Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 08-02-2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: August 2, 2005 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Tape: 1-3 Adjourned: 10:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Frannie Hutchinson, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Joseph Smith, Chris Craft 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, Susan Kilmer, Library Director, Millie Delgado- Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES (1-024) It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes of the meeting held July 26, 2005, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS (1-030) A. Florida Trust For Historic Preservation- A presentation was made by the County Administration for the Florida Preservation Award 2005 to Susan Kilmer, Library Director and Jody Bonet, Transit Manager in recognition of Outstanding Achievement in the field of Preservation Education/Media. B. The County Administrator read upcoming events 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (1-092) Mr. John Arena, Ft. Pierce resident, addressed the Port property. Ms. Susie Caron, Indrio Road resident, addressed the Board and stressed the “Quality of Life” and the North County Charrette. Ms. Caron also commented on the water quality of the Estuary. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (1-457) It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the Consent Agenda, with item C-6 pulled and the addition of CA-1, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warrant List No. 44. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Resolution No. 05-304- Extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Frances and Resolution No. 05-305 Extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Jeanne- The Board approved Resolution 1 Nos. 05-304 and 05-305 and authorized the Chairman to sign the Resolutions. B. Development Agreement with Johnson Road Development Group, LLC Rocking Horse Ranch- The Board granted permission to advertise the public hearings. 3. COMMUNITY SERVICES Approval of Selection of a Grant Administration Consultant for CDBG Disaster Initiative Grant- The Board authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the highest ranked firm. 4. GRANTS A. Authorize the acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetland Reserve Program in the amount of $178,121 for restoration of the recently acquired 316 acre Teague property- The Board approved acceptance of the grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. B. Authorize the amendment of Contract C05-02-085- The Board approved the amendment to Contract C05-02-085 with Guidance Group to increase the maximum Contract payment from $30,000 to $35,000 and to allow work to be completed under this contract to be for educational, interpretive, directional and entrance signage at Pepper Park Riverside, Wildcat Cove Preserve and Indrio Blueway Preserve. 5. PARKS AND RECREATION Request approval to serve Alcohol at Pepper Park- The Board approved the Hicks family’s request to serve alcohol during their event on August 7, 2005 at Pepper Park. 6. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - Webmaster position- This item was pulled. 7. PUBLIC WORKS Emergency Repair- Hidden River Estates Drainage Outfall Structures- The Board declared Hidden River Estates Drainage Outfall Structures Repair project an emergency, waive the formal bidding procedure and authorize staff to contact vendors for written quotes for the appropriate repairs. 8. CENTRAL SERVICES Approval to reject all Bids- Bid No. 074-0-2005 For the Construction of the Clerk of Court Office Building Parking Lot- The Board approved rejecting all bids for this project. ADDITIONS CA-1. PURCHASING Permission to advertise a Request for Proposals for Air Quality Consultants for the review of documents pertaining to the FPL Coal Fired Power Plant- The Board approved advertising an RFP for Air Quality Consultants for the review of documents pertaining to the FPL Coal Fired Power Plant. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 5.A COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-499) Ordinance No. 05-004- Signs- Consider staff recommendation to approve Ordinance No. 05-004 and authorize the signing of the ordinance. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve Ordinance No. 05- 004, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.B COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-570) Ordinance No. 05-003- Historic Preservation Ordinance- Consider staff recommendation to approve proposed Ordinance No. 05-003 to be effective January 1, 2006. The Asst. County Attorney addressed the changes made to the Ordinance per previous direction given by the Board. Mr. Ramon Trias, Florida Avenue resident, addressed the Board and expressed congratulations for moving forward with what he felt was for the betterment of the county. He encouraged implementation of the ordinance with appropriate staffing. Mr. Bill Blazak, Senior Project Manager, Culpepper & Terpening addressed the list being part of the basis for the ordinance. He stated being on this list would cost property owners money. The Assistant County Attorney addressed Mr. Blazak’s concerns and advised him there were two separate lists. Mr. Michael Brindle, Indian River Drive resident, addressed the Board regarding the ability to do what he sees fit with his property and asked he be taken off the list. Mr. Bill Furst, Holiday Pines asked the Board clarify the “opt out” clause in the Ordinance. The Assistant County Attorneys stated the “opt out” comes into play when the Board is considering designation of a certain property. Under this proposed Ordinance there are currently no properties on the list with historic designation. It would need to be designated an exceptional historic resource, for a property owner not to be able to opt out. Mr. Furst stated he would like to know how to get off the list. Mr. Jay Maycumber, Indrio Road resident, thanked the Board for the ordinance and preserving the buildings the residents feel are historical and want to keep them in their community. Ms. Audrey Mullen resident and property owner questioned if she would be able to build a new home next to an old home. The Asst. County Attorney addressed Ms. Mullen’s question and stated it would be possible. Ms. Cindy Snay, resident, questioned the historical group’s review and if a property owner requested to opt out, how this would work. The Assistant County Attorney stated if the structure is determined to be historic, it is then taken to the historical commission and they either sign off on it or attempt to work with the property owner to come up with an alternate solution. Ms. Lucille Wright, Stuart resident, owns a townhouse on North Beach, questioned if we had a requirement to move a historical structure if they property owner does not want to keep it. 3 The Asst. County Attorney stated there is nothing specific of that nature in the ordinance. However, if it was proposed for demolition then the new emergency action section would kick in to have the Board to review to see if the designation process should be initiated. Mr. Jim Piawatty, Indian River Drive resident, questioned what would happen to those individuals who cannot afford to maintain and repair the property should it be classified historical. The Asst. County Attorney stated there was a provision in the ordinance under section 1- 10.2-23 which allows the person to provide proof of economic hardship they could apply to have the criteria of the ordinance not apply to the construction or repair permits they might need. Also, once the ordinance is adopted, the county will be able to apply for state and federal funding and these funds would be placed in the trust fund established for this purpose. Mr. Bill Blazak, stated he was in the process of moving an old house and they would gladly work with the county in the placement of the house. He also stated he would like to see the county work with the property owners who wish to be taken off the list that is being created and the cost associated such as an Archeological survey. Com. Craft stated he did not wish to tie the list in any way to this ordinance. Com. Lewis stated she would like to know how they incorporated our list into their requirements before requesting anything be removed. She would like to look into this further before a letter is sent. Com. Coward stated what he was recommending was sending a letter with a cautionary statement the inventory was done on a broad brush fashion which may include a structure due to age but not necessarily of archeological significance. Ms. Lisa Nelson, White City resident, addressed the Board and stated there are three issues in favor of the public; the economic hardship is the first, an “opt out” clause, and the exceptional designation. Mr. Tommy Carter, property owner addressed the Board regarding the ordinance and stated he had attempted to rebuild an old structure that is falling apart and is historical and was denied the permits. Com. Hutchinson stated she was not sure why he was denied the permits. The Asst. County Attorney stated the property was not designated historical under this ordinance and although she is not familiar with the circumstances she stated the Land Development Code does require review of the older structures and it may have gone to the Historical Commission for review and it was denied. There may have other factors why it was denied. She advised him his house has not been designated and no one would be designated until after January 1, 2006. She recommended he meet with the building staff to find out the reasons for the denial but he can reapply for the demolition permit. Com. Hutchinson commented on page 17 under Sec. 1-10.2.14 number 3 and asked if they could add the language, “ based upon written recommendation from local, state or national historical”. She would like a paper trail. The Asst. County Attorney stated this was the intent. Com. Craft thanked and commended staff on the creation of the ordinance. Com. Hutchinson advised staff this was the consensus of the entire Board. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis to adopt this ordinance with the added language as stated by the Chair, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 4 Com. Hutchinson addressed a letter received from Mr. Calvin Giordano, Consultant for the PD&E Study of the Midway Road project and asked it be made part of today’s record. Com. Hutchinson asked the Board if they wished for the letter to come back for the Board to review. Com. Coward stated he felt they did not necessarily need to read through the letter and they should be sending notification to the State that they did not intend the inventory to be used itself as a list for designation of historical structures. It was a cursory inventory. The County Administrator stated he would draft the letter. Com. Hutchinson requested before sending the letter, a draft be given to each Commissioner for their perusal. 5.C COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-2826) Ordinance No. 05-14- Amending Occupational License Fees to provide for a 5% increase in the fee schedule- Consider staff recommendation to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 05-14 to increase the occupational license fees by five percent or rounded down to the nearest nickel, whichever is less, to be effective October 1, 2005. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Ordinance No. 05- 14, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.D. COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-2949) Ordinance No. 05-027- Solid Waste Assessment- Consider staff recommendation to approve Ordinance No. 05-027 and authorize the signing of the Ordinance. Com. Coward wished to clarify for the record that this is not intended to go back retroactively to former contracts, the liens and former issues. This is for the current contract as well as future contracts. Com. Smith stated he had a problem with the delinquent fees clause (item B) if they did not know how they were going to pay in the first place. The County Attorney stated he concurred with Com. Smith’s concern. If the county missed it and it was through no fault of the property owner, it seems inappropriate to charge delinquency fees. He believes they were trying to collect charges for services that were provided. The County Attorney suggested passing this ordinance with specific instruction to staff not to charge delinquency fees in those instances where a property owner was missed by no fault of their own in a fairness stand point. The Board concurred. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith to approve Ordinance No. 05- 027 as amended ( with the added language as stated by the County Attorney, “which shall only apply to those cases where a property owner had prior notice and knowledge of the fee and failed to pay”), and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Aye’s: Lewis, Coward, Craft, Smith; Nay: Hutchinson (her vote to be consistent with her opposition to the assessment; motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. 5 5.E. COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-3486) Ordinance No. 05-131- Amending Chapter 1-7 “Courts” - Consider staff recommendation to approve Ordinance No. 05-031 and authorize the signing of the ordinance. Mr. Jim Walker, Trustee for the Rupert J. Smith Law Library made a presentation on the revenues that would be generated through this ordinance. Mr. Walker stated the proposed generated revenues would be short $67,424 in the budget and the Law Library would be able to add the monies to the budget from their funds for approximately 2 to 3 years from their cash reserves. After this period of time they would come to the county for assistance in funding. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve Ordinance No. 05- 131, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.F COUNTY ATTORNEY (2-095) Ordinance No. 05-026 Teen Court Fees- Consider staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 05-026 as drafted. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Ordinance No. 05- 026, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.G- UTILITIES (2-100) Establishment and adoption of Consolidation Rate Tariffs, Consolidated Utility Service Policy, Consolidation Extension Policy and Resolution No. 05-277. Consider staff recommendation to approve the Consolidation Rate Tariffs, Consolidated Utility Service Policy, Consolidation Extension Policy and Resolution No. 05-277 with the proposed consolidation of the following County Utility districts: North Hutchinson Island, North County, H.E.W. Lakewood Park and the Airport. Mr. Howard Ostermann, Utilities Consultant addressed the Board and gave an overview on this issue. Mr. Tony Ellia, Consultant, addressed the Board regarding the rate structure. Com. Craft questioned the cost of utilities for our area. He stated we are 40-60% higher for water and sewer. He questioned the amount of reclaimed water available for irrigation. Mr. Ostermann stated in North County they do not have reclaimed water available. Com. Craft stated he had a problem with the county penalizing those residents of North County for utilizing the water for irrigation purposes or telling them they need to dig a well. He does not like either of the two options. Mr. Ostermann stated they have a plan that will call for alternate sources of water by the utility made available to the new developing areas so that they can get on to a non potable water source. This source would be phased out when the reclaimed water becomes available. He does not know what the future will hold and explained the alternate possibility, i.e. a horizontal well. Com. Coward explained what he felt may be our goal. 6 Com. Craft requested this item be tabled until Monday after the meeting with the City of Ft. Pierce is concluded. He felt this document is not appropriate with this meeting being scheduled. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Coward to approve Resolution No. 05- 277 and the Consolidation Rate Tariffs, Consolidated Utility Services Policy, Consolidation Extension Policy, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Craft; Aye’s: Lewis, Coward, Smith, Hutchinson, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. 5.H GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2-1141) Consider Draft Resolution No. 05-023 granting approve to the petition of Kolter Property Company for a change in zoning from the AR-1 to PUD Island Club zoning district and Final Planned Unit Development approval for the project know as Parcel 34 E @ The Reserve Island Club a 19,172 square foot clubhouse with a swimming pool, basketball court, and tennis court- Staff has not received any additional information since April 19, 2005 on the location of the Island Club. Given this and as staff is also in the process of reviewing other issues related to the Reserve DRI, it is recommended the BCC continue the hearing to a date certain. Mr. Steve Zacaron, property owner in PGA addressed the Board in favor of the Island Club. Ms. Lane, property owner in PGA addressed the Board and to what she felt was the lack of clarity on this issue. She is in favor of the Club House and bought their home because of the Club and stated certain property owners do not speak for those who are in favor of the Club House. She questioned who was opposing the project. Com. Coward stated the Board has not been reviewing this project for several years. It has come to the Board once or twice and had insufficient information. The developer sent out fliers stating this project was near completion when it had not even been presented to the Board for review. He is not opposed to the project. Com. Smith informed the public of the Sunshine Law process. Mr. Davidson, Senior Project Manager, PGA Village, addressed the Board’s questions. Mr. Davidson stated he joined the company at the first presentation in March. His recollections of the discussion were issues related to traffic and some suggestions that they look at alternative sites. He was not under the impression that it was their obligation to come back to staff or the County Commission to address specifically alternative sites otherwise they certainly would have done so. He stated in meeting with the Commissioners and staff he is not sure there is an alternative location for the Club. Mr. Davidson stated they never took direction or interpreted comments in their appearances before the Commission that they were told emphatically to look or come back with an alternative location. They think the location previously proposed is the best location for the Club. In April 03, Parcel 34E received preliminary PUD approval and was labeled as a future recreation site. The Kolter Organization was clear and understood they had to come back before the Board to present a final site plan and a facility plan. Com. Coward stated he has not received any information since their last meeting. Mr. Davidson stated he had attempted to meet with Com. Coward six days ago, however they had conflicting dates, but he was able to meet with the balance of the Board members, the Planning Manager and the County Administrator. 7 Mr. Davidson stated they would like a date certain for this issue to be heard. He felt they would have the issues concerning the Island Club addressed and resolved prior to September 27, 2005. The County Administrator stated he met Mr. Davidson for the first time on the day. He stated he discussed with him the outstanding issues and that the staff was going to recommend a continuance and he said based on the staff meeting Thursday morning there were many questions and he could not support a recommendation to the Board and this was the first Mr. Davidson had heard about this and he did lay out some of the issues that needed to be addressed. Ms. Carolyn Neimzek, Crooked Way resident for 5 years, addressed the Board in favor of the Clubhouse and its location. Mr. Peter Perry, PGA Village resident, addressed the Board in favor of the Clubhouse. Mr. David Mulligan, One Putt Place, PGA Village, addressed the Board in favor of the Club and stated he does not see where else the club could be located. Mr. Joe Schriver, Green Briar, PGA Village addressed the Board in favor of the Clubhouse and stated the facility should be placed on the fast track and the other issues can be addressed at a later date. Com. Craft requested clarification of the other issues. The County Attorney clarified the approval process issues with other regulatory agencies and he believes the developer was not aware of these issues until last week. They are not sure there are issues although other residents feel there are. There are regulatory agencies that will weigh in with such issues as mitigation. Com. Coward stated the developer needs to comply with the original development order. They must prove they are meeting the development order so that they can continue with the project. The Assistant County Administrator stated they are not in the position today to state the developer has met the Board’s direction. There are too many unanswered questions at this point and she would not be in a position to recommend to the Board to do anything but allow the time to get definitive answers and bring them back to the Board as well as the resident. Mr. Valmer Forche, PGA property owner, addressed the Board in favor of the facility. He purchased his property on Champion Way because the facility was to be placed across the street. Com. Hutchinson advised Mr. Forche there were issues brought up recently that the developer, herself and the balance of the Board were not aware of. Mr. Brian Oleshan, Champion Way, addressed the Board in favor of the facility. Mr. Fred Boch, Champion Way, addressed the Board and stated the people who purchased homes due to this facility being built should not be held hostage to other matters people bring up. Mr. Glen Lane, Putt Place resident, addressed the Board and asked who brought up these questions. The Assistant County Administrator stated when the resolution was being addressed they received a list of questions or concerns from some of the residents in the Reserve about the conditions of the DRI. Those issues led to other questions particularly about the preserves and the acreage required. 8 Com. Smith stated the issue was brought up to the Board that the DRI was not being followed and he knows Mr. Davidson will work diligently to get the Board the information needed, but they need that information before they can make a decision. Mr. Leo Neimzek, Crooked Stick, stated why not just close the project and not let them build another building what it being done does not make sense to him. Mr. Jay Maycumber, Indrio Road resident, address the Board and stated their anger is misdirected. It is Kolter’s responsibility to have all the information. Ms. Patricia (unintelligible last name) new resident asked the Board to work a little faster in resolving the questions and informing the developer what is needed so that the project can proceed. Ms. Carolyn Neimzek, Crooked Stick, addressed the Board and stated she could not believe the extensive hearing process before issuing permits. These issues should have been resolved in the beginning before all road approvals and dedications were given. The Board discussed the date of the continuance of the meeting. Com. Hutchinson clarified the issues pending and asked the petitioner to make sure they address these prior to the set date. The issues are traffic and alternative sites. Com. Coward commented on the issues. The new issue of the development order needs to be addressed. They need to show they are meeting the order. This information needs to be provided to the Board prior so they can make a sound decision not only on the site but also the development order. Com. Lewis disclosed she had met with the developer, Quasi-Judicial. Com. Hutchinson advised the Board she too had met with the representative and the balance of the Board stated the same. Com. Lewis commented on the DRI and the changes made. She advised those present the statute reads that if the requirements of the DRI are not met, she cannot approve new development as well as the other Board members. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to continue this item on October 4, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon as it may be heard, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 5.I COUNTY ATTORNEY (3-215) Ordinance No. 05-016- Stop Gap Ordinance- North County Charrette- No action is required at this time. A second reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard. The County Attorney addressed the Board on this item and advised the Board of the added language (“not withstanding section two above the Board may consider the application and after a public hearing grant a waiver”.) this may accomplish the disconnect. Also the time section, 180 days, he felt the words “earlier” can be added which was suggested, “of a period of 180 days or the effective date of the Comp Plan Amendment”. Ms. Noreen Drwyer, attorney for property owner, Dale Horton Inc., addressed the Board on this issue, and commented on waiving the Stop Gap Ordinance for someone who is meeting the TVC today. 9 Com. Coward addressed Ms. Drwyer’s comments and stated he did not wish to delay the process for any developer who wishes to do the right thing he wants to pull them along with him as rapidly as they can and say to them, “if you do the right thing you will be rewarded and those that choose not to follow the TVC Ordinance will stay back in the place they were before with the exact rights they have today. He would like to create language that allows this to happen and if they can, he would not have a problem moving forward. Mr. Paul Scholl, Realtor, addressed the Board in opposition to the Ordinance and stated in his opinion this could be considered a “moratorium”. He also gave his opinion on what he felt was the “quality of life”. Mr. Paul Direlli, attorney for applicant who has property in the TVC area, addressed the Board and concurred with Ms. Dwyer’s comments and asked how long it would take for the process of the waiver and asked more detail be placed on the waiver procedure. Mr. Charles Grande, Hutchinson Island addressed the Board on the term used, “moratorium” and stated he disagreed. He stated we needed to take the time to work out the TVC element so that we do not do what Broward County has done. He is in favor of the Stop Gap Ordinance being put in place. Mr. John Martin, Johnston Road property owner stated this is more like a “moratorium” because nothing is moving and nothing is being done. He asked if this was going to be last Stop Gap measure they would be looking at. Com. Craft addressed Mr. Martin’s question and stated he hoped this would be the last Stop Gap measure, however he cannot guarantee it. Ms. Cynthia Angelos, attorney, stated her client would like to extend their appreciation in the Board’s preservation of existing property rights and understands the rationale behind the ordinance and supports it. Ms. Susie Caron, Indrio Road resident, thanked the Board for preserving her “quality of life” and commented in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Jay Maycumber, Indrio Road resident, thanked the Board and was pleased to hear there were developers who are willing to work within the ordinance and suggested expanding the area. The County Attorney advised the Board he would start the process of drafting additional concurrency language on what was discussed and requested. Ms. Dwyer questioned the ordinance to plat outside the urban service district. Com. Coward clarified by stating, “ he said there were exceptions to that but largely that is true. This is a mute issue in the sense that if the project in its entirety that crosses those lines is consistent with the Charrette then they will consider moving forward with it. No action required. 6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING) (3-1654) Request of Robert Trenary for final plat approval for the project to be known as First Replat in Jana Park Subdivison- This project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Orange Avenue and I-95.- Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat of First Replat in Jana Park S/D and authorize its final execution. 10 It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. ADDITIONS RA-1 ADMINISTRATION Consider staff recommendation to consider installing tents previously purchased at the th jail facility to house inmates - this item will be discussed on Tuesday, August 9 at 1:30 p.m. staff was directed to provide information on the legality of where the different levels of inmates must be housed. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ____________________________ Chairman ____________________________ Clerk of Circuit Court 11