Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-15-2010 St. Lucie County 1 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency 2 rd Roger Poitras Annex, Commission Chambers, 3 Floor 3 April 15, 2010 Meeting 4 6:00 p.m. 5 In the event of a conflict between these written minutes and a compact disc recording, 6 the compact disc shall control. 7 8 I. CALL TO ORDER 9 Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 10 A. Pledge of Allegiance 11 B. Roll Call 12 Craig Mundt ......................................Chairman 13 Pamela Hammer ...............................Commission Member 14 Edward Lounds .................................Commission Member 15 Stephanie Morgan ............................Commission Member 16 Tod Mowery ......................................Commission Member 17 Barry Schrader .................................Commission Member 18 Kathryn Hensley ...............................Ex-Officio Member 19 Brad Culverhouse (arrived at 6:35) ...Commission Member 20 21 Members Absent 22 Britt Reynolds (excused) ..................Vice-Chairman 23 Susan Caron (excused) ....................Commission Member 24 25 Staff Present 26 Mark Satterlee ..................................Planning and Development Services Director 27 Britton Wilson ...................................Senior Planner 28 Amy Griffin ........................................Environmental Regulations and Lands Manager 29 Laurie Waldie....................................Utilities Director 30 Dawn Milone .....................................Recording Secretary 31 C. Announcements 32 None. 33 D. Disclosures 34 None. 35 36 Page 2 of 7 II. MINUTES 37 Review the minutes from the March 18, 2010 meeting for approval. 38 Mr. Lounds motioned to approve the minutes as written. 39 Mr. Schrader seconded. 40 The motion carried 5-1, Mrs. Hammer dissented because she was absent from the 41 meeting and is not permitted to abstain. 42 43 III. PUBLIC HEARING 44 A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the St. Lucie 45 County Comprehensive Plan. 46 Petition for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the St. 47 Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. 48 Mr. Satterlee, Planning and Development Services Director welcomed the Commission and 49 the public to the public hearing. 50 He told the Commission under the County reorganization the department’s name has changed 51 from Growth Management to Planning and Development Services so any references to Growth 52 Management will be changed as such. 53 He stated this is the fifth opportunity for public input and most comments and concerns from 54 previous meetings and workshops have been addressed. 55 He stated the EAR represents a continuum of the Comprehensive Plan that was established 56 20 years ago, and most of it is updating and “housekeeping”. 57 He wanted to emphasize that although there are not many new details being incorporated into 58 the Comprehensive Plan what staff is doing what is required by the State. 59 Ms. Wilson, Sr. Planner stated the update to the Comprehensive Plan is based on the 60 recommendations identified by the EAR, which was adopted and approved by the Board of 61 County Commissioners in October 2008. 62 Many of the proposed changes being made in the Comprehensive Plan are required by House 63 Bill 697 regarding energy efficiencies and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. The data 64 inventory and analysis has been brought entirely up to date. The amendments reflect current 65 St. Lucie County practices and the work of the Smart Growth Committee. No programs are 66 included that are not a part of current or future St. Lucie County initiatives. 67 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes Page 3 of 7 Ms. Wilson stated based on the amount of feedback staff has received on the removal of the 68 waterways definition, staff is proposing to reference the definition in the Land Development 69 Code where the definitions currently remain unchanged. 70 Ms. Wilson introduced Lorraine Tappen, AICP, Sr. Planner with Calvin, Giordano & 71 Associates, Inc. 72 Ms. Tappen stated this is a state required evaluation of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive 73 Plan. This is a two-step process to update the Comprehensive Plan with current community 74 objectives and state regulations. 75 Ms. Tappen provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan elements and sub-elements to 76 be amended. The EAR amendments will not include the Public School Facility, Towns Villages 77 Countryside, and Rural Land Stewardship. 78 She said each element consists of the data inventory analysis and the goals, objectives, and 79 policies, the content of which is largely regulated by Rule - 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative 80 Code and Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Ms. Tappen said the data inventory analysis of 81 each element that is being amended has been completely updated. The last update was done 82 in 2002. The EAR based amendments were adopted and in place in 2004. 83 Ms. Tappen stated one of the EAR recommendations was to fulfill a statutory requirement for 84 the Future Land Use Element to include intensity standards for the future land uses. 85 Ms. Tappen presented a power point, which included: 86 , , Intensity standards added for Non-residential UsesSmart Growth Initiatives2009 Statutory 87 Requirement for the Airport, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Sustainable Western Land Plan, 88 Multi-Modal Options, Transportation, Housing, Greener Living, Infrastructure, Alternate Solid 89 Waste Disposal, Coastal Management Development, Hazard Mitigation, Conservation, 90 Recreation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, Economic Development, 91 and Green Technology. 92 Mr. Lounds asked if a development outside of the urban service boundary wished to install a 93 satellite water treatment facility, could they with the understanding that they would have to 94 hook up to a utility department. 95 Laurie Waldie, Utilities Director, stated currently it may be installed privately but may have to 96 be turned over to the County Utilities to operate. Ms. Waldie stated any development outside 97 the urban service boundary would need to be approved by the Board of County 98 Commissioners (BOCC), and there would be a utility service agreement set to delineate what 99 would be built for that development, the financing, and how it would be turned over to County 100 Utilities. 101 Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing. 102 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes Page 4 of 7 Johnathan Ferguson, Land Use Attorney and resident, stated there are some vague policies in 103 the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested they consider whether there needs to be a reference 104 to the policies that they are self-enforcing or will have land development regulations to 105 implement them. 106 Peter Harrison, representing Adams Ranch, handed the Commission a letter regarding the 107 impact of the proposed changes to the Conservation Element to Adams Ranch, which he read 108 aloud. Mr. Harrison stated he has problems with policies that seem to prohibit, restrict, or 109 regulate agriculture. He concluded with a statement he requested the Commission add to the 110 Conservation Element before forwarding the item to the BOCC. 111 Mr. Mundt stated he discussed suggestions from Mr. Harrison’s February 15 letter with staff. 112 Mr. Lounds stated his concern that he did not want to put roadblocks to inhibit future and 113 progressive agriculture as it would change in the future. 114 Mrs. Griffin, Environmental Regulations and Lands Manager, stated the Land Development 115 Code exempts existing agriculture uses from the clearing process. New agriculture operations 116 that do not currently have an agriculture exemption will have to start from scratch with their 117 initial clearing. Their agricultural operation would have to be up and running before they can 118 get their agricultural classification from the Property Appraiser. 119 The Commission continued to discuss agriculture classification with staff. 120 Mr. Harrison stated he is ok with the way the policies are currently written, but would not like to 121 see agriculture further regulated by the new situations. 122 Mr. Satterlee stated it is not our intention to do that, and staff will be addressing Mr. Harrison’s 123 comments. 124 Robert Lucklow, resident, stated his appreciation that his comments have been received and 125 addressed. Mr. Lucklow stated he believes the plan being presented works against the 126 success of private enterprise. 127 Garrett Bussel, resident, stated he has a concern regarding “sustainable development” in that 128 it is a buzz-phrase for a bigger agenda. He stated it is not concerned with sustaining human 129 beings, but with sustaining the flora and fauna and environment of our state. Mr. Bussel 130 detailed his concerns for the Commission. 131 With no further comment from the public, Chairman Mundt closed the Public Hearing. 132 Mrs. Hammer provided her comments to staff, which included: 133 ? Underlining or numbering (which she will give to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Tappen) 134 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes Page 5 of 7 ? Add policy 1.1.7.2 floor/area ratio to Note 2 on Page 1-15 135 ? Why policy 1.1.4.8 includes “or non-contiguous property” (Ms. Tappen responded so the 136 property owner may conserve land on property not contiguous to the land being 137 developed) 138 ? Page 1-29 Planned Unit Development should be changed to Planned Development 139 ? Page 1-32 policy 1.1.8.5 states regulations have to be amended within one year of 140 adoption, is that too short of a time? Ms. Tappen stated it is a state requirement. 141 ? Page 1-41 policy 1.1.17.5 did not make sense. Asked what “ School Board will ensure 142 no schools are constructed within school zones designated on the St. Lucie County 143 International Airport construction zone map” means. Ms. Tappen stated there is a 144 specific School Zone Map for airport uses where schools should not be constructed. 145 ? Page 1-45 Figure 1-1 is missing. Mr. Satterlee stated we are redoing the whole map 146 series 147 ? Page 2-58 policy 2.1.1.2 refers to the MPO should it be TPO? 148 ? Page 2-59 policy 2.1.1.6 should have been revised according to accompanying memo 149 ? Page 3-20 policy 3.2.4.2 a question regarding the date, to which Ms. Tappen responded 150 it reflects Florida statutes 151 ? Page 4-31 policy 4a.1.1.3 was there any consideration of it being considered a super 152 majority instead of just a majority vote, to which Mr. Satterlee responded that has not 153 been discussed 154 ? Page 4-43 clarification on the third paragraph that says “shall be 110 gpcd” Ms. Tappen 155 clarified it stands for gallons per capita per day 156 ? Page 5-33 the summary refers to goal 5.5 as being struck but some of the fives are 157 underlined, to which Ms. Tappen stated it would have been more correct to say goal 7 158 was struck. Mr. Satterlee stated some of the policies were to be retained at the request 159 of Don West, Public Works Director. 160 ? A numbering sequence that didn’t make sense on 9-23, 9-24, and 9-25 161 Ms. Tappen extended her appreciation for Ms. Hammer’s time. 162 Mr. Mundt stated the use of acronyms was an earlier conversation and the first time the term 163 comes up staff should spell it out and put the acronym in brackets. 164 Mr. Lounds asked about the eradication of invasive species specific to coastal areas in current 165 practice. Mrs. Griffin stated Land Development Code (LDC, the Code) chapter 6.00.5 that 166 requires all category 1 and 2 invasive species as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant 167 Council need to be eradicated on any new developments. 168 Mr. Lounds asked if there is anything we could do to enhance that portion of the Code. Mrs. 169 Griffin stated there is nothing we can currently do to require an existing landowner to remove 170 invasive species unless there is new development. 171 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes Page 6 of 7 Mr. Lounds asked if there could be intergovernmental coordination with the water management 172 districts to try to enhance the protection. 173 Mr. Satterlee stated the practicality and cost of doing so would be prohibitive, though we 174 encourage intergovernmental coordination. 175 Mr. Lounds stated he believes this is a “green” factor he believes is overlooked. 176 Mrs. Griffin said it could be discussed among staff could discuss how they can reach out to 177 other agencies. 178 Mr. Lounds asked Mrs. Griffin to share what is being done with the extension of some of the 179 creeks and what will be done with 10-Mile Creek. 180 Mrs. Griffin stated the definitions are in the Land Development Code, but the Comp Plan has 181 just a general list. 182 Mr. Mowery stated his comments: 183 ? Policy 1.1.1.2a. In reference to some letters and emails we have been receiving will we 184 still be requiring that CDDs be established? Mr. Satterlee stated that became an issue 185 because we had taken some of the description of the land uses out of the data and 186 analysis section and moved it into the goals, objectives, and policies, because we felt it 187 was policy. It is not really a directive but if you are developing you should consider 188 development with a Community Development District (CDD). Mr. Satterlee stated the 189 concern had been raised that it may be something the County would not want to 190 require. He said they might ask the BOCC whether they want to take that out. 191 ? Page 1-35 policy 1.1.9.14 would we like to add time period to when the LDRs be 192 modified. 193 ? Page 1-44 policy 1.3.2.3. Has further discussion taken place requiring that new single- 194 family homes meet green standards? Ms. Tappen was going to propose taking that out 195 since you cannot ask private buildings to meet green standards. 196 ? The word “conservation” had been excluded. Mr. Satterlee stated the discussions of the 197 semantic differences between the assumptions associated with what constitutes 198 “conservation” or “preservation” have not come to a resolution. 199 ? Page 2-66 policy 2.3.2.5 regarding sidewalks. The new language that seems to add 200 them to all local streets in addition to major and arterial roadways. Ms. Tappen stated 201 there is flexibility and some cases with fairly low density development you may not see 202 pedestrian facilities. Mr. Satterlee stated it would be required to add it to the LDC and 203 would have to go through the public hearing process to be vetted. 204 With no further discussion Chairman Mundt asked for a motion. 205 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes Page 7 of 7 Mr. Lounds stated the last time this was done there was different staff and different public 206 comments, and stated staff has done an excellent job listening and understanding public 207 concern, and would like to see this board move this on. 208 Mr. Mowery made the motion: 209 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 210 staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby 211 acting as the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County forward the Evaluation 212 and Appraisal Report Based Amendments to the St. Lucie County Board of 213 County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Department of 214 Community Affairs and adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan based 215 upon the requirements established by state law as well as the local public 216 comments and input provided here. 217 Mrs. Hammer seconded. 218 The motion passed 5-2, Ms. Morgan and Mr. Schrader dissenting 219 Mr. Mundt extended thanks to staff, Ms. Tappen, and the Commission. 220 IV. OTHER BUSINESS 221 Mr. Satterlee stated the next draft of the EAR will be available the first week of May and we will 222 be updating the website as soon as possible. 223 Mr. Lounds asked if the Commission could get a copy of the document after it comes back 224 from Tallahassee. Mr. Satterlee said yes, and it will be on the web as well. 225 Mr. Mundt stated we are working on a new schedule for Chapters 10, 11, and 12. Mr. Satterlee 226 stated we would be continuing to pursue that. 227 V. ADJOURN 228 There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00. 229 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010 Minutes