Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 02-02-2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: February 2, 2010 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Adjourned: 11:15 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, Marie Gouin, OMB/Purchasing Director, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Diana Lewis, Airport Director, Lauri Case, Utilities Director, Debra Brisson, Parks and Recreation Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk ____________________________________________________________________________________________ I.INVOCATION II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. MINUTES Approve the minutes from the January 26, 2010 meeting. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve the minutes of the meeting held January 26, 2010, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Resolution No. 10-056 - proclaiming February 7, 2010 as “Companion Animal Adoption Day” in St. Lucie County, Florida. Consider staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 10-056 as drafted. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve Resolution No. 10-056, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. John Arena, Ft. Pierce resident addressed the Board regarding the “muck” from the Lagoon and how it could be recycled. Mr. Jack Hale, 801 S. Ocean Drive, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board regarding February being Black History Month and recommended the Board consider it not only be Black History Month but a month where there would be recognition for many who have made contributions to our county. Mr. Gary Stonebreaker, Tilton Road resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the Lennard Road projects. He believed the residents in the area were misleading with regard to the school in the area. He requested the Board reconsider the project. Com. Coward advised Mr. Stonebreaker this project will be paid for by the developers and no county funds would be expended. The Board mandated the residents in the area not have to pay for any of the improvements. Com. Grande advised Mr. Stonebreaker the school will be utilized as a shelter and the access would be needed for that purpose. Ms. Ann Senate representative from the A.E. Backus Museum addressed the Board and advised them of the Pioneer Fest to take place in downtown Ft. Pierce. 1 VI. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. A. WARRANTS Approve warrant list No. 18 The Board approved Warrant List No. 18. B. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1. Bear Point Mitigation Bank – Credit Purchase Agreement with Schoolhouse Partners, L.L.C. The Board approved the proposed Bear Point Mitigation Bank Credit Purchase Agreement with Schoolhouse Partners, L.L.C., and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement. 2. Newberry Fields – Donation of Right-of-Way – South Jenkins Road – St. Peter Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. – 33 feet – Resolution No. 10-055 The Board approved accepting the Special Warranty Deed, authorizes the Chairman to sign Resolution No. 10-055 and directed staff to record the documents in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. B. COUNTY ATTORNEY CONTINUED 3. PULLED PRIOR TO MEETING Claim on Letter of Credit for Harbour Isle Improvements Consider staff recommendation to approve making a claim on the letter of credit guaranteeing improvements from the Harbour Isle Development. C. AIRPORT Runway 28L Gopher Tortoise Relocation Area Conservation Management Plan The Board approved the LPA Group Work Authorization No. 24 to provide consultant services for the Year 3 Implementation for the Runway 28L Gopher Tortoise Relocation Area Conservation Management Plan for a lump sum amount of $34,649 and authorized the Chairman to sign the document as approved by the County Attorney. END OF CONSENT AGENDA VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COUNTY ATTORNEY Ordinance No. 10-003 (formerly 09-009) – Historic Preservation Consider staff recommendation to approve Ordinance No. 10-003. The Assistant County Attorney addressed the Board and advised them of the recommended changes on page 13, 19, 20 and 35. Com. Craft stated he felt unless there was a challenge it should not be heard by the Board. Com. Dzadovsky stated he would like to have the historic preservation reviewed as much as possible. Com. Craft stated he felt the definition on page 13 was too broad. 2 Ms. Lucille Rice, Historical Preservation advisor and consultant, addressed the Board and stated it was important they have many sources of information. She also recommended the changes to page 20 adding the listing of things to be reviewed. She addressed various sections of the ordinance and questioned if there was a state registry. She recommended a code enforcement employee be the person to go on the historical designated properties to repair or stabilize the buildings until they are sold. The Assistant County Attorney advised Ms. Rice there is no state registry. She also advised Ms. Rice the Board decided on the name of the Historical Commission in honor of the long standing committee. They are creating a new entity with new members. Com. Dzadovsky questioned if the legal aspect of a county employee going on these properties. The Assistant County Attorney stated there is some concern with this aspect. Miami is attempting to pass an ordinance giving them authority to do so and the cost would be a lien on the property. She does not wish for our county to be the first ones to do this. The County would have to pay the upfront costs and then put a lien on the property and she is not sure we should become obligated if we do not have the funds. Ms. Ann Senate, St. Lucie Village, addressed the Board and requested clarification if the new Historical Commission would be collecting data, designating and marking the historical sites. She believes there is much to be done. The Assistant County Attorney advised Ms. Senate this would be at the discretion of the Board. He has prepared language available, however this has not been recommended by staff. Ms. Senate stated she had a concern with historic districts in the county and believes this would be a burden to property owners of non contributing structures. Com. Coward addressed his concern with the added language for page 20 (g). He stated he was not clear and if this survey would place any structure over 50 years or older. He stated he did not wish for this to be grounds for designation because not every building over 50 years old should be considered historic. The Assistant County Attorney stated this did not mean that every building in the county 50 years and older would be designated as historic. Only the structures the survey found would be eligible. There would need to be something else other than just being on the survey. Com. Coward stated it does not say this to him on page 19. Com. Craft stated they needed to make it clear in sub- set two not one. The Assistant County Attorney stated she had an alternative place to put this change. She recommended placing (g) on page 26 of the ordinance and places it under “emergency actions”. Com. Coward stated he believed this would not be necessary, he was looking for it to be clarified acknowledging that it was limited. The County Attorney recommended language adding a sentence to (g). The survey shall not be conclusive as to whether a building is of historical significance. It was the consensus of the Board to add this language. The Assistant County Attorney addressed the changes for page 35 of the ordinance. It was the consensus of the Board that neither of the changes was acceptable. The Board discussed item (G) on page 13. Staff did not recommend the addition of (G). The Historical Commission did recommend. The P & Z Board did not make a specific recommendation; only one member was in favor. The Assistant County Attorney stated she was not sure how she could make this legally palatable. Com. Coward stated he was not comfortable in adding this at this time due to legal issues and state laws. 3 It was the consensus of the Board not to add this language. The Assistant County Attorney stated on pages 18 and 19, it was staff’s opinion that data collection was already being done by the museum staff. Com. Coward stated he did not have a problem with encouraging help being provided to staff and recommended the term “shall” be changed to “may”. He stated he would like to encourage this relationship. The Chairman clarified the changes the Board reached a consensus on Page 35 – Board consensus not to accept any of the changes Page 20 – (g) as re-written The addition of 17 and 18 with the modification to 17 on pages 18 and 19. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Ordinance No. 10-003 as amended, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. B. COUNTY ATTORNEY Ordinance No. 10-005 – Amending Article II (Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Trust Fund) of Chapter 1-7 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances. Consider staff recommendation to approve to adopt Ordinance No. 10-005 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Ordinance. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve Ordinance No. 10-005, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Withdrawal of the Conditional Use Permit application, for SL2623 Coastal Telecommunication Tower Consider staff recommendation to approve of the request to withdraw the Conditional Use Permit application, for SL2623 Coastal Telecommunication Tower, as outlined in the agenda memorandum. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve the request to withdraw, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Withdrawal of the paving waiver request, for SL2623 Coastal Telecommunication Tower Consider staff recommendation to approve of the request to withdraw the paving waiver, for SL2623 Telecommunication Tower, as outlined in the agenda memorandum. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve the request to withdraw, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Resolution 10-010 – Petition of William E. Wilson Jr. for a Major Adjustment to the Conditional Use. Consider staff recommendation to approve adoption of Resolution 10-010 granting William E. Wilson Jr. a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use, as outlined in the agenda memorandum. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to adopt Resolution No. 10-010, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. F. – H. PUBLIC WORKS North Lennard Road 1, 2, and 3 Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) 4 Consider staff recommendation to approve adoption of Item No. VII-F Resolution No. 10-10-046, Item No. VII-G Resolution No. 10-47 and Item No. VII-H Resolution No. 10-048 as outlined in the agenda memorandum. MSBU 1 Staff advised the Board they had received a letter of opposition from a Ms. Patty Kane. Mr. Marc Bouchae, Boca Raton Florida, representing the property owner, Prudential Real Estate, addressed the Board in opposition to the project stating revenues and tenant occupancy is down and this project would be a burden to the property owners. Ms. Deborah King, Tilton Road resident, addressed the Board in opposition and questioned who would pay for the assessment if there was no development. The County Attorney advised Ms. King should the developer default, then the properties would have a lien placed and tax certificates would be sold against the properties. Ms. Patty Kane, area resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the project stating taking the road and dead ending it at Silver Oaks does not make sense. She requested the item be tabled until something further comes along. Mr. Larry Wright, Tilton Road resident, addressed the Board and questioned if the 1.3 million expended is included in the assessment. Staff advised Mr. Wright, this amount is included in the assessment. Ms. Sue Denton, is property owner, addressed the Board in opposition to the project and stated due to the RM-5 zoning she had paid $70,000 in taxes. It is now listed under LLC and it will be assessed for the units and she cannot afford it. She stated she believed it was not beneficial to have agreed to a restricted covenant. Com. Grande stated he has been consistent in his opposition to the Lennard Road projects, however in looking at the map only covering the dotted lines portion, he believes this brings a benefit and easy access to Prima Vista Blvd., and it increases the value of the commercial properties in that area. It is a benefit to the school and seems to be a win/win situation. He cannot see a reason why not to have the road constructed this section is a plus and felt it was time for this section of the road to be done. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. . MSBU 2- Ms. Deborah King requested clarification on the 45 days payment required. Staff advised Ms. King the developer would have to pay the assessment within 45 days after the agreement. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. MSBU-3 Staff addressed this project. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Resolution No. 10-027, Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Shinn Road 251 PUD. (File No. PUD 06-003) Consider staff recommendation to approve adoption of Resolution No. 10-027, approving the Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Shinn Road 251 PUD, as outlined in the agenda memorandum. 5 Com. Coward expressed his concerns with a possible strip mall being constructed along state road 70 in the future on those excluded areas. He reminded staff that the Code says “up to”. If there is a need they should have a broader plan and he does not see this. The Growth Management Director stated this speaks to the broader issue as to why they have recommended the western lands and taking a look at these types of development the code does not fully contemplate. He stated it meets our minimum threshold that has been set up in our Land Development Code. Com. Lewis stated this is not being a full blown conclusion that it will become commercial at this time. She believes this comes under the heading because one decision is made, you do not necessarily have to jump on board to make the other one if it turns out to be a bad one. Com. Coward stated it could be used as a precedent and he is suggesting this could be a bad decision and they should avoid making another one. Com. Dzadovsky asked if it was possible to leave it (the neighborhood commercial not included) as AG-5 zoning. Staff indicated this would be a question they would have to ask the applicant. Mr. Johnathan Ferguson, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board’s questions. Mr. Ferguson addressed the number of units and advised the Board they are willing to reduce the Number of units from 46 to 45 and would make an adjustment with the open space accordingly. The change will be made on the final preliminary site plan. Mr. Ferguson addressed the Multiuse path on Shinn Road and stated he asked staff for a fee in Lieu figure as an alternative to constructing the multi use path. While they do not agree with the Multi Use path construction and the number, they would agree to it to be provided 90 days after Final site plan approval. They agree with staff’s recommendations. The County Surveyor addressed the Board and stated the fee in lieu figures would be $100,163.45. Mr. Mark Mathes, Lucido and Associates provided a Shinn Road illustrative site plan. He addressed the 300 ft. buffer, removal of the cul-de-sacs; excluded this being a gated community, and adding the tot lot amenity. He stated this plan was consistent with the Land Development Code and regulations. Com. Coward stated Shinn Road was to move forward only if there was good land use planning, and he is not sure what this area will become at this point. Com. Craft stated this application has been in the pipe line since 2006 and he felt they must be fair and recognize property rights as they are today. Com. Dzadosvky stated he had met with the applicant and other individuals and asked what kind of recreation areas they are providing. Mr. Mathes stated there would be more details at the final site plan stage. There are components that need to be identified. They did envision the lakes being accessed by trails. Com. Dzadovsky stated he would like to see the areas designated today. He expressed concerns with fertilizer runoff in the canals that could end up in the lagoon. Mr. Daniel Rutherford, Engineer for the project addressed the Board’s question on storm water detention. They will be meeting minimum standards. Mr. Mathes stated they could add recreational facilities to the south side tot lot with the north side having a gazebo as a gathering area. Mr. Ferguson presented Mr. Mathes resume for the record. Com. Coward stated he believes this is not an orderly use of land. He does not believe that if they do not approve this that the Board will be taking property rights. He believes they are underutilizing this land. He does not see anything that would tell him why they need more commercial. 6 Com. Craft stated the applicant has the right to go through the process and the review; this is all he is suggesting. Com. Dzadovsky questioned the units per acre. Staff advised the Board it would be 1 unit per 5 acres, it meets the AG-5 standard. They are within their rights of 1 per 5. Com. Coward stated they are looking at a significant change from AG to Commercial. Com. Dzadovsky stated he believed the area would be commercial in the future. QUASI JUDICIAL All Board members acknowledged meeting with the applicant and the attorney. Com. Coward stated the residential units fit as entitlement today; they have the ability to building a residential fashion. The commercial piece is of main concern; it is premature to carve out the acreage and would like to see the plan modified. He is opposed to the commercial strip and if they would change it to strictly residential he would support the project, but since there is commercial involved he cannot support the project, he believes it needs to be brought back and modified. Com. Craft expressed his concerns with throwing the ratio off should the piece not be included since it is tied to the overall acreage of the property. Mr. Ferguson stated they have not heard anything presented by either professional staff that commercial is inappropriate at this time in the PUD. If they change this now they would have to come back later to change the land use to have it commercial. There are logical reasons why this makes sense. Com. Grande asked if this was an entitlement or if they have a right to request. The County Attorney stated the Code states up to 3% of the gross area and the Board is restricted as to what is on the record; however the Board is also subject to the standards of review. They have to show it is appropriate and meets the standards of review. Mr. Ferguson stated he concurred with the County Attorney that it is allowed but not entitled. Com. Coward addressed comments made and wanted to clarify the record. Com. Coward stated he would listen to what the County Attorney advises. If he is doing something inappropriate the County Attorney would advise him as such. Mr. Ferguson stated this is a quasi judicial hearing and they needed to preserve their objections as in a court of law. Com. Grande requested civility in this discussion. Com. Coward stated Mr. Ferguson indicated they would need a land use change if they carve out the piece and he believes they do not. It is incorrect when it relates to our code. There is a matrix in our codes that describes which zoning districts are consistent with which land use categories, the comparable commercial designation CN is allowed in AG 5. Mr. Ferguson concurred and stated he stood corrected. Com. Coward stated he would carve out this piece and let us do the appropriate planning that is warranted and interested in working on. Have the landowner consider staying within residential or holding off on that piece until they do a better job of doing the logical development planning. Com. Lewis stated with state road 70 being improved and the other approved development in the area she feels it is consistent with the goals and is a logical place to put this commercial piece. Com. Craft stated he was looking for some common ground and concurs with Com. Lewis’ comments and he is comfortable in moving in either direction. Com. Dzadovsky stated he does not know if any commercial will be there anytime soon. He is not sure such a commercial would be appropriate now. He would like to see common ground. He believes this project is clustered better that some of the other projects before the Board. 7 He asked the applicant to consider taking out the commercial part out until they have the opportunity to work with the Western Lands. Com. Coward stated if the applicant is willing to take out the commercial piece he will vote in favor. This is how significant this change is. Mr. Ferguson proposed the alternative, leaving the piece within the PUD and identifies it as Track A. It will not be used to calculate density or additional residential units, not to meet open space requirements, eligible for development at the time of final decided by the Board as to what is appropriate at that time. This leaves flexibility to come back at final without amending PUD and identify as a commercial node if they can justify it. Com. Grande addressed adherence to the preliminary at the final. The County Attorney recommended adding a condition that the designation of Track A will be made at final. Com. Coward stated he would like for there to be the burden of proof for justification at final. The Growth Management Director recommended adding additional language. After continued discussion, the following changes and condition was recommended by the County Attorney; motion to reflect the following 1.Applicant voluntary reduced units from 46 to 45 2.Paragraph 14, applicant requesting a change from constructing a multiuse path to a fee in lieu of within 90 days after final PUD approval in the amount of $100,163.45. 3. Amend plan to show additional recreational amenities to the north and the south, to the south a tot lot and a pavilion, to the north a gazebo 4.Commercial Track to be identified as Track A, a new condition added indicating that it will be labeled in the future based on a need justification or the western land study as indicated by The Growth Management Director. Com. Dzadovsy addressed future storms and recommended the Board look at requiring larger lakes for storm water retention in the future. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve Resolution No. 10-027 as amended to include the changes and conditions as stated by the County Attorney, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS VIII. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 10-049 - Authorizing Term Loan to Provide Permanent Financing for North Lennard Road 1 MSBU Special Assessment Project Consider staff recommendation to approve to adopt the attached Resolution No. 10-049 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 10-049, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. IX. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 10-051 - Authorizing Term Loan to Provide Permanent Financing for North Lennard Road 2 MSBU Special Assessment Project Consider staff recommendation to approve to adopt the attached Resolution No. 10-051 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 10-051, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. X. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 10-052 - Authorizing Term Loan to Provide Permanent Financing for North Lennard Road 3 MSBU Special Assessment Project 8 Consider staff recommendation to approve adopt the attached Resolution No. 10-052 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Dzadovsky to approve Resolution No. 10-052, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ________________________ Chairman _______________________ Clerk of the Circuit Court 9