HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-25-2008
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 September 25, 2008 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these
8
minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc,
9
the compact disc shall control.
10
11
I. CALL TO ORDER
12
13 Chairman Caron called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
14
A. Pledge of Allegiance
15
16
B. Roll Call
17
18 Susan Caron..........................Chairman
19 Craig Mundt..........................Vice Chairman
20 Bryan Beaty..........................Board Member
21 Brad Culverhouse..................Board Member
22 Pamela Hammer....................Board Member
23 Edward Lounds.....................Board Member
24 Britt Reynolds.......................Board Member
25 Kathryn Hensley...................Ex-Officio
26 (Ms. Hensley arrived at 6:42 p.m.)
27
Members Absent
28
29 Stephanie Morgan.................Board Member
30 Barry Schrader......................Board Member
31
Others Present
32
33 Mark Satterlee.......................Director, Growth Management Dept.
34 Robin Meyer.........................Assistant Director, Growth Management Dept.
35 Heather Young......................Assistant County Attorney
36 Peter Jones, AIA...................Planning Manager
37
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 None.
40
D. DISCLOSURES
41
42 Mr. Culverhouse commented on the number of complaints he received
43 from members of the public with regards to the lack of time they had to
44 review the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
45
1
II. MINUTES
1
2 Review the minutes from the September 9, 2008 regular meeting, for approval.
3
Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes.
4
5
6 Ms. Hammer requested that the minutes be annotated with either a header or
7 footer to reflect a draft number and a date and changes should be highlighted for
8 ease of review.
9
Mr. Beaty seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10
11
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
12
13
A. St. Lucie County Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
14
15 St. Lucie County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The first
16 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) was adopted on January 28, 1998
17 and was found sufficient by the Florida Department of Community
18 Affairs. St. Lucie County adopted corresponding EAR based amendments
19 to the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan in 2002. This report is
20 the second Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the St. Lucie County
21 Comprehensive Plan.
22
23 Mr. Satterlee briefly addressed the Board and thanked them for their hard
24 work on this item. He commented that he and staff felt it important that
25 the version released to the public be as complete and as flawless as
26 possible. Therefore, the report was made available to the public
27 approximately two weeks ago. Mr. Satterlee advised that Peter Jones will
28 be making the presentation to the Board.
29
30 Peter Jones addressed the Board stating that staff is looking forward to the
31 Board’s input, as well as public comment. Staff is requesting that the
32 Board forward the Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the St. Lucie
33 County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
34 approval. Mr. Jones then introduced Lorraine Tappen who will be making
35 tonight’s presentation.
36
37 Lorraine Tappen, Senior Planner with Calvin Giordano & Associates,
38 consultant to the County on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR),
39 addressed the Board and displayed a Power Point Presentation.
40
41 Ms. Tappen advised that the EAR is a report card on how well the County
42 is doing in implementing its Comprehensive Plan. It is basically a two-
43 step process. Tonight the Board will be reviewing the report itself and
44 once it’s adopted and found sufficient by DCA, the County will move into
45 the EAR based comprehensive plan amendments phase.
46
2
1 Ms. Tappen reviewed some of the requirements of the EAR.
2
3 Ms. Tappen reviewed, in great length, the major issues list which was
4 compiled after the County held several public scoping meetings. Ms.
5 Tappen also reviewed some additional suggestions made. For example,
6 Ms. Tappen noted that the County has done a very good job in conserving
7 land and the County has exceptional environmental data in that regard.
8 That information should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
9
10 After Ms. Tappen’s lengthy presentation, Ms. Caron opened the public
11 hearing. The following members of the public spoke:
12
13 Dennis Corrick, Esq., spoke and stated that the community just has not
14 had enough time to review this large document. Some of the comments
15 made by Mr. Corrick were: The fact that several of the recommendations
16 made by the Rural Lands Steering Committee as found on page 6-2 of the
17 EAR, are not being included; he feels that the report should not just
18 emphasize conserving natural systems and wetlands; there should be more
19 of an emphasis on viable agriculture; and agricultural land owners should
20 be able to live an agricultural life and make a living off their land.
21
22 Peter Harrison, representing Adams Ranch, distributed a 3-page letter to
23 Board members and read the letter into the record. Some of the comments
24 made by Mr. Harrison were: The Rural Land Stewardship Program
25 policies should not be removed from the Comprehensive Plan; an
26 amendment needs to be made to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways &
27 Trails Master Plan. Public trails are shown going through Adams Ranch
28 land, as well as other privately owned lands, without the owner’s
29 knowledge or consent. This error was to be corrected, but to date has not
30 been; and the equine industry should not be removed from the targeted
31 industry list.
32
33 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., reiterated the complaint that the community has
34 not had sufficient time to review the EAR. Some of the other comments
35 made by Mr. Ferguson were: Major transportation initiative has no clear
36 explanation; there is already an ordinance with goals for historic
37 preservation – is a comprehensive plan amendment in that regard needed?;
38 the County needs to “cherry pick” what policies need to be changed and
39 resources need to be identified to accomplish these goals; and, there
40 should be clear statements in the EAR that explain that in order to achieve
41 the goal of conserving natural lands, it is going to take public dollars and
42 will not be put on the backs of a few private land owners.
43
44 Bill Hammer spoke. Some of the comments expressed by Mr. Hammer
45 were: No additional approvals for wetland mitigations should be given;
46 the County should fast-track improvements to the bridge over I-95; St.
3
1 Lucie County should work with the School District to transition to
2 neighborhood schools, which would result in reduced bussing costs and
3 would promote community and parent involvement; the County needs a
4 viable plan to assure future availability of potable water throughout the
5 County; and that maintenance of coastal beaches should be funded through
6 user-fees.
7
8 Dr. Eric Haenni spoke. Some of the comments expressed by Dr. Haenni
9 were: The lack of time available to the public for review of this
10 document; and, make sure the definitions are “sharp” – the definitions
11 cannot be left to the interpretation of a single department.
12
13 Toby Overdorf spoke and questioned what the County considers “good
14 attendance” at the scoping meetings. There have been no public
15 workshops since November 2007. Mr. Overdorf also questioned where
16 the “good environmental data” as referenced by Ms. Tappen originates
17 from. If the data is going to be relied upon, we should know where it
18 originated from and how it will be used. Mr. Overdorf also objected to the
19 lack of time the public had to review this report.
20
21 Noreen Dryer, Esq., spoke and reiterated the frustration with the lack of
22 time the public has had to review the document. Some of the other
23 comments she made were: Location of schools is not consistent with what
24 was transmitted in the Public School Facilities Element; some of the
25 concepts need qualifiers; and the language regarding buffers around
26 wetlands and deep water habitat needs further clarification.
27
28 Mr. Lounds suggested that the Board take a break to afford everyone time
29 to absorb the comments made tonight and then come back to ensure that
30 no one has anything else to say.
31
32 The Board took a break at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m.
33
34 Ms. Caron reminded everyone that the public hearing was still open.
35 Additional public comment was solicited; no one from the public spoke
36 and the public hearing was closed.
37
38 Board members discussed their comments and concerns as follows:
39
40 Mr. Lounds voiced concerns such as: There is no mention, in the EAR, of
41 current agriculture following Best Management Practices (the right of
42 farmers to follow the Best Management Practices which would protect the
43 environment, but yet accomplish their production); with reference to
44 environmentally sensitive lands, Mr. Lounds is concerned that because of
45 this document, if a piece of agricultural land is changed from what it is
46 today it may not be able to be used in the future for continued agricultural
4
1 uses; the document should be clear and concise, there should be no room
2 for assumptions. On Page 2-55, the chart dealing with County
3 Correctional space is not clear. Some of the other charts are “skewed.”
4 The document needs to be as true and transparent as possible.
5
6 Ms. Hammer voiced concerns such as: the concept of supporting the
7 creation of high-paying jobs that need low-skilled workers is confusing;
8 the goal should be to take low-skilled workers and provide training so they
9 can become high-skilled workers. The County library space (on Page 2-
10 55) planned expansion is confusing in light of the fact that the County is
11 planning to close some of the libraries on certain days and/or restricting
12 the hours and yet the County plans to spend money on expansion?
13
14 Ms. Tappen advised that she can go back to the Economic Development
15 Board to see why the recommendation of high-paying jobs for low-skilled
16 workers was made. Mr. Jones offered the explanation that with every
17 high-paying job comes other jobs/skills, such as administrative support,
18 etc. Ms. Hammer suggested that if that is indeed the case, the wording
19 should be changed to be clearer.
20
21 Ms. Hensley explained, as part of the team that created the Research Coast
22 Document, that the goal of economic development is to strive for the
23 highest paying jobs -- seek the research entities or high-manufacturing
24 entities because when you get them you get all the other jobs that come
25 with them. Ms. Hensley suggested they take a look at the Research Coast
26 Document.
27
28 Mr. Beaty feels some of the wording that is suggested to be stricken is
29 “firm and strong” yet the wording that is suggested for replacement is not
30 quite as firm and is looser. For example, on Page 1-20 with regards to
31 having the Airport Director participate in the DRC process. That is a good
32 idea. Why would the County want to remove that?
33
34 Mr. Jones explained that that wording is being removed because the
35 Airport Director already participates in the DRC process.
36
37 On Page3-3 with regards to the transportation element “Maintaining
38 adopted levels of service is getting difficult.” Mr. Beaty suggested
39 something with a little more “meat.” Mr. Satterlee responded that “getting
40 difficult” is putting it mildly. It is getting impossible; however, with the
41 reduction of funding, the projects this County has had for roadway
42 improvements has dwindled down.
43
44 Ms. Hensley commented that some of the words used in the report are
45 open for interpretation. Wherever possible there needs to be a “concrete”
5
1 word and there needs to be an understanding of what those words mean
2 (even if that means including a glossary).
3
4 Mr. Beaty also suggested that the wording on Page 3-6, with regards to
5 affordable housing, should remain in the report. Why should a statement
6 as clear as that be removed?
7
8 On Page 3-25 with regards to the port sub-element. Why are the
9 objectives and recommendations being removed? Mr. Satterlee explained
10 that that recommendation came from Mr. Anderson, County
11 Administrator, who is the Port Director. Mr. Jones further explained that
12 Mr. Anderson is trying to be financially responsible. The security at the
13 port is now handled federally and the funds are federal funds. Mr.
14 Anderson feels that if the language remains implying that the County is
15 somehow responsible, than the fiduciary responsibility will remain.
16
17 Mr. Lounds suggested that language be added explaining that the port is
18 an open port and that there are no taxes placed on the port. However,
19 those funds would help fund port development and infrastructure
20 improvements, etc. The Citizens Budget Committee has been discussing
21 the possibility for several months. The tax would be on tonnage, cubic
22 feet of gas (if gas is brought in) and liquids. Mr. Jones replied by saying
23 that is a good possibility, and that he will discuss it with Mr. Anderson.
24
25 Mr. Lounds also noted that with regards to the Rural Land Stewardship,
26 the County should set up a mitigation bank to accept, from the “sending
27 unit,” their transferred density. This is a good idea and would ensure that
28 the good side of land stewardship is not lost.
29
30 Mr. Culverhouse commented that he is concerned with the lack of time the
31 public has had to review and comment on this report. Mr. Culverhouse
32 also expressed some concern with Ordinance 05-03 (Page 1-23). That
33 Ordinance was completely amended on December 11, 2006 and that
34 should be reflected in the EAR.
35
36 Mr. Culverhouse questioned why staff is striking through the historical
37 districts discussion on page 1-24. That paragraph could benefit the
38 historic areas of White City. Mr. Jones could not offer a direct answer,
39 but he did explain that since the County does not have any designated
40 historic districts, that could be why. Mr. Culverhouse suggested that the
41 sentence remain in the document.
42
43 Mr. Culverhouse also suggested that St. Lucie County needs a
44 “formalized” fast-track process put in place; contracts should be awarded
45 to companies within St. Lucie County, wherever possible. He also
6
1 questioned why the recommendations from the Agricultural Steering
2 Committee are being removed (Page 3-1)?
3
4 Ms. Tappen responded by explaining that those recommendations are very
5 specific and are more appropriate to be placed in the Land Development
6 Code. Mr. Satterlee, however, stated that they will keep those
7 recommendations in the report.
8
9 Mr. Lounds commented that on Page 320-23, Economic Development
10 Element, refers to St. Lucie County as being a research center. Future
11 development of the research and development park should be mentioned.
12
13 Ms. Hensley suggested that if one research entity is mentioned by name,
14 than they all should be mentioned. Ms. Hensley made the same
15 suggestion for post-secondary degree granting organizations.
16
17 Mr. Reynolds questioned if the mention of zero waste in the landfill by
18 2012 is an accurate statement. Mr. Satterlee responded that that statement
19 comes directly from the St. Lucie County Utilities and Solid Waste
20 Department – the geo-plasma program and recycling will stop waste going
21 into the landfill. Ms. Caron interjected stating that she feels that needs to
22 be looked at again especially since no contract for the geo-plasma program
23 has been signed yet.
24
25 Mr. Reynolds also questioned what the justification is for removing the
26 equine industry from the targeted industry list. Mr. Satterlee responded by
27 stating staff will do further research on that issue. Mr. Lounds suggested
28 that no type of agricultural business should be removed from the list. Mr.
29 Lounds also suggested that the targeted industry list should not be limited
30 in any way.
31
32 Ms. Hammer voiced additional concerns as follows: the extension of
33 West Virginia Drive from I-95 to Glades Cut-Off Road along the north
34 side of the C-24 canal is, she believes, obsolete information since Coulter
35 Corporation is building homes throughout that area. In addition, Ms.
36 Hammer feels the Solid Waste Element depends heavily on the
37 gasification program. Since there is no land lease as yet and there were
38 documents that this project would be operational by this time two years
39 ago, she does not feel it will ever happen. Ms. Hammer feels that the
40 environmental standards will not be met.
41
42 Board members discussed the time-line for action on this EAR. Staff
43 explained that November 1, 2008 is the County’s assigned transmittal to
44 DCA date. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners must hear it
45 next month. Penalties for not meeting the November 1, 2008 deadline
46 were also discussed.
7
1
2 Mr. Mundt advised that he would forward to staff, in writing, a detailed
3 list of his major comments. Mr. Mundt voiced concern with regards to the
4 capital improvement element and the funding for those improvements.
5
6 Board members also discussed their desire to move forward the best
7 document possible. The discussions turned to whether or not to continue
8 this item in order to give staff adequate time to review the comments made
9 this evening and to make the necessary tweaks and adjustments to the
10 document.
11
12 Mr. Satterlee commented that staff heard the Boards’ comments. For the
13 time Board members have had to review the report, the comments have
14 been substantive. Staff is requesting that if, with some of the changes
15 recommended and some of the tweaks staff is making, it is a document the
16 Board can support, than move it forward.
17
18 Ultimately, Board members agreed to move forward and act on the EAR
19 despite their frustration with the lack of public involvement.
20
Mr. Mundt motioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission
21
forward the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, with modifications, to
22
the Board of County of Commissioners with a recommendation to
23
adopt and forward to the Department of Community Affairs.
24
25
Mr. Lounds seconded, but requested Mr. Mundt to agree that the
26
motion include “changes, thoughts and ideas that came from public
27
forum, as well as comments from this Board.”
28
29
Mr. Mundt agreed.
30
31
32 Roll Call
33 Mr. Reynolds – yes
34 Ms. Hammer – no (because she cannot support something that has so
35 many things in it she does not believe in)
36 Mr. Culverhouse – yes (although he has a real problem with the lack of
37 time the public had to review it)
38 Mr. Beaty – yes
39 Mr. Lounds – yes
40 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
41 Chairman Caron – yes
42
The motion carried 6-1 with Ms. Hammer dissenting.
43
44
8
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
1
2 None.
3
V. ADJOURN
4
5 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
9