ML20010H239

Forwards Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Comments on St Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.Comments Suggest Adequate Public Facilities Should Be Available Based on County Desired Level of Growth

ML20010H239
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/31/1981
From:	Baird T TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, FL
To:	Richter B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8109240255
Download: ML20010H239 (6)

Text

.

,/

/ -

... .t t.

.. '.. :nu-t.. . r u.q-1* ..

n: - ,mta go ,

t .

cc M:<,. , ,. r

- n.r.t u m.risc. _ .,..........

fb C!Uttwat LM C l  : + jmh O[Qrtn!rio.

. y<

COUrtCh o Uk/h' /h Aug'ust 31, 1981 !e[#pT/

% /

'b -

V c% e 9 l-Q, Of /) b 0,;. g, % //

/j ./

Mr. Bryan Richter / 'rY Nuclear Regulatory Commission Siting Analysis Mail Stop AR 5200 Washington, DC 20555

Dear Bryan:

Please find enclosed the Council.'s comments on the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. While the comments do not i specifically recommend density reductions, they do suggest l that adequate public facilities should be availab'e based on the County's desired level of growth.

If you have further questions, please call.

Sincerely, Wj Thomas J. Baird Regional Planner TJB:lb p o3 3

Enclosure

/

I I

i l

0109240255 810831 PDR ADOCK 05000389 H

. PDR

c: m:n t. e ce::y reh:t p. rr.r.:r

- 53 Dfred st c,2-r ~3n " .

c :,; man p o. t.:r 1375

\ su s1. rs-:i: 33475 t) et es j. h*;c'ns s: ,s% v on

. . . . .__..l p*.one_ (3:5) 105-1113

_ _ _ _ _ _$;r 't3'V 7'c5f *'__ _ , N**d*'__

.- (. c. Wie

~

COQJ(

' mhdin.0.E.1 S."f25.7 fG(= ODG! a ocemy.rm por. O-SFf.-

cum.u.c..:.m.m m.-Ae .r. d e,n m. ... ,w ,. w. C pd 1

j j a n j m n, g.

mrm#.w.

i u.umx.w.-a.,.ww ,,

CQUna Harch 24,1981 The Honorable Edward G. Enns, Chairman St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners f 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Chaiman Enns:

3 Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Goverra:ent. Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, Council reviewed the proposed Growth Management Policies Plan for St. Lucie County at its regular meeting on March 20.

m The following cc.nnents ' were approved by Council for for.1arding to the County Commission for consideration prior, to adoption of the, Plan. -

I - 1. P,cquired Elements -

-)

The Plan contains policies dealing ~with'.all the element areas required by the Act, but.does not con.tain various -

sections that are clearly identifiable as elements. ^ '

i Although it contains policies in each of the required .

) element areas, the Policy Plan document may not meet ,

the specific requirements for most or all of the elements

, required by the Act. The Pla.n consists primarily of .

t '

policy statements and implementation strategies, many i - of which are similar in nature to policy statements. -

1 It'contains no background detail or inventory of I .i existing conditions which would highlight the problem l .

the Plan is designed to. address and which would provide .

8, . .

jus.t ification for the policies which are. contained in '

F the Plan. The document also lacks speci ficity in l .

, assessing the County's current and future needs in.

l ' various areas such as water, sewer, and recreation facili ties. . Further, there are no detailed recommenda-j 6

- tions as to how such needs will be met. .

l

- The Plan does make reference to alm ~ost two dozen

' background studies which are described as being used Many as input to the development of the Policy Plan.

I of these documents appear to contaic the type of j j I

I 1 I i

ac'= T- 5"S*'? -

• • • N .m'*'

i * -

4 t

..e.j 33,aea :..

I3.[,* ;!

~

p.o.to- 2375 thceos J. h*ss'at so.sshc.-ecn sh.M forMo 3M mr:tcq6tewest . c=w.Cw d:rscar

. ..#.* .WN.7M prees (37;i) 236 3313 - - - . a - . -

.u.... .

..,~ 3 . ;,*; ..~ ..~ _ - ,., ,, _ g 3 ,_ , . .

The Honorable Edward G. Enns, Chairman St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners March 24, 1981 Page Tuo background information, assessment of proble.

and needs, and identification of facilities required for the solution of problems and needs that are required for the various elements by the Act. However, this infomation does not appear in the Plan nor has it apparently been incorporated by reference into the Plan. As a result, each of the Plan's elements consist primarily of several policy statements. This approach appears to be inadequate to meet the specific requirements of the Act for many of the mandated elements.

. "Se Plan maps for the Sunshine /95 and Indrio areas cepict shaded contours around the County airport. ,

fio infomation is provided regarding these contours or their implication for' suitable land uses around the airport. In order to protect the future integrity .

of the airport and assure compatible development.around it, the County may wish to include detailed information regarding noise contours around the airport and develop policies dt. signed to prevent the development of incom-patible land uses within thes'e contours.

2. . Overall Requiremerits .

. The Plan does not contain any fiscal an'alysis as required by the t.t. Specifically, the Plan should contain fiscal proposals for any elements of the Plan that would require the expenditure.of public funds for capital improvements. The fiscal proposals should contain, at a minimum, the estimated cost of the improve-ments, a priority ' ranking relative to other proposed

~

improvements, and proposed sources of financing.

3. Regional Interests

. Two major objectives of the comprehensive planning .

process are to encourage coordination of the variou's elements of the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage coordination of planning efforts between units of.

government. To accomplish these, the Act requires that the several elements of the Plan be consistent with each other and that the Plan contain a specific 4

e _

. * * * =

be

. The Honorable Edward G.~Enns, Chairman St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners March 24,1981 Page Three policy statement indicating the relationship of .

the proposed development of the area to the plans of adjacent areas, the region c: the State. The St. Lucie County Policy Plan fails to meet both these requirements with respect to the future ,

development of Hutchinson Island. ,

Throughout the region there has been increasing concern over the proper management of growth on barrier islands. This concern has focused in large part on the question of adequate facilit:ies and access to the~ islands, along with a corollary issue -

of sufficient evacuation capability in the event of hurricanes or other disasters. Evidence of this -

concern by this Council has' been its actions I regarding the Hollingsworth project and its autho-rization of a barrier island study by Council staff .

for Indian P.iver County. -

l . * '

! The St. Lucie County Plan fails to recognize these ~

concerns with respect to thitchinson Island and to '

establish clear guidelines for addressing such' .

issues. In this respect, the Plan fails to analyze the impact of the proposed development of the Island -

on Indian P,iver and Martin Counties. Further, the Plan fails to adequately demonstrate that the Land -

Use and Traffic Circulation' elements are consistent ' ' ~

with each other with respect to developmerit of t*:e' Island. Both of these deficiencies are related to the failure of the Plan to anr.!yze the capacity of the existing facilities serving the Island to support -

existing and proposed future development; .

The recommendations and strategies of the Major Trafficways Plan do not indicate any proposed addi-tional bridge capacity to the Island. This appears .

to be contrary to the findings in the Plan for_

_Hutchinson Island and the Hutchinson Island Traffic Study, both of which served as input to the Policy Plan, that additional bridge facilities will be needed. -

The Hutchinson Island Traffic Study went so far as' to recomend no additional development should occur on the Island due to capacity restrictions. The Plan clearly fails to demonstrate that the proposed level of development on the Island is consistent with existing bridge capacity.

e e- e:vmm m@O.7 , sac 3 M

• O d d

• 0 Cm C OOe O OD eOC OO

The lionorable Ed ard G. Enns, Chairran

• St. Lucie County Board of Ccmmissioners March 24,1981 Page Four .

The Plan also fails to analyze the impact of the

• proposed level of development on Martin and St. Lucie Counties. There is no indica ~ tion that the levels of development proposed south of the Florida Power &

Light Nuclear Power Plant are consistent with the highway and bridge capacities in northern Martin County or that these facilities are adequate to evacuate the IslandFurther,in the event thereofisanohurricane indication or nuclear accident.

that the County's planning effort for the south part of the Island has been coordinated with Mar. tin

~

County's plans and policids.

The Plan also fails to analyze the impacts of medium, and high intensity urban uses proposed for the major Specifi-portion of the Island north of the Inlet.

' cally, fears that overdevelopment of the Island will .

overload evacuation facilities in Indian River County -

in the event of a major disaster are.not addressed (seeattachedcorrespondence). ~

St. Lucie County should modify its Plan to recognize -

the limitations of existing bridge access to the -

Island. Development of the Island should be limited to that which can be adequately acccmmodated by the existing facilities. If the County wish. to accomo-date a higher level of development, it shuuld ' adopt .

- specific plans to provide the additional facilities .

necessary to support that development. Any development '

beyond that which can be supported by existing facili-ties should not be allowed until those facilities can

• be expanded. The County should assure tha~t all parts '

of the Plan and all future actions are "Theconsistent County'will wi.th .

~

its general land use policies that:

encourage only the types, amounts, and intensities of

~

land development that are consistent with road capacities, available community facilities, and market demands..." .

4. Consistency with Regional Plans and Policies .

. The policies enumerated in th'e Plan are generally consistent with Council's adopted policies, with clearly enumerated exceptions as contained in this report.

m- - - .O.- .-- r. - r -~h -- :- .

. -: -- ~ -~ :_-_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . , . . . _ . . . .

'- ~ .

The Honorable Edward G. Enns, Chaim.an St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners l arch 24,1981 Page Five

. Coastal zone management policies should be addressed, with specific attention given to endangered animals, particularly the green turtle.

Attached are resolutions from Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach which were presented at the Council meeting by members of each governmental entity.

If you need additional information or have any questions, please not bestiate to contact me. .

Yours truly, .

%  ; ~ -

. f-~-Ja - ~ . _ e Sam Shannon . . .

Executive Director .

SS:cs -

Attachments ,

i .

e .

p f

F

• a 1

D i

1 3

1 1 ._

1 ,

c---------___.__________________ ,