HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-20-2009
St. Lucie County
1
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
2
rd
Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
3
August 20, 2009 Regular Meeting
4
6:00 P.M.
5
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
9
disc, the compact disc shall control.
10
11
I. Call to Order
12
Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
13
14
A. Pledge of Allegiance
15
16
B. Roll Call
17
Craig Mundt ................................. Chairman
18
Barry Schrader ............................. Vice Chair
19
Brad Culverhouse, Arrived 6:12 ... Commission Member
20
Stephanie Morgan ....................... Commission Member
21
Britt Reynolds .............................. Commission Member
22
Tod Mowery………………………. Commission Member
23
24
Members Absent
25
Edward Lounds ............................ Excused Absence
26
Kathryn Hensley .......................... Excused Absence
27
Pamela Hammer .......................... Excused Absence
28
Susan Caron ................................ Excused Absence
29
30
Staff Present
31
Mark Satterlee ............................. Director, Growth Management
32
Robin Meyer ................................ Assistant Director, Growth Management
33
Heather Young ............................. Assistant County Attorney
34
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith ......... Assistant County Attorney
35
Diana Waite ................................. Sr. Planner, Growth Management
36
Linda Pendarvis ........................... Planner, Growth Management
37
Michael Brillhart ........................... Capital Improvement Manager
38
Dawn Milone ................................ Recording Secretary
39
40
C. Announcements
41
42
Mr. Satterlee stated that the next Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting will be
43
held on Thursday, September 24, 2009.
44
45
D. Disclosures
46
1
Chairman Mundt welcomed Tod Mowery, Commissioner Dzadovsky‘s new
1
appointee to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
2
3
4
II. Minutes
5
Review the minutes from the July 23, 2009 regular meeting, for
6
approval.
7
8
Chairman Mundt stated a few corrections were passed on to the recording secretary.
9
10
These corrections have been made.
11
12
Ms. Morgan motioned to approve the minutes..
.
13
14
Vice Chair Schrader Seconded.
15
16
The motion carried unanimously.
17
.
18
19
III. Public Hearings
20
21
A. Ordinance No. 09-025 Requirement for Permit; Exemptions
22
An ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to revise
23
”;
Section 11.05.11 (A)(2) “Requirement for permit; Exemptionsproviding for
24
conflicting provisions; providing for applicability; providing for severability;
25
providing for filing with the Department of State; providing for codification and
26
providing an effective date.
27
28
Ms. Mackenzie-Smith, Assistant County Attorney stated that the purpose for this
29
ordinance is to amend the requirements for a mining permit or moving a lot of excess
30
earth off site. The proposed ordinance would require that most excavation or removal of
31
earth in excess of one hundred (100) cubic yards would require a mining permit and or
32
a public hearing.
33
.
34
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
35
36
No one spoke.
37
38
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
39
40
The Commission questioned what one hundred (100) cubic yards would equate to.
41
42
Mr. Satterlee stated that the current code states one hundred (100) cubic yards which
43
would equate to approximately five (5) average truck loads of material.
44
The Commission questioned staffs reasoning for this ordinance.
45
2
1
Mr. Satterlee explained that staff is starting to see situations where people are moving
2
materials off site. The amount of material being moved off site could potentially be
3
millions of cubic yards and thousands of trucks loads of materials without addressing
4
the impact that the activity would have on adjacent property owners. Stating that it might
5
not be mining, but it could still have a high impact on surrounding property owners.
6
7
Mr. Satterlee stated that recently there was a project that someone wanted to excavate
8
a thirty two (32) acre lake and potentially remove up to one point two million(1,200,000)
9
cubic yards of material on a proposed four (4) lot subdivision(this project would be
10
imposed upon the adjacent property owner for over a year or two (2).
11
12
The Commission and staff discussed if one hundred (100) cubic yards was a modest
13
estimation for the maximum allotted removal of material before requiring a public
14
hearing.
15
16
Chairman Mundt asked Mr. Satterlee how many applications he anticipated he would
17
receive in a year regarding this issue.
18
19
Mr. Satterlee stated, depending on the scope and scale of development and what they
20
were planning to do with the material, probably less than ten (10).
21
22
Vice Chair Schrader motioned that the commission approve the ordinance as
23
written and pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners.
24
25
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
26
27
Mr. Reynolds – yes
28
Ms. Morgan – no
29
Mr. Mowery- yes
30
Mr. Culverhouse – yes
31
Vice Chair Schrader – yes
32
Chairman Mundt – yes
33
34
The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Morgan dissenting
.
35
36
B. Village Shoppes at Sheraton: PNRD 620081488
37
Petition of T.E.A. Properties Company for a Change in Zoning from the CN
38
(Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non –
39
Residential Development) Zoning District and Preliminary Planned Non –
40
Residential Development Site Plan approval for the project to be known as The
41
Village Shoppes at Sheraton PNRD.
42
3
1
Diana Waite, Senior Planner stated The Village Shoppes of Sheraton is a proposed
2
80,000 square foot commercial complex to be located on 9.43 acres approximately 250
3
th
feet north and west of the North 25 Street and Juanita Avenue intersection,
4
approximately one mile west of US 1 and ½ mile south of St. Lucie Boulevard. The
5
subject parcel is currently vacant and zoned Commercial, Neighborhood, which allows
6
restaurants and retail services, such as food stores, drug stores, and beauty shops. In
7
addition to these uses, the proposed PNRD would allow Commercial Office uses, which
8
include finance, insurance and health services.
9
10
Ms. Waite described the character of the property as mixed, with residential homes, a
11
th
drinking establishment (BJ’s) at the corner of Juanita Avenue and 25 Street, vacant
12
institutional lands to the south and industrial lands to the north which are vacant, Ft.
13
th
Pierce City limits to the east side of 25 Street (residential), and the zoning to the east
14
and west is RS-4.
15
16
The PNRD includes 5 phases of development with the first two phases containing four
17
buildings totaling 62,748 square feet of the maximum 80,000 square feet proposed. The
18
remaining 17,252 square feet of buildable area is reserved for the project’s three vacant
19
tracts. If the project is granted Preliminary PNRD approval, the parcel will be rezoned to
20
PNRD as part of the project’s Final PNRD approval. The site plans for the vacant
21
parcels would be submitted at a later date for review and approval by the Board of
22
County Commissioners.
23
24
The PNRD includes 28.42% of the site or over 2.68 acres as open space. Open space
25
areas include the project’s stormwater management areas, landscaping, and a passive
26
recreation area that incorporates native vegetation and provides an outdoor seating for
27
patrons. The majority of the open space areas have been provided along the project’s
28
western property line to enhance the buffering between the residential homes and the
29
commercial center buildings. The closest commercial building is 61 feet from a
30
residential property line. The setbacks and additional landscaping will supplement the
31
code required eight foot high opaque fence and landscaping between the commercial
32
center and the adjacent homes. All open space areas, including all fencing and
33
landscaping will be provided in Phase 1 of the development.
34
35
4
The PNRD project would result in a logical development pattern and provide infill
1
development that provides convenience type commercial services to surrounding
2
residents and businesses. The project’s location will allow residents to bike, walk or use
3
transit to access the commercial center. Designated bike lanes and sidewalks are
4
th
located along N. 25 Street; Juanita Avenue has existing sidewalks and is on an
5
existing transit route. The only off-site improvements required as part of this project is
6
the installation of sidewalks along Bedford Drive and Kay Drive that will fill gaps in the
7
existing neighborhood sidewalk system and provide additional sidewalk connections to
8
the project’s interior sidewalks. Staff would note that the project is also subject to the
9
County’s Community Architectural Standards. Architectural drawings, meeting county
10
standards, are required to be submitted and approval as part of the project’s Final
11
PNRD application.
12
13
Ms. Waite stated there are eighteen conditions of approval, one additional condition she
14
would like to recommend is an error on the building height on the site plan and have
15
that corrected to show a thirty-five (35) foot building height prior to submitting to the
16
Board of County Commissioners.
17
18
Brian Nolan, representing the applicant thanked Ms. Waite for the excellent job she did
19
on the project.
20
21
Mr. Nolan had nothing to add to the staff report.
22
23
The Commission discussed the type of lighting that would be used that backs up to the
24
residential area (Sea Turtle type 12 foot mounting with shields to prevent light pollution),
25
building two (2) that backs up to a solid chunk of residential homes being moved up
26
closer to the street (Mr. Nolan’s concern was about safety if all the parking was to the
27
rear), building on the southeast corner abutting closely to the adjacent lot (he would be
28
willing to add landscaping or treatment the Board may seem fit),.
29
30
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
31
32
Earlene Bernard, Alice Johnson, Debra Walker, Fannie Carr, Carolyn Payne, Earl
33
Arden, Martha Lewis Queen Fair and Allecia Dixon spoke in opposition to the proposed
34
project citing disruption in the area, traffic, traffic safety issues, vacant commercial
35
property in the area and the drinking establishment (BJ’s) crime issues.
36
37
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
38
39
Staff explained to the concerned citizens the uses of the present zoning (CN) and the
40
pros of recommending a PNRD which requires site plan approval.
41
42
The Commission recommended a neighborhood meeting and to contact the Public
43
Works Director to discuss traffic light issues.
44
45
Mr. Nolan agreed to the neighborhood meeting.
46
5
Mr. Brillhart, Capital Improvements Manager explained to the Commission, from a
1
transportation concurrency point of view there was not substantial traffic impacting any
2
facility that was deficient. He stated he could not come up with trip generation to stop or
3
deny the project based upon the Land Development Code. He noticed there could be
4
some traffic engineering concerns that would have to be addressed at the final PNRD
5
process.
6
7
The commission discussed putting in place a safe-guard to keep deliveries (commercial
8
vehicles) from impacting the residential neighborhood streets.
9
10
Mr. Satterlee stated staff would take this concern into consideration and speak about it
11
at the neighborhood meeting.
12
13
Vice Chair Schrader motioned after considering the testimony presented during
14
the public hearing including staff comments I hereby move that the Planning and
15
Zoning Commission of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County
16
Board of County Commissioners approve the petition of T.E.A. Properties
17
Company, for the change in zoning from CN (Commercial Neighborhood Zoning
18
District) to the PNRD (Planned Non – Residential Development) Zoning District
19
and Preliminary Planned Non – Residential Development Site Plan approval with
20
the nineteen conditions of the staff report included and the three (3) others
21
discussed. Which were the maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet, turtle
22
shell type of lighting to reduce light pollution and potentially add a landscape
23
buffer to the rear of the southeast building, because this is the type of
24
development that is best suited for this land to minimize the impact into the
25
residential neighborhood behind it and to include a neighborhood meeting.
26
27
Mr. Mowery seconded
28
29
The motion carried unanimously.
30
31
32
C. SL2623 Coastal Telecommunication Tower: CU 720081507
33
Petition of P.J. Development, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit site plan for the
34
project to be known as SL2623 Coastal Telecommunication Tower to allow for the
35
construction and operation of a 130-foot monopole telecommunication tower and
36
wireless communication equipment compound in the AG – 1 (Agricultural – 1
37
du/ac) Zoning District.
38
39
Linda Pendarvis, Planner stated that the petitioner P.J. Development LLC is requesting
40
a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a one hundred thirty
41
(130) foot monopole telecommunication tower and equipment compound in the AG-1
42
6
Zoning District. The property is located on the east side of Russakis Road,
1
approximately two thousand eight hundred (2,800) feet south of the St. Lucie County
2
northern boundary county line. The subject property is a twenty (20) acre tract
3
surrounded by agricultural land. The area that is leased by PJ Development for the
4
proposed tower site is located in the northeast corner of the subject parcel. The closest
5
single family residence to the proposed telecommunication tower is approximately one
6
thousand four hundred five (1,405) feet to the south east.The adjacent properties are
7
also zoned Agricultural – 1.The future land use designation on the subject property and
8
the adjacent properties are Residential Estates which allows for one single family
9
dwelling unit per acre. The telecommunication tower and equipment will be located
10
within a 50X60 foot fenced in area. The 50X60 foot fenced in area will meet the
11
minimum setback requirement for the Agricultural 1 Zoning District. The applicant
12
provided an engineer’s report indicating that the proposed tower will have a breaking
13
point of forty (40) feet from the top of the tower. The proposed tower will meet the
14
minimum setback requirement from all property lines. The fencing will be an eight foot
15
high board on board wood fence and gate and will be surrounded by a ten foot wide
16
landscape buffer. This area will be within the eight thousand one hundred (8,100)
17
square foot leased parcel. The lease parcel will be located in the northeast corner of
18
the subject property.
19
20
The Commission discussed if there would be any negative impacts on adjacent property
21
owners (none) and restricting the collocation aspect on the tower (this tower at a
22
minimum could have five (5) co-locators).
23
24
Paul Scott and Tom Mackiewicz, P.J. Development thanked staff for their attention they
25
given to this project and Linda Pendarvis for her excellent job.
26
27
7
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
1
2
No one spoke.
3
4
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
5
6
Ms. Morgan pointed out that all responses received to date have been opposed to this
7
project which is fifty-one percent (51%). It was noted that the fifty one percent (51%) is
8
a single land owner.
9
10
Chairman Mundt questioned the forty (40) foot fall radius, asking staff if this is a
11
breakaway point on the tower by construction and the wind load break away.
12
13
Mr. Scott explained that the tower has to withstand one hundred thirty (130) miles an
14
hour constant wind speed with a three (3) second gust to one hundred fifty (150) miles
15
an hour.
16
17
Mr. Scott went on to say, if anything should fail on the towers design the top forty (40)
18
feet would fold over.
19
20
Mr. Culverhouse stated putting an Industrial Use in anAG – 1 (Agricultural – 1 du/ac)
21
Zoning District will devalue the surrounding area.
22
23
Chairman Mundt pointed out, fifty-one percent (51%) of the property owners opposed
24
this project (fifty one percent (51%) is a single land owner). This project would have to
25
be approved as a super majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners.
26
27
Vice Chair Schrader motioned after considering the testimony presented during
28
the public hearing including staff comments and the standards of review set
29
forth in Ordinance 08-008 and Section 11.07.03 St. Lucie County Land
30
Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
31
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant
32
8
approval to the application of P.J. Development LLC a Conditional Use Permit
1
Site Plan to allow the construction and operation of one hundred thirty (130) foot
2
monopole telecommunication tower and wireless communication equipment
3
compound in the AG – 1 (Agricultural – 1 du/ac) Zoning District because it is in
4
compliance with the land out there and the surrounding areas are not impacted
5
by the tower construction.
6
7
Mr. Reynolds seconded.
8
9
Ms. Morgan – yes
10
Mr. Culverhouse – no
11
Mr. Mowery- yes
12
Mr. Reynolds – yes
13
Vice Chair Schrader – yes
14
Chairman Mundt – yes
15
16
The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Culverhouse dissenting
.
17
18
D. Ordinance No. 09-022
19
20
Revised Impact Fees for Roads, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation,
21
“Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based
22
Road, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees”, dated June 11,
23
2009 and revised Technical Memorandum, dated July 17, 2009.
24
25
Attached are the June 18, 2009 Planning and Zoning Minutes which
26
go into great detail regarding issues that were raised at this meeting
27
and the June 18, 2009, Planning and Zoning Meeting.
28
29
Dr. Nicholas explained to the Commission, at the June 18, 2009 Planning and Zoning
30
Meeting he was directed to reconfirm cost data, look at a disaggregated public buildings
31
fee, and, look at a disaggregated parks impact fee.
32
33
Dr. Nicholas stated, at the June 18, 2009 Planning and Zoning Meeting he went into
34
great detail and depth regarding this ordinance and was not going to repeat that tonight
35
(see attached June 18, 2009 Planning and Zoning minutes). Tonight he was only
36
addressing the three (3) issues stated above.
37
9
1
Dr. Nicholas stated the cost data was established to be correct regarding the road cost
2
issues by Don West, St. Lucie County Public Works Director (see letter).
3
4
Dr. Nicholas discussed public buildings, stating the cost he is using to calculate the
5
buildings are very much in line or below the most current 2009 data.
6
7
Dr. Nicholas went on to discuss parks stating, there is no objective source that can be
8
looked to or what does a park cost. The significant way to approach park cost are to
9
determine what the parks cost in your county.
10
11
Dr. Nicholas then covered disaggregated public buildings, and said there are three
12
components: judicial facilities; corrections and jails; and administrative maintenance
13
space.
14
15
Dr. Nicholas explained the two components of parks as regional parks and community
16
parks, then stated in St. Lucie County where the level of service is used for calculating
17
an impact fee, it is the lower of the adopted level of service or the existing level of
18
service.
19
20
Dr. Nicholas told the Commission the direction he received was to use the aggregated
21
method because it is the most common method used throughout the country, it has
22
been judicially reviewed and found to be an acceptable methodology, and the
23
disaggregated method creates small pots of money that cannot be used effectively. His
24
recommendation is to use the calculations set out in the June 11, 2009 tactical
25
memorandum.
26
27
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
28
29
Johnathan Ferguson, an attorney in St. Lucie County, stated an objection that the public
30
had been given short notice in which to provide comments to the P & Z on Dr. Nicholas’
31
report.
32
33
Mr. Ferguson agreed with the July 17 data for public buildings, but he disagrees with
34
what it cost to build a lane mile of roads in the report, and believes the number is high.
35
36
Mr. Ferguson stated his concerns regarding the commercial allocation and the
37
continuing use of ITE trip generation numbers for purposes of a county-wide system for
38
impact fees. He believes it might be useful if the County had a zone system for road
39
impact fees.
40
10
1
Mr. Ferguson also stated his disagreement with Dr. Nicholas’ comment that beach and
2
waterfront parks are the same as community parks, citing sections of the St. Lucie
3
County Comprehensive Plan that refer to community and waterfront parks. He said the
4
value is high on community parks because they include the expensive waterfront parks.
5
6
Mr. Ferguson stated development should pay for the impact it has on those facilities that
7
it is impacting, and he used the previous item in an example of the calculations. He then
8
reiterated his support for the public building impact fee and reservations over the road
9
impact fees and the parks and recreation fees.
10
11
Mr. Ferguson concluded with a request that the Planning and Zoning Commission send
12
it back with further recommendations that the non-residential road impact fee and the
13
parks and recreation impact fee be further reviewed or the data be provided to the
14
public so they may analyze it independently.
15
16
Kirk Sorenson with Government Solutions and retained by the Home Builders
17
Association of the Treasure Coast addressed the Commission. Dr. Sorenson expressed
18
the financial concerns of local builders with the increase of impact fees.
19
20
Dr. Sorenson also expressed concerns similar to that of Mr. Ferguson regarding the
21
criteria for calculation of the road and park impact fees. He also suggested changes to
22
the fees based on level of service. Dr. Sorenson said his comments are represented in
23
a submittal that he passed along to the County.
24
25
Mr. Culverhouse asked Dr. Sorenson when he received the report, Dr. Sorenson said
26
the previous Friday.
27
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
28
29
Mr. Culverhouse asked staff why there was a delay between the time they received Dr.
30
Nicholas’ report and it was sent to the interested parties. Mr. Satterlee responded it has
31
been the practice to provide the documents as soon as they are received.
32
33
Mr. Satterlee added that the report had not changed much since March. The
34
disaggregated analysis done by Dr. Nicholas did not substantively change 95% of what
35
is in that document. It did provide Dr. Sorenson time to provide his memo, and Mr.
36
Ferguson time to provide his comments. Mr. Satterlee said staff will review the reports
37
to see if there are additional items to tweak Dr. Nicholas’ report, though he is
38
comfortable with the methodology that Dr. Nicholas has performed.
39
40
11
Mr. Satterlee concluded that staff would not propose recommending the disaggregation
1
to the Board; they will stick with the aggregated fees. He urged the Commission to
2
move a recommendation on to the BOCC and interested parties will have subsequent
3
opportunities to provide testimony at the two public hearings that will be required before
4
them.
5
6
Mr. Culverhouse requested the interested parties be emailed the report or it be posted
7
on the website to speed up the process. Mr. Satterlee responded the documents can be
8
made accessible in any number of ways, and staff is available to respond to requests
9
for information as quickly as possible.
10
11
Ms. Morgan expressed the importance of the issue and the concerns of the speakers
12
should be addressed as they represent a number of others; she said she would
13
recommended it go back to be reviewed.
14
15
Mr. Schrader asked staff if Mr. Ferguson’s example used actual numbers under this
16
plan. Dr. Nicholas gave a lengthy explanation of the methodology used to establish the
17
rates, and ways impact fees may be reduced. Dr. Nicholas explained the ITE trip
18
generation rates are used by every jurisdiction in Florida that has a road impact fee.
19
20
Chairman Mundt made comments in support of the aggregated method because it
21
offers the flexibility to move money to where it is needed in the county; and asked staff
22
why the level of service was D instead of E.
23
24
Dr. Nicholas stated the level of service E is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan
25
for purposes of concurrency, not for purposes of transportation planning and capital
26
improvement planning; level of service D is what the County is designing for and trying
27
to offer.
28
29
Chairman Mundt asked if the Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code say that
30
the roads have to be level D.
31
32
Michael Brillhart, Capital Improvements Manager, responded there is a peak hour level
33
of service E for county road facilities, D for state road facilities and for I-95 the level is C.
34
Mr. Brillhart explained though County does not have to build those roads, it does have
35
to deal with those roads on a concurrency basis.
36
37
Chairman Mundt asked if we do not have to build or maintain state roads, why are we
38
concerned with the D level, and believes there is a disconnect when there is a cost
39
factor for something that is not our responsibility.
40
12
Chairman Mundt turned to the legal staff for an opinion.
1
2
Ms. Young stated they are comfortable with the June memo and the July memo.
3
4
Chairman Mundt stated he found comfort in that Don West finds that the projections and
5
the costs are taken from the best data sources available, and finds the costs to be
6
reasonable based upon recent bids in similar roadway projects.
7
8
Chairman Mundt asked staff if there was consideration for future taxes as a revenue
9
credit back to the impact fee. Dr. Nicholas responded in the affirmative with a brief
10
explanation of the credits available.
11
12
Chairman Mundt explained the difficulty pinning down the specifics, and stated that is
13
helpful that if a development feels their impact fees are unjust, they may appeal them to
14
the BOCC. He mentioned a moratorium Indian River County recently put on their impact
15
fees that had not spurred any additional development.
16
17
Chairman Mundt stated better quality infrastructure, culture, parks and all of the
18
amenities we have in St. Lucie County are key parts to attracting quality businesses to
19
this area.
20
21
Chairman Mundt stated he would be inclined to move this to the BOCC. Mr.
22
Culverhouse concurred.
23
24
Mr. Mowery suggested the exercise of calculating impact fees for different uses to see if
25
the figures are fair and reasonable. He questioned whether the rates may be broken
26
down to assess fees for specific uses. Dr. Nicholas explained the general types of fee
27
categories for offices and retail keeps it simple.
28
29
Mr. Mowery stated it is unfortunate that the burden of the park impact fee, the highest
30
percentage increase, gets placed on the residential market that is already suffering. He
31
noted that several counties are taking an approach to targeted industries establishing
32
categories to the impact fee structure to promote those industries.
33
34
Chairman Mundt mentioned neighboring counties which may or may not take some
35
services into consideration with fees higher than or slightly lower than what is proposed.
36
He stated this shows him that the aggregated is probably the way to go where the
37
county has flexibility to put money where it needs to go.
38
39
13
Mr. Culverhouse asked if there was an automatic cost-of-living adjustment every
1
October on the impact fees. Dr. Nicholas responded St. Lucie County has a Consumer
2
Price Index adjustment to keep up with cost inflation.
3
4
Mr. Culverhouse asked why the impact fee of October 1, 2004 is used for comparison
5
as opposed to October 1, 2008. Ms. Young stated she believes it is that way because
6
that was the last time an Ordinance was adopted amending the fees, but the annual
7
increases are not reflected in the codified version of the Ordinance.
8
9
Mr. Culverhouse asked if it was possible to have a breakdown of what the impact fees
10
actually are with the increases when it goes to the BOCC. Mr. Satterlee responded they
11
can address that as an attachment to the ordinance and it is provided in the technical
12
memoranda.
13
14
Mr. Culverhouse mentioned phasing on the impact fees as Chairman Mundt brought up
15
when the item was first brought to the Commission. Chairman Mundt stated the BOCC
16
can adopt this or make changes to it. Mr. Satterlee added it is at the discretion of the
17
BOCC to make any changes and he strongly urged the Commission to move this item
18
forward.
19
20
Chairman Mundt asked if the Commission did not take action on this, could the BOCC
21
take it up without their recommendation. Ms. Young stated it is the Commission’s
22
responsibility to make a recommendation to the BOCC and the recommendation can be
23
that they do not adopt the ordinance, or that they consider a deferred date for
24
implementation if the Commission feels that is appropriate.
25
26
Chairman Mundt stated for clarification if there is a motion the Commission members
27
must vote on it. Ms. Young stated absent of a statutory conflict of interest, you must
28
vote on it.
29
30
Chairman Mundt asked if they have the obligation to move this issue forward rather than
31
not take an action. Ms. Young recommended the Commission move it forward.
32
33
In absence of a motion, Chairman Mundt passed the gavel to Vice Chair Schrader.
34
35
Chairman Mundt made the motion to recommend staff recommendation Exhibit A
36
- Aggregated Fees June 11, 2009 Technical Memorandum to the Board of County
37
Commissioners.
38
14
In discussion, Mr. Mowery suggested amending the date of implementation be
1
some point in the future so this is not something the BOCC would not take
2
immediate action on this. Mr. Mowery added he would love to see some further
3
refinement take place based upon some of the comments from the public tonight.
4
5
Chairman Mundt stated he does not think we can put a time frame on it if we do
6
not have a time frame. He added he thinks the BOCC is sensitive to the current
7
economic situation in the county, and he does not think they will implement
8
anything they think will be harmful or detrimental to either people who wish to
9
move into the county and purchase property or to our development or building
10
community.
11
12
Mr. Mowery stated he thinks it becomes more of a challenge without some
13
mention of the concern in the motion.
14
15
Chairman Mundt suggested adding that there is concern over the size of the
16
impact fee for parks and let them look at that issue closely.
17
18
Mr. Mowery stated it would be nice to mention the concern about the timing
19
through a strong recommendation that the BOCC take a look at it.
20
21
Chairman Mundt stated the modification “with concern about the timing of
22
implementation”.
23
24
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
25
Ms. Morgan – no
26
Mr. Reynolds – no
27
15
Mr. Culverhouse – yes
1
Mr. Mowery- yes
2
Chairman Mundt – yes
3
Vice Chair Schrader – yes
4
5
The motion carried 4-2 with Ms. Morgan and Mr. Reynolds dissenting
.
6
7
Vice Chair Schrader returned the gavel to Chairman Mundt.
8
Chairman Mundt asked staff when the item would be at the BOCC. Mr. Satterlee stated
9
there would be conversation with the BOCC and the County Attorney before the hearing
10
which would be presumably this fall.
11
12
Chairman Mundt stated his appreciation for those who participated and said he knows
13
the BOCC will take into consideration everything that was said.
14
15
16
IV. Other Business
17
A. To discuss motion of Ordinance No. 09-019 (date certain incorrect).
18
19
Mr. Satterlee stated the date certain should be September 24, 2009, not September 17,
20
2009.
21
22
th
Ms. Schrader stated at the time the meeting was scheduled for the 17 and was
23
confused about the change.
24
25
Ms. Young explained they wanted to bring it to the Commission’s attention so they
26
th
would be aware that it is coming back on the 24 as well as the public who may be
27
watching.
28
29
Chairman Mundt and Mr. Satterlee reiterated their thanks regarding the impact fee item.
30
31
th
Mr. Culverhouse stated he has a conflict on September 24.
32
33
During discussion of the upcoming agenda, Robin Meyer, Assistant Director of Growth
34
Management stated there will be there will be two ordinances including a Historic
35
Preservation Ordinance. Chairman Mundt stated as Mr. Culverhouse is president of the
36
Historical Association, he would like him to have an opportunity to comment, and
37
requested it be put off to the subsequent meeting.
38
39
V. Adjourned
40
16
1
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m
.
2
17