Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 04-19-2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: April 19, 2005 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Tape: 1-3 Adjourned: 10:40 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Frannie Hutchinson, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Chris Craft, Joseph Smith Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Don West, Public Works Director, Mike Bowers, Utilities Director, David Kelly, Planning Manager, Ed Parker, Purchasing Director, Mike Pawley, County Engineer, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes of the meetings held April 5, 2005 and April 12, 2005, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Resolution No. 05-166 Proclaiming April 30, 2005 through May 7, 2005 as “Drowning Prevention Week in Conjunction with Safe Kids Week” in St. Lucie County, Florida. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Resolution No. 05- 156, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution No. 05-165 Proclaiming April 22, 2005 as “Volunteer Appreciation Day” in St. Lucie County, Florida. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 05- 165, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution No. 05-171, Commending Mr. Henry Dean for his almost four years of continuous service as Executive Director for the South Florida Water Management District; and his seventeen years of continuous service as Executive Director for the St Johns River Water Management District, as he officially retires on June 1, 2005- Consider staff recommendation to adopt the attached Resolution No. 05-171 as drafted. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Resolution No. 05- 171, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. D. The County Administrator read upcoming events. 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. John Arena, Ft. Pierce resident, addressed the Board regarding the proposed new FPL plant and expressed his concerns should this plant be a coal burning operation. 1 Mr. John Futz, Indian River Drive resident, addressed the Board and expressed his concern with the remaining debris on the waterside of the Indian River Drive project. He advised the Board of debris collecting near his property due to the armoring of the properties in the area. The County Engineer addressed Mr. Futz’s concern and stated the are waiting for a response from the FDOT and once they receive the response staff will be bringing it back to the Board where the decision will be made for assistance. Mr. Phil Stickles, area resident, addressed the Board regarding the workshop scheduled with Florida Power and Light and asked the Board to consider re-scheduling the meeting to the evening so that other residents can attend. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (1-869) It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve the Consent Agenda, with item C-7C pulled and the additions of CA-1, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warrant List No. 29. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Resolution No. 05-169 extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Frances; and Resolution No. 05-170 Extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Jeanne- The Board approved Resolution Nos. 05-169 and No. 05-170. B. Revocable License Agreement- Cira Estevez- Clear and pave Shawnee Avenue to her property- The Board approved the Revocable License Agreement, authorized the Chairman to sign the Agreement and direct Ms. Estevez to record the document in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. C. Subdivision improvement Agreement –River Oaks at Ten Mile Creek LLC Tax I.D. No. 2429-0060-0005 - The Board approved the Subdivision Improvement Agreements and authorized the Chairman to sign the Agreement. 3. LIBRARY A. SIRSI Software Maintenance Contract renewal- The Board approved the contract in the amount if $ 21,124.00 and authorized the County Administrator to sign the purchasing requisition. B. Coin up vending system for County network at St Lucie West Library- The Board approved Equipment Request EQ05-321 for the purchase of the Coin and Bill PC Payment Peripheral System and mounting base for the St. Lucie West Library. C. Approve Equipment Request EQ05-22 and Budget Amendment No. BA05-154 in the amount of $12,500 for the purchase of capital software to upgrade the Library’s Webcat remote access to iBIstro- The Board authorized the purchase of the iBistro software; approved EQ05-322 and BA05-154; and authorized staff to proceed with the purchase of the software for the Library’s online catalog. 2 D. Upgrade phone/date lines at Lakewood Park Branch Library- The Board approved additional funds needed for this project and authorized staff to proceed with securing a contract for services. 4. GRANTS A. Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the FDEP- The Board authorized the submittal of a grant application to the FDEP, Invasive Exotic Plant Removal Grant Program for $100,000 for assistance in controlling invasive exotic plant species at Blind Creek Park and approved the acceptance of the grant if awarded. B. Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for funds in an amount of $1,265,068 to retrofit 11 County buildings with high impact glass or storm shutters/awnings. Resolution No. 05-163 - The Board approved Resolution No. 05-163 authorized the submittal of the grant application and authorized the acceptance of the grant if approved for funding. C. Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for funds in the amount of $4,875.00 to construct drainage improvements Indian River Estates- Resolution No. 05-162- The Board approved Resolution No. 05-162 and authorized the submittal of the grant and authorized it’s acceptance if approved for funding. 5. INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Release of retainage- Universal Cabling Systems, Inc.- Contract No. C03-10-817/Walton Road Annex- The Board approved the release of retainage in the amount of $5, 667.60 to Universal Cabling Systems, for the installation of data and telecommunications cabling for Walton Road Annex. 6. PUBLIC WORKS Approval to proceed with obtaining additional interim financing in the amount of $604,000.00 for the Lennard Road 1 Roadway MSBU project and approved Budget Resolution No. 05-167 to recognize the funding in the FY 2004-2005 budget. 7. PURCHASING A. Bid No. 05-035 Roadside Long Line Mowing- The Board approved awarding Bid No. 05-035 Roadside Long Line Mowing to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, Coastal Services for a three year contract at as first year cost of $31,975.00 per cycle and $6,000.00 for extra litter pick up and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. B. Permission to Advertise- The Board approved permission to advertise an Invitation for Bid for Preventive Maintenance Services for light vehicles. C. Award of RFP No. 05-021 Architectural Services Continuing Contract- This item was pulled. D. Bid No. 05-032 Purchase of Fifteen Portable Generators – The Board approved awarding Bid No. 05-032 the purchase of 15 portable generators to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, Nations Rent, for a total amount of $22,860.00. 8. UTILITIES 3 A. Change Order No. 4- Astaldi Construction Corp.- The Board approved Change Order No. 4 with Astaldi Construction Corp. to decrease the amount of the contract by $665,674.94. B. Final Payment Application and release of retainage with S Construction Corp. – The Board approved the final payment application and release of retainage with Astaldi Construction Corp., for work completed for the NHI Wastewater Treatment Facility Modifications in the amount of $39,472.87. ADDITIONS: CA-1. PURCHASING RFP No. 04-105 Global Positioning Satellite Pretrial Release and Post Trial Offender, Electronic Monitoring Services- Reject all proposals- The Board approved rejecting all proposals and approved re-advertising the RFP. REGULAR AGENDA 5.A COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-869) Ordinance No. 05-003 Historic Preservation Ordinance- Consider staff recommendation to approve the proposed Ordinance to be effective October 1, 2005. The Assistant County Attorney addressed the Board on the revisions of the ordinance and advised them of the “opt out” option added to the ordinance. This option gives the property owner the opportunity to inform the county they are not interested in the historic designation and the person may do so at the beginning when advised their property is under consideration. Mr. Ramon Trias, 703 Florida Avenue, addressed the Board in favor of the ordinance however he preferred the “opt out” language not be included. Mr. Richard Langdon, Indian River Drive resident, and historian for the Indian River Drive Freeholders, addressed the Board in support of the ordinance and stated they do support the inclusion of the “opt out” language. Mr. O’Neil, South Indian River Drive resident, addressed the Board and stated he concurred with the previous speakers comments. Mr. Paul Roberts, Mercantile Store owner, addressed the Board and stated he supported the ordinance, however he felt the “opt out” language should remain in the ordinance. Mr. Michael Bringle, area resident, addressed the Board in favor of the “opt out” language remaining in the ordinance. Mr. Dan Buser, White City resident, addressed the Board and stated many people do not have the finances available to restore the homes and asked the county’s goals and intent. Mr. Neil McKenzie, St. Lucie Blvd., addressed the Board in opposition to the ordinance. He stated he does not have the money to restore the house and hopes to sell the property and suggested if the county wished for it to be a historical site that they purchase the home. He asked if the ordinance passes the opt-out language remain in the ordinance. Ms. Margaret Monahan- Brocksmith Road resident requested the Board keep the opt-out language in the ordinance. Mr. Walt Rider, area resident addressed the Board in favor of the opt-out language due to what he felt was a property rights issue. 4 Ms. Joanne Davis, Chairperson for the Historic Preservation Committee, addressed the Board in favor of the ordinance without the opt-out language. Mr. Ted Patrosky, Indian River Driver resident, addressed the Board in favor of the opt- out language so that property owners can maintain control of their property. Ms. Lisa Nelson, White City resident, encouraged the adoption of the ordinance including the opt-out language. Mr. Craig Smith, area resident, addressed the Board in favor of the ordinance but had some concerns with the opt-out language. Ms. Arlene Goodman, White City resident, addressed with Board in favor of the ordinance with the opt-out language included. Mr. Jay Borlin, area resident addressed the Board in support of the opt-out language remaining in the ordinance. Mr. Jay Maycumber, Indrio Road resident, addressed the Board in favor of the ordinance and questioned the plan for historic sites owned by the county such as the old school house. Ms. Monahan addressed the Board and questioned who would be on the Board and expressed her concern with what might happen in the future as to what is considered historical and not historical by a future Board. She also expressed her concern with demolition. Com. Hutchinson addressed Ms. Monahan’s question as to appointees to the Board. Com. Craft stated he would like to see more clear definition as to what creates a historical designation in lay terms. If they are going to leave in the opt-out clause, he would like to consider the few historical commercial buildings not have the opt-out clause option. Com. Coward expressed his concern with developers wanting to take down a historical structure and would like to work with the committee to find a middle ground where rare instances can be addressed. He concurs with the lack of clarity on the ordinance and is concerned with providing property rights and protection as well as preserving the structures under a rare occurrence. He also commented on raising funds to move structures and used the example of the Rasmussen House. Com. Lewis stated because of the property rights issue she finds herself in a difficult position in preserving structures and also keeping property rights in tact. She does agree with the opt-out clause although it makes her nervous to do so. Com. Craft asked if it would be possible to have a list of the properties that would be designated historical areas before going any further. Com. Hutchinson stated she would like to see the areas to be designated upfront before approving the ordinance. She agrees with the opt-out clause but felt there are some areas that need protection. She is not in support of what is before her tonight. The County Attorney suggested staff continue to work on the ordinance in order to provide a level of comfort for the residents and advised them he would work on the language and suggested the Board continue this hearing. Ms. Ellen Yugochonni, Janus Corp., addressed the Board and stated they could provide the necessary information and the list in a 2 month period. 5 The County Attorney stated they would need to provide notice to the people and for this reason they need to define the criteria for extraordinary or special designations and then provide a process so that they can come in and speak to the Board regarding the designation of the property. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to continue this hearing (for a date to be set) with the direction that as soon as staff is able and as swiftly as possible bring this item back before Board, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.B GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2-1670) Consider the Petition of Florida Resources, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow mining and quarrying of non-metallic materials in the AG-1 zoning district for property located on the south side of Indrio Road, approximately ½ mile west of Interstate 95. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve the Petition of Florida Resources LLC, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.C ENGINEERING (2-1814) Engineering Division- Public Hearing to review the application request of Florida Resources LLC for a Mining Permit. This request is to seek Board approval for a Class II mining permit for twenty years to be updated every 12 months subject to the following conditions. 1. Hours of operation (including related activities such as loading, stockpiling, processing, etc: 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with not operations on holidays as observed by St. Lucie County or Sundays. 2. No dewatering without SFWMD permit and approval from the County Engineer. 3. A performance bond of $68,994.96 will be maintained for Phase 1. 4. Only one phase shall be mined at any one time. Prior to mining a new phase, the permittee shall get approval from the County in writing. Unless a new and separate bond amount is provided only one phase shall be mined at a time. 5. Once the reclamation requirements are complete for one phase, the County Engineer will notify the permittee in writing on when the next phase can begin unless a new and separate bond amount is provided. 6. Blasting is not approved as part of this permit. 7. All equipment, machinery and structures, which are accessory to mining, shall be properly removed from the site at the expiration of the permit. 8. Stockpiled material and haul roads shall be periodically watered down during dry and or windy conditions to minimize migration of sand, dust or air contaminants to surrounding properties. 9. Prior to the commencement of any mining related operations, approval from all other regulatory agencies shall be submitted by the County Engineer. 10. As part of the reclamation phase, the permittee shall provide the County Enginer with an as built survey which includes, but is not limited to, water depths, setbacks, and cross sections (200’minimum) this survey shall be performed and certified by a professional land surveyor. The property lines shall be monumented. 6 11. Pursuant to Section 378.802, Florida Statutes, the mine operator must notify the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Reclamation, Innovation Park, 2051 East Dirac Dr., Tallahassee, Fla. 32310 (904) 488-8217 before any new surface areas is disturbed. 12. Violations of the mining permit or mining plan are subject to permit revocation by the Board of County Commissioners and or subject to a fine of $250 per violation and an additional $100 per day for each day that the violation is not brought into compliance. 13. Adherence to all noise and vibration ordinances that were in effect at the time of original approval is required. The noise and vibration ordinance may be modified if noise complaints are received. 14. The twelve-month update shall include but not limited to an estimated output and a graphical representation of how much area is mined. 15. The applicant shall perform surveys during each nesting season (February- July) for the Burrowing Owl. If the nest is found to be active, weekly monitoring by a qualified biologist will be initiated to document occupancy and nesting activity for each season that the newt is occupied. Weekly monitoring will entail, at a minimum, observations of the nest site for evidence of nesting and territorial behaviors. Copies of all reports documenting the results of these observations shall be submitted to the St Lucie County Environmental Resources Division. a. If the current nest is found to be inactive, the applicant will survey for other possible nest locations in the conditional use area. Should another nest location be found, the monitoring requirement outline above shall apply. b. If the nest site is found to be inactive, and no other nest site is located within the conditional use area, the permittee will perform monthly monitoring of the nest site to verify inactive status. c. If the nest site is determined to be inactive for two consecutive nesting periods and no other active nest site is found the monitoring and reporting requirements outlined above shall not be required any longer. 16. Prior to the issuance of the mining permit, the permittee shall submit a Management and Monitoring Plan to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Division identifying long-term maintenance activities for the Burrowing Owl areas. This plan shall contain but not be limited to: a. The prohibition of pesticides within the 150 foot buffer area b. The location and type of fencing that shall be provided, at a minimum around the outer edge of the 150-foot radius surrounding the burrow. The fencing used shall allow for the passage of wildlife underneath the fence. c. Installation of a T-perch near the burrow if the identified nest or another in the vicinity is found to be active. d. A copy of brochures that shall be used to identify the Burrowing Owl protective zone and to be used to educate project personnel about the owl and proper protocol if an owl is observed in the project area. These brochures shall be distributed to all project personnel and, e. A copy of the brochure shall be distributed to all project personnel with information regarding the Crested Cara Cara and protocol to follow should a Crested Cara Cara be sighted in the construction zone. 17. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for the Audubon’s Crested Cara Cara on project lands during the nesting season (December-August). A copy 7 of these surveys shall be submitted to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Division. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward to approve the application subject to the stated conditions as amended, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. Com. Coward advised everyone previously an application was presented that was contentious 5.D GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2-2075) Consider Draft Resolution 05-023 granting approval to the petition of Kolter Property Company for a change in zoning from AR-1 zoning district to the PUD zoning district and Final PUD approval for the project known as Parcel 34E @ The Reserve (Island Club) a 19,172 square foot clubhouse with a swimming pool, basketball court and tennis courts. Mr. Fawcett, PGA Village resident, addressed the Board regarding the Island Club and submitted a letter and petitions signed by the area residents, stating their opposition to the location of the clubhouse as well as the mandatory membership. Mr. Bill Hammer, Reserve resident, addressed the Board regarding the size of the proposed membership and stated this clubhouse was being used soley as a marketing tool. Mr. Scott Moore, representing Kolter Property had requested a continuance before the meeting. The County Attorney addressed the mandatory membership and stated it is not relevant to the issue at hand. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis to continue this hearing on August 2, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.E GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2-2761) Consider Draft Resolution 05-136 approving the petition of Ginn-LA St. Lucie LLLP for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 7,700 square foot beach club contained in a 100 unit condominium in the HIRD and PUD zoning districts. The Planning Manger advised the Board of the two outstanding issues. The sea turtle plan did not have the lighting completed and the conservation easement was not listed specifically so they only brought the conditional use forward at this time. He advised the Board the Code permits uses such as this in HIRD as a conditional use provided the proposed use will not generate traffic in excess of that projected for the maximum residential. They have added a condition limiting the club to 7700 square feet and the site plan to 100 dwelling units. Normally they would not do something this specific but felt it was important to limit them so that the total trips stay under the number of trips that would be allowed at the maximum residential. Com. Coward advised everyone present he had met with the applicant. The balance of the Board disclosed having conservations with the applicant. Mr. Rick Ricannis, Ginn Company, addressed the Board on this issue. Com. Coward questioned the lagoon side of this property and his desire to incorporate a public access component on the southwest side and asked if it was appropriate to do this through the conditional use approval now or wait until the site plan comes forward. 8 The County Attorney stated if it is an important component of the whole project, it would be appropriate to discuss it tonight. It should be incorporated in the site plan if the applicant is agreeable. Mr. Ricannis stated they are facing two issues with obstacles at this point. The County’s Environmental Department is requiring they put a conservation easement over the west side of A-1-A with the exception of a 10 ft access for potential condo owners and they also have a drainage easement going to the west. There is a requirement for the conservation easement to be platted over the rest of the entire western piece in addition to a 50 ft buffer county requirement off of the edge of any water wetlands. There are some areas they would be happy to work with the county on, at this point they are not sure they could make a commitment to do something on that property. Com. Coward stated if it could be worded as limited resource passive recreation and felt they should put in such language. Mr. Ricannis stated they would be very happy to work with the county at that end, but is not sure how it would be done. However, he is willing to work with the county on this issue. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Draft Resolution No. 05-136, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 6. COUNTY ATTORNEY (2-3354) Lennard Road Phase 1 MSBU Project-Wetland Mitigation Sales Agreement- Consider staff recommendation to approve the Wetlands Mitigation Credit Sales Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement, It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 7. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2-2439) Consider Draft Resolution 05-029 granting Major Site Plan approval for the project to be known as Emerson Commercial Center for property located at the Northwest corner of the intersection of Emerson Avenue and Indrio Road subject to 10 limiting conditions. Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road., addressed the Board regarding the road study. She asked if the Board had a chance to review the letter from Premier Consultants. She alluded to serious issues regarding concurrency according to state law. She questioned staff’s ability to perform such a study and asked that measures be taken at an early date to avoid the same problems with Emerson Estates. Com. Coward commented on the April 13. 2005 Memo from the Assistant County Administrator. The memo states, “The developer is revising the submitted traffic study. His representatives indicate that the proposed project will not cause a decrease in level of service in the area”. The Planning Manager stated the County does have a traffic engineer very capable of reviewing the study. He has reviewed the study that was re-done by the applicant subsequent to the last meeting and in fact has looked at the comments the Treasure Coast provided, as has the applicant’s staff. Com. Coward stated he has not received the Traffic Engineer’s comments to this date. Mr. Jay Maycumber, area resident, addressed the Board and asked they consider the impact this project would have on the surrounding community. 9 Mr. Charles Grande, Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board regarding the site plan and stated this was an issue difficult to discuss. He referenced the prior site plan and independent of what it looked like as a classical retail mall, it certainly is inconsistent with the new definition of what retail should look like in this area in the future. Ms. Cynthia Angelos, attorney for the applicant, alluded to a memo sent to the Board with changes to the site plan and are also prepared to address the traffic issues. Mr. Kilday, Kilday and Associates, planner for the project addressed the Board and provided the new site plan. They decided to double the buffering on both right of ways. Also, the south right of way, between Indrio Road existing right of way and this property there is 120 feet wide strip which is the 200 ft right of way for Indrio Road they are dedicating this and all improvements as green space. He continued to review the site plan. Mr. Steph Mathis, Culpepper & Terpening, addressed the Board regarding the traffic study. He stated upon visiting Indian River County, he was able to site 4 projects that could impact the area on Emerson Avenue. The projects totaled 1877single family units these dwelling units were added to the traffic study. The results of the revised traffic study indicated near the same answers as the first traffic study. There were impacts but the proposed remedies to those impacts were part of those 10 conditions they still propose to provide. Mr. Mathis addressed the points from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (response is attached as provided by Culpepper & Terpening dated April 19, 2005 directed to Mr. Scott Herring P.E. Road and Bridge manager). Com. Coward stated as he understands it the majority of the problems are not west Johnston towards I-95, the majority of them are east. Mr. Mathis stated his analysis is more conservative he puts more traffic on the links that have more problems. In 2003 the counts taken had 5300 vehicles as daily traffic and in 2004 counts had a 4200 daily traffic, so there was a decrease. These are the MPO traffic counts. Com. Craft asked the current level of service on Indrio Road and Kings Highway. Mr. Mathis stated it was a “failed”. Com. Craft questioned, “The current level of services is a pass on Emerson and Indrio”? Mr. Mathis stated this was correct, however, without the improvements it would fail. Com. Hutchinson questioned the formula utilized. The Road and Bridge Manager stated the manual utilized is the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation book based on 40/50 years of research. Com. Hutchinson questioned the improvements for Kings Highway and Indrio Road and where they were at this point. The Road and Bridge Manager stated this was in the active design phase, but a time frame has not been designated. Com. Coward commented on the fact that the project is relying on improvements by the County that are not budgeted to be completed in order to meet concurrency. Mr. Mathis stated they proposed to pull monies required to pay for improvements and put them all in one place to give the county a bigger benefit since the County at some point 10 will move forward towards improving the intersection since the County has already determined it is a failing level of service. Com. Coward asked legal staff’s opinion on how the County can approve additional impact to the roadway until those improvements area actually made. The County Attorney stated typically on Chapter 5, they would have identified those improvements in their 5 year capital plan for construction or they would identified n the current fiscal years for construction which is not happening. He is not sure it meets the Chapter 5 concurrency test. Com. Coward asked if this is not in the capital plan, how are they meeting concurrency? The Road and Bridge Manager stated he was not well versed on Chapter 5 and he may have been operating under the misconception of fair share contributions and minimizing impact this way. The Planning Manager stated they may have thought about fair share and thought they had this as a better solution. Com. Craft stated he did not believe they could do the improvements to those intersections where it will be a passing grade at the same cost. Com. Hutchinson stated she needed to put the blame where it belonged, to the County. Com. Craft stated he understood her point but he could not vote for something that did not meet concurrency. Unless the developer is willing to pay for the all improvements this project will not meet concurrency. The County Administrator stated the reason it was not in the 5 year plan is because Kings Highway and Indrio Road are state roads. The County Attorney read the sub-section in Chapter 5 regarding FDOT roads. Ms. Angelos stated they have discussed with client to be prepared to kick in their fair share. The dilemma at this point is when will that happen. She offered an approval of the site plan with two more conditions, one being the requirement of a fair share contribution and not pulling building permits until all the roads meet level of service. Com. Hutchinson questioned if they were looking to have a developer’s agreement with the County. Ms. Angelos stated the two conditions would be 1) the developer enter into a fair share agreement in improving the intersection of Indrio and Kings Highway /Emerson and 2) not building permits would be pulled until those improvements are guaranteed. Com. Coward stated while fair share sounds good it has to be balanced with adequate services being in place. He would like to have clarity on this issue and would not be voting in favor of an issue that does not meet the concurrency as he is being told tonight it does not based on the criteria of the Land Development Code. The County Attorney stated if you assume it does not met concurrency and the criteria of the Land Development Code then this is a basis for denial of the site plan. This does not preclude the applicant from coming back and proposing through a developers’ agreement or some other acceptable mechanism alternatives to improve the intersection so that it does meet the level of service and they can work out in the developers’ agreement if they have to exceed their fair share, some recovery of cost as they go forward and collect impact fees and reimburse. He is not sure they are ready to enter into a developers’ agreement tonight. Ms. Angelos stated if in fact this project does not meet concurrency, she believes it should be pulled and attempt to work out a developers’ agreement. 11 Com. Hutchinson questioned a developers’ agreement with these roads not being County roads. The County Attorney stated the agreement he is speaking of, is one of which would provide funding for improvements to a state road intersection. It would have to meet all state permitting requirements and subject to their approval, there are many ways to deal with this. The developers would have to be negotiated and then adopted following public hearings. Ms. Angelos asked this be continued for a period of time to let the Engineers explore their possibilities and move into a developers agreement meeting FDOT requirements and standards. Ms. Noreen Dwyer, attorney for the applicant asked if there were other issues besides concurrency that need to be addressed. Com. Smith summarized what he has heard and stated he felt there were other issues and it would probably be up to the balance of the Board as to where it will go from here. Com. Craft stated one of his issues was creating open commercial space. The area is not ready for a development of this magnitude. Com. Coward stated there is a need for greater specificity of the actual size of the berm and buffer. Also the North/South roadway if there will be more residential building around the area will this be used as a roadway or will they compete with traffic internal to the site plan. He also questioned where the storm water would be going. Ms. Angelos requested the Board to approve a continuance so that the engineers could work out a developers’ agreement that would be beneficial to both intersections, at Indrio Emerson and Indrio and Kings Highway. Com. Hutchinson stated it was mentioned earlier if there were others interested in entering into a developers’ agreement, she is sure their cooperation would be helpful. Com. Lewis stated she was in support of moving forward with the developers’ agreement to see if they come up with some improvement to at least one of the intersections. Com. Hutchinson commented on the fact she has not received any data on the proposed plan for the Charrett. The Assistant County Administrator addressed Com. Hutchinson’s remarks and stated she believed this was a task given to the Regional Planning Council and they did have some discussion the issue. She believed that in lieu of bringing forward a separate report, they folded their comments in the overall report. Com. Coward read comments made by Mr. Mathis in a letter previously. It was moved by Com. Coward seconded by Com. Craft to deny Resolution No. 05-029; and, upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Lewis, Hutchinson; Aye’s: Smith, Craft, Coward, motion to deny carried by a vote of 3 to 2. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ______________________ Chairman ________________________ Clerk of Court 12 13