HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-18-2010
St. Lucie County
1
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
2
rd
Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
3
March 18, 2010 Meeting
4
6:00 p.m.
5
6
7
In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc
8
shall control.
9
10
11
I. Call to Order
12
13
Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
14
15
A. Pledge of Allegiance
16
17
B. Roll Call
18
Craig Mundt ................................. Chairman
19
Britt Reynolds….............................Vice-Chairman
20
Susan Caron………………………Commission Member
21
Edward Lounds ........................... Commission Member
22
Stephanie Morgan ....................... Commission Member
23
Tod Mowery ................................. Commission Member
24
25
Members Absent
26
Barry Schrader ….Excused...........Commission Member
27
Pamela Hammer...Excused. ........ Commission Member
28
Brad Culverhouse.Excused..........Commission Member
29
Kathryn Hensley...Excused…. ..... Ex-Officio Member
30
31
Staff Present
32
Mark Satterlee ............................. Director, Growth Management
33
Britton Wilson……………………...Sr. Planner
34
Dawn Milone ................................ Recording Secretary
35
36
C. Announcements
37
38
None
39
40
D. Disclosures
41
42
None
43
44
II. Minutes
45
46
Review the minutes from the February 18, 2010 meeting, for approval.
47
48
1
Mr. Lounds motioned to approve the minutes as written.
1
2
Mr. Mowery seconded.
3
4
The motion carried unanimously.
5
6
III.Public Hearing
7
8
A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the
9
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
10
Staff requests review and input from the Planning and Zoning Commission/Land
11
Planning Agency for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based
12
Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
13
14
Mr. Satterlee, Growth Management Director welcomed the Commission and the public
15
to the workshop.
16
17
He stated this is the fourth workshop being held for the EAR. The responses to the
18
questions will be posted on the County’s web site within a week.
19
20
Ms. Wilson, Sr. Planner stated the update to the Comprehensive Plan is based on the
21
recommendations identified by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was
22
adopted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in October 2008. Staff’s
23
focus tonight is to gather input from the Commission and public.
24
25
Ms. Wilson stated tonight’s workshop is a regular agenda item, not a public hearing
26
however, it is up to the Chairman to allow for public comment following board
27
discussion.
28
29
Ms. Wilson introduced Lorraine Tappen, AICP, Sr. Planner with Calvin, Giordano &
30
Associates, Inc.
31
32
Ms. Tappen stated this is a state required evaluation of the St. Lucie County
33
Comprehensive Plan. This is a two-step process to bring the Comprehensive Plan up to
34
date with current Florida Statues and current goals and objectives of the community.
35
36
Ms. Tappen provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan elements and sub-
37
elements to be amended. The EAR amendments will not include the Public School
38
Facility, Towns Villages Countryside, Rural Land Stewardship, Port Master Plan, Airport
39
Master Plan and the Water Supply Facility Plan.
40
2
Ms. Tappen stated the Comprehensive Plan consists of two elements. The first is data
1
inventory and analysis, and the second is the goals, objectives, and policies, which
2
Chapter 163, Florida Status and 9J5, Florida Administrative Code, govern the content.
3
Local information and data is also brought into the plan to tailor the goals, objectives
4
and policies to a specific location.
5
Ms. Tappen presented a power point, which included:
6
, ,
Intensity standards added for Non-residential UsesSmart Growth Initiatives2009
7
Statutory Requirement for the Airport, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Sustainable
8
Western Land Plan, Multi-Modal Options, Transportation, Housing, Greener Living,
9
Infrastructure, Alternate Solid Waste Disposal, Coastal Management Development,
10
Hazard Mitigation, Conservation, Recreation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital
11
Improvements, Economic Development, and Green Technology.
12
13
Chairman Mundt opened the session for the public to make comment.
14
15
Chairman Mundt stated the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Land Planning Agency is
16
an advisory commission. The commission is a recommending body to the Board of
17
County Commissioners.
18
19
Johnathan Ferguson, local attorney and resident, stated when reviewing the EAR, the
20
Commission is sitting as the St. Lucie County Land Planning Agency to review and
21
approve the EAR Amendments. Then they send the amendments to the Board of
22
County Commissioners to review and transmit.
23
24
Other speakers were Douglas Myers, Robert Barry Mucklow, Susan Hollaway, Kevin
25
Stinnette, Bill Medina, Suzanne Evoldi, Jeff Forsman, Howard Fein, Michael Loeb, and
26
Mary Burton. Their issues of concern were:
27
28
?
Document does not add anything positive to the county and has great
29
implications for the development and economic health of the county.
30
?
Staff has not given the Commission sufficient time to review the document as
31
state law requires.
32
?
Requested that the Amendments be reviewed page by page.
33
?
Tweaking of the language in the document is adding unnecessary complications
34
and fuzziness to the process, which adds uncertainty (cost) to the process,
35
which will drive away developers.
36
?
Requirement adding any project over two hundred acres to form a Community
37
Development District.
38
?
Definitions of water bodies and rivers are omitted (referenced Ten Mile Creek).
39
?
Water and Sewer connection outside the Urban Service Boundary language
40
changed, (you could not pull a building permit outside the Urban Service
41
Boundary, or get a project developed).
42
?
Wetlands Mitigation Issues.
43
?
Make font larger in graphs.
44
?
Controlling travel to and from job.
45
?
Controlling where you live in relationship to your job.
46
3
?
Lack of job creation (05 jobs per household, insufficient).
1
?
Unfunded mandates (Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways and Trail Study).
2
?
Layers of bureaucracy to implement.
3
?
Unknown tax burden on citizens.
4
?
No benefit being labeled a Green County.
5
?
Cost of a bike trail unknown.
6
?
Increased Impact Fees.
7
?
Uncontrolled growth.
8
?
Diminished property values.
9
?
United Nations Agenda 21, stripping away US sovereignty.
10
?
Transfer of Development Rights.
11
?
Get back to Agriculture.
12
?
Business will build and operate Green when it is economically feasible. Goal of
13
any business is to earn a profit.
14
?
Being Green without a return on investment is not a viable business model.
15
?
Over 18, 00 people in St. Lucie County unemployed.
16
?
Reduction of commercial and industrial land.
17
?
Quality of living diminishing.
18
?
Need to be more educated on this issue.
19
?
Plan does not include cost analysis.
20
21
Some people were in support of the following ideas:
22
?
Mass Transit.
23
?
Energy efficiency.
24
?
Affordable housing.
25
?
Plasma Arc Gasification of solid waste.
26
27
Robert Tabor stated it is good to see residents at meetings voicing their opinions and
28
helping to regulate what goes on in the County.
29
30
Marty Laven stated he attended the meeting tonight because he felt compelled to speak
31
to this group. He is a Renewable Energy Specialist for a Solar Contractor. He is a
32
member of numerous groups. He is concerned about the shrill nature of some of the
33
comments he hears and the lack of sober discourse in the community. He is calling for
34
more deliberate, considered educated opinion when people come up and hold forth.
35
36
37
Chairman Mundt closed the session for the public to make comment.
38
39
Chairman Mundt stated the differences between the Commission acting as the Planning
40
and Zoning Commission and the Land Planning Agency.
41
42
Mr. Satterlee invited the public to call, email or schedule time with him and staff to
43
discuss the EAR.
44
45
4
The Commission and public are concerned whether or not there was sufficient time
1
given to review the EAR and make comments.
2
3
The concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission are:
4
5
?
Vagueness in the language.
6
?
Open concept of definitions, which leads to staff, board and developer
7
interpretation to differ.
8
?
Deletion of water bodies, river names and boundaries.
9
?
Island and Shoreline restorations.
10
?
Western Land sustainability.
11
?
Sidewalks in rural areas that lead to nowhere.
12
?
Imposing new requirements on the County (cost).
13
14
15
16
The suggestions of the Planning and Zoning Commission are:
17
18
?
Well-defined definitions and directions.
19
?
Provide provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).
20
?
Create a TDR bank to be used in the Urban Service Area rather than being
21
forced to use only in Unincorporated Areas.
22
?
Enhance the availability of industrial, light industry and commercial areas.
23
?
Do not rely on construction (home building) as St. Lucie County industry.
24
?
Flexibility in all areas of the County especially TVC areas.
25
?
Modify schedule.
26
?
Better define what the State Statues are that need to be in EAR.
27
?
Creatively expand disaster preparation and supplies for developments and
28
Mobile Home Communities.
29
30
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
31
32
Mr. Satterlee, again asked anyone with questions or concerns to call, email or
33
schedule time with him and staff to discuss the EAR.
34
35
V. Adjourned
36
37
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m
.
38
39
40
41
42
5