. Lucie than to Ft. Pierce. Again, this could be conditioned by annexations. Housing Element Page 20 April 12, 1999 1960 14044 36.0 25250 64.0 39294 100.0 , 1970 20356 40.4 30479 59.6 50836 100.0 1980' . 38097 . 43.7 49085 ' 56.3 87182 . 100.0 1985 47706 41.0 68529 59.0 116235 100.0 SourCe: Regional prOfile, June, 1979,' TCRPC; i989 U. ~. Census; 1985 Florida StatistiCal Abstract, UF, ~_oo c~.,,.~..,.,..,~ !and -"='"'"'~""*° *"'" ....... ".""~*;~.! development !990-20! , ---~,v,v vv~,,,,. %.~,,,,,,vv, i.,v,,.,,.v~, n,v~.- ~'",1'~ . ~. r Hrt.~,,,,,.,,.~,.,,~,,,,,4 r,,.,, ,,.,,,, -1-988 -1-g-90 ~ onnn onn~ on.~ n on.~ · vvq.,I l&~ ~.-vvv ak. wv kY kV · V i I IVVI~,,4VI II, l~w4, l I---ff4,~l ~ -VV I V I VI4,~V~-- ~---Vl Ki.I i p .... ,o,,,-,,,-, 64226 69466 69266 77052 8402-0 0064-1- - ~ i~ ~,q 1114, i,i v i l · , Methods of Providing Sites to Meet Various Housing Needs Drnonnfh, C~f I ,,,'-;,', f"'n, ,hi,, h ,'~ n, ,n. kn~ ^~ n,,n,,n knrnno In,',ofn4 fkrn, ,nh Ut fhn f"n, ......... ~, .............. ~ , ,as,., , .......... ~, ,..,,,~ ..................... ~, ,0 .............. f,,'~ ooo,,r,', thor o,N,~n, ,of,~ o;~,~o ora os~o;Iohl,~ o nr,,'~nno,~N nrr4:nonn,~ s,w;ll h,', h,-~or~l ~.V q.,4,VV~,.,411~1~ I,.I 1~.4,& ~,4,1~.,4V~1~,4q..~&V ll,,,~l&V1,,,~ &,.4,1V ~,.,4,1~,,.4,11~.,4,&.,~IV} ~ ~J~IV~,,~VVV%.4 VIUIII~..4,11VV I11 &,,~V I IV~,4,1%,,4 ~,~.~' ~1 IV ~V~IU I ty r,~,~.,~.~oo;~.~.o ~. early ~ ann T~o ~.~o~a ~.a~.o~ ;o ~a~,~a o~,~, ~o~,~, 89_3~o vi la IV ~ll~ VI I avl I~ I V~I ~ll l~ il IV Vlkl Vi ~a VM~ I IVl a iv~ ~1 iM IV~VI V~l V l~Vlll&lVVl I I I lVl I ~V~kV~J &'" IV VI II l~l IVV IIVU'I~ ~ V ~1 V~ I IVV ~V ~ ~Vl S I ll~kV~ ~VV la I '~ll I VVl VI Ikl l p,.,,;;..+k~ .-~,,;.~ ,~.;.;,~., ,~ o.o~;., h~+,.,~. +k~ k.~o oo op~;~;~ int IVVIVII I~ ~I IV IV~IIVV lllll lllll~lll V~VII l~ ~V~IVVVI I ~l IV I IVIIIV~I ~ ~ VVIIIVV I I I l III~II I~ IIIVVi I '~I ~IIVlIIIVIV~ ~I IVVV l~Vlll~IVV ~IV ~IV~VVVV ~V VVlIVI~IVI I~I ~ VV Housing Element Page 21 April 12, 199~ · Il IVIV~k,4,~,~ffV~,4 Ik4Vl I~dll&d~ Vlk4&V &l 11~' ~,dfl ~ldll Il& Vlk,IFN,;& VI Ik,~lVlfl~dlll l~ I,,4,1IIVI ll&IVV Vlkl4VI I lk,4~,,; IVVIVIw4,&IVI llk4, l 'th,. r,,.,, ,,,,,, ,.,il, o,o,, ~o;,,,o;,, o ,,,,..,,,y_~;,,,, ,,..-..-,,, Io5o. L~ o, ,,,-', ,o ,,~ vacant ,o,,,~ ,~,.,o;,,,,o,.,~ for ,.o;,~,,,,,;o, ,,o,. ,,~, ,~,,-. =u*' ,re ' o,,,~ ,,o,~ Map o"'~ ;~,o;,~.. ,~,..., ,,~,o~, ~,,,..;,,., ~,...o ,.,,.,, ,,,~o,,, 11 1&,4,1 ~4,11 ~4,~4~,~I~&,~&~,~F ~11Vl~,~.~ N,~I&~.~P~ IVl IVll I I~A I~.~1~4,1. I~F I i iVI~4N,~III~ I~J ~.~l~11~,,4, iI~,? 1~,4,1 I~4,11 &llll1~,~1~i~ · %1 I,-,oo.~ cnn, ,~lls, fh~ nl~n oh,~, ,I,-I i~,-, ame,.,~,.,a ,,., nr,-,,,ia,-, f,-,r thio o, ,mi, ,o ;f .I.h,-~ o, ,mi, ,o 'Folio Means of Providing Infrastructure, Conserving Housing, and Eliminating Substandard Housing Housing Element ' ' Page 22 ' ' April 12, 1999 - I I ~11 ~I~VVk~II~I~ ~ll k ~IV IVV~kV~ ~1 V IIVII~IVIIk IIV~VI VVl~Vl~klVII I~111 ~ll I I~kV IIII I · kV I I III I ~;onl'o~H .,111 h~ r~l~of~ f~ ~ nlf th~ I Iii Il I ~ i I IVV~V vv~v} Ul I~ ~vvv I IV~ vvvl il i vvl~vI It il I~1 ~J~VIV~ IVl II II1~1 I I VI ~, v~,,, ,~v,] ~, ,v ,, .,.. v, I I II.Iv ~tvvIvI llllViIvIIIVllil I iVVVl~ll I~ tv ~~1 i II I I ~vv ~lV~ll I I~IVI] ~v i iiIIIIVI I I r~o;~t;o~ h,,;~4;~ p~it o~;,,;~,, ,~v ~o~ ;~ St ~ ,,~;~ ~,,~+,, =0~ fh~ oom~ s,~or o,AO~ iV~l~Vl i'M~i ~1 ~ /vvl~Vl'lSl~l ~11 ii1~ ~Vlllllk~ re1VlV I~V~V~' I ~'I~V II IVVV1 ~lVi~llll~kVl:] ~VV~V IIIIIII VI I'· IV I the II I~ IIV~V ~11 ~ vvIIkl~V~ VVll~l~V~lVII vVIIl~lllVV ,VVl~llkl~l vvIIV~l~V~lVII V~llllll~ i~1~11 vkl I VVII~MMVMVl ~rn;nn~ Th~ fin,,r~D ;nN;~f~ fH~ r~D;N~nf;~l ~nnD+r,,~f;nn ;D ~ m~;nr~nr~ ;n +N~ qf I ..~;~ ~llllll~V.. I II v II~l'V~ lll~lV~v MI iVVl~VIIkl~l VVll~l~VUVll IV ~ iil~jVl IVlVV iil kll~ vk. Cou~*y ~nemy. Housing Element Page 23 April 12, 1999 C tho tv ~""~'"'~ ~'' ~,,h,,,o,,, ~ 959 Th,-, ! !n.,.oin:n A..fhnrif,, nf th,', i_*~_, ~f Et Diary,', ./.~... ri ~. ~.,..,~ ~. . .... r0fit ,,, ,h~i,., ,.,,.,,.,.,,.,,.ofi,.,,., ,.,,.,.,o+,.,4 ,,,.,,.i,.,,. th,., ~o,,o ,.,f th,., c~,o,,., ,.,~ ~,.,,,;,4o Thc /~,,,h,.,,-~,,, Soo f;,;.-, p ~ l~.~lll.4K,,/rll~l~ ~,l~q~.~l Iv,/~,.~l Ib,4dl, lql.~l I VI V~,,4,1, V~ ~141 lqll~Vl &l IV I~4,11N./ VI Ill IV V~--.J-&V ~.,~I I avl Iq~41,14, i I I · lql.,4l, l iVl IL,~r I I~4,~,/ ~,~'VlIIIIII~,,/~,~IVlIVlN.~j l~4'~l~'~vll ll'q~ I I I I ~irV I IIII .il' lll~4, dyVl Vl I I,~ I I IVV. I IIV I I~,41, I lq~lll,.y IV I,,4,~411111111~,.;I, VlV~,.I li~.~r I~4,11 I~LI,.,~I~Vll ll.q',.~-,4 s--.I~kVVI~,41,1VV I,~IlVVl. Vl · I II I~IIIII~,,4,1,~ l~li,,il VN./V I I,I I~.- -~ l~ll. llVlllld~ II*,./ i,V ~4VVVlV~I &,~ll'lll II~"/I'~'?II ~,I I~,,4 lllqi..4,11 l&l,,~ll I l~411--~llV I IV~'414,'/II I~ N,4,11~,4 qi~VVI. IVl I V I IVqi,.4Nd~ll I~ IVl I~.~VI~,/Vl IL Housing Element Page 24 April i2, 1999 RECREATION AND OPEN ~SPACE ELEMENT ST. LUCiE COUNTY INTRODUCTION The Recreation and Open Space Element presents a review of the current recreation facilities and oppo.~rtunities in ~St. Lucie Coun~ and includes Level of Se~ice Standards and Goals., Objectives and Policies designed to assist the County in meeting the furore recreation needs of its residents and visitors. Recreation facilities are important components of a community's physical development pattern. They contribute to the attractiveness of the area, as well as the health and well-being of its citizens. St. Lume County . location along the Atlantic Ocean provides abundant water-oriented recreational opportunities. 'However, it is important that the County provide and maintain a range of recreational facilities and open space areas for all persons having ~diverse recreational interests and needs-, and not focus all of its efforts on water and water related activities. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CONDITIONS The St, Lucie COunty Leisure Services Department operates facilities and conducts programs throughout the COunty. These activities are conducted at County-owned recreational facilities which are under ~the management of the Leisure Services Department. Several park facilities within the .City of Ft. Pierce are under.the maintenance responsibility of the City; however, program administration has, through an interlocal agreement, been delegated to the County. The City of Port St. Lucie operates and maintains their own. park facilities and programs. In addition to the local facilities, the State of Florida owns/operates/administers considerable recreational acreage within the 'County. · Additional recreation opportunities are available at various school sites within the County. In one instance, joint facilities have been developed. In other cases, the public may use school facilities; during non-school hours without any formal agreements in place. Current Classification System Recreational facilities in St. Lucie County have in the past been loosely grouped into the following categories: o Pocket Park o Neighborhood Park o Community Park o Regional Park o Beach Access Facility o Open Space o School Facility o Special Facility June 28, 1999 9-1 RECREATION These categories have generally been patterned to follow the class groupings established .by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA). Inventory of Existing Facilities Table 9-1 summarizes existing recreation and open space facilities owned, operated, and within mmntmncd by St. Lucie County, as well as 'those facilities operated by the State of Florida the County. The location of the facilities listed in Table '9-1 is indicated on Map 9-1. This inventory was.compiled by 'the iSt, Lucie County Department of Leisure Services and the St. Lueie County Department of Community Development. Table 9-1 further classifies these.recreational.facilities as either resource or activity based. Resource based facilities are those recreatiOn facilities which are based on a natural, historic, or archaeological resoume. These facilities Usually offer relatively passive forms of recreation, such as hiking, museum or historic site tours, etc. Activity based recreation facilities usually have specific facilities for active recreation, such as athletic fields, ball diamonds, tennis courts, or swimming access-points. As Table 9--1 indicates, . St. Lucie County is responsible for the-supervision of 1,321.4 acres of activity based recreation and'open space lands. Regional resource based parks, which include the Environmentally significant Lands purchased pursuant to the 1994 bond issue, total 11668 acres. Community Parks: Within the County, Community Parks total 359.9 acres. The Do!!man Beach site is the largest community park at 143.7 acres. Other large community pinks include: Pepper BeaCh (52.4 acres); Walton Rocks (24.0-acres); ~ite City Park (17.0 acres); and South Causeway Island (16,6 acres). The smallest community park is the Walton Community Center with 0.9 acres. Neighborhood and Pocket Par'ks' Sixteen facilities totaling 58.0 acres have been classified as Neighborhood Parks. These include: Blind Creek Access/Beach (14.0 acres); indian River Estates Park (9.0 acres); Maravilla Park (6.1 acres); Sheraton Plaza Recreation Park (5.7 acres); and the North 25th Street site (7.3 acres). Bryn Mawr Access-(Beach), with 1.3 acres, is the largest of the County's seven pocket parks. June 28, 19.99 9-2 RECREATION Table. FACILITIES ANC Facili' Botannical Pierce Amphi- Boat Camp .Museum Theator . Ramp . Sites Trails !~ ~--- "'i." ........ "'.~' ;- .... '.' ' ' '... ·..'.' f, ,. . .~ i--- '~ ..... . ' :'~" .'~ "~.'~ . -'~"- - -.";'.' . it:' ' ' '""'"" ' '"''"'" ' '"'"' ' "~'~" - - I~ i II!' ~ .... .--~. .~ .... ','."',.. , . .. ,f-,- . ..." .... ,. '-~".. , ,.. ...,,.... ...... ~,'*''y, ._ , ,, , , '",,"'-', , . ,-,..-. · , ~.. -...:. ,, . .... t ___ ,_...- ....... . ..... . .'".',, . ..... . '-Facilities: Recreation T~ FACILITIES .Fac Neighborhood Parks Park North 25th Area Exchan Herma Middle ~rk Access ove Access Access Pocket Parks Collins Park Mawr cess Access Access Flamin o Blvd. ,C Amphi- Museum Theater 'Boat Recreation Table I FACILITIES AND! Map Amphi- Boat Camp Facil Theater Sites Regional Facilities R1 Jack Island State Preserve Resource B~.. ~ 3 R2 Ft. Pierce Inlet State Rec. Resource B~. ..... , ~ ,,. ..... ,, -.-.-. R3 Avalon Tract Resource B~.. ' R4' -John BrOoks Park Resource BI.. .,. ..... .,,.. ,,,, ..., -, ,,, , ,. , . .... ~ .,! ~ ''o .;,, , . ;'',,° . ..... ,.. , . .... R5 South Savannahs Resource , ~ , .... . ,, ~ . . ~, ,,. . R6 -Savannahs,Rec. Area Resource B~. ...... 1 68 2 , .. R7 ... St. Lucie.Pinelands ..... _._ , , , R8 Igleha~ R9 'Spruce-Bluff R 10 Walton SCrub R 11 Avalon l Subtotal: I '! ..... - "1 I ' 1 'es"'i, s C. ommunity Parks Cl .~ Elks Park , Activity B~ C.. / Frederick Douglass Mem. Resource E~. Horatio Grisby Activity Ba. C4 Lakewood Park ~ Activity B~ C5 ' Lincoln, Park Comm Cntr Activity. B~. C6 Open Space Baseball Area , Activity .......... C7 Spo~sman's Park West Activity B~. C8 So. Beach Boardwalk Resource ~ ~ . ,' , , , -., ,, .. .... ,. , C9 Walton Community Cntr Activity BasL . . . ;, ,~, . . , , . , , r · , ., ...... . .... . .... ...,.. C10 , Walton RockS Beach Resource Cl 1 White City Park ReSource E ...... 1 C12 White City Sch. Rec. Area Activity B{. , . , - . , ,~ . , ::-., . ,--.- . , · .... . .... C13 Pepper Beach Resource _ , . .... . , ,,, -.-.~ Cl,4 Dollman Beach Resource .......... .... . ~ ,,- *"-.,. ,, · .... .,, ..... ~.~.. C15 Indian River Veterans Mem Activity B~. Yes 1 . , , . , ..... , , ..... , , - .... C16 NoKh Causeway Island Activity B~ ..... 2 , , ........... .Cl;7 South Causeway Island ' Activity B~ 2 l Subt°tai:'i .......... I ',' ! ! I o I 0 June 29, 1999 Recreation Beach Access: Beach access facilities are important recreation opportunities in St. Lucie County. Altogether, 50,126 linear feet of beach frontage are available. The linear feet of beach .frontage for these facilities is listed'in Table '9-1. Special Facilities: Special facilities provide 121.0 acres of recreational and cultural opportunities. This category includes a diversity of facilities, such as the St. Lucie County ' Sports Complex, the Library, the Old ~FortSite, the' Civic Center, ~and the Heathcote Botanical Gardens. · Table 9-1 also includes ~an idemification of the special features for each recreation facility indicated. For example, the County has 3'3 ball:fields; 51 recreational courts (tennis, basketball, racquetball, etc.); two swimming pools; 92 shelters; picnic tables; grills; recreation centers; community centers; museums;-an amphitheater; 8 boat ramps .(slips); 68 camp sites; three major trails; and over 16,'000: linear feet of public beach. These County facilities ~are supplemented by city, .state, and private facilities as shown in Table 9-2. The City of'Ft. Piem.e provides 13.3.7 acres.of parks and 17.2 acres of special facilities. Port St. Lucie'operates 321.~8 acres of parks. The-State of Florida owns five major parks: o Jack Island State Park (958.0 acres) o Ft. PierCe Inlet State Recreation Area (250,0 acres) o AValon Tract (571 acres) o South Savannas (4855 acres) o John Brooks Park (406.8 acres) In Table 9-7, the .acreage for.the North-Savannas and the Lawnwood Recreation Sports ComPlex have been included under Regional Parks. Open Spaces: Several of the .recreation facilities mentioned above have been classified as open space areas. Open space_areas are undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. In 1994 the citizens of St. lucie County approved a 20 million dollar bond issue to purchase environmentally significant lands for preservation and passive recreational uses. The County has been able to leverage that amount into 40 to 60 million dollars of purchasing power, primarily through funding partnerships with state agencies funded through the P2000 program. Significant areas.have been purchased along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, on Hutchinson Island, in the Saw~nnas, and in the ~westem portion of the County. These areas are listed in Table 9-1. June 28, 1999 9-7 RECREATION TABLE 9-2 OTHER PARKS AND ~C~ATION FACILITIES IN ST. LUCiE COUNTY Jurisdiction 'Port St. Lucie Subtotal: Ft. Pierce Subtotal: F_acility Name Sportsman's Park 16.0 PSL Rec Center 1,0 Swan Park 6.5 Harborview Park 4.8 Jaycee Park 6.2 Kiwanis Park 3.8 Rotary Park 5.5 Lyngate Park 16.0 Doat Street Park 2.4 Rivergate Park 28.0 Loyalty Park 0.7 Windmill Park 6.0 Regional Park 200.0 Thornhill Park 20.9 PSL Community Center IRCC 4.0 321.8 Coon Island 54.0 St. Lucie.County BeaCh Access .3 Avalon Ave. Beach Access .2 Northwest Pioneer's Park 17.0 Porpoise Ave. Beach Access .3 Gulfstream Ave. Beach Access .3 Bu!Iine Park .2 Jaycee Park 14.0 Surfside Park 3.3 Dreamland Park 17,0 N. 10th Street Site 1.2 Ft. Pieme City Marina 7.0 7th St. park 3.5 Coconut Dr. Beach Access .8 8th St. Park .7 Goodwin Botanical Garden 3.5 Lawnwood Terrace 1.7 Weston Boyd Memorial Park .3 Pinewood Park 3.1 Hayes Road Park .3 29th St. Park 1.9 Rotary Park 5.5 HideaWay Park 2.3 Eldorado Terrace 3.8 .Garden Terrace 4.8 Park Terrace .5 Wildwood Terrace 1.0 South Jetty Park 2.4 150.9 June 28, 1999 9-.8 RECREATION In addition to the abOve, the State of Florida operates a combined resource/activity based facility known as the Ft. Pierce Inlet State Recreation Area. This facility, in conjunction with the Jack Island Preserve accounts for an additiOnal 1,200 acres with another 2,700 liner feet of ocean front protected. The Indian River Lagoon, from Vero Beach to Jensen Beach, (exclusive of the Port of Ft. Pierce), and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River are identified as Outstanding Florida Waters. These bodies of.water represent a vitally unique resource/activity based recreation resource to the community. FOr the purposes of this element .these .areas are considered as 'open space. Further elaboration on them in regard to their environmental and economic influenceS on the community can be .found in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of this Comprehensive Plan. . School Facilities: The playgrounds-and sports activity areas found at the community's schools provide excellent recreation opportunities on a neighborhOod service level. The St. Lucie County School Board operates 32 schoOls; five high schools,, five middle schools, and 19 elementary schools. In addition, there are three exceptional education centers. Public access to the high school grounds and their potential for'use as recreational facilities is presently restricted due to security fencing but could be made. available for the public. With the exception of a few sites within the City of Ft. Pierce, other CounW School FaCilities are not fenced leaving their open areas available for public use during non-school hours. St. Lucie County and the School Board have constructed lighted tennis and basketball facilities as well as a lighted softball/little league field at the White City Elementary School Site. Through the construction of the new White City school, the field was shortened so that use as a softball field is not recommended. The ..field is adequate for little league practice. These facilities are utilized by the students during the school houm and are then available to the general public for league softball and 'other activities. Primary maintenance of the recreation facilities is the responsibility of the County. Development of neighborhood parks suCh as this represents a viable, land efficient method for meeting the community's neighborhood park needs. Other Primary Recreation Facilities: Golf courses are an important component in the recreational activities of both resident and visitor to the South Florida region. Them is presently one public golf course (Fairwinds) in the County, There are also 12 private golf courses which, depending upon the season, permit general public play. Table 9-3 identifies the existing golf courses and whether public play is permitted. The St. Lucie Sports Complex, located in Port St. Lucie, and the auditorium at Indian River Community College in Ft. Pierce are under the special facility category. These facilities are available to the public, through leasing agreements, for concerts, special promotion events, June 28, 1999 9-9 RECREATION productions, ball camps and other spOrting events. In addition to public facilities, .St,. Lucie County has a number of large developments that have private recreational facilities such.as golf courses, tennis courts, pools, and trails. Most residential development projects that use the Planned Unit Development zoning furnish some type of recreational facilities for 'their residents. These facilities satisfy some.proportion of the total recreation demand for the residents of these communities. TABLE 9-3 ST. LUCIE COUNTY GOLF COURSES Spanish Lakes Golf 9 Village Spanish Lakes County Club Village :Savannah Club I8 Pantherwood 18 Harbour Ridge PGA Village Island Dunes Indian Pines Indian Hills 3'6 X 36 2 I 2 1 X 1 · 1' Seasonal play denotes Short term memberships (summer or winter) and the ability to play the course on a daily greens fee only basis. Membership not always required but nonmembers must defer to members for scheduling of available time. . Course developed in conjunction with private residential community. Course operation not always associated with .residential developments, however access to clubhouse facility often through securi .ty controlled community entrance. Source: St. LuCie Coun~ Leisure Services and Community Development Departments June 28, 1999 9-10 RECREATION NEEDS ANALYSIS SerVice Population Projections: St. Lucie County has not conducted any surveys on the present demand for recreation and open space facilities. In order to ~assess the present need for these facilities, ratios have been used which are based in part upon national ~ and in part upon the desired standards of the St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory Board. Population estimates and projections for St. Lucie County from the year 1990 to~2010 are shown in Table 9-4. For the' pu~oses of this Plan, the furore recreation demand relative to neighborhoOd and community parks are based upon the unincorporated County population only. The furore recreation demand relative to .regional facilities and open space is based upon the County population as a whole. However, it is recognized that interlocal agreements and coordination be~een the County and the Cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie will enhance the recreational opportunities for residents throughout the County. TABLE 9-4 1990 A~ PROJECTED POPULATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FT. PIERCE, PORT ST. LUCIE, AND S'T. LUCIE ~VILLAGE , Jurisdiction Unincorporated County Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie St. Lucie Village Total , Estimated 1997 Population 63,058 Projected 2005 Population 72,765 37,210 111,571 37,484 , 77,985 606 , 179,133 602 , 222,148 , Projected 2010 Population 77,402 '37,097 130,452 594 245,545 Source: 97 ~Florida Estimates of Population - University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Shimburg Center for Affordable Housing June 28, 1999 9-11 RECREATION As Table-9,4 indicates, tt~ total County-wide permanent population is expected to increase from 179, I33 in 1997 to 245,545 by the year 20'10, an increase of 37%. The uninco~orated areas of the COunty are expected, to account for 31.5% or'the total population. However, in the short term planning period from 1997 to 20015, the unincorporated County population is expected to climb from '63,05.8 to 72,765, an increase of 15.4%. It should-be noted, that for the purpose of this Plan, only the permanent population estimates are being utilized. Seasonal population influences on the County's recreational services have historically occurred when the 1.ocal demand/use for those facilities is at its lowest. Stated simply, the local population does not use the beach a lot in the winter and.the ~seasonal visitor does not use the softball fields in ~the summer. So long as this trend continues, .and St. Lucie County foresees no changes in the seasonal visitation patterns for this area, the permanent population estimates will be those utilized for determining facility needs. Recommended Classification System In November, 1987, the 'St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory .Board developed an updated classification system fOr recreational space. The County is not proposing changes to ~the existing system. The classification-system provides the basis'for determining furore level of.service standards. The system as approved by the Recreation Advisory Board has 'three major categories which in mm have been further broken dOwn into subcategories as follows' Local Recreation~ Spaces: Recreational facilities that serve a limited population size and tlhat are located close to residential areas. Ae Mini-P~irk: Specialized area designed to serve'-a specific group, function, or activity, and' having a service area radius of .25 miles and a desirable size of 1 acre. gl Neighborhood Recreation Area: Area for intense and diverse recreational activities which may include, but are not limited to, field games, court games, sportfields, playground apparatus areas, picnic areas, landscaping and gardens, .or senior citizen areas, and having a service area radius of .5 miles and a desirable size of 5 acres. Community Recreation Area: An area that provides a diverse range of recreational and leisure activities or contains areas of environmental or aesthetic quality, and that has a service area radius of 10 miles and a desirable size of 10 acres. Facilities and activities may include, but are not limited to, athletic fields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, performing and design art centers, crafts June 28, 1999 RECREATION 9-12 buildings, and any facilities associated with neighborhood or mini-park recreation areas. II. Regional Recreation Spaces: Area' of aesthetic or natural quality that are designed to serve a regional or metropolitan population. Ao RegionaVMetropolitan Recreation Area: Area providing facilitieS designed for outdoor recreation and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, boating, fishing, :or camping; bicycle, hiking, or horse trail systems; botanical gardens, .nature centers, or zoo or husbandry centers; museums; performing and desi~ art centers; ~and activities included under community neighborhood, or mini-park .recreation areas. ~ea typically has a semite area of 60 miles and a deSirable .size of 100 ~acres. Outdoor ReServe Recreation Area: Area primarily-designed-with consideration for outdoor recreation and nature preservation, including, but not limited to, areas for viewing and. studying .land, aquatic, or avian wildlife, conservation activities, swimming, hiking, camping, trail facilities, nature centers, or botanical .gardens. Area typically has 'a se~ice .area radius of 60 miles and a desirable size of 500 acres, with the majority of the area preserved and managed in its natural environment. III. Ijhiaye Recreation Spaces, Either Local or Regional: .Spaces developed for unique recreational activities or .for a single recreational activity. Special Recreation Areas/Facilities: Areas designed for a single purpose or specific recreational ~ and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, activities such as zoos, conse~atories, golfcourses, gun or archery ranges, outdoor theaters, historic Sites, marinas, botanical gardens, athletic complexes, or water spots. The se~iCe area and desirable facility size may vary. Be Conse~ation/Open Space Area: Area preserved and managed to protect its natural environment or aesthetic quality, or'to protect health, safety, and welfare by providing open spaces between roadways or development, with recreation and leisure activity serving as .a secondary function. Linear Recreation Area: Area developed to provide travel routes for one or more types of recreational '.or human-operated vehicles, such as horseback riding, bicycling, hiking, jogging, or motorcross riding. 12). Waterfront Recreation Area: Area that is designed primarily for.aquatic-related recreation and leisure activities and that abuts rivers, lakes, lagoons, or saltwater bodies. June 28, 1999 9-13 RECREATION . '2. Beach ~AcCess Area: Area developed to provide access to waterfront areas. Service area and desirable park size can vary. Activity Area: Waterfront area providing recreation and leisure activities or:facilities that may include, but are not limited to, swimming, water sports, boating, sUnbathing, picnicking, playground apparatus, dressing rooms and showers, boat ramps and docks, boardwalks and pavilions, or concession stands. Level of Service Standards In order to establish an appropriate level of service-.standard for each class of facility, national standards and standards for :other communities in southeast'FlOrida were reviewed. Integral to the level of.se~iee :is .the base year population on which to .set the service standard. For the purpose of this Plan, the year 1997 has been establiShed as the base year.. The estimated 1997 population, as provided~by the St. Lucie County .Department of Communiey Development' for the identified recreational .facilities is as follows.: FACILITY TYPE Neighborhood Park '~ "' , ,, · , , · , , ~ ,, ,,,. . ,,., , Community Park Regional Park SERVICE POPULATION 52,280 52,28'0 128,54'1 The extent to which level of se~ice standards are met for the current population was. determined,- as-was the demand .for. additional :facilities to serve the projected populations for the initial planning period ending, in the year 2005 and the second planning period ending in the year 2015. The res.ults of this analysis serve as the basis for the determination of fi~ture recreation demand. · The methods of funding :the sho~ term needs, 2005,are addressed in the Capital Improvemems Element. Table 9-5 indicates the desired level of service standards for recreational facilities, in St. Lucie County, As a guide in planning recreation and open space standards, it is imperative that a basic determination be made as to. the level of service considered to. be appropriate, desirable, and affordable by a given community. Such level of service standards represent a significant policy statement within 'the Comprehensive Plan and provide an orderly basis for a land acquisition and facility development program which responds -to increases in a community's population. June 28, 1999 9-14 RECREATION TABLE 9-5 DESIRED OUTDOOR RECREATION STANDARDS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Facility .Standard Per Site Service Area 1000 Population Size Radius Persons Served Local: Mini Parks no standard 1,0 acre .25 miles no standard Neighborhood Parks .5 acres 5.0 .acres 0.5 miles up to 5,000 Community Parks 5-0 acres 10.0 acres 10,0 miles up to 4,000 Regional' Regional Parks 5.0 acres 100 acres 60 mil:es no standard Open Space Reserves no. standard 500 acres 60 miles no standard Special Purpo.se: Special Recreation Areas/Facilities Conservation/Open Space Areas Linear Recreation ~eas Waterfront Beach Access Waterfront Activity Area no standards no standards no standards n o standards no standards Source: St' Lucie County Department of Community Development June 28, 1999 9-15 RECREATION TABLE -9-6 ~COMMENDED PARKS & RECREATION- FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD 5 AC. PER 1000 POP./CO~T~IDE '5 AC. pER 1000 SERVICE ~A POP.' .9 ACi PER !000 sERVICE ~A pOp. June 28, 1999 9-'16 RECREATION 'Stuart 'e t . ' News tion of 'The Stuart NeWs) JUL t9 199,9 COM~UNI'~' DEVELO?MENT SL LUCIE COU~T'~,~ FL STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARTIN- COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE: Before the undersigned authority appeared ~ KATHLEEN N. PRITCHARD ...... who on oath says that he/she ACCT$ REC. MANAGE, R ....... of The Stuart News, and The Port St. Lucie News, a daily newspaper Published at Stuart in Martin County, Florida, t, hat thffT~~~et~~Al~~:~v~)~~ment, being a ..... -,,, , in the matter of ............... ' ............. , , , in the ............... Court, was Published in The Stuart ~~s~q~he Port St. Lucie News in the issues of ,, ..... , ........ t Affiant 'further says that the said The Stuart News and The Port St. Lucie News is a newspaper published at Stuart, in said Martin County, Florida with offices 'and paid circulation in Martin County, Florida, and St. Lucie County, Florida and that the said newspaPers have heretofore been continuously published in said Martin County, Florida and distributed in Martin County, ]Florida and St. Lucie County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he/she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this ;advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Stuart News has been entered as second class matter at.the post office :in Stuart, Martin County, Florida, and Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie ,County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of :advertisement. ;Sworn to and subscribed before me this, 2NF) day of JULY .A.D. 1999 .......... ~' /)" '/Q ' , (Seal) Notary Pub JUN-25-1999 10:59 FORT PIERCE NEWS 561 460 9588 P. 02 234471 2x6 6t28 SL County -Composite NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St.. Lucic County Loca! Planning Agency proposes to review ~hc Future Land Usc; Co. mi ~anagemcnt; conservation; Trahspormtion; Reclcation and Open Space; Housing; Economic ~velopmcnt; uno Inmrgove~cntal Coo~ination Elements of ~ St, Lucia County Comprehensive A P~LIC i-IE~ING ~ :,~is ma~et will ~ held before thc St. Lucie C~nty Local Planning Agency' on ~ursday, July 8. 1999. at 7:00 P.M. or as soon ~ercaflcr as Possible, ~n Room i{}I, St. Lucic Cowry Adminis=ation 23~ Virginia Av=nue. Ft. Pigrce, ~. Mattcrs .afl, ting yom ~onal and property ~ghts may be he~ and ac-sd upon. Ail inggs~ ~rsons =c invigd ~ attend and bo hea~. written comments received in advance of ~e public hea6ng wit! also ~ hoard. Th= pu~e of fl~is public hearing i~ ~ amend ~e St. Luci= County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of '~ proposed elem=n~, am a?ilabt~ for gv~w i~ ~he_offi~c ~[.the Coinmunity ~velopment Dimout, St. Lueie ~o~t.y Aamimstrauon ~uuomg. 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Piece. ~-, during mgu. Iar ~i~ss hours. Amendmen~ to ~ proposed elemen~ may be m~e at fl~= public hearing. If any person decides m appeal any decision mad~ w-ith respect to any mater conSi~logd at ~e meeting-= 6r hea6ngs of any boarq, commitlees, commissions. agency, ~.ouncil or adviso~ group, ~at ~rson will need a reco:td of p~c~dings and that, for s~ch pu~oses may need to onsu~ that a ve~a6m ~cord of ih= pr~eeaings is mad=. which racom s~uld include {he testim~y and. evidence up~ which ~e appc.~l i~ to be has'ed. Upon. t~ gquost of any party to '~ pmccgding, individuals gstifylng during a h6=ing will ~ sworn in. ~ny party t6 fl~e pr~o~di.ng wiD,b~, grated an op~rtunity to cross-=x~miae any in<t~V'~dual ~stifying during ~ he~ing upon ~que~t. This notice dared and execu~d this 23~ day of June, 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUC~ COUNTY, ~ORIDA /S/Diana W~sloski, Chai~an PUBLISH DA~: June 28, 1999 TOTAL P. 02 ~~t JoA0~;I Ril~ -' 7/8/~J9 ' From: To: Date: Subject: JoAnn Riley I :dcooper~__,link.freedom.com, I:stefko@stuartnews.c... Wed, Jun 23, 1999 1:15 PM 7/8/99 Comprehensive Plan Please fax a proof. Publish Date: June 28, 1999. Thanks. NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; EConomic DeVelopment; and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the St. Lucie COunty Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on Thursday, July 8, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lu¢ie County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include 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. This notice dated and executed this 23rd day of June, 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /SI Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: June 28, 1999 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to: St. Lu¢ie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 ~,I joAnr~i Rile~; Send Bill to: Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on Thursday, July 8, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property fights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public heating will also be heard. The purpose of this public heating is to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or heatings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include 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 heating will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an oppo~unity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. This notice dated and executed this 23rd day of June, 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: June 28, 1999 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to: St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone- (561) 462-1586 Fax- (561) 462-1581 Send Bill to' St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 FROM THE TR I BUNE E~i31E~9E~O 106 P_ 2 13-2z[- 19'99 8- Z~7AM NOTICE OF ST. LUClE COUNTY HEARINGS The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future. Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will bo held before the St. Lucia County Local Planning Agen .cy on Thursday, July 8, 1999, at 7:00 RM. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St, Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, R, Pierce, FL, Matters affecting your per- sonal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hear- ing will also be heard. 'l'he purpose of' this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucia County Comprehensive-Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in 'the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lu¢ie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. if any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hear- ings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, coun- cil or adVisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that: a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include 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 indi- vidual testifYing durHng a hearing upon request. This notice u ~=u and-executed this 23rd day of June, 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY' S%. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA tS/Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: June 28, 1999 BOARD OF CO'UNTY COMMISSION£'RS COMM U N-ITY DEVELOPMENT JULIA SHEWCHUK FAX# (561)4~62-1581 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM SENDER: JoAnn Riley PHONE NUMBER: 462-1586 COF~ENTS : Please fax a proof. Publish Date: JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. I · DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 · PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 · FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 · CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 ° Planning. (561) 462-2822 · GIS/Technical Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 · Fax: (561) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (561 ) 462-1529 · Fax: (561 ) 462-2132 :,~ joAn~ Riley - 7/8/99~~0m .P..rehens~ve From: To: Date: Subject: JoAnn Riley I:dcooper@link.freedom.com, I :stefko@stuartnews.c... Wed, Jun 23, 1999 1:15 PM 7/8/99 Comprehensive Plan Please fax a proof. Publish Date: June 28, 1999. Thanks. NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before, the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on Thursday, July 8, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lu¢ie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include 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. This notice dated and executed this 23rd day of June, 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ~SI Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: June 28, 1999 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to: St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 ~1JoAn'~ Rile~ - 7/8/99 0mp.,..rehens~ve Send Bill to: Phone - (561 ) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 St. LuCie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/F ax/Copier/Scanner Fax Histo, ry Repog for St. Lucie County Florida 4621581 Jun 23 1999 l:22pm Last Fax Date Time Jun 23 l'21pm Sent Identification 95950106 Duration Pages Resu!,t 1'41 3 OK Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax