HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 01-19-2010
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
Date: January 19, 2010 Convened: 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:35 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Charles Grande, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft, Chris
Dzadovsky
Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Dan
McIntyre, County Attorney, Don West, Public Works Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, Diana
Lewis, Airport Director, Debra Brisson, Parks and Rec. Director, Lauri Case, Utilities Director, Mark Satterlee,
Growth Management Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
I. INVOCATION
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. MINUTES
Approve the minutes from the January 12, 2010 meeting.
It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve the minutes of the meeting held
January 12, 2010, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
A. South Florida Water Management District will update the Board on the Upper East Coast Water
Supply Planning Process
Mr. Mark Elsner, SFWMD made a presentation and updated the Board on the Upper East Coast
Water Supply Planning Process.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. John Arena, area resident addressed the Board and stated any increase in depth to the channel would
Increase the surface speed of watercrafts.
Ms. Meg Ramey, Chair of the Haitian Advisory Council addressed the Board and advised them of a
Candlelight vigil being held Wednesday night at the Fenn Center at 6:30 p.m. for the Haiti victims. She
thanked everyone for their support and contributions to the Haiti residents.
Com. Coward requested the Board ratify his appointment of Eric Dukes to the Sustainability Committee.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to ratify Com. Coward’s appointment, and; upon
roll call, motion carried unanimously.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved by Com. Dzadovsky, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the Consent Agenda, and; upon
roll call, motion carried unanimously.
A. WARRANTS
Approve warrant list No. 16
The Board approved Warrant List No. 16.
B. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Ordinance No. 10-010 – Expert Documents; Testimony – Permission to Advertise
1
Com. Grande stated he had requested 1100-04 be expanded to include the
Comprehensive Plan changes.
Com. Dzadovsky concurred.
The Board granted permission to advertise Ordinance No. 10-010.
2. Volo Holdings Fort Pierce, LLC – Subground Lease Agreement with Omniflight
Helicopters, Inc.
The Board consented to the Subground Lease Agreement between Volo Holdings Fort
Pierce, L.L.C., and Omniflight Helicopters, Inc.
3. Facilities Use Agreement - St. Lucie County Health Access Network
The Board approved the Facilities Use Agreement and authorized the Chairman to sign
the Agreement.
C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Proportionate Fair Share and Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement – BPSC Industries
The Board authorized advertising a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on
February 2, 2010, as outlined in the agenda memorandum.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
1. TSOP, LLC – Road Improvement for CVS Pharmacy
The Board approved the Road Improvement Agreement with TSOP, LLC and authorized
the Chairman to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
2. South 25 Street and North Cortez Boulevard
th
The Board authorized advertising a public hearing to be held on March 2, 2010 at 6:00
p.m. or soon thereafter to consider the intersection of South 25 Street at North Cortez
th
Boulevard.
3. Notice of Intent for Energy Conservation/Renewable Energy (ECRE) Municipal Service
Benefit Unit (MSBU)
The Board authorized advertising a public hearing to consider approving a resolution
stating its intent to use the uniform method of collecting assessments if levied on
properties within the proposed ECRE MSBU to be held at the Board’s regular day meeting
on February 23, 2010, as outlined in the agenda memorandum.
E. PARKS AND RECREATION
1.Contract Amendment, Agricredit
The Board approved the second amendment to Master Lease/Loan Agreement C09-10-
544 with Agricredit for golf carts for the Fairwinds Golf Course as outlined in the agenda
memorandum and authorized the Chairman to sign documents as drafted by the County
Attorney.
2. Recreation Facilities Mutual Use Agreement with the St. Lucie County School Board
The Board approved the amended and restated Recreation Facilities Mutual Use
Agreement with the St. Lucie County School Board as outlined in the agenda
memorandum and authorized the Chairman to sign documents as drafted by the County
Attorney.
F. ADMINISTRATION
1. Economic Development Council Grant for 2009-2010
2
The Board approved the grant for $250,000 and authorized the Chairman to sign the
agreement.
F. ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED
2. Economic Development Council First Quarter Invoice
The Board approved the acceptance of the First Quarter Report from EDC as fulfilling the
requirements of the Contract and authorized disbursing payment in the amount of $62,500
towards the matching grant, subject to the contract being approved.
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Ordinance No. 10-002 – Amending Section 1-4-26 (Enforcement and Penalties; Mandatory Court
Appearance) to Provide for Surcharge pursuant to Section 828.27(4)(b), Florida Statutes, to Fund
Training for Animal Control Officers
Consider staff recommendation to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 10-002 as drafted.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Ordinance No. 10-002, and;
upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
B. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Ordinance No. 10-001 (f/k/a Ordinance No. 9-027) - Amending 1-15-28 (Beaches) to permit Dogs
on Wild Cat Cove
Consider staff recommendation to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 10-001 (f/k/a Ordinance No. 09-
027) as drafted.
Mr. Rick Feedler, area resident addressed the Board and stated his concern with the possibility the
beach area to the north may be impacted by the approval of this ordinance.
The Asst. County Attorney advised Mr. Feedler this ordinance would not impact the beach area.
Com. Craft stated dogs were not permitted on the beach and this was a compromise they came up
with.
Dr. Jo Crown, A-1-A resident addressed the Board and stated in the newspaper it stated the
Homeowners in the area were in favor of this ordinance. She advised the Board many of the
residents were not aware of this ordinance being considered tonight. She also addressed the
sidewalks in the area being in disrepair. She stated although this ordinance may be the best
alternative it is not meeting the needs of those who live there.
The Asst. County Attorney stated north of Pepper Park they do not address dogs on the beach.
An unidentified resident stated he current ordinance from pepper park north does not have a
designation.
Mr. Feedler reiterated his position and stated his concern that this is some precondition to ban
dogs north of the beach.
Com. Craft advised those present his office has contacted those who are responsible for fixing the
sidewalks in the area. This is not the jurisdiction of the county, it is a state road.
C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Ordinance No. 10-006 (FKA 09-031), Small-Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map for
Sands End Development, LLC. Located on South Hutchinson Island (File No.: FLUMA
420093979)
3
Consider staff recommendation for Board denial of the Small-Scale Amendment to the Future Land
Use Map for Sands End Development, LLC as Outlined in the attached memorandum.
Staff advised the Board she would be presenting both item 7-C and 7-D together but voted on
separately.
Com. Grande advised the Board in speaking with the applicant, they did not have a problem with
changing the zoning from RM to RU due to the RM which is 9 to the acre and is high when it
comes to the 35 foot high limit areas. RU is 5 to the acre. They questioned if they would be
allowed to aggregate the density from both parcels over the entire proposed development. The
Growth Mgt. Director stated this would be normal and would be allowed to aggregate the density
across the development.
Com. Grande asked the County Attorney if they could make the change tonight or do they need to
re-advertise and hold the hearing at a future meeting.
The Growth Management Director recommended re-advertising the hearing since there is a
change.
The County Attorney concurred and recommended re-advertising it as an RU and believes legally
this is what is required.
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Culpepper and Terpening addressed the Board and stated if they are certain
the aggregate density would be allowed in the code they would not have any objection re-
advertising for a rehearing for an RU petition.
The County Attorney advised the Board the HIRD petition(item 7-D) could be continued without re-
advertising.
Quasi Judicial
All the Board members acknowledged having contact with the applicant.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, under discussion, Com. Coward
questioned the two different land uses.
Mr. Murphy stated the other parcel was not part of the development plan.
Com. Coward stated it seemed it would make sense the parcels would have one land use rather
than separate designations.
Com. Grande stated it makes sense to him to address this petition tonight and this will be coming
back to the Board within the next couple of weeks and he believes staff will have enough time to do
the analysis and make a recommendation as they did with the RH request and have that as part of
that hearing.
At this time Com. Craft withdrew his motion due to the need for more clarification on the Board’s
position.
Com. Lewis withdrew her second.
The Growth Management Director stated Com. Coward’s recommendation makes sense however
he is not sure the applicant would agree to do this because it may reduce the amount of units
available. At six or just under seven is a small scale amendment and adding the other may make it
10 acres or more and this would change it to a large scale amendment and would need to go
through the DCA process.
Mr. Murphy addressed his concern in going over the red line boundaries. The legal description
prepared is for the red line boundary. If they change the legal description they may need to go
back to ground zero and start over again. They are not objecting to the change to RU and they are
aware of Com. Coward’s concerns about the needs analysis and they will do their best to address
it. He advised the Board the west side is not a part of any of their development plan.
Mr. Murphy advised the Board which two parcels will be designated in the development plan. The
other parcel they own but have not decided what to do with it; they are only interested in
developing on the ocean side.
4
Ms. Sonja Vredack, Empress resident recommended having two different hearings to avoid having
them start over again.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to continue this hearing to February 16,
2010 at 6:00 pm. or as soon thereafter providing the applicant the opportunity to amend this
application from RH to RU;
The County Attorney advised the Board the motion would be to set the hearing for February 16,
2010 at 6:00 pm. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, with the requirement the applicant pay
for and re-advertise the hearing reflecting the change from RM to RU.
Com. Craft changed his motion to reflect the County Attorney’s recommended motion, Com. Lewis
concurred with the new motion.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis to set the hearing for February 16, 2010 at
6:00 pm. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, with the requirement the applicant pay for and
re-advertise the hearing reflecting the change from RM to RU and; upon roll call, motion carried
unanimously.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Resolution No. 10-006 (FKA 09-219), Petition to Amend the Official Zoning Atlas for Sands End
Development (File No.: RZ 620093986)
Consider staff recommendation for Board denial of the Petition to amend the Official Zoning Atlas
for Sands End Development, LLC as outlined in the attached memorandum.
It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to continue this item on February 16,
2010 at 6:00 pm. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, and; upon roll call, motion carried
unanimously.
E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Resolution No. 10-024, Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Shinn Road Equestrian
Estates project. (File No.: PUD 06-002)
Consider staff recommendation for Board denial of Resolution No. 10-024 approving the
Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Shinn Road Equestrian Estates, as outlined in the
agenda memorandum.
Staff provided a summary of the issues.
Condition # 7- staff is resolute that the code requires that a multi-use path be provided as part of
this development, but that the applicant should not have to bear the full cost of such a path.
Condition # 7 has been revised to require that the path be “constructed at the same time as other
required roadway improvements” and that “The developer shall be eligible for road impact fee
credits for half of the construction cost of the path.”
Save the Chimps disclosure: County staff, the applicant and the Save the Chimps sanctuary
representative have agreed upon amended language for Condition # 18.
Equestrian amenities: The applicant has agreed to provide specific equestrian amenities as
outlined in new Condition # 27. Reading as follows: Prior to Final PUD approval, the final site plan
will reflect development as an equestrian community with appropriate equestrian amenities,
including but not limited to 1) the construction of an engineered riding area, 2) riding trails as
generally depicted on the preliminary site plan: 3) stabilized parking area adjacent to the riding
arena of sufficient size for several trucks with horse trailers and cars; and 4) two run in type stalls
with adjacent paddocks.
Gated community: The applicant agrees that the proposed project will not be gated as outline in a
new Condition # 28. Reading as follows: Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall indicate
on the site plan that the proposed community will not be gated.
Buffer adjacent to agricultural us: New condition # 29 outlines the additional rear setback that the
applicant has agreed to provide to increase the buffer on the northwest boundary of the site plan.
5
Reads as follows: Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall amend the site plan to provide
an additional 70 foot rear setback on the lots along the west side of the northern parcel, for a total
of 100 foot rear setback.
Road connectivity: Staff recommends as new Condition # 30 that the right of way being provided
by the applicant for the north-south road internal to the development be extended to the southern
boundary of Goldsmith Road. In addition, “a stabilized access shall be provided within this right of
way and extending west within the 35 feet being donated by the applicant for the future expansion
of Goldsmith Road.” Reads as follows: Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall indicate on
the site plan that the area north of the cul-de-sac between Lots 95 and 96 and the buffer area north
of Lot 96 is also for emergency access and shall contain a minimum twenty foot wide stabilized
surface that terminates at a gate located at the northwest corner of the Property with access
controlled by the Fire District. There is one issue needed to be worked out and that is whether this
is to be an access to be had by the residents or solely for the purpose of the Fire District.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Attorney for the applicant addressed Com. Dzadovsky’s question on
condition number 28 not indicated in the letter to the Planning Manager.
Mr. Ferguson indicated the letter did not address all the conditions that were added by omission
they accept those without change, the letter was limited to minor words and their objection to
number 7. In condition 18 they agree with the condition except they do not understand why the
sentence: “The Save the Chimps sanctuary operation is permitted under the existing agricultural
zoning” was added to subpart d. The concern is that they do not wish to be accused of providing a
legal opinion on county ordinances. They suggested the words “according to the county”
be inserted in front of the part of the sentence that reads, ““The Save the Chimps sanctuary
operation is permitted under the existing agricultural zoning”.
Mr. Ferguson indicated he had discussed this change with The Save the Chimps foundation and
they agreed.
Com. Dzadovsky addressed condition 15 re: open space.
Mr. Ferguson indicated they did not have a problem with this condition they accept the language
drafted by staff.
Com. Dzadovsky questioned if they had considered proportionate fair share regarding the
sidewalks.
Mr. Ferguson stated they believe it is unfair to require this applicant to construct any portion of the
multi-use path. This project is not causing the need to construct a multi-use path.
The County Surveyor addressed the Board and stated his position and stated he disagreed with
Mr. Ferguson. He believes a fee in lieu of will benefit the county much greater than a fair share
contribution. They would be able to utilize this fee anywhere in the county. The figure calculated
for the fee in lieu of is $49,870.00.
Com. Dzadovsky stated due to the fact that many developments have been built in the cities of
Port St. Lucie and Ft. Pierce without sidewalks, he believes the fee in lieu of is a good
recommendation and he would not be comfortable with moving forward at least with that condition.
Mr. Ferguson stated if they are required to make a payment they base it on the size of a typical
sidewalk and if the county wants to upgrade a typical sidewalk it then be the county’s responsibility.
The County Surveyor advised Mr. Ferguson the fee indicated is for a 6 foot sidewalk which would
be their proportionate share.
Mr. Ferguson requested the payment be made on a pro-rata basis at the time of the building permit
when the impact and need for the sidewalks arise. He believes there is not legal requirement at all.
Com. Coward stated he did not agree with Mr. Ferguson’s prior comment. He too is in favor of
some type of contribution.
Mr. Ferguson stated for the record they did not have a problem with condition 28 as proposed,
condition 29 as proposed, condition 18 they have addressed with the adding of the language,
condition 27 they are proposing identifies the amenities, he believes staff did not have a problem
with it and requested they use the revised language . Condition 30, the language for condition 13 is
what is depicted in the site plan but not identified as emergency access and staff recommended
6
adding to the condition that states it. They recommend condition 30 be used rather than what is in
front of them.
Mr. Ferguson requested the Board approve the project, adopt the resolution provided by staff with
the deletion of condition number 7, the amendment to 18 as requested, amendment to 27 and 30
as drafted and is in front of the Board for consideration.
Com. Coward asked for clarification on the issue of whether they were going to pass the cost of the
amenities on to future homeowners. His understanding was they did not wish to make any
investments.
Mr. Ferguson stated the developer will be constructing the amenities. The timing of the
construction is in the resolution upon final site plan approval.
Com. Coward stated he would like the language to be stronger, it does not say the developer will
be constructing the amenities.
Mr. Ferguson agreed with this request.
The Planning Manager stated they would add the language.
Com. Grande stated he voted against this petition at every level so far and he has not changed
his mind. He took this application and compared it to Hunter’s Run and ran a few numbers as to
what this may look like if the same rationale was applied to Hunter’s Run. Hunter’s Run was
separated from the norm due to specific lands worth saving and was receiving donations of certain
land for trails. He stated with 30 odd conditions that it takes for this to be palatable application, the
concept it takes 30 conditions to justify something as unreasonable as this in St. Lucie County
makes no sense to him. He has found no precedent in the county for approval of this application
or justification of this in our land development codes or our comprehensive plan. He stated
independent of the 30 conditions attached, he cannot support this project.
Com. Craft stated to suggest that everyone that will move into this community will fit in this type of
community. Some people like to live in these communities even if they do not fit the mold. He
wanted to caution the county not to pigeon hole themselves into one type of a community.
Com. Grande stated he believed there are many things that living with livestock many people are
not aware of. In an equestrian community we may be looking to invite people who understand this
type of a community and are willing to put up with the negatives whatever they may be.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he believes this plan gives them an idea what transition from urban to Ag
will be. One of the conditions was given thought to the temporary housing of horses. He believed
we could be an equestrian facility such as Wellington’s. This is an area close to the Fairgrounds
and he is in support of it based on the conditions and if he were to make the motion that he would
include the fee in lieu of $49,870.00.
Com. Grande stated he may be in agreement with the transition comment if it were in the urban
service area.
Com. Lewis stated she believed it can become difficult when they start comparing one
development to another. There are many issues considered when approving a development and
location, location is a main factor. She believes there are those who although they do not have
horses they enjoy living around them and if you decide to live in such an area you are aware and
expect there to be horses around. There needs to be room for choices and believes this is a
reasonable request. She would like some resolution to the “fee in lieu of” understood. She would
like for him to reiterate where they stand on that once again so she could be sure.
Mr. Ferguson stated the applicant would accept the fee in lieu in the amount of $49,870.00 and
would still like consideration regarding the timing of the payment. The dollar amount is acceptable.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he would agree to the 30 conditions with the number 7 being amended to
include the fee in lieu of $49,870.00.
The County Surveyor stated they normally required the fee in lieu of be paid 90 days after receiving
the time of final site plan approval or final PUD approval.
Mr. Ferguson stated the amenities would be constructed by the developer at the same time as the
required of the off- site road improvements per staff.
7
Com. Grande addressed the fact that staff feels the project warrants 30 conditions should the
Board consider approval rather than staff’s recommendation of denial.
Com. Coward stated there seems to be a consensus by the Board that he happens to disagree
with however he believed there was a comment on how to define this project and it is simple, it is
from agriculture to urban sprawl. He believes it is a bad plan and will set a negative precedent for
the county. It is the most costly use of land use in the nation converting agricultural land to
residential sprawl.
Com. Dzadovsky stated although he respects Com. Coward’s educational background and
knowledge, he believes the Board has maintained the position that development should pay for
itself and have indicated the internal roads and sidewalks will be maintained by the developer not
the St. Lucie county residents. This developer is providing additional dollars for future sidewalks
which is to help with costs to the community. His position is that this is a unique community and
they need to build the opportunity for those in the equestrian community to participate with our
Fairgrounds and create different programs and feel it is a positive for the county.
Com. Coward stated the operations side is much of the cost not the capital. He does not believe
this will be any benefit. He is receptive to the equestrian community and would like the developer
to look at it holistically.
Com. Craft stated this application has been in the works for many years and this is not a rush to try
and get it done.
Com. Grande stated he believed what Com. Coward may be trying to say is that it may be
premature to the Western Lands study.
Com. Craft stated this was started prior to the Western Lands study with different rules and
regulations and felt it was not fair.
The County Attorney requested the ability to go through the conditions as amended for clarification
# 7- deleted as drafted and language inserted to require fee in lieu in the amount of
$49,870.00 to be paid 90 days after final PUD approval
# 18- proposed amendment to sub paragraph d start with the words, “according to the
County”,
# 27 – proposed changes by the applicant and additional changes by the county
requiring construction by the developer prior to the pulling of the first building permit
construction of the equestrian amenities to include riding trails, stabilized parking areas
and two run in type stalls with adjacent paddocks.
# 28 – acceptable as drafted
# 29 – acceptable as drafted
# 30 - language added regarding the area north of the cul-de-sac between lots 95 and 96
and the buffer area north of lot 96.
Com. Grande stated he takes exception to the added language “according to the county” and he
suggests the words do nothing but make it weaker rather than stronger.
Com. Coward stated he believed number 30 does not pertain exclusively to emergency access. He
would encourage the Board maintain some sort of connectivity between this community and any
future development.
Com. Lewis stated her recollection was the sanctuary did not wish for this area to be included for
fear that it would lead to further access to development in that area.
He would encourage the Board maintain some sort of connectivity between this community and
any future development.
It was moved by Com. Dzadovsky, seconded by Com. Craft (under discussion) to approve with the
conditions as presented including the last item by Com. Coward as surmised by the County
Attorney including the fee in lieu of and the list of conditions;
8
Com. Craft stated those are private roads and future linkage would require dedication of internal
roads to the county and he is not sure they would want to be in that.
Com. Coward presented clarification of the motion: agree to the fee in lieu, 90 days after PUD
approval in # 7; #27 the amenities constructed by the developer prior to the pulling of the first
building permit; # 30 comfortable with language as presented by staff as a condition providing
access to the north; # 18 language added “according to the county” as presented by the attorney
for the applicant
And; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Coward, Grande; Aye’s: Lewis, Craft, Dzadovsky,
motion 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 the Circuit Court
9