Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda/Memo/Minutes 08-21-2007 Agenda Request Item Number 5E ~ Meeting Date: 8121l2007 Consent [ ] ~ Regular ( j • • ~ • Public Hearing [ ~ Leg. [ X ] Quasi-JD [ ] To: Board of County Commissioners Presented By ~ Submitted By: Growth Management Department Growth Management Directar SUBJECT: Public Fiearing regarding items proposed to be included in the Transmittal of St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2 for review by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. BACKGROUND: St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2 includes Comprehensive Plan Amendments proposed by private party appiicants, and by St. Lucie County. The amendments must be transmitted by the end of September to the Florida Qepartment of Community Affairs and other state agencies for review and comment_ The Florida Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report is required by statute to be published 60 days aiter the agency receives the complete plen amendment application. if transmitted in September, the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report wil! not be published unt+l November, at the earliest, The amendments in the amendment cycle must be adopted before the end of December in order to remain in the year 2007 large scale amendments. lf the amendments are adopted after december 20Q7, they will count as the first of two statutarily authorized amendment cycles in calen'd~r year 2008. The P{anning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the amenc~ment cycle starting May i6 and 17, continuing on June 21, 2007, and ending on July 19, 2007. The recommendations of the Planning and Zorting Commission regarding each item appear on the attached Amendment Cycle 2007-2 Staff Report. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are attached to the Amendment Cycle 2007-2 Staff Report for your convenience. Video and/or audio recordings of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are on file with the Public Information Office if you need them, Because of the complexiry of the hearing, an agenda supplement has been prepared for your use in conducting the hearing. The staff recommends that the sequence of ihe hearing would be the order of the items in the agenda supplement. Key staff may not be available should the hearing be continued past August 315~. Therefore, the county sponsored ordinances are proposed to be heard as the first three items in the hearing. Please refer to the attached agenda supplement for the title of each item, and to the staff repart for the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, a summary staff report with staff recommendations, and a motion recommended by staff. FUNDS AVAILABLE: Not applicable. PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearings: May 16 and 17, June 21, and July 19, 2007. Fo~ ~vo. a~-o~ RECOMMENDA710N: Open the public hearing for St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2, hear the staff report on each item, hear the applicant's comments if the applicant is not the county, take public comment on each item, then close public comment, not the hearing, on each item. Hold Board discussion on each item. Vote to include each item in the transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, or not to include it, or to include it with amendments. When all items are heard, close the public hearing. Hold any necessary remaining Board discussion. Vote to authorize the staff to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs those items that the Board determined should be included in the amendment cycle, with any amendments that the Board Directed. COMMISSION ACTION: SEEV~TES ~t`lA~.~J• CONCURRENCE: ~ APPROVED 0 DENIEQ 0 OTHER ~ ~ o~-~ Douglas M. Anderson ti ' County Administrator Coordination/ Signatures County Attorney , Mgt. & Budget; Purchasing: ~ E.R.D„ Public Works: Cty, Surveyor: ty. Engineer: Other: Other; Approved s-o - o~~te as amerxled. AAP~ed 4-t CraR voting no - o7-ot9 Appro~ed 4-t Lewis votlnq no - o7-Oq4 pQbte Sectipn t as amended - add restrktarx. Withdraurctl - 07-024 07-025: Approved S-0 Withdrawal - 07-027 07-030: Motion to not Transmit to DCA approved 3-2 (Commissioner Lewis and Commissioner Smith Voted No) Form No. 07-07 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION~RS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: August 21, 2007 Canvened: 6:00 p.m. Adjvurned: 12:00 a.m. Commissioners Present : Chairman, Chris Craft, Joseph Smith, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Charles Grande C?thers Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Lauri Case, Utilities Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Diana Lewis, Airport Director, Vanessa Bissey, Environmental Resources Director, Robert Nix, Growth Management Director, Neil Appel, Purchasing Director, Millie Delgado- Feliciano, Deputy Clerk l. MINUTES (Ol :06) It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes of the zneeting held August 21, 2007, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESF,NTATION None 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Arena, Ft. Pierce resident, addressed the Board regazding contractors breaking sidewalks and placing signs of " Closed Sidewalk" forcing people to walk in the street. The Chairman advised the Board the Ag PUD portion of Ordinance No. 07-044 has been withdrawn the balance will be heard however the Board will accept public comment on the item. A task force is being formed and a workshop has been scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden McCloskey addressed the Board on behalf of agricultural land owners in St. Lucie County. He addressed the memo drafted by tl~e County Administrator and the County Attorney on the Board as to the consensus of the Board on the interpretation of the "open space" standards and how they are to be applied to projects as of August Sih 2007 going forward. He stated at the April 10, 2007 meeting those in attendance do not recall direction from the Board to staff as to how to interpret the open space standards. There is no legal basis for that interpretation and there is no language in any document adopted by the County Commission which prohibits counting open space as part of lots. Hunter's Run did not comply with the memo. The memo says open space cannot be part of the lots and there has to be 80% open space outside a lot and they know Hunters Run did not do this. They are asking to proceed status quo from the adoption of the original Comp Plan due to the fact there is no language which prohibits this. The Chairman stated he did not support the overall interpretation in the memo however it is his understanding the memo represented the view of the majority of the Board. Com. Grande stated the memo clearly stated the consensus of the Board at the meeting and he recalls the discussion being primarily about back yards. Backyards have never been counted as open space. Based on the memo from the County Administrator and the County Attorney, it is in black and white, backyards are not considered open space. 1 Mr. Ferguson stated the definition of open space is not exclusive and they cannot site a single project that excluded open space (backyards). Com. Coward read Section 7.04.03 of the Land Development Code dealing with building separation requirements Open Space requirements in Section 7.04.02 which says: A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to provide standards for Open Space and Habitat Preservation within areas designated for Agricultural Land Use under the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan. B. General Guidelines The following activities and land uses may be counted toward open space: 1. Passive recreation areas 2. Natural preserves, wetland and upland habitats, including those areas of on- site preservation required by the other provisions of this code 3. Required landscape and common areas 4. Playgrounds and active recreation areas, but not including swimming pools, tennis courts and/or impervious activity areas 5. Golf courses 6. Agricultural activities not involving any activities within an enclosed or covered structure 7. Lakes, ponds, and waterways in private ownership, but available for use by the residents/occupants of the particular development 8. Stormwater detention and retention facilities providing that no more than 30% of the overal] open space requirement shall be satisfied in this manner. Mr. Ferguson stated this was not an exclusive list and he felt their position at this point was solidified. Ms. Carolyn Villanueva, Long Range Planning Manager, Florida Conservancy & Development Group submitted the attached letter from Hopping Green & Sams for the record stating their position. Mr. John Herin, representing various property owners, addressed the Board and stated there is a clear disagreement on the issue and he felt open dialogue was needed. He stated by placing the memo out there is stays " this is where it starts" and believes no one wants to go where he believes this may be headed which may be a court of law. He recommended the Board take a vote to rescind the memo pending a discussion with the interested parties. He felt the property owners should not bear the burden that is disproportionately being placed on them. Com. Smith asked if he did not feel a measure of good faith was to withdraw this portion as the Board has done. Mr. Herin stated he felt the withdraw of this provision of the ordinance is nullif ed by the memo because this is already the Boards position. Com. Lewis stated she felt the memo was merely enforcing the interpretation of the majority of the Board. They are not talking about the intent they are talking about the interpretation. She likes the memo because it states they would proceed on a case by case basis and not by the majority of the Board. Mr. Herin stated he believes this is the problem with the memo there is no criteria and no guidelines and it defers to an adhoc case by case basis. Mr. Walter Griffin addressed the Board on this item and he questioned if his size yard would be considered (5 acres) since it would be right across the street and asked them to consider the fact there are a lot of large lots in the area. 2 1-fopp~~~c~ Green c~~ Sar~s r'~..,,rne,s :r~ i;~~u~,s~°I~}r~. Writer's Direct Dial No. (850) 425-2222 Wsiter's Email: dpowef~hqslaw.com Monday, August 20, 2007 BY Hand Deliverv Honorabie Chris Craft, Chairman And Members, Board of Caunty Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 07-044 Addressing Open Space in AG-5 and AG-2.5 Dear Chairman Craft and Commissioners: On behalf of our client, the Florida Conservancy and Development Group, LLC, ("FCDG"~, we are writing to address proposed Ordinance No. 07-044, regarding apen space requirements in the AG-5 and AG-2.5, future land use categories under the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. FCDG owns approximately 6,000 acres with the AG-5 designation as the under~ying land use in unincorporated St. Lucie County and also is currently seeking various governmental approvafs to proceed with development of that land pursuant to the goals, objectives and policies governing the St. Lucie County Rural Land Stewardship Area. Accordingly, FCDG owns land within St. Lucie County and operates a business in St. Lucie County for purposes of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. We do not believe these proposed changes to the comprehensive plan are supported by appropriate data and analysis as required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. In addition, these amendments have the potential to negativefy impact FCDG's land by materiaNy decreasing its value. Thus, they wotsld constitute an inordinate burden on FCDG's property. Finally, we believe the new proposed open space requirements, when coupled with the proposed language to allow an "acre for acre reduction" in required open space on a given parcel if the owner makes a land donation to St. Lucie County ar others, is an attempt to wrest privately owned land from its owners for pubfic benefit without payment of just compensation. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners not transmit this proposed plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and otherwise not proceed with cansideration of this proposed ordinance. Post Oifice Box 6526 Tallahassea, Florida 32314 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) 850222.75~0 850.224.8551 fax www.hgslaw.com ~ Letter to Honorab{e Chris Craft, Chairman And Members, Board vf County Commissioners Monday, August 20, 2007 Page 2 Please consider this letter our written objections, recommendations or comments regarding this matter for purposes of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Thank you for yaur attention to this matter. Sincerely, . . David L. Powell Gary K. Hunter, Jr. Cc: Dan Mclntyre, Esq. 267137 Hoppin~ Grcen Sams Mr. Don Weiss, agricultural banker, stated he was not there to debate but as an agricultural banker, he is encouraging the Board to withdraw the memo because it has already raised yuestions as to what it is. Com. Craft asked the Board's comments if they wished to withdraw or rescind the memo or reconsider their position. Com. Smith stated it was his interpretation that was provided and he agreed with two other members of the Board and yes it may have been interpreted incorrectly and the interpretation was that back yards were not to count. However, if the Board feels that there are changes that can be made then they shauld take a look at it and this position remains today. He is unable to ask staff to withdraw the memo at this time. Com. Lewis stated she was not sure what the difference would be in withdrawing the memo, it is still before them that 3 of 5 Board members stated their interpretation and not that she agrees with that interpretation but the fact remains the majority interpreted it as such and is not inclined to remove the memo due to the interpretation by the majority. Corn. Craft asked if the Board has never given a memo to staff and told them this is how it is to be interpreted. The County Administrator stated not to his knowledge. Com. Grande stated the staff comes to the Board because the Board makes the ultimate decision and asks what does this mean if there is doubt then the source is the Board However, what they are saying today is they would like to work together and see if there are any changes that should be made. If it needs to be made better then the Board is here to listen and work with the property owners. Com. Coward stated the State requires our Local Comp Plan be consistent with the States. If any one is going to come in and build a large development they will have to cluster and this is clear. The specific language was drafted and approved by the previous I3oard before he was a Commissioner in a settlement agxeement in 1990 and he has been in office 9 years and the language stated "all future non-agricultural development within agricultural land use categories will be zequired to preserve open space defined as agricultural activities such as groves, range land, as well as preservation of naturai area", and then they laid otrt the formula. He stated no one will be able to come in and develop large ranchette sprawl across the countryside. He would like to have dialogue with the property owners and is open to discussion on how to improve it. He felt the intent of the memo was clear and does not wish to withdraw it. 'The county Administrator stated they would be working with the community and the Board in forming the task force. 4. CONSENT AGENllA It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve the Consent Agenda with items C7-A pulled and to include CA-1, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. WARRANT LS1T The Board approved Warrant List No. 46. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY 3 08/17/~7 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD PAGE 1 FyABWAI2R WARRANP LIST #46- 11-AUG-2007 TO 17-AUG-2007 F"UND SIIMMARY FUND TITLE EXPENSES PAYROLL 001 General Fund 1,586,290.00 0.00 001146 FTA USC 5ection 53Q7 FY03 942.00 0.00 001156 FTA USC Secton 5307 Oper. Assist. 2,854.00 0.00 001167 FTA Section 5303 Grant FY 05 7.34 0.0~ 001177 5ection 112/MPO/FHWA/Planning 2046. 2,994.00 0.00 001182 CSBG Grant FY07 23,564.45 0.00 001183 Section 112/MPO/FHWAfPlanning 2007 289.45 0.00 001404 OS CDBG Sup Disaster Recovery 275,371.15 O.QO 001405 St Lucie Co Special Needs Shelt 427,7J.2.08 0.00 001418 FDCA EMPA FY07 3,307.48 0.00 001419 FDCA-Constiruct Caunty EOC 500.00 0.0~ 0o1423 DCA-Construction Mi.tigation 6,060.64 0.00 001424 Dept of Financial Services My Safe 3,103.53 0.00 001814 Floridian Aguifier Well Monitoring 1,~51.50 0.00 101 Transpoztation Trust Fund 28,351.39 0.00 101002 Transportation Trust/80~ Constitut 122,628,39 0.00 101003 Transportation Trust/Local Option 35,732.39 0.00 ].01004 Transportatiion TrustjCounty Fuel Tx 28,066.86 0.00 101109 FHWA/FDOT Coun~y Rds-Ii. Jeanne 40,399.20 O.OQ 102 Unincorporated Services Fund 62,450.90 0.00 102001 Drainage Maintenance MSTU 35,522.60 0.00 1.~2804 SFWNID Harmony Heights Stm Phase I 1,537.30 0.00 105 Library Special Grants Fund 792.05 0.~0 ],~7 Fine & For~eitura Fund 201,420.59 2,296.20 )01 Fina & For~eiture Fund-Wireless Sur 380.21 0.00 i_,d02 Fine & For£eiture Fund-E411 Surchar 32,525.20 0.00 107003 Fine & Forfeiture Fund-800 Mhz Oper 4,554.67 0.00 107006 F&F Fund-Court Related Technology 5,438.84 0.00 ].07204 FL Dept Juvenile Justice-DMC Civil 15.02 0.00 109 Drug Abuse Fund 35.00 0.00 129 Parks MSTU Fund''°,. 123.75 0.00 130 SLC Public Transit`MSTU 1,437.~8 0.00 140 Pvrt & Airpvrt Fund 35,335.86 0.0~ ].40128 Industrial Park West-EDA 27,239.33 0.00 140132 Airport I.ayout Plan Update 13,702.49 0.00 140133 Construct Runway 9L/27R 2,667.31. 0.00 1~0327 FDOT Access Roads Ph.2 A/P IPW 49,832.72 0.00 140334 Const. Apran & Environmental Mitiga 4,041.79 0.00 140335 Parallel Runwalr Design-9L/27R 140.39 0.00 140339 Drainage Improvements #407701 1,207.12 0.00 140341 Construction of Airport Resaue & Fi 133,330.5U 0.00 140349 Ai.zport Layout Plan 721.18 0.00 150 Impact Fee Collections 2,367.67 0_00 160 Plan Maintenance RA.D Fund 1,359.04 0.00 183 Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir 1,006.87 0.00 183001 C~ Administrator-Arbitration/Mediat 540.00 0.00 183004 Ct Admin.- Taen Court 3,020.07 0.00 183006 Guardian Ad Litem Fund 122.55 0.00 A. Contract for Sale and Purchase- Paradise Park Stormwater Improvement- Barbara Hudson Mauntler- The Board approved the contract for saie and purchase from Barbara Hudson Mauntlez' in the amount of $23,000 authorized the Chairman to sign the Contract and directed staff to proceed with the closing and record the Warranty Deed in the Public Records of St. Lucie County. B. Resolution No. 07-052- The Board approved Resolution No. 07-052 creating the St. Lucie County Mental Healtli Justice Advisory Ad Hoc Committee. As defined by the Legislature, this Committee will then be authorized to apply for expansion vf funds for the St. Lucie County Mental Health Court. C. Sams Club Warehouse- First Amendment to Facilities Use Agreement with The Salvation Army- The Board approved the proposed First Amendmenl to the Facilities Use Agreement with The Salvation Army and authorized the Chairman to sign the First Amendment. 3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Request of Harry Denny Maxwell for Final Plat approval for the project to be known as Maxwell Acres Subdivision. This project is a five lot single family subdivision located on the east side of Sneed Road, approximately a quarter mile south of Orange Avenue- The Board approved the Final Plat of Maxwell Acres Subdivision and authorized its final execution. 4. PUBLIC WORKS A. Engineering Division SR 615 S. 25th Roadway Widening (Midway Road- Edwards Road)- Sixth Amendment to Work Authorization No. 16 with Dunkelberger Engineering & Z'esting, Inc. to provide additionaI soil testing services and equipment rental in the amount of $125,000. All work shall be completed on or before March 31, 2008- The Board approved the Sixth Amendment to Work Authorization No. 16 and authorized the Chairman to sign. B. Engineering Division- First Amendinent to Work Authorization No. 4 Contract C06-12-789 with Ardaman & Associates, Inc. for professional services, specifically geotechnical and construction material testing services for the Indian River Estates Potable Water MSBU project.- "The Board approved the First Amendment to Work Authorization No. 4. the amendment will add $10,000 for additional services for a total of $31,000. C. Engineering Division- First Arnendment to may 23, 2006 Road Improvement Agreement- Shelby Homes at Carriage Pointe Estates- The Board approve the First Amendment and authorized the Chairman to sign the Amendment. D. Engineering Division- Request approval of Second Amendment to Work Authorization No. 25 with Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. for the reallocation of appropriated funds between CDM and their Sub Consultant Engineering Design and construction. No additional funds are necessary- The Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign the Second Amendment to Work Authorization No. 25 to Contract C00-03-233 with Camp Dresser and McKee for the allocation of appropriated funds. 5. UTILITIES A. Staff requests approval of Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 5 for Camp, Dresser & McKee- The F3oard approved Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 5 for Camp, Dresser, McKee to increase the lump sum amount from $194,270 to $233,330 and an extension to October 31, 2007. 4 B. Staff requests approval of Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 13 for Camp Dresser & McKee to increase the lump sum from $84,130 to $127,280- The Board approved Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 13. 6. AIRPORT Request approval of Work Authorization No. 3 for professional services from the LPA Graup to conduct the Storn~water Pollution Prevention Plan Annual Compliance Inspections at the St. Lucie County International Airport for the lump sum $29,499. - The Board approved Work Authorization No. 3 and authorized the Chairman or designee to execute same. 7. PURCHASING A. Request Board approval to begin Phase 2 of the County Cell Phone Allowance Program- 'This item was pulled at the request of Com. Smith. He requested more information on the program. B. Board approval to reject the sole response to RFP # 07-061 St. Lucie County Airport West Commerce Park Lease- The Board approved rejecting the sole source response to RFP # 07-061 and granted permission to re-advertise the IZFP. S. COMMUNITY SERVICES Approval to award Comxnunity Development Slock Grant Disaster Recovery Initiative IFB # 3 to the low bidder, Artisan Builders at $125,000 - The Board approved awarding Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Initiative IFB # 3 to the low bidder, Artisan Builders at $125,000 and authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary documents. 9. GRf1NTS Approve Budget Resolution No. 07-251 amending the County's Budget for funds of $4,193,585 received from the Florida Communities Trust grant for the Heathcote Botanical Park project - The Board approved Budget Resolution No. 07-251. CONSENT AGENDA ADDITIONS CA-1. CUTLTURAL AFFAIRS Waive of rental fees- The Board approved waiving the rental fees for the Ft. Pierce Community Center as requested by Lincoln Park Main Street for their one year anniversary event on August 24, 2007. REGULAR AGENDA S.A GROWTH MANAGEMENT (0:57:58) Petition of Sarojben Patel for a Conditiona] Use Permit to allow for the Retail Sale of Liquor in a CG Zoning District (Draft Resolution No. 07-035)- Consider staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 07-035 subject to the conditions therein, granting Sarojben Patel a conditional use permit to allow for the Retail Sale of Liquor in a CG zoning district. Ms. Patel was present to answer any questions. The Planning Manager advised the Board staff had received one letter in opposition and was submitted for the record. 5 Robert V. - RICHARDS - Dolores L ` 1003 Crystal Court ~ Glenview, Illinois 60025-26$2 August 15, 2007 ;r . f' ~ ' ~ ~ hii;~'~ . ~ . . . : ~ Boazd of County Commissioners - : St. Lucie County ~ ~r~J - Growth Management „ _ . 2300 Virginia Avenue ~ ~ • - ~ ° ~ ~ ~ Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Commissioners: This is in response to the petition of Sarojben Patel requesting a permit to allow the retail sale of liquor in a CG Zoning District located at ll 027 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach. We strongly object to the issuing of said pertnit for the follawing reasons: l. Beach-goers frequently trespass our property from AlA to the Beach. 2. llrunkenness has been observed on the beach by suspected underage drinkers. 3. Our property, located on the fourth floor on the east side of AIA, overlooks the pazking area for these potential customers. 'This environment invites noise, mwdiness, robbery and possible endangerment to our neighbors and us. Thank you for your consideration. ~ . DOLORES L. RICHARDS ~'t~t.~ ROBERT V. RICHARllS C: Ms. Dottie Thompson Ocean Dunes Condo Board The County Attorney stated the easement issue is unrelated to this approval. It is a private matter between the shopping center owner and the owner of the easement and it needs to be resolved between them or a court of law. There is an issue of the county's lift station easement and again he feels this is unrelated and they would need to work on that if there was a problem. Mr. Adnan Aghita, neighboring property owner addressed the easement and asked if any violation was noted with regard to the easement and the lift station on it. The County Attorney stated they will get back with Mr.Aghita within 40-60 days as soon as the find out the information with regard to the encroachment and if there is they will deal with it. It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Lewis to approve Resolution No. 07- 035, and; upon roll call, motion canied unanimously. S.B GROWTH MANAGEMENT (1:44:49) Application of Willow Lakes, LLC Midway Properties LLC and Red River, LLC for a Development Order for the Provences Development of Regional Impact File No. DRI-06- Ol- Staff recommends that the Board continue the public hearing until after the Planning and Zoning Board transmits their recommendation to this Board regarding the Provences DRI in accordance with Section 12.02.01 O of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Mr. John Chapman, attorney for the applicant addressed the Board. Com. Coward questioned if there were any changes going to be made. Mr. Chapman stated he did not know the exact changes. Com. Coward stared this is a"bad project" and if the applicant is coming back with the same project it should not be continued nor heard. He does not wish to waste time, he would prefer to stop it in its track if there were no major changes being made. Com. Grande stated the Regional Planning Council felt this project should not be approved. He felt this was the worst DRI he had ever seen. He stated the RPC pointed out 78 major problems with the project. Com. Smith stated he does not have a strong feeling abaut the project but would ask the applicant to heed what has been recommended. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call the vote was as follows: Nay: Com. Grande, Aye's: Smith, Lewis, Coward, Craft, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. S.C GROWTH MANAGEMENT (1:10:29) Petition of Grande Beach North Hutchinson Island, LLC for a Text Amendment to the Land Development Code, Planned Mixed Use Development, Section 7.03.03 Standards and Requirements, for a 9.44 acre tract of land within the MXD Grande Beach Mixed Use Activity Area on the future land use map( Ordinance No. 07-032). This is the first of two required pubic hearings - Direct staff to schedule the second required public hearing on this matter on September 18, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Bobbie Klein, attorney for the petition addressed the IIoard and asked it not be heard tonight and it go back to the Planning and Zoning Board and go through the process and then come back to the Board. Mr. Klein stated he would meet with staff in the morning. 6 "l~he County Attorney recommended pulling the item . Mr. Klein stated the project was not going to change it is a procedural problem and this is why the wish it to go back before Planning and Zoning . Quasi .iudicial Four of the Board members acknowledged meeting with the applicant. The fifth member (Com. Grande) did not have any contact. Mr. Brain Comb, North Beach resident, addressed the Board and stated the petitioner was asking the Board to change the land use plan and he felt this was not the proper thing to do. The property was purchase as commercial and he felt the applicant wanted the county io guarantee a profit. Mr. Paul Berg, North Beach resident, addressed the Board and stated they were changing the Comp Plan for this ane project if it was approved. He felt this was wrong and addressed the suits filed. He stated a Planning and Zoning member had ties to the developer and should not have voted on this issue. He felt the process had been tainted. Mr. Robert Tabor, 40201 N. A-1-A resident, addressed the Board and stated he believed all the issues had been resolved. Mr. Craig Mundt, resident North Hutchinson and member of the Planning and Zoning Board addressed the Board and stated the issue had been misrepresented to the Board of County Commissioner and that in no way was tonight's approval would be condition for the approval of the settlement. Tl~e County Attorney stated his Asst. County Attorney had contacted the Ethics Committee on this issue and they stated he needed more facts on the issue however initially they did not see a problem with the vote. Com. Coward stated there is specific language in the settlement agreement that troubles him. The language deals with a member of the P& Z appointed by a BOCC member. He believes the integrity has been tainted and should go before the P& Z Board and Mr. Mundt should recuse himself. He believes both legal councils were in error and this is why it should go back before the Planning and Zoning Board. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Grande, to approve this item going back to the Planning and Zoning Board, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. S.D COUNTY ATTORNEY (1:54:50) Ordinance No. 07-041- Coz-recting a scriveners error in the effective date of Ordinance No. 06-017 which adopted land development regulations to apply to property generally located in the Towns Villages and Countryside comprehensive plan element- No action is required from the County Commission at this time. This is the first of two public hearings on this matter. The second public hearing will be held on September 4, 2007. The County Attorney advised the Board of the error in the effective date of the Ordinance. No action required. S.E GROWTH MANAGEMENT (1:57:04) Public Hearing regarding items proposed to be included in the Transmittal of St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2 for review by the Florida Department of Community Affairs- Staff xecommends the Board authorize sta£f to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs those items that the Board determined should be included in the amendment cycle, with any amendments that the Board directed. 7 AT 'THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-2. item Ordinance No. 07-018. A. Amendments intended to implement or clarify stated policy of the Board of County Commissioners, or to change the Comprehensive Plan to com~ly with State law. Capital Improvement Element Ordinance No. 07-O18 (2:03:20) ,M Ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan adopting the Five year Capital Improvement Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan, and Capital Improvement Element, A large scale Amendment; and adopting a Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan defining a Capital Improvement Project for the Capital Improvement Plan; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the Department of State; providing for filing with the Department of Cammunity A.ffairs; providing for an effective date; providing for adoption and providing for codification The Growth Management Director advised the Board of the changes and the errors in the Ordinance. The Indrio Road School house Capital Improvement Policy Summary, Farks and Recreation noted $500,000 for buildings in the 07/08 budget and $10,000 in the AIPP(Culturat Affairs) for a total of $510,000. The corrected figures should read: $250,000 for the building and $5,000 for the AIPP. The new corrected total $255,000. Under Utilities corrections: # 42 Should read "meeY' not met. # 51 the word "construct" is misspelled # 52 HEW is an abbreviation # 54 Lakewood Park, the word "station" is misspelled The Cliairman closed public hearing on this item. It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Coward to include Ordinance No. 07-018, Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Update and Definition of Capital Improvements as amended, in the plan amendments to be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as proposed in the St. Lucie County A~,mendment Cycle 2007-2, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. Environmental, Open Space and Recreational Level of Service Standards and Provision for Impact Fees Ordinancc No. 07-019 (2:07:41) An Ordinance of St. Lucie County, Florida amending the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan by adopting Amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element af the Comprehensive Plan relating to desired Outdoor Recreation Standards (Table 9-6) and the recommended Classification System, attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the Department of State; providing for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs; and providing for an effective date; and providing for adoption The Environmental Resources Director addressed the Board on this Ordinance. Staff s comments were as follows: 8 Staff recommends approval of this ordinance in order to provide a basis for environmental and open space impact fees. Staff has been working with Dr. James Nicholas to establish the framework for and Environmental Lands Acquisition Impact Fee. As advised by Dr. Nicholas the firs step in the process is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish a level of service. On June 21, 2007 staff requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue this item to the July 19, 2007 meeting so that the Commission could receive the data and analysis prepared by Dr. Nicholas relating to this item. The Commission voted unanimously to continue to July 19, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. On July 19, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Ordinance No. 07-019 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs in the next transmittal cycle with recommended changes that have been incorporated into the ordinance. All but one of the changes has been incorporated. The proposed change dealing with exempting the TVC planning area was not included in this ordinance because it was suggested by Dr. Nicholas that this area be exempted by ordinance rather than in the Comprehensive Plan. The other changes were for clarification and consistency purposes. Staff believed the Planning and Zoning Board voted against it because they felt it needed more work a longer process and debate. Dr. Nichols stated one of the issue needed to be discussed was, is this an appropriate level of service. It incorporates the direction he received from the Board. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAIZGE SCALE AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-2 Item Ordinance No. 07-019 Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden McCloskey, addressed the Board and stated he was not opposed to the level of service for the conservation plan, but was opposed to not being provided the appropriate time for discussion and comments. He felt they needed to look at all the preserved lands when changing the level of service based on countywide population and asked for more open discussion on what is the appropriate level of service between all. Mr. Tom Babcock, area developer stated he echoed Mr. Fergusan's comments and stated he recommended as the Planning and Zoning Commission did to exclude the TVC area from any consideration for an additional impact fee due to the open space requirements within the TVC that exceeds any where else in the county. Mr. Toby Obedor, Crossroads Environmental, addressed the Board on this issue and stated looking at the analysis and the 80/20 proposal the ERD is currently requiring that any preservation left over be held in conservation easement and it goes to St. Lucie County and he asked iCthis was going to be included in the level of service and asked if the cities were also included in the analysis. IIe does not wish to see a paramount of holes in the analysis. The Chairman closed the public hearing on this item. Staff advised the Board at the 2006 Strategic Planning staff was directed to look at impact fees. Dr. Nicholas stated the provision of open space within a development is an impact fee issue and all impact fee ordinances have a credit provision in them and is dealt on a case by case basis. For the open space requirement credit you would need to make sure your talking about same open space, define what it means and provide a provision to implement. 9 Com. Grande addressed the land requirement to meet the county's criteria, Dr. Nicholas stated this was already in the Comp Plan. Com. Coward addressed the formula of X amount of acreage divided by X amount of population and felt they needed to make a decision whether or not to include private land. Com. Craft stated he felt it was less imporiant to have access than to have open space in perpetuity. Com. Coward stated he felt tonight was not the night to get into the discussion of whether or not the TVC should be exempted. Dr. Nicholas stated the level of service is up to Board and a policy decision. It cannot be arbitrary. The role of the level of service is to direct planning. Most impact fees in St. Lucie County are to maintain the level of service which is failing. It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Smith to include Ordinance No. 07-019 Environmental, Open Space, and Recreational Level of Service Standards and Provision for Impact Fees in the plan amendments be transmitted as presented to the Department of Community A~'fair as proposed in the St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2 because he believes the level of service included is the most defensi6le and if there are problems with it, they wil! receive comments from the DCA, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Craft (wauld like to see more public comarents on this issue and see more open space); Ayc's: Coward, Lewis, Smith, Grande, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Agricultural PUD open space standards not to include yards, and prohibition on transferring density to a prvperty for whicli density has already been transferred, providing for an exception Ordinance No. 07-044 An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, amending the Text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element by amending Policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 to prohibit Yards on development sites from being included as part of the required 80% or 50% total Open Space requirement in return for the provision of preservation, conservation, or other agricultural , environmental or passive recreational benefits, or for providing more than the minimum required Open Space and by adding a new Policy 1.1.4.5 that prohibits transferring density to a parcel of land from which density has been previously transferred, and providing for filling with the Florida Department of State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs; providing far conflicts; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-Z Item Ordinance No. 07-044 The Growth Management Director recommended that if the Board chooses to transmit this ordinance they do so with the deletion of section 1 which deals with the AG PUD. Public comment has been heard. This is a section of the ordinance which deals with the transfer of density and what it means. The Growth Management Director advised the Board of exceptions that have been added. Com. Coward stated he was at a loss at to why we would want to throw the Rural Land Stewardship program into this. Com. Craft stated he could only see the explanation as being that for example credits are transferred from the Adams Ranch to Cloud Grove and then Cloud Grove does nat move forward and it then goes back to the Adams Ranch and no development took place. 10 Com. Coward stated would it not be under the previous clause that talks about projects that expired and they are not vested or built. Com. Lewis stated she was not sure it was a bad thing in all cases. As long as there are units coming from sotne where and not going back she is not sure why we need to do this. She agrees with the decision made on the island and understands the discussion of the stewardship but she is not sure why in all cases this would be a bad idea. Com. Grande asked if she would be more comfortable if they pulled this ordinance in its entirety rather than half and have it go into the next cycle. Com. Lewis stated she was not clear and does not understand why tliey are doing this and why it is necessary. She agrees they need to get a TDR program in place but she is still not sure this will accomplish that they can't do otherwise. Com. Coward stated the reason they need to do this is because in the Ag PUD Ordinance it does not say you can't and the land use attorney's are interpreting it as "you can". The land use attorney's are paid the big bucks by the developers to find loop holes in the Comp Plan to build as much as they can and this is why they are doing it. It must be clarified. Com. Lewis stated there are good reasons for that not to happen, but she is still hesitant to enact something she is not sure o£ Com. Coward addressed policy 1145 starting with the opening sentence and where it should end. He felt they may be complicating the issue and he does not wish to delay it and would like to take the first step today and is open to the second step on how to do it. Coin. Grande stated he can support this the way iC is now with the additions and exceptions and felt he would support taking out the sentence with the "rural lands" and that is the only qualifying sentence he would remove and cannot support the rrst sentence for the reasons previously heard. Mr. Craig Mundt, North Hutchinson Island resident addressed the Board and stated he hoped they would send it forward in this cycle and try to get it resolved. He read a letter by Diane Andrews. ( A copy of this letter was not submitted to the secretary for the record). Ms Andrews requested an enforcement provision be added to sectiot~ 2 stating that in order for the density receiving parcel to receive a building permit or development order, a recorded instrument be required by the sending parcel. The County Attorney stated this can be required and restricted if we are going to allow a density transfer. The question is do we want to put this in our plan or do we want to put it in the LDR this is for the Board to decide. Dr. (unintelligible last name) Crossroads Environmental and resident of St. Lucie County addressed the Board and stated in his opinion the ordinance was fragmented because tlie AG PUD had been pulled and recommended pulling the ordinance and having dialogue. Mr. Jonathan ~'erguson, Ruden McCloskey, recommended if the Board moves this forward that the language be stricken the words TDR and Rural Land Stewardship and place a period after the word "built". Mr. Tabor, area resident, addressed the Board and stated this was just a situation of a nnan moving around a lot of density. The Chairman closed the public hearing on this item. It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Smith to include Ordinance No. 07-044 in this transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as part 11 of the proposed St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007-2 with the 2 exceptions being, removing AG PUD portion as discussed earlier and remove the Rurai Land Stewardship exception from the 2°d half of the ordinance; and amend the motion to include the language as recoinmended by the Cvunty Attoriiey with cegard to tlie recorded document, and; upon ro11 call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Lewis; Aye's: Coward, Smith ,Grande, Craft, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. B Amendments Intended to Implement the Jenkins Road Special District Plan Amendment Requirements Prior to Rezoning Property. Ordinance No. 07-024- Bayberry Properties- Amending the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Future Land use Element Text for a 56.66 Acre (M.O.L.) Parcel of Land from Residential Urban (RU) 5 Dwelling Units per Acre and Commercial (COM) to Baybeny Mixed Use Activity Area (MXD}, Mediutn Intensity; and Amending the Text of the Future Land Use Element to Provide for Special District Policies Applicable to the New MXD and Adding the Map of the New MSD to the Maps in Figure 1-7. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENEll THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ST. LUCIE COUNTY LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-2 Item Ordinance No. 07-024 (3:30:32) Quasi Judicial All Board members acknawledged having either written or verbal contact with the applicant, Staff reviewed the project and advised the Board as well as the general public the development on the Narth side of the property is limited to single family or townhomes or a combination of both. The development on the south end is commercial and there is mediuin density between the two elements. This project was identified as a mixed use but they did not identify the intensity levels, however, it would need to be compatible with the Jenkins Road area design and study. Com. Coward pointed out there are several single family homes in and around the area and the level of intensity stood out in this project. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not support this project and he believed the key was due to the intensity. Mr. Brad Kerry, representing the applicant made a power point presentation on the project. He stated the Residential Units consist of 46.93 acres. Com. Coward stated there are 8+ units to the acre proposed and felt this was too high of a density. He felt this was a compatibility issue for him. He is not excited with the plan because it is too intense, however he does like the commercial proposed on Orange Avenue which is needed. Com. Grande stated it looks as if there are two applications before them, a commercia] and a residential PUD. He questioned if there was another reason why they were going for a PMUD other than the Jenkins Road design. Mr. Kerry stated there were various aspects, they are asking for the MXD and the PMUD ~vould come with it. They embraced various things can do with their design i.e. reduction of set backs, the roadway network proposed and it is a great opportunity to have higher density in an urban area. Com. Grande stated he believes when they talked about the Jenkins Road plan and the changes allowing less set backs within the frame work of a PMUD was pre-supposing applications would be a mix and a modern urban design and it does not appear to him that the applicant is asking for this. 12 Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden McClosky, stated they understood coming in that compatibility was going to be the pzimary issue and they tried to focus on the two levels and one was MXD. The problem he sees in the compatibility issue is trying to fit into the MXD concept south of tl~e canal and using 2 lots as benclunarks and requiring density be reduced to be compatible has a domino affect and he is not sure if they have just gutted the whole MXD concept in that corridor. Com. Coward addressed Mr. Ferguson's comments and stated they are asking for nearly a 600% increase and there may be some allowable increase but maybe they are asking for too much like 11 and he is talking about those homes in the immediate area. He supports the good design but with less units. Mr. Joe Campbell, one of the two affected property owners and his brother is the otl~er, addressed the Board with his concern of a three story building and it would make him feel as if he was in a"fish bowl". He is opposed to 11 units per acre. Ms. Brenda Campbell addressed the Board in opposition to anything more than 2 units per acre. She understands development is coming but this will change the entire laok of the area. The Growth Management Director advised the Board they could require a low density which is 5 units to the acre or the Board can apply a density restxiction or mandate open space and lower density next to the two residents. The County Attorney stated they can ask the applicant if they would be willing to accept this witli the alternative being the Board not transmitting this ordinance. Mr. Ferguson asked the Board to consider as a compromise the property to the east where there is a MXD Medium to MXD Low similar to the demarcation line they were proposing and if they cannot deal with the compatibility with the Campbell's t}~rough the proper design and location of the water retention area and working in the integral urban design as well then they may reconsider, they would like to try to meet those goals. Com. Grande asked if they would accept a transmittal at low. Com. Lewis stated this is conceptual but she did like the suggestion made by the Growth Management Director where he recommended using low intensity and buffering. Mr. Ferguson offered one more opportunity of compromise be permiited that being they are requesting transmittal as MXDlMedium south of Salina Road and MXD Low north and between now and adoption they will work on proposed buffering and work with Campbell's. If he catuiot get the majority of the Board to go with this and they are requiring MXD Low on the entire residential, they would respectfully request the opportunity to withdraw. The Cliairman closed the public hearing at tliis time. Com. Lewis stated she would not know how to go about dividing a property. She has concerns because the northern part of the property borders only one of the properties. Com. Smitl~ stated one concern is that they are a stone throw away from a major interchange and if this is not an area for potential medium intensities and densities where else would they go. Although he would like to protect the Campbell's privacy and security, he does not wish to say everything should be "low" to the detriment of greater growth management plans. Corn. Craft stated he has similar concerns but he sees 3 possibilities, approve or deny the application to transmit, or can do some change and do something else which he does not recommend, or have the applicant withdraw and bring back something more compatible. 13 ~-~-~7 Dear Commissionez~, My Grandmother Christine Bauinker sold to my parents T.3. & Margaret Campbell who solsi to my bmther Bill and myself the 10 acres at 49i0 & 4914 Orange Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl., the land being in the family over 60 years and aur residences for 35 years. We are the only families affected by the proposed Bayberry Properties; which would surround us on three sides. VJe have attended the building and zoning meetings, which have ended in a tie vote. Alth~ugh, near by land owners, with commercial properties were not thrilled with the groject either. It does not conform to fire department regulations with only one entrance. `I'he las~ commission meeting a year ago, when I spoke with you. The majority of the commissioners agreed with me that to go from low density to high density three stories as proposed by Bayberry Properties was not acceptable. An iu~terested party tald me. That there lawyer t~old you. My brot~er and myself were far their pmposal. We are not and will put it in v~riting. We will be there on the Atagust 21 meeting. Sincerely, Third generation of regi~ste~d voter, i " ' ; , ~i~~~; J ~ i~~~ r~ ~ . - G ' / (J'C- n l_ Er M- / l t~ ~~..y!`;,tic,~t_i~~?..~' t.c:U ~ z~- ~ , u ~ t~~ ~ • ~~v ? , ~ ~I ' e/'' ~ • ~ 1 " , v ' , ~ , , ~ , ~ ~~~a ~ r~ ~ f ~~~G~`~~~ ~ ~ t'~ J` ~ f i~ ii g i r•, . ~ i~y ~ + v \1 ''1 ' ~~t'' , ~ -y, `i;~ i.. ~~1.~ V~' 1, i~ ~ n~ ~ ` , \ ) 4 ,I v ~ p; ~ i ~~~;`l ' V n! F1f " ~ ~-~;r ~Y ( ~ . , . I ~ \ (/"1 ~ ~ ,4~~ , af ~vl 1 1 \1 l," , . f ~ ~ ~U ~;1~ ~ ~ - 1~ ~ ~ I~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~7 ~..5 ; ; _ r~ ~ + { ~ ~~\~,V ~ ~ i ~ ~ 8-8-07 Dear Commissioner, My Grandmather Christine Baumker sold to my parents T.J. & Margaret Campbell who sold to my brother Bill and myself the 14 acres at 4910 & 4914 Orange Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl., the land being in the family ovez 60 years and our residences for 35 years. We are the only families affected by the proposed Baybe~ry Properties; which would surround us on three sides. We have attended the building and zoning meetings, which have ended in a tie vote. Although, near by land owners, with commercial properties were not thrilled with the project e~ther_ It does not conform to fire departznent regulations with only one entrance. Tite last corrurzission meeting a year ago, when I spoke with you. The majority oi the commissioners agreed with me that to go from low density to high density three stories as proposed by Bayberry Properties was not acceptable. An interested party told me. That there lawyer told you_ My brother and myself were for their proposal. We are not and will put it in writing. We will be there on the August 21 meeting. Sincerely, Third generation of registered voter, ° ' --r~ Com. Coward stated he felt it would be most appropriate for the applicant to withdraw at this point. He also advised those present he has received letters from the Campbell's. The applicant requested the opportunity to withdraw his petition. It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Smith to accept the withdraw of the applicant, and; upon rvll call, motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 07-025 Loop Road amending the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Element Text for a 91 acres (MOL ) parcel of land from Residential Urban 5 Dwelling Units per acre to Mixed Use (MXD) Low Intensity on North 34.25 acres and Mixed Use (MXD) Medium Intensity on the south 54.74 acres and amending the Text of the Future Land Use Element to provide for Special District Policies applicable to the new MXD and adding the Map of the new MXD to the Maps in rigure 1-7. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ST. LUCIE COUNTY LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-2 Item Ordinance No. 07-025 (4:19:59) Staff gave an over view of the project and recommended agproval. Mr. Steve Bell, applicant, Land Planning Systems addressed the Board and presented a map illustrating the project. Com. Coward stated this project was different from what they had previously seen and asked if there were any residences immediately to the north and asked if they had received any comments from any residents in the area. The Growth Management Director stated they had not received any letters of concern. Com. Grande questioned if in these mixed usages when we calculate allowable residential allotment, do we subtract out the acreage used for non-residential areas like warehouses or do we give area credit for residential density even though tliey won't be part of it? The Growth Management Director stated the code allows vertical and horizontal mixing of uses and has a site size minimum of 1 acre. As long as the site size is met, you can have horizantal and vertical integration of the uses. Com. Grande asked if actual parts of the land had single uses, like non-residential and do they count towards allowable residential nunnber of units. The Growth Management Director stated they do if there is vertical mixing of parcels and he believes they don't if there is not. If the site is developed for single use purposes like commercial, there is no vertical integration of uses on that part of the site, iY s devoted for commercial. If another part of the site is for residential development only, then you take the gross area of the site and that's the residential units that are allowed. The Board would need to make a policy decision on this issue. Com. Grande stated his understanding was they were actively trying to encourage this kind of design in the Jenkins Road Plan. . If they are not getting that and they cannot force folks to go there, and they are going to have an area that is strictly non-residential and not integrated, then we would not include these lands and the lands supporting thenn for example, the required parking for a warehouse, then that acreage would not count towards the residential. 14 It ~vas moved by Com. Cownrd, seconded by Com. Lewis to include Ordinance No. 07-025 Loop Road in the plan amendments to be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as proposed in the St. Lucie Cow~ty Amendment Cycle 2007-2; and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 07-030- Tuscany, Jenkins Road Planning Area, Southwest Corner of the intersection of Taylor Dairy Road and Angle Road. Ordinance No. 07-030 An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Plorida, amending the adopted Comprehensive Plan Puture Land Use Map for a 30.35 acre (MOL) parcel of land from Residential Urban (RU) 5 Dwelling Units per acre, to Commercial; providing Findings, providing for Conflicting Provisions, providing for Severability, providing for Applicability, providing for Filing with the Florida Department of State; providing for Filing with the Flarida Department of Community Affairs; providing for an Effective Date and providing for Adoption. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-2 Item Ordinance No. 07-030 Staff reviewed this application, and determined that there is an insufficient amount of land remaining after right of way dedications for a mixed use project (approximately 20 acres). Staff recommends approval of the proposed Commercial Future Land use Map designation as consistent with the Jenkins Road Area Plan classification of this site for a Commercial Village. The site will be at the intersection of two four lane roads. Com. Coward stated he would like ta make the applicant aware that the Board would be creating value to this property due to the roadway and commercial aspect of the area and would like to have the applicant state what is their intention with regard to the Right of Way. Mr. Buddy Goud, representing the applicant stated they had approached the County Attorney and staff to work out a plan that is reasonable for both parties. Mr. Goud stated he would commit to work with the County Attorney with a reasonable value goal. Com. Coward stated they need a partnership in this instance and felt they need to liave assurance that the private interests are working with the county. Mr. Patrick Cunningham sated the existing zoning is AR-1 and the land use is RU. Mr. Goud stated they would work with the county without any reconceived number. Com. Coward stated his idea was that even after the contribution the county would still be creating value and he wants to make clear that as they proceed the land is agricultural. Com. Craft stated he was not sure we could tie any of this to the Land Use change. The County Attorney stated they normally would deal with right of way issues at the site plan approval. They have had discussions with the applicant and have advised the applicant they do not have any money budgeted for the purchase of Right of Way. Com. Craft requested a site plan before moving forward to see if it fits into the community and feels the two should be linked. Mr. Goud stated they did not have a site plan at this time and they cannot have a site plan and go tl~rough the process by the time of adoption. They will continue to work with the County, 15 Com. Coward stated it was appropriate to require a site plan with a land use proposal. Com. Grande questioned where is the team work and the partnership. Mr. Cuozzo, Houton Cuozzo, stated he understood and asked the Board to transmit and he is would be making an agreement with the County for right of way before adoption. The County Attorney stated he heard the applicant offer to agree to work it out between transmittal and adoption. This is an option for the Board to consider with the idea by December we will have a process and some strategy how we will handle the right of way acquisition. The Chairman closed the Public hearing at this time. Com. Coward stated he did not hear any discussion from the applicant on possible donation of right of way and maybe they should wait for the next cycie. Mr. Goud stated he could not commit on behalf of the applicant at this time. Com. Craft stated they should hold off for a couple more months and would like to see them withdraw and bring it back in the next cycle. Com. Coward stated he supported a withdraw. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith to transmit St. Lucie County Amendrnent Cycle 2007-2 Ordinance No. 07-030 and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Coward, Grande, Craft; Aye's Smith, Lewis; motion denied by a vote of 3 to 2. Ordinance No. 07-027- Stark Ranch, Ginn Corporation An Ordinance proposing a new mixed use low intensity Future Land Use Map designation and site specific policies for a 3,814.74 acre (MOI) pazcel of land outside the Urban Service Boundary to increase the permitted number of dwelling units from approximately 763 to a proposed 1,990 with a proposed 200,000 square feet of commercial development. At this time the applicant requested to withdraw this amendment It was moved by Com. Grande, seconded by Com. Caward to accept the withdraw of the amendment Ginn Corporation, Ordinance No. 07-027 and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis to transmit those ordinances approved by the Board of County Commissioners, with any amendments ciirected by the Board, to the Florida Department vf Community Affairs and such other agencies as required by law for review and comment as the proposed St. Lucie County Amendment Cycle 2007.2; and, upon roli call, motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Clerk of the Circuit Court 16