Hutchinson Island, evaluation as a potential area of critical state concern Martin & St. Lucie Counties, Florida

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

DSP-BLP-C-4-10-74
THE FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL
LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT ACT
CHAPTER 380, FLORIDA STATUTES

HUTCHINSON ISLAND

Coastal Zone EVALUATION AS A POTENTIAL
Information
Center AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN

MARTIN & ST. LUCIE COUNTIES

FLORIDA

MARCH 1974
HC
107
.F6
H88
1974

BUREAU OF LAND PLANNING

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

L. K. Ireland, Jr., Secretary

DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING

Earl M. Starnes, Director

BUREAU OF LAND PLANNING

Robert M. Rhodes, Chief

AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SECTION

Howard Pardue
Senior Planner

Bernie Hyde, Jr.
Senior Planner

Dan Farley
Associate Planner

Ted Forsgren
Associate Planner

Jeff Loeding
Graphics

Mary Helen Sauer
Secretary

Suzy Lawrence
Secretary

DSP-BLP-C-4-10-74

HUTCHINSON ISLAND: EVALUATION
AS A POTENTIAL AREA OF CRITICAL
STATE CONCERN

MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA

MARCH, 1974

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING

BUREAU OF LAND PLANNING

This public document was
promulgated at an annual cost I
of $86.0.0 or $0.43 per copy i
to fulfill responsibilities
under Chapter..380, F.S.

ftoperty of CSC Library

The public ation of this document was
financed in part through a Comprehensive
Planning Assistance Grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
under the provisions of Section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Physical Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4
Environmental Features and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Existing Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7
Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

III. MAJOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Socio-Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Institutional . , , , , * * * , * * * , * * , * * * * * * * 11

IV. PROBLEM RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 General Location Map, Hutchinson Island . . . . . . . 5

2 Hutchinson Island and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . 6

HUTCHINSON ISLAND: EVALUATION
AS A POTENTIAL AREA OF CRITICAL
STATE CONCERN

I. Introduction

Based upon concerns expressed to the Division of State Planning and other

state agencies by local citizens groups and public officials, the Bureau of Land

Planning initiated a study of Hutchinson Island in Martin and St. Lucie Counties
to evaluate its potential.as an area of critical state concern.1 The study

included an enumeration and analysis of the natural and environmental resources

and public investments on the island, a survey of existing land uses and develop-

ment pressures and an [email protected]'@-ion of the authority of other state and local agen-

cies to deal with existInc and incipient land use and development density

conflicts.

The speci:@ic ccnccrns cited by interested private citizens and public

officials, include the following:

1. the need to protect the naturaland environmental resources,and functions

of the area from the adverse impacts of development;

2. the need to allow reasonable development and residential density on

Hutchinson Island in order to deal realistically with population pres-

sures and market values;

3. the need to protect existing and required future public investments in

facilities and services especially in transportation, water and sewer

systems and public safety, from the effects of rapid or uncoordinated

development of excessively intensive land use;

lSee Section 380.05, Florida Statutes.

4. the need to protect the Island's residents and resources from the

threat of hurricane flooding, since nearly all the developable land

on Hutchinson Island is in a hurricane flood zone;

5. the need to coordinate existing local efforts to meet the foregoing

problems in a manner which reflects the Island's physical structure

and needs as well as its political boundaries.

Conclusions

The preliminary study indicates that local efforts are underway to alleviate

the concerns cited above. Both St. Lucie and,Martin Counties have recently

approved comprehensive plans for Hutchinson Island and are currently preparing

and adopting ordinances to implement the. nl@@ns. The plans and ordinances

evidence some degree of awareness of natural and environmental resources, but

lack coordination, especial ly in permitted densities and the provision of

public services.

To facilitate coordination, the two Counties and their major municipalities

are presently considerin@:: establishment of an area council of governments (COG).

The formation of the Council will provide a significant step toward resolution

of the conflicts which have limited resource protection in the.past..

Effective implementation of the approved comprehensive plans in a coordinated

manner, along with enforce ment of existing state environmental and resource pro-

tection laws and regulations, would appear to provide protection for most of the

major resources of state concern.

The plans and the formation of the COG if implemented, should allow early

and adequate consideration to be given to public investments for the provision

of needed facilities and services. Many local- officials are aware of the most

critical service needs and are planninq to concentrate on meeting them at the

first opportunity. In Martin County, in fact, -planned development levels are

being conditioned on the provision of transportation facilities. Both of the

Counties are beginning to give attention to water and sewer and public safety

systems. A coordinated approach to provision of these services through the

COG, will provide opportunities for more immediate action, increased effi-

ciency and lower costs.

While almost all of the developable portions of Hutchinson Island are

flood hazard areas, the local approach to flood protection has been cautious,

due to high land costs. Local efforts are being made to deal with the flood

hazard, and together with recent amendments to the federal flood insurance

law, should provide for adequate flood protection.

By using the recently adopted plans as a base and working through the

proposed council of governments, conflicts regarding density, services and

growth can be resolved by the local governments to permit reasonable develop-

ment and natural resources to co-exist on the Island. Assistance in achieving

these ends is available, if desired, from the Florida Department of Community

Affairs and the South Florida Regional Planning Council.

Recommendations

The study indicates that although some of the concerns related to Hutchinson

Island may not be fully resolved for a year or more, efforts are presently being

made by the Counties and municipalities and by the state agencies involved, to

meet the Island's concerns in the shortest practical time. On the basis of

these findings, the Bureau of Land Planning recommends that:

1. Hutchinson Island not be recommended as an axea of critical state

concern at this time; however, the situation should be closely moni-

tored to assess the relative impacts of the local efforts. Should

these efforts prove ineffective, consideration will again be given to

a critical area recommendation;

2. the Division of State Planning and other interested state agencies

should strongly support the planning and implementation efforts of

the local jurisdictions especially with regard to the council of

governments; and regional resource questions should be addressed

through that body whenever possible;

3. the Division of State Planning should strongly support state acquisi-

tion of environmentally endangered lands on Hutchinson Island,

especially in those areas where the physical structure of the land

will make local regulation difficult, if not impossible.

The sections which follow detail the significant findings of the preliminary

report.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

Physical Description

Physically, Hutchinson Island is a 23 mile long barrier island lying

approximately Northwest to Southeast and hounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the

east and the Indian River (Intracoastal Waterway) on the west with the Fort

Pierce Inlet on the north and the St. Lucie Inlet on the south. The most

southern 7 miles lie in Martin County and the northern 16 miles in St. Lucie.

The island is over a mile wide at several points but narrows to 250 to 350

yards wide for one stretch. It is connected to the mainland by 3 bridges.

one bridge comes from Stuart and is 312 miles north of the southern tip of the

island. The second is connected with Jensen Beach and is 61, miles north of

the southern tip of the island. (See Figures 1 and 2).

Environmental Features and Concerns

Hutchinson Island is an environmentally sensitive area. On the Atlantic

side of the Island are the fragile coastal dunes and Class III waters. On the

............

........................ . ..
. ..... . ... . . .....
ISON:@@"
Fort v
ierce

........ ..

Stuart

-KNO

H
:.Pp WEST PALM BEAC

GENERAL LOCATION OF
... .......

FORT LAUDERDALE
HUTCHINSON ISLAND
Figure I

0 10 20 30 40

miles
MIAMI

. ........ .

.............
HUTCHINSON
ISLAND

Figure 2

........ .......... ........... .
..........

. .. .. ......

... ........
5

. ................. .................-4
............................

S.T.
MAR-TIN CO-
Urban Area

ocean
Mangroves
Breeze
177= Open Water par
707
State Highway

............. ..

0 1 2 3 4

miles

..........

Indian River side are extensive mangrove areas, aquatic preserves, marine grass

beds and Class II (shellfish) waters. It should be noted that shellfish taking

in the Hutchinson Island area is prohibited by the State Division of Health

but that the antidegradation clause of the Federal Water Quality Act requires

standards maintenance in any area once designated for shellfishing. The entire

Island is in a hurricane flood zone; the land surface ranges from mean sea level

to about 12 feet above mean sea level, but is generally lower than 10 feet above

m.s.l. Several species of environmentally threatened marine birds, reptiles and

mammals inhabit the island and surrounding water.

Existing Land Uses

The northern 2 miles of the Island are a part of the City of Fort Pierce

and are generally urbanized. The area contains mostly low density residential

and commercial uses. South of the Fort Pierce city limits there is little

development beyond a few scattered tourist cormercial uses until nearly the

island midpoint where Florida Power and Light has a nuclear electrical gener-

ating plant on approximately one square mile. Two relatively large (100-200 du)

commerical and residential developments lie 3-5 miles south of the Florida Power

and Light plant and close to the Martin County border. Some of the existing and

authorized development in St. Lucie County includes high rise buildings. Four

to seven such structures ranging up to 2 stories may be constructed on the

island within 18 months. The St. Lucie County portion of the Island has a

current density of less than 1 du/gross acre and a currently approved density

of 4.2 du/gross acres. Variances and exceptions are being made almost monthly

however, which will greatly increase this density.

From the Martin Co unty line southward, there are mixed residential and

commercial uses. Currently, only about 150 du's are occupied but about 600

more are under construction (including 100 hotel units). This would produce

an existing density of less than .5 du/gross acre.

Additionally, U. S1. Route AlA runs the entire length of the Island on the

west side, and connects with 3 bridges (2 in Martin County and 1 in St. Lucie

County).

There are approximately 1500 acres of marginally developable land on the

Martin County portion of the Island and something less than twice that in

St. Lucie. Development pressures are enormous, however, with land costs now

at almost $35,000 per acre. There are two proposed Developments of Regional

Impact in the Martin County portion of the Island and one on St. Lucie's por-

tion, totaling almost 4,200 dwelling units.

Public Facilities

Existing public facilities on the island are minimal. Existing transpor-

tation facilities are adequate for current population but demands will probably

exceed capacity very quickly as development proceeds. Water and sewage facili-

ties are not adequate and will continue to fall further behind due to rapid

development and changes in treatment standards. Public safety facilities are

virtually non-existent on the island and services and response times are

extremely poor, especially in the central part of the Island, away from the

bridges. Emergency vehicle response times to the center of Hutchinson Island

are averaging well over 20 minutes, far beyond insurable response times.

III. MAJOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS

Socio-Economic Factors

While Martin and St. Lucie Counties lagged somewhat behind the Gold Coast

area in population growth between 1950 and 1970, they have recently begun to

increase rapidly. St. Lucie County has had a growth rate of over 10% per year

since 1970, Martin's growth has been slightly.less. Most of this growth has

occurred outside the already urbanized areas of the counties producing greater

development pressures on areas such as Hutchinson Island.

The growth rate is based heavily on in-migration and the largest in-migrant

group in the population is the affluent retirees. The rapid changes in growth

rate and population mix are very conducive to the growth of the beach front

condominium market. Condominiums in Florida have tended to be dense, small

unit-high service developments. Hutchinson Island's exclusivity and high land

costs make it a "perfect location" in the condominium market. Combined with

tourist and commercial service and other secondary development patterns,

condominiums have greatly increased development pressures on the Island.

Planning

Both Counties are simultaneously in the process of finalizing comprehensive

plans for Hutchinson Island. Martin County's land use plan was approved by the,'

County Commission in December; implementing zoning and other ordinances are now

in development. St. Lucie County's plan was accepted by the County Commission

on January 22, 1974@and ordinances are now under consideration.

The two plans were prepared at about the same time, but! independently.

Although there are similarities in approach and content in the plans, the lack

of coordination between them is evident.

Both plans identify and discuss the environmental constraints of,develop-

ment,on the*lsland. In each of the plans the major growth constraint is the

current inadequacy of transportation facilities. Both plans would protect most

of the mangroves, dunes, and marine crrass beds from the direct effects of

development, but indirect effects such as runoff, noise, and the destruction of

wildlife, lack serious consideration.

Both plans. recognize the inadequacies of public health and safety facilities

and services. The plans are, however, predicated most heavily on the expansion

of transportation facilities, particularly bridges, and minimally on the other

public services.

St. Lucie's plan would impose a cap of an average 5.5-6 du's per gross

acre and Martin's a cap of 1.5 to 7.5 du's per net acre, or developable acre.

The-gross vs. developable acre difference is quite significant. First, in

Martin County there is a low level of existing urbanization and the difference

between gross and developable acres is about 12.5%. In St. Lucie County, the

northern end of the Island is already urbanized and the percentage of developable

land is somewhat lower. This, along with the large Florida Power and Light hold-

ings would indicate a,much more intensive residential use for St. Lucie County's

portion of Hutchinson Island than for Martin's, perhaps as high as 10-12 du's

per developable acre.

Regulation

Existing zoning regulations in both Counties provide little direct pro-

tection for the environmental resources and, especially in St. Lucie, little

development regulation. The new ordinances now pending action, however, would

appear to be relatively more responsive to these problems. Both Counties do

have fairly stringent,flood protection building codes or policies for island

development. Recently enacted federal flood insurance law amendments will

provide additional protection by July 1, 1975.

At the state level, both the mean high water line on the west coast and

beach setback lines on the east coast have been established. Both lines,

however, are photographically established and have not yet been surveyed.

Additionally, certain small areas particularly the narrowest ne cks of

land on the Island have been or are about to be nominated as environmentally

endangered lands in the hope of state acquisition. These narrow areas coincide

with the lowest dunes, indicating-points where the Island could potentially be

breached by storm surges. Because.of their physical limitations, these areas

May prove .to be dif ficult for the counties to adequately regulate without involving

inverse condemnation.

Institutional

The two counties have espoused differing development philosophies for

several years, St. Lucie supporting a high growth position and.Martin a con-

trolled growth position. These differences of position have helped to deter

coordination between the two counties and between counties and municipalities

on common problems such as Hutchinson Island.

Recently, a new factor has emerged which can bring about resolution of.

many of the local conflicts regarding Hutchinson Island. Mr. Timor Powers, a

member olf.the Martin County Commission,,with the support of other interested

local officials, has proposed the formation of an area council of governments

(COG). The COG would be composed of members from.Martin and St. Lucie Counties.

and the cities of Fort Pierce, Stuart and Port St. Lucie. It would serve'as as

me.chanism.for coordination and conflict resolution in the area.

When preliminary approval is received from all the participating govern-

mental units, an i,nfo.Tmal meeting will be held, probably in early March, 1974.

In April, the formal organizing meeting is expected to be held and if successful,

ratification and full operation may be anticipated by June or July.

IV. PROBLEM RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVES

The following section provides a summary list of the concerns of the

Division of State Planning regarding Hutchinson Island along with a brief dis-

cussion of the authorities and resources available for their resolution.

Concern: Can reasonable development be promoted or allowed on Hutchinson

Island and still protect the natural resources of the Island area from degrada-

tion or destruction?

Response: The plans and ordinances for development of the Island appear

to take significantly more cognizance of most environmental resource needs,

than similar development control programs in many other parts of the State.

These local efforts could be doubly effective if adequately coordinated through

the.COG. High density development, however, can still present a problem. The

dunes and submerged lands of the Island are subject to state development controls

and certain other endangered lands have been or are being proposed for state

acquisition. While the secondary environmental effects of development are not

as well accounted in the County plans as direct effects, these effects fall

largely withinthe existing regulatory jurisdiction of the state Department of

Pollution Control, and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

Concerno How can investments in public facilities, and the operating

efficiency and delivery of facilities and services best be protected in the

development of the Island?

Response: Both Counties are proposing to base their development patterns

heavily on provision of transportation facilities. The Martin County plan, in

fact, makes use of development phases tied to the provision of adequate bridge

lanes. Other public facilities and services, however, have not, at this time,

been phased with development in either County. This problem is critical with

regard to water and sewer and public safety services on the Island and will be

especially severe in high density areas. This is a particular concern of some

of the initiators of the proposed Council of Governments, however, and is

expected to be one of the first issues to come before that body. Some ground-

work has been done locally, especially with regard to waste disposal and public

safety facilities and services.

Concern: To what degree does development of the Island (which is in a

hurricane flood zone) at the proposed densities, present a threat to public

safety?

Response: Prior to setback line establishment, certain small areas of the

primary dunes in both counties have sustained development damage. Further, in

a few areas on the Island, the height Pf the dunes is lower than the established

storm flood level indicating points where the Island could be severed by storm

surges. These areas have been or are being proposed for acquisition under the

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. Low density development of these

narrow areas would be allowed by the proposed plans and ordinances subject to

stringent building codes. While both Counties have low dune areas, the problem

is particularly critical in St. Lucie County because St. Lucie has authorized

more high rise and greater density development. Population limits based on the

evacuation capabilities of the bridges were addressed in both plans, but the

Martin County Commission reduced this protection slightly in modifying their plan.

Indealing with their high rise development, St. Lucie County imposes building

code restrictions on the high rises so that no residential units are built below

the hurricane flood level. It is assumed that the flood hazard question will also

be posed to the COG. By mid 1975, the federal flood insurance program provides for

mandatory local compliance with its requirements.

Concern: Can the plans and development controls of both Counties be coor-

dinated to achieve compatibility, balance the various claims of the two Counties,

and provide solutions to the problems cited above?

Response: The Department of Community Affairs, Division of Technical Assis-

tance, is attempting to encourage this coordination through the U.S. HUD 701

planning program. The South Florida Regional Planning Council is willing to pro-

vide any assistance which they can. Most important, however, are the local efforts

involved in the formation of the Council of Governments, which provides the

greatest protection available for the resolution of the conflicts and concerns of

Hutchinson Island.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas,
Tallahassee, 1973.

2. Recommendation for Development Activities in Florida's
Coastal Zone, Tallahassee, 1973.

3. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company - Martin County, Hutchinson Island
Planning Study: The Impact and Management of Growth, San Francisco
County, December 1973.

4. RMBR, Planning and Design Group - St. Lucie County, Draft. Hutchinson
Island Plan and attachments, Tampa, Florida, December 1973.

5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Flood Plain
Information, Coastal Areas: Martin County, Florida, June, 1973.

6. , Flood Plain Information, Coastal Areas: St. Lucie County,
Florida, July, 1972.

7. U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Hutchinson Island, Florida: Biological Reconnaissance Report, Washington,
D.C., February, 1974.

I
I
I
I
I ,
eoRsi At I
istuim
Rl I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I ".
ONE
169 dKER

I
III
3 6668 00002 3699 1