HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-17-2000
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2000
Room 101 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. David Kelly called the meeting to order, because there was neither a Chairman nor a Vice
Chairman.
Mr. Kelly introduced Carol Moler, the secretary taking over for Dawnelle who has a health
problem.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Merritt, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande and Mr. Moore.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Dan McIntrye, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores,
Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner II; Ms. Amy Mott, Resource Protection; Carol Moler,
Office Assistant III.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mr. Moore stated that because Impact Fees are on the agenda and he has some strong feelings
about them. He said he would like to be present for the whole meeting, but he has a trial early in
the morning and may not be able to stay for the whole meeting. He said he was happy to see that
there was more than a quorum to be able to handle this. He apologized if he has to leave before
that part of the meeting is concluded.
DISCLOSURES:
Mr. Merritt stated that he has a conflict of interest on Agenda Item 2 and would be stepping
down on that item.
Mr. Kelly advised that he was aware that Mr. Merritt has the proper papers that will be filed
through the Attorneys Office.
Mr. Matthes indicated that although he does not have a conflict of interest with Agenda Item 2,
but he did original work on that site. He said he has no affiliation with the work and he just
wanted to state that for the record.
Mr. Matthes stated that on Items 4 through 7, he was a member of the Advisory Committee that
formulated the recommendations and he asked the County Attorney for guidance to see if he did
have a conflict of interest or whether he can stay as a member of the Board.
Mr. McIntrye said no, you have to abstain if you had a monetary conflict, in other words if your
firm had done work something, but in this instance you did not.
AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Kelly asked for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Merritt nominated Mr. Matthes for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Dreyer seconded the nomination.
There was a motion for the nominations to be closed.
Mr. Kelly said since there was only one nomination, he asked for all those in favor and the
motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.
Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Matthes to proceed from this point.
Chairman Matthes asked for nominations for the Vice Chairman.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1
February 17, 2000
Mr. Lounds nominated Mr. McCurdy.
Ms. Dreyer seconded the motion.
There was a motion for the nominations to be closed.
Chairman Matthes said since there was only one nomination, all those in favor and the motion
passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.
Chairman Matthes explained the procedures for Planning and Zoning Meetings for the members
of the public in attendance. He stated that they bring an agenda item up; a very cursor review of
the item is brought to the Board by staff. He stated that they then allow the petitioner to give the
presentation over the petition. He said after that they open it to Public Hearing, at which time
after all public comments are taken; they close it and allow staff to make their recommendation.
He stated at that time this Board makes the deciding vote on the issue.
Chairman Matthes had another question on for some of the later issues such as the changes in the
Land Development Code, when this meeting is closed as the Planning and Zoning Commission
and is opened as the Planning Board.
Mr. Kelly correctly called it the Local Planning Agency.
Chairman Matthes said that being said, he welcomed everybody.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ-00-002
Ms. Snay presented staff comments. She stated that Agenda Item 2 is petition of New Horizons
of the Treasure Coast for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1
du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for a 9.06 acre parcel of land
located at 4500 W. Midway Road.
Mr. Richard Mills, Chief Executive of New Horizons, spoke to the Board. He brought a letter,
which he distributed to the members of the Board, which gives a brief overview of their intent
for the property next door, if this zoning is approved. He said New Horizons has been on
Midway Road for about 3 years. He said they moved to Midway Road and opened a 60-bed
short-term treatment facility, 20 beds for detox, 30 beds for adult psychiatric, and 10 beds for
child psychiatric. He stated that these were the first children psychiatric crises unit beds in this
four county area. He said they have been very pleased to have these beds available and he said
he could tell you that these are almost always filled, all 10 of those beds. He said one of the
things that were missing was a vocal point for an outpatient service for children and their
families. He stated that they made an offer to purchase the property next-door contingent upon
this zoning change, which would make it compatible with their current operation on Midway
Road, in order to have an outpatient service for children and their families. He stated that the
Legislature has appropriated $500,000 for the purchase of this property, so what they need to do
now is to have that zoning change to be compatible with where they are. He said they have no
other intent, at this time, to do anything other than what he has said, which is to have an out-
patient service for children and their families. He said he has alluded in that letter to other
possibilities down the road, but that is just what one guy talking about what might be. He stated
that neither he nor the Board of Directors have intent to do anything other than what he has said.
Chairman Matthes asked for comments or questions from the Board.
Mr. Lounds said you are current located next to this piece of property that the Prudents have.
Mr. Mills said yes.
Mr. Lounds stated that your headquarters is there between the Sheriffs Department and the
Prudents property.
Mr. Mills said yes.
Mr. Hearn asked staff, looking at the zoning map, the entire area in green is AR-1.
Ms. Snay said thats correct.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Mills. He said he had a question for staff also. He stated that in
the write up it was alluded to that on E. Midway Road has a proposed operates at a level of
service at F and he believes that is County committed trips.
Ms. Snay said yes it is.
Chairman Matthes said actually at a reality standpoint, it operates at a better level of service. He
stated that if everybody developed that could, it would be at a level F.
Ms. Snay said that was right.
Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. He asked for those who wish to address the
Board; to come up one at a time to the podium, state your name for the record.
Ms. Andrea Salinger, who lives on Favorite Road, spoke to the Board. She said that none of us
have seen the letter he spoke about. She said that their worries are what is down the road, not
necessarily what is there now. She said that they live on this road and have farm animals that
will be adjacent to the back of this property. She stated that they also have a lot of children and
they need to know
what is going to be down the road. She asked if he wants to develop the road, continue it to the
back of this property. She stated that they need to know whats going on later down the road,
besides what is going on right now.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3
February 17, 2000
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Kelly or Ms. Snay, since this is a rezoning, is this going to have to
come in for site plan condition in the account of approval.
Ms. Snay said yes, it would have to come in as a modification to their existing approval.
Chairman Matthes asked, then at that time the residents who have concerns over what actually
will be proposed for this property, will have an opportunity to see that or is this a smaller site
plan that will be administratively approved.
Ms. Snay confers with Mr. Flores. She stated that it is going to depend on the amount of
adjustment to the existing site plan, whether it is a major or a minor adjustment.
Ms. Barbara Swegles stated that she and her husband own the property that is directly adjacent to
the property in question. She said she would just like the assurance of a security fence and good
security for that property. She stated that they have animals; they like their privacy and they also
have small children who play on their road and are just concerned about security. She thanked
the Board.
Chairman Matthes asked if anyone else wished to speak at this public hearing. Hearing none, he
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Snay said the applicants request is consistent with the surrounding land use and zoning
districts. She stated that the area in question from this point farther, has become centralized
institutional core within the County, therefore, staff is recommending approval of this petition.
Ms. Dreyer asked for staff to display the map and indicate where the existing facility is.
Ms. Snay stated that the existing facility is in this area, and she pointed to the map.
Ms. Dreyer asked if this is the entire blue portion or just the eastern portion of it.
Ms. Snay indicated that it was in the entire blue parcel.
Mr. Kelly explained that the blue parcel is the existing facility and the blue parcel moving in this
direction, (he motioned on the map), are the Sheriffs Department and the Post Office. He stated
that they are all out there together and they would all be I (Institutional) Zoning.
Ms. Dreyer asked how the current facility done through a Conditional Use, or do you know.
Mr. Kelly stated that it was a Major Site Plan; he asked staff if there was a Conditional Use, and
he replied just a Major Site Plan. He said that, of course, there was a rezoning prior to that.
Mr. Hearn had a question for staff. He said that AR-1 is of course, Agricultural-Residential
property and in most instances, residential is heavily used in these areas. He stated that his
question is, would the recent revisions of our screening between commercial and residential
property, will that affect this particular parcel in any way.
Ms. Snay confers with Mr. Flores. She stated that they would have to check to see if it says
commercial or non-residential. Staff checks the Code.
Mr. Kelly explained to the audience, while staff was checking, that the County Commission has
recently required that additional screening between residential and other uses. He stated that
they have confirmed that this is non-residential, so that the additional screening would be
applicable here.
Chairman Matthes asked staff to explain what this screening involves.
Mr. Kelly said sometimes with these new things, staff knows the old Code fairly well, and need
to check the new. He indicated it is a fence, wall, landscaped berm or continuous hedge, and this
is from the new Code. He further stated, a masonry wall or opaque wood fence of at least 8 feet
in height with screen between the uses. He said it goes into that, it shall be landscaped with a
continuous hedge along the both the inside and the outside of a wall or fence and require one
tree each 30 lineal feet. He advised that it goes into more detail, but generally it is an 8-foot wall
or fence with landscaping.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4
February 17, 2000
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Kelly and he thanked Mr. Hearn for asking that question.
Mr. Hearn said, as he understands it, this parcel, this portion that the Board is dealing with
tonight, will be required to have this landscaping.
Mr. Kelly said yes, between residential and non-residential.
Chairman Matthes for further questions of staff.
Mr. Lounds asked staff what sort of screening would be involved along the north side of the road
for this project, for the benefit of the people who live across that road.
Ms. Snay reported that it would be required to be screened.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any more questions. Hearing none, he said he would
entertain a motion.
Mr. Hearn made a motion for approval.
Mr. Lounds seconded the motion.
Upon the roll call, the motion was passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Merritt abstained.
Chairman Matthes informed the petitioner that his petition had passed and this Board would
forward this on to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval.
Mr. Mills thanked the Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. CU-00-001
Ms. Snay presented staff comments. She stated Agenda Item 3 is the petition of Carlos Munoz-
Quintana for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a mini-warehouse and self storage facility to be
known as Port St. Lucie Moving and Storage, in the CG (Commercial-General) Zoning District
for property located approximately 654 feet south of Ulrich Road on U.S. 1, which is directly
south of Larrys Carpet.
Ms. Cheryl Church, secretary for the Carlos Munoz-Quintana, and she was joined by her
engineer, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Paul Welch, from Paul Welch Engineering, Inc. addressed the Board.
Chairman Matthes asked if they would like to make a presentation.
Ms. Church stated that she hadnt prepared anything.
Mr. Welch stated that they were before the Board to present this Conditional Use. He said that is
pretty straightforward and if there are any questions, they would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Grande said he noticed in the application that there is an indication that palm trees will be
preserved as part of the landscaping. He asked if it would be a problem for them to preserve
those pine trees as boundary landscaping was made part of the Conditional Use.
Mr. Welch said there would be no problem and they intended to do that.
Mr. Hearn questioned staff in the RS-2 zoning to the west, he assumes that this would require the
new screening.
Ms. Snay said thats correct. She said thats part of the Code and they will be required to screen
that.
Mr. Hearn asked that this would be required even though the property is now CG and they are
just getting a conditional use, it would affect that.
Ms. Snay said yes, during the site plan, they will be required to put the wall or fence with the
landscaping.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any further questions. Hearing none, he opened the public
hearing.
Chairman Matthes asked if anyone who wishes to speak for or against this Conditional Use
Application. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Ms. Snay stated that the proposed use of this parcel is not expected to adversely impact the
surrounding properties or the environment. She stated that it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code; therefore, staff is recommended approval
of this application.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other questions of staff.
Mr. Hearn said the point to point between the CG to RS-2 to the southwest, would that require
screening also.
Mr. Kelly checked the map.
Mr. Hearn stated that if it does not, could this Board require that as a part of the conditional use.
Mr. Kelly replied yes, you could make that part of the conditional use, you clearly can, but he
added he would have to go back and carefully read the whole thing again. He stated that the
simple solution would be that you just require it and then its done.
Mr. Hearn didnt think it was necessary to go to the U.S. 1 portion, but he did feel that there
needs to be some screening.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6
February 17, 2000
Mr. Kelly agreed that if there is some need to screen along the property line, for this visual, (and
he pointed to the map), then it certainly is within your purview to make that recommendation.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Hearn, what type of a screen would you require there.
Mr. Hearn said at the moment he was looking at something that would equal the back part of the
lot and that was all he was looking at. He said he didnt think that they need a major area of
screening. He said he thinks that they do need to protect the RS-2 zoning there from the visual
pollution of the commercial area.
Mr. Lounds stated that he could understand maybe wanting to screen from the property line to
the property line to screen it. He said he has a little problem with them wanting to screen their
property because they did not have in effect have the other property owners do that at the time,
because it wasnt in - the people north and south of them. He stated that he feels they may be
penalizing these people because they didnt do it for the people north and south of them.
Mr. Hearn said regarding that, he thinks that sometimes that property values are affected
tremendously by the adjacent commercial use through residential properties and he thinks that if
the petitioner is willing to put up that screening as part of his conditional use, he would be very
much in favor of that. He stated that he thinks that it would add to the property values of the
residential property there.
Chairman Matthes stated that he was looking at the site plan and this is a conditional use, so will
this site plan be made a part of that conditional approval. He stated that it appears that only of
the front of the property is actually being impacted by the development. He stated that it also
appears that the petitioner is planning on using the 16-foot wide area almost directly adjacent to
the southern property line as his potential retention area. He said he is not sure of what type of
screening he is going to be able to get up against the line in order to make that work. He asked
for the applicants engineer to please come back to the podium, he had another question.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Welch if this property is currently cleared or is wooded. He asked
what is the state of the back part of the parcel.
Mr. Welch stated that the back part of the property is wooded.
Chairman Matthes asked with what...is it densely forested, is it just some palm trees...
Mr. Welch stated that there is a little bit of everything. He stated that there are palm trees there,
basically along the south property line and along the north property line. He stated that the back
portion is not intended to be cleared right now. He stated that in Phase II or in Phase III, it
would be cleared at a later time. He said he doesnt anticipate doing that right now, but if
landscaping or a buffer of some kind would be recommended, they have no objection to that.
Chairman Matthes stated that he believes that the question right now is, whether or not have you
buffer that entire, or at least a portion of that, south property line. He said he is not sure if at this
time, with this Phase I site plan, that this is quite necessary.
Chairman Matthes asked staff the question, if they come back, do they have to do a Vegetation
Removal Plan.
Ms. Snay stated that there is...this site is heavily vegetated with Melaleuca and Brazilian
Peppers, so that will have to be removed.
Chairman Matthes stated that they then would have to remove...would you say that this is the
majority of the...
Ms. Church stated that this was pretty much what was towards the rear of the property.
Chairman Matthes asked if staff would require that they remove that.
Ms. Snay said yes.
Ms. Dreyer stated that when this Board discussed the buffering that Mr. Hearn brought up, she
asked if this buffer would be applicably at the rear of the property line, when the site plan is only
for the front of the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7
February 17, 2000
Ms. Snay stated that it depends upon how much of the site is removed. She stated that if the
majority of it is Brazilian Pepper, when that comes out, it leaves it open and yes it will be
required.
Ms. Dreyer said O.K. thank you.
Ms. Lounds stated that he appreciates Mr. Hearns concern for the people who live on the back
side of the property and if clearing the property or not clearing it would have an impact on that
screen, he would like to see it done when construction is started, so that this Board is assured that
it is completed for the benefit of the people that own the land behind it...from property line to
property line.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Welch where is the water retention going to be out here.
Mr. Welch stated that the water retention would be divided at the south property line with a
swale. He stated that this is basically where the retention is provided at the present time.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other comments from the Board. He thanked Mr.
Welch.
Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
including the staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St.
Lucie County Land Development Code, he hereby move that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant
Carlos Munoz-Quintant,
approval to the application of for a conditional use permit to allow the
operation of a mini-warehouse and self-storage facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning
District with the condition that the palm trees currently on the site be saved and used as part of
the landscaping along the boundary lines.
Mr. Merritt seconded the motion.
Upon the roll call, the motion was passed with a unanimously vote of 7-0.
Chairman Matthes informed Ms. Church that her application has been approved and will be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval with the recommendation of
approval.
Ms. Church thanked the Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. ORD-00-010
Mr. Kelly asked before getting into Agenda Item 4, he would like submit a couple of brief
comments. He stated that under Agenda Items 4 through 7, all of these, have to do with the
Landscaping Code and are very closely related. He said he thought that in order to speed the
meeting along, (as you all know from other hearings), that it is impossible to separate the
discussions, so while they have to be four separate public hearings and four separate votes, he
would like as staff to make a presentation that really looks at the Landscape Code and all of the
changes as they have been made. He stated that he thinks that in the first public hearing, you
may simply from the audience to know which hearing you are speaking to, if you could grant
some latitude and allow comments for all four, and after that you can ask for each public hearing
if there are additional comments for that specific and move through fairly quickly.
Mr. Kelly introduced Ms. Amy Mott. He said that Ms. Mott is the Resource Protection
Specialist and has been terribly involved in writing these things and she and Ms. Snay will make
the presentation and answer the questions. He stated that just as a procedural matter, he thought
that they should group them all.
Chairman Matthes stated he thought that this was a good idea procedurally. He asked if he was
supposed to close this as the Planning and Zoning on this and open up the as the Local Planning
Agency.
Mr. Kelly said yes you do.
Chairman Matthes officially closed the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Board and
reconvene as the Local Planning Agency.
Mr. Lounds asked counsel to share thought with him at the moment. He stated that he is
involved in a landscaping company in St. Lucie County and wanted to know if that would impair
his ability to sit on this item.
Mr. McIntyre said he didnt believe so. He stated that there is no special benefit to you other
than that this would benefit other people as well and not you particularly.
Mr. Lounds said thank you.
Chairman Matthes opened up the presentation for Items 4 through 7.
Ms. Mott stated that first of all, she wanted to point out an error on the first memo for Ordinance
00-010. She stated that it reads that, the Proposed Revision Impact Fee Program and it is
supposed to read, Proposed Revisions to the Ordinance 00-010.
Ms. Mott stated that for a little background, in the fall of 1999, the County Commission
established a Vegetation Protection Advisory Committee whose charge was to amend the
Countys current Landscaping and Vegetation Protection Guidelines, and to make any
modifications as it felt necessary to further the objective of tree and habitat preservation. She
stated that the Committee met six times from June to December 1999. She stated that Draft
Ordinance No. 00-010 proposes to amend Sections 6.00.00, Vegetation Protection and
Preservation, and 11.05.06, Vegetation Removal Permits, to provide for clarification and general
amends as follows:
Ms. Mott stated that on page 3, under Section 6.00.00, there were minor language clarifications
and references to the Public Works Director and Community Development Director, that were
changed to reflect current internal departmental responsibilities and these were made throughout
all of these sections.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 5, under Section 6.00.04(E), the exemption section was amended by
increasing the period from 5 years to 8 years, when a property must remain in agriculture if it is
cleared without the benefit of an agricultural exemption being in place.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 5, under Section 6.00.04(G), by reducing the minimum size of a
parcel required to submit a Vegetation Removal Permit Application from one (1) acre to one half
(1/2) acre.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9
February 17, 2000
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(c), language was added to strengthen the
standards for protecting vegetation to be preserved on site throughout permitted lands, during
clearing activities on site development.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(C)(1)(b), the minimum distance between
the trunk and the protected barrier was changed from six (6) feet to (10) feet and after that to
decrease the root compaction and damage to protected trees during construction.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(C)(2), the distance between stakes was
decreased from fifty (50) feet apart to two (20) feet apart and the burning of that has been
specified that the barriers shall be constructed to form a continuous unbroken perimeter around
the areas to be protected from clearing activities.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 7, under Section 6.00.05(C)(3), the section was added authorizing
the Public Works Director to stop all land clearing on site alteration work in the event that any of
the standards of this Section are violated, until the barriers are restored and if necessary
corrective actions is taken to repair or replant any vegetation removed or damaged as a result of
these encroachments.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 8, under Section 6.00.05(C)(5), the section was added explaining
that any unavoidable activities in the root area of protected trees follows the latest edition of the
Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers published by the Division of
Forestry...or a similarly recognized reference manual.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 8, under Section 6.00.05(D), this section was amended by
decreasing the size of a tree that requires mitigation from 20 inches to 14 inches, (except for
palms which shall be measured to have minimum clear trunk of ten (10) feet.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 9, under Section 6.00.05(D)(1) through (3), the quantity of
replacement trees for all native trees species approved for removal was increased from one inch
to two inches d.b.h. and required mitigated credits per one inch d.b.h. removed with approval.
She stated that all mitigation trees shall meet the requirements of Section 7.09.03(E), landscaping
and screening, which basically states that they need to be 12 feet overall height, 5 foot crown
spread and Florida Number 1 in quality, as well as, measure at least 3 inches d.b.h. She stated
that the formulas for calculating mitigation credits were simplified. She stated that all native
trees which meet these requirements will count as a credit towards the required mitigation at a
ratio of one inch preserving located or planted, over the 3 inch minimum for one inch removal.
She said she believes that the table clears up all of that language. She stated that each palm tree
preserved through on-site protection or relocation with the minimum clear trunk of 10 feet would
count towards any required palm tree mitigation requirements 3 to 1 palm trees preserved,
planted or relocated to one palm tree removed.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 10, Section 6.00.05(D)(6), the section on that is requiring inspection
of any mitigation trees 18 months after the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. She stated that
if it is determined if the trees are dead, diseased or otherwise not in compliance with the
provisions of this Code and the original approved mitigation plan, the property owner shall be
provided notice and directed to correct any preserved deficiencies and replace all noncompliant
trees within 60 days.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 11, Section 11.05.06, changes were made throughout this Section to
reflect changes in Section 6.00.00.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 12, Section 11.05.06(B)(2)(a)(4), this section was changed to
require the existing definition of County-protected trees, which are trees greater than five (5)
inches d.b.h or greater than fifteen (15) feet in height, regardless of d.b.h., within all proposed
improvements and twenty (20) feet of all proposed improvements shall be shown on a
Vegetation Inventory or Tree Survey.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. ORD-00-011
Ms. Mott stated that Draft Ordinance 00-011, proposes to amend Section 7.09.00 Landscaping
and Screening.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 3, Section 7.09.01, was added to show that this Section of the Code
would be working in conjunction with Section 6.00.00, and the Countys priority intent to
protect and preserve native vegetation where it is possible.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 4, Section 7.09.03(A), a requirement was added that all landscaping
plans for all non-residential uses, be prepared, signed and sealed by a Florida registered
Landscape Architect or as may be permitted under Florida Statutes, Section 481.329.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 5, Section 7.09.03(D), indicates that the final inspection
requirement for landscaping health and survival scheduled for 18 months after the completion of
construction was added for the time period of 60 days to correct any violations.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 6, Section 7.09.03(E) through (F), several additional non-native
invasive tree and plant species were added to the list, restricting their uses in St. Lucie County.
Ms. Mott stated on page 8, Section 7.09.03(E)(2)(i),(j), and (k), the percentage of required native
tree species was reduced from 100% to 75%.
Ms. Mott stated that sections requiring the use of plant species from specific lists were also
included when development is to occur on North or South Hutchinson Island or when a site is
determined to contain Scrub Habitat.
Mr. Grande asked a question, prior to leaving page 8, he stated that he has been unable to find
the references in paragraph (i), the last 2 added paragraphs pointing to Section 7.09.04(i)(8) and
7.09.04(i)(9).
Ms. Mott explained that as staff was putting these ordinances together, there were several
sections that needed to be cleaned up for the final. She stated that they are actually
referenced...7.09.04(l) and 7.09.04(m) and 7.09.04(n). She stated that staff would change that to
the three different plant lists.
Mr. Grande said then that the references that are referencing (i), should be updated.
Ms. Mott said yes.
Ms. Grande asked if she knew what each of the two...the last two paragraphs, the added
paragraphs in 9, he asked if she knew what these references should be.
Ms. Mott looked through her notes and replied yes...Section 7.09.04(l), and Section 7.09.04(m)
and then Section 7.09.04(n).
Mr. Grande stated that he was only finding two and he was not sure why she was giving three.
He asked which one is he missing.
Ms. Mott read, or other species listed in Section 7.09.04(l), which stretched the core and the
second one, which said, where native and drought tolerant - (e) through (j).
Ms. Dreyer asked if Ms. Mott was referring to references in paragraph (i), (j) and (k).
Mr. Grande stated that he was referring to the references in paragraph (i) only to start with. He
said he had two references...he apologized and said he is actually referring to references in (j)
and (k). He stated that these are the two that he was looking at. He stated that (j) references
Section 7.09.04(i)(8).
Ms. Mott stated that you would find those lists in Ordinance No. 00-012, thats what you are
asking about. She restated that this would be covered in Ordinance No. 00-012.
Mr. Grande said O.K., thank you.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11
February 17, 2000
Ms. Mott continued with pages 9 and 10, Section 7.09.04(E)(3), a requirement was added of 25%
of all planted shrubs be of native species.
Ms. Mott stated that pages 10 and 11, Section 7.09.04(E)(8), was added outlining incentives and
standards for using existing preserved trees towards landscape credits. She stated that a
preserved tree that meets the standards of the Section may be substituted for any trees required
by the landscaping requirements of this Section at a ratio to the d.b.h. of the preserved tree, as
covered by the table.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 11, Section 7.09.04, wording was added to this Section to point out
the relationship between the Landscaping Section and the Vegetation Protection Section.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 12, Section 7.09.04(B), the height requirements for land buffers
between parking and vehicular use areas and abutting properties were decreased from six (6) feet
to four (4) feet, at the time of planning and to be allowed to be maintained at a minimum of six
(6) feet in height at maturity.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 14, Section 7.09.04(C)(4), a sentence was added to make sure that
the interior landscape barrier requirements may be altered to accommodate existing trees and a
clarification that one (1) shade tree be planted in each interior landscaping island.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 15, Section 7.09.04(C)(7), existing reserved parking standards were
incorporated into this Section.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 16, Section 7.09.04(E), buffering between all residential family
dwelling units with three units or more and single or two family uses was added to the 8 foot
high landscape separation requirements. She stated that additional landscape requirements
should include a masonry wall or opaque wood fence of at least eight (8) feet in height that
forms a continuous screen between the uses. All masonry walls or opaque wood fences shall be
landscaped with a continuous hedge along both the inside and outside base of the wall or fence.
One tree shall be planted along the wall or fence for each thirty (30) linear feet or major fraction
thereof of the length of the wall or fence.
She stated that the existing native vegetation may be used to satisfy all or par of the screening
requirements upon approval of the Community Development Director or the Public Works
Director.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 6: FILE NO. ORD-00-012
Ms. Mott stated that Ordinance No. 00-012 proposes to amend Section 2.00.00 Definitions and
7.09.06, Standards for Native and Drought-Tolerant Vegetation.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 3, Section 2, the definition of Scrub habitat was expanded.
Ms. Mott stated that also on page 3, Section 7.09.06...the existing Section 7.09.06 Standards for
Native and Drought-Tolerant Vegetation is to be deleted and moved to a reserved status. The
text from Section 7.09.06 is to be incorporated in Section 7.09.04, General Landscaping
Requirements. She stated that paragraphs (a) and (b) were deleted and the remaining paragraphs
were renumbered to meet the structure of the Land Development Code.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 4, Section 7.09.04(L), this Section was amended to provide for
proper species list references; Section 7.09.04(L)(2) for native and drought-tolerant vegetation;
and Section 7.09.04(M) for North and South Hutchinson Island vegetation; and Section
7.09.04(N) for Scrub habitat vegetation.
Ms. Mott stated that pages 4 and 8, Section 7.09.04(L)(2), is the list of native and water-wise
plant materials that may be used to meet the intent of this section was modified.
Ms. Mott stated that page 8, Section 7.09.04(L)(3), prohibits the use of Cypress mulch as it is
related to compliance with the requirements of this section.
Ms. Mott stated that on pages 10 through 12, the new Section 7.09.04(M), Special Landscaping
Requirements for North & South Hutchinson Island, was added stating that if any development is
to occur on a site located on North or South Hutchinson Island, 75% of the new landscaping
material to be planted shall consist of species from a designated list. The community
Development Director may reduce the minimum size requirements to the largest plant sizes
available if the listed plant material is unavailable in the sizes set forth in 7.09.03(E)(2) and (3).
Each type of required landscaping, such as trees, shrubs, vines, and lawn areas shall be
calculated separately, and each type shall meet the required percentage minimum of plant
materials.
Ms. Mott stated that on page 12, Section 7.09.04(N), Special Landscaping Standards for
Development in Areas Determined to Contain Scrub Habitat, was added setting the same
standards as well for Scrub.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 7: FILE NO. 00-13
Ms. Mott stated that Ordinance No. 00-013 proposes to amend Section 7.09.05(A)(1),
Landscaping and Screening, Removal of Exotic Vegetation to clarify the type of exotic
vegetation that is required to be removed during all new development activities as well as other
general amendments.
Ms. Mott stated on pages 3 and 4, Section 7.09.05(A) and (B), the requirement was added to
these that chemical herbicide treatment of any remaining stumps remaining left from exotic tree
removal, the species to be removed, prohibited to be planted, and to be monitored as nuisances
were changed to include all species listed as Category I in the latest edition of the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Councils Most Invasive Species List.
Ms. Mott stated that the Community Development Director might waive the requirements of this
section for undeveloped portions of Single-Family residences greater than 1 acre.
Ms. Mott stated that it was also added that the Board of County Commission should review
appeals at a public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date the appeal is received by the
County Administrator.
Ms. Mott stated that the per lot administrative charge was changed from $2.00 to $200 per lot.
Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Mott if this was the conclusion of her presentation.
Ms. Mott said yes.
Chairman Matthes stated that he had before him a letter that he believes that the rest of the Board
has been given, from Plant Haven Wholesale Nursery. He asked if this was something that needs
to be read into the record or discussed.
Mr. McIntyre asked that it be read into the record.
Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Snay to read the letter into the record.
Ms. Snay stated that this is a letter from Bruce Hopper, Ornamental Horticulturist, with Plant
Haven Wholesale Nursery, Inc. She read the body of the letter:
Dear Mr. McCurdy,
It has come to my attention that ordinances amending the St. Luce Co. Land Development
Landscape Codes are being considered. As a profession landscape contractor and a concerned
citizen I would like you to consider the following recommendations:
1.To change the size of code tree to 10 x 4 - 5 feet with a 1-1/2" caliper d.b.h. ((at a
height of 4-1/2 feet of the trunk) and a caliper of 2" at a height of 6" up the trunk.
Possibly to improve the overall look, larger size trees could be included, up to 3-4 on the
property, and used in focal points, without breaking the budget of the businessperson just
getting started. The larger trees could be 14 feet +/- with the realistic caliper of 2-1/2"
d.b.h. and 3-4" caliper 6" up the trunk. The difference in the price of these sizes of trees
is about $200. The current code is for a 10' tree with a 2-1/2" caliper d.b.h. This size
caliper increases the size of the tree to 12 feet or more and results in an unrealistic cost to
the consumer. If the caliper is realistic on the smaller trees, the cost reduces for these and
there is usually enough left in the budget for a couple of larger trees to enhance the
overall look of the project.
2.A realistic size for the hedge material required is 18-24" height. These are grown in 3-
gallon containers and are easily affordable and will achieve the necessary effect when
planted no more than 2-1/2 feet apart.
The fact is that the economy being the way it is and with the building boom going on, the stock
of good quality trees in the 10 to 14 foot range is being rapidly depleted.
The largest problem with the commercial landscaping is maintenance. If proper maintenance
programs are enforced, you will see a vast improvement over what is taking place now without
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14
February 17, 2000
making changes to the ordinance. If you drive around the County and observe what is happening
to the landscaping after installation, it tells all. Most, actually almost all, of the commercial
landscaping is deficient in fertilizer, over or under watered, improperly pruned and generally not
maintained. This directly effects the way the newly installed plant material grows out and can
make or break it. No matter how may or how large of trees and shrubs are installed, if they are
not properly maintained, it is a total waste of money and a detriment to the entire County.
I am willing to invest my own time to establish help on a committee or as a consultant to help
develop a realistic code of landscaping and landscape maintenance. Please feel free to contact
me at any time at the above numbers.
Thank you.
Bruce Hopper, Ornamental Horticulturist
Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Mott if she would like to respond in any way to that letter.
Ms. Mott said she does have some responses. She stated that first of all, he says that the current
Code is for a 10 feet overall height tree with a 2-1/2 d.b.h. caliper. She said thats not true. She
stated that on April 19, 1999, the Landscape Code was amended so that its 10 feet overall height
and 2-1/2" d.b.h. that is on page 6 of your Ordinance 00-011.
Ms. Mott stated that also when the Vegetation Protection Advisory Committee met for 6 months,
they had 3 nurserymen and one landscape architect as well as engineers, and they found that they
werent having trouble finding the trees at that size. She said, in fact, one (Hayslip) said that he
usually uses larger materials.
Chairman Matthes said he also remembers that discussion.
Ms. Mott said #2, for the second question, he suggests that the County require our hedges to be
24" in height and that is also in the current Code.
Ms. Mott stated that in his final paragraph about improper maintenance and so far, Code
Enforcement is not following up on the landscaping on properties, that is one of the things that
was added to the Ordinance 00-011, page 5, (D)(2), with the 18 month post landscape Certificate
of Occupancy inspection.
Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Mott. He asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Hearn had a comment on the maintenance of the shrubbery after it is planted. He said he
thinks that you mentioned that this is a Code Enforcement problem. He said it seems that the
County is reactive rather than proactive in Code Enforcement and he cant see too many people
complaining that there are some shrubs dying in the neighborhood. He said he thinks that this
needs to be looked at a little closer and try to accomplish what the County is setting out to do in
our Ordinances. He said he didnt think that this should be left to Code Enforcement, because
he doesnt think that they are...
Ms. Mott stated that she believed that this was addressed. She stated at this time, she would like
to introduce some of the members of the Vegetation Protection Advisory Committee and if they
would like to help with any of the questions as well. She introduced Ms. Betty Lou Wells, Mr.
Sabina Lange-Marcks, Mr. Lee Mitchell and Mr. Sam Comer. She said that they might have
answers for these questions as well. She added that they did incorporate into the Landscape
Code, a requirement for a post Certificate of Occupancy for every site. She said those 18 months
after that there would be a landscape inspection.
Mr. Hearn asked if that would be mandatory.
Ms. Mott said yes.
Chairman Matthes added that there would be a permit fee in that to cover that cost for the County
to do that.
Chairman Matthes asked for further comments from the Board. Hearing none, he opened the
public hearings. He mentioned that what he wouldlike to do is just open up one at this time and
what they will do, is that anyone who would like to address it...we could discuss them all whole
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15
February 17, 2000
scale at once, but vote on them later, separately. He asked for speakers to reference whether it is
Ord. 10, 11, 12 or 13 in your discussion, so that in that way staff and the Board has the ability to
read along with you.
Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. He asked anyone with anything to say regarding
the four proposed Ordinances to please come forward and state your name. He then, asked if any
of the Advisory Committee would like to make any comments at this point.
Ms. Betty Lou Wells, from Ft. Pierce, stated that the Committee was a hard working, informed,
unvested interest group, that did an excellent job in putting this whole complicated think
together. She complimented all the members and Ms. Mott for her good leadership in continuing
to keeping people up to snuff on this.
Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Wells and said she beat him to the punch. He asked for any
further comments. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Chairman Matthes asked for comments from the Board.
Mr. Lounds stated that he has to agree with Mr. Hoppers assessment of the maintenance on the
commercial end of the landscaping. He thinks that he is on target, in that if it isnt maintained, it
falls back on to the property owner. He said that the provision of going from 12 to 18 months, is
that to enhance that time period...and if it is, does it put the pressure back on the landscape
contractor to confront the land owner commercially to maintain the property or are you asking
the landscaper to maintain it for the landowner.
Ms. Mott stated that she was under the assumption that the landscape contractor will have his
own length of time contracted when he has to replace said died materials...and whenever the 18
months comes along, that if the County does the reinspection, if it is then still under contract by
the landscape contractor, he may be actually responsible for replacing the material. She stated
Mr. Lounds said if you plant a hedge around Mr. Kellys commercial property, and your
landscape contract with him is that you will guarantee the plants in that hedge for 12 months, and
14 months later he turns the water off and says the heck with it...who is responsible.
Ms. Mott said the property owner.
Mr. McIntyre stated that the enforcement by the County will be against the landowner, then the
landowner himself, as a matter of contract would go to his contractor - his landscaper, so as to
the County, the landowner would be the one on the hook, basically.
Mr. Lounds asked if the contract to landscape a particular piece of property is for 12 months and
this is 14 months later, then it is up to the landowner or property owner to stand good for the
Code.
Mr. McIntyre stated that this is a matter of contract law, sure.
Mr. Lounds asked what staff recommends using in lieu of Cypress mulch. He asked was this for
any landscaping in St. Lucie County or just commercial.
Ms. Mott stated that this was under Section 7.09.04 in the General Landscaping Requirements,
so that would be for commercial landscape, non-residential landscape, or any other landscape
that you opt to use the water-wise option to use in the Landscape Code.
Mr. Lounds asked does this mean that you cannot use Cypress mulch for a residential house in
St. Lucie County.
Ms. Mott said no, because residential is not 7.09.04, which has the General Landscaping.
Mr. Lounds asked in lieu of Cypress, what do you recommend.
Ms. Mott stated there is a great deal of variety out there.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16
February 17, 2000
Ms. Lange-Marcks addressed the Board and it would be up the landscape architect to decide
what materials were to be used. She said you could always add more language to recommend
the use or recycled mulch.
Mr. Lounds asked if the that Committee felt like they specifically did not want to use Cypress
mulch and would leave the choice of mulch up to the architect to specify.
Ms. Lange-Marcks said right.
Mr. Merritt asked what was the purpose of eliminating the Cypress mulch.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that it is better environmentally, because Cypress is a protected tree or
a native tree and it is very often used just for mulch. She said a lot of times Cypress is harvested
for building, but more lately just for mulch purposes only. She stated that the Committee felt
that they didnt want to condone that type of use.
Mr. Merritt said he thinks that is admirable, but he thought that every County in the State would
have to do that in order to make a dent in the Cypress that is being harvested for mulch.
Ms. Mott stated that this is a reflection of some changes being made in the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan right now.
Mr. Lounds asked what other counties are trying to adopt a non-use of Cypress mulch...is that
information available.
Ms. Mott said she didnt has that right now.
Mr. Same Comer, landscape contractor, addressed the Board. He stated that there are mulches
made from invasive exotics. He approached the podium. He said there are numerous mulches
available that are beneficial to the environment such as Melaleuca, which is made from an
Eucalyptus
invasive exotic. He mentioned , which is the same. He said there is also recycled
which is made from land clearing debris versus Cypress, which is harvesting a desirable native
tree, just for mulch. He stated that this is why the Committee felt that way.
Mr. Lounds said one of the things that the landscapers have gotten into mulching and has gotten
away from one of the basic reasons for mulch was to conserve water and dryness. He stated then
they got into the aesthetic value of it. He asked them if they could help this group, with some of
the improvements that have come in the place of mulch...such as pine needles, Eucalyptus and
things for the aesthetic value of Cypress mulch.
Ms. Lange-Marcks, from Thomas Lucido & Associates, stated that there are some mulches out
there that are actually colored, but there is some question right now as to whether colors are
actually bleaching or not. She said it is very often the public perception and there could be some
public information and education that could change the tastes of people regarding the use of
Cypress mulch.
Mr. Lounds asked if there is a difference in the length of longevity of Cypress mulch vs. recycled
EucalyptusMelaleuca
mulch or mulch or mulch.
Ms. Lange-Marcks recalled reading on some studies on that and she believes that Eucalyptus,
Pine Bark, and Cypress are the three that would last the longest, verses pine needles, which cave
pretty quick. She said she wouldnt want to be quoted on that. She said she knows that they
have done some studies on the durability of mulch.
Mr. Comer stated that in breaking down of mulch, you actually enrich the soils and is the benefit
of it breaking down. He said breaking down isnt all bad. He stated that it is for moisture
retention and for building up your soils, so he thinks that all things weighed out, this is a good
move for South Florida, instead of using desirable native trees for mulch.
Mr. Comer said on another subject, on the maintenance - the reason that it was changed to 18
months was at the request of one of the other people on the Committee who felt that at 12
months, it would fall to the landscape contractor if the inspection were right at 12 months. He
stated that if the homeowner hadnt been taking care of it, the landscape contractor could be on
the hook, whereas, if you waited another 6 months, then the owner would be responsible.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17
February 17, 2000
Mr. Lounds stated that from his experience from the landscape contracting business, he doesnt
have a problem of it going to 18 months, providing that the landscape contractor and the owner
have an agreement that when his time is up, it goes back to the commercial land owner. He said
too many times, they have planted plants, the landscapers planted plants and the commercial
operation will get a C.O. and from that point on, they forget the landscaping. He stated that he
thinks that this is what you are familiar with trying to overcome and he thinks that this is what
staff is trying to do. He applauds your need for that. He stated that it is definitely need, not only
after 18 months, but he thinks that Code Enforcement needs to forever and ever maintain that.
basis, and they sure look good. He stated that those who dont, make it look bad.
Mr. Comer stated that the thought was that they would have to put it back in order and the
County would go to the property owner and it would be that the property owner would be
responsible and what he works out with his landscape contractor is not our business.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that they also added the change that the plans have to be signed and
sealed by a licensed landscape architect, which means that there are specific specifications in
there regarding the maintenance period and it will also clarify how long the contractor is
responsible for his work.
Mr. Lounds stated that in one of your lists of plants that you like, Lantana is part of that, and has
been used extensively in some ground covers, although in the agricultural community Lantana is
a noxious weed.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that there are two different species involved. She stated that the
cultivated Lantana and another species and she thinks that the cultivated one is not listed as the
invasive one.
Mr. Lounds just wanted that in the record.
Vibirnum
Mr. Lounds asked staff on page 7, of Ordinance 00-012, he mentioned that you have
....
odos.
and there is no He asked is there a reason for that or is that an oversight.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that the Committee wanted that list to be a recommendation and not a
necessity.
Mr. Lounds asked then this list is a recommendation and not an ONLY list. He asked if that was
in the language.
Ms. Mott said yes. She stated that only 25% of shrubs dont need to be of native species and the
rest is the developers choice.
Mr. Lounds asked when you talk of palms on Hutchinson Island, do you specific the type of
palm.
Ms. Mott stated again, that they are required to choose 75% from that list and the other 25% as
long as its not an exotic on Category I.
Mr. Lounds stated that the other 25% could be the architects choice.
Ms. Mott said yes, as long as it is not on the Category I. She stated that so far, they have
Cabbage Palm listed as the one palm on that list, but with the 25% other, they can choose what
they want.
Mr. Lounds said you could use Queen Palms, Washingtonians, you could use anything.
Ms. Mott said she didnt think there was a palm tree on the Category I list.
Mr. Merritt wondered if the use of Melaleuca mulch would propagate Melaleuca.
Ms. Lange-Marcks said not if it was properly processed.
Mr. Merritt wondered how you would prevent the seeds...
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18
February 17, 2000
Ms. Lange-Marcks said there is a certain requirement that it is processed at a certain temperature
so that the germs (seeds) get destroyed. She stated that it is the same as with soils that gets
composted, so that the heat will maintain it. She said if it is at a certain temperature, it causes the
seed to die.
Mr. Merritt wondered who was going to do that.
Mr. Comer stated that they have been using it for a number of years, and he has never seen a
Melaleuca Tree sprout.
Mr. Merritt said he has seen them sprout all over the County.
Mr. Comer said not from mulch that has been commercially developed for Melaleuca mulch. He
has never seen one sprout.
Mr. Merritt worried about the guy who has his own chipper. He said he would rather see
Melaleuca taken completely out rather than see it part of the requirement.
Chairman Matthes said it is not required.
Mr. Merritt asked how is the County Inspector going to know that this Melaleuca comes from a
legitimate operation.
Ms. Lange-Marcks stated that it would be possible to make ... on this and work with the
Extension Service on this and they would be happy to provide.
Mr. Comer advised that instead of burning the trees or land filling, to reuse them in a beneficial
way, why not do it. He said most of this is not produced locally anyway. He stated as a
landscape architect, he certainly wouldnt put anything out there that would cause a weed
problem, because they would come back to him to pull the weeds. He said this is a buyer be
aware issue.
Chairman Matthes stated that it is not specifically in the Ordinance that you are allowed to use
Melaleuca mulch. He said he believes that Mr. Comer just made a statement during his
presentation that this would be an alternative. He said it is not an alternative, and is not
specifically referenced in the Ordinance that Melaleuca can be used. He said if you have a real
problem with it and you want to change the Ordinance to specifically remove Melaleuca, that
would be something else, but if your concern is that people will read the Ordinance and say they
can use Melaleuca, he didnt believe that they would get that from that. He said that this is just
his comment from sitting on the Committee.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has lived in this area all his life. During his childhood there was not
any Melaleuca in this area. People thought that Melaleuca looked good and brought them in and
put them in their yards. The trees grew too large and the people trimmed them. At that point all
the limbs and trimmings were dumped in the Savannahs. He does not care how Melaleuca is
disposed of, but he does not want it mulched and placed back in yards.
Chairman Matthes stated that staff should take information from that and possibly change the
ordinance, if that is the desire of the board.
Mr. Lounds concurs with Mr. Merritt and he also agrees with trying to do something with an
exotic that needs to be done if it can be used. He asked Mr. Comer when purchasing Melaleuca
mulch coming from Florida Forestry Resource, is it certified to by true to type and non-noxious
material?
Mr. Comer replied that he could not answer that. The mulch was purchased commercially in
bags by a company named Florida Mulch. He is a member of the Native Plant Society and
probably dislikes Melaleuca more than anyone in this room. He would not come before this
board if thought this mulch would spread Melaleuca trees. This is merely an option that is not
mentioned in the ordinance. This type of commercial mulch is available at the Home Depot and
Lowes. He does not perceive it as a threat.
Ms. Lange-Marcks made a suggestion to add language stating to use only commercially
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19
February 17, 2000
produced mulches in the county. This would keep it controlled. There are certain standards a
commercial producer has to adhere to.
Mr. Lounds will agree with that suggestion if it will help Mr. Merritt with this problem. If it
commercially harvested at a particular time conducive to good mulch. This would mean
chopped, bagged and processed. He thinks if the language can be done from a commercial
provider will alleviate private citizens grinding making their own Melaleuca mulch. He would
not want to see any privately made mulch in this area. He asked Mr. Merritt if this would help
him at all.
Mr. Merritt replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any further comments on this topic.
Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Lounds if he meant to prohibit using any mulch other than commercially
produced mulch in St. Lucie County.
Mr. Lounds replied in the negative. He would like to encourage to using mulch. He would like to
see the County encourage to use more mulch than is being used, especially recycled mulch. He
does not know if St. Lucie County or South Florida is conducive to Pine Mulch. Although, it is a
good mulch due to the looks and the aesthetic value. It breaks down quickly, as compared to
others. He concurs with staff and committee with cypress mulch. He feels that one day they will
look back and think that we wished we had not. No matter if you go to Pine Mulch or Pine Bark
Mulch, it will go back to the same situation with that. He also can apprecia
concern with the Melaleuca mulch or mulch that comes from Brazilian peppers that have not
been properly cured. He thinks if the language is added stating that it is from a certified
commercial mulch company. This would stop someone from putting up a chipper and doing
fresh Brazilian peppers.
Mr. Merritt stated the language should add mulch that is free from noxious seeds.
Mr. Hearn stated that to his understanding if you burn Melaleuca, the seeds will explode and
spread the seed through out the area. This is one of the unique characteristics of the Melaleuca.
He would like to be very careful in recommending burning it. It would not be a bad idea and
some times of the year, but in other times it creates huge problems.
Mr. Lounds stated that if you burn the Melaleuca hot enough it will destroy the seed. He believes
the burning of Melaleuca is through a forest fire. It does scarify the seed and allow the seed to be
sprouted with an open burn.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Lancaster if there should be three other public hearings for the
other ordinances or is the one public hearing sufficient.
Mr. Lancaster replied that the requirement is to have a public hearing and that has been covered.
He would recommend that each ordinance be voted on individually.
Ms. Dryer stated she feels the changes are overall very good. Some of them are from existing
ordinances. On page 6 of Ordinance #10, item A-2, she believes A through D is all required. She
#12, the asterisks and daggers in the
table confused her. She was not sure what was coming out or being added back in.
Ms. Mott replied that they are coming out.
Ms. Dryer stated that there are a few on page 8, and recommended Ms. Mott go back and clean
the table up a little bit.
Mr. Lounds asked staff which ordinance pertained to sod. His question is if the language that
would allow seeding a used or limited area of a commercial endeavor.
Ms. Mott replied that there were actually several sections that cover that information. In
Ordinance #00-011, page 10; it discusses both ground covers and lawn grass in areas that are not
otherwise landscaped.
Mr. Lounds reiterated that you could use sod or seeding in a large commercial area.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20
February 17, 2000
Mr. Lounds motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-010 as written. Mr. Hearn seconded the
motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lounds motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-011. Ms. Dryer seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hearn motioned for appoval of Ordinance #00-012; adding language stating the mulch
must be free from noxious seeds. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the
motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Dryer motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-013. Mr. Moore seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Matthes stated he would like to thank the committee. It was a very enlightening
endeavor for him to take part in. He feels it has done some good and expresses his gratitude for
the people have taken part in it. This will be forwarded to the Board of County Commission with
the recommendation of approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21
February 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM #8: FILE NO. ORD. 00-001
Mr. Murp
This issue is being presented to this board as the Local Planning Agency and Advisory
Committee to the Board of County Commission on basic land use matters for the County. This
board is being asked two fundamental questions this evening the first item is to determine if the
proposed impact fee ordinances are or are not consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan.
These specific ordinances are in the binders referenced as exhibits I through N. At the conclusion
Comprehensive Plan and forwarding that recommendation to the Board of County Commission
for their review. The second ta
and raise questions about the proposed impact fee schedule, their development, what the
proposed amendments are and anything else that might come to mind that relates to this
particular topic that you feel the Board of County Commissioners may need to consider on their
deliberations in this matter scheduled for March 21 and April 4 of 2000.
Mr. Murphy introduced the Economic Consultant, Mr. Nicholas of the University of Florida that
helped develop these fees. Professor Julian Juergensemyer is not in attendance but worked with
Mr. Nicholas on the development of these fees. Both of these gentlemen have been working with
the County on the development of the Impact Fee Program since 1985. There experience is on a
National level and they are very qualified in their fields. The County has been very fortunate and
pleased with the results in the past.
Mr. Murphy would like to briefly go through the exhibits in the packets. There is a copy in
Exhibit A of the technical memorandum regarding roads, libraries, schools, public buildings,
public parks, and a proposed fire rescue impact fee program. This was prepared by Dr. Nicholas
Feb. 2, it should say 2000 not 1999. This will be changed in the final draft of the report. This
report basically outlines the scope of the changes made and the perimeters that were used
developing the changes. As far as the Fire Fees, establishing the new rates to the excess. This is a
similar document to what some of this board may have seen dealing with the impact fees in the
past.
He stated that Exhibit C is a summary table that provides a comparison of County by County of
various impact fees levied as it stands with proposed rates of St. Lucie County. The shaded band
is St. Lucie County in the table. There are examples of information regarding roads, schools,
parks, libraries, public buildings and Fire EMS. The information shown in this table was
originally derived from reports and information supplied from Sarasota County, which last
summer did a statewide survey of impact fees. Those fee numbers were updated with the best
available information that St. Lucie County could attain from other Counties. He stated it should
be noted that there are a number of Counties on this list that are in one stage or another of doing
updates to fee schedules. Some of the counties in the middle of these processes are Palm Beach,
Seminole, Citrus, Alachua, Collier, Duval, Lake, Sarasota, Marion, and Orange. Hillsborough
County is doing a general discussion issue. Martin County has just amended their fee schedule
and is reflected on this table. The point being there are a number of jurisdictions in the process of
reviewing and considering amendments to changes. It is important to note, since the beginning
St. Lucie County was the third or fourth County in the State to adopt road impact fees back 1985.
(Changed tape)
Mr. Moore stated that one of the fallacies he has read about it. The reason why these impact fees
are different even though they are a lot higher than property taxes is because it is going to affect
developers and people coming in to this County. He thinks it is naïve for anybody, including
members of this board to say that raising impact fees to the proposed level is not going to affect
the residence of this County.
Chairman Matthes stated at this time for Agenda Item #8: File Ordinance #00-001, the hearing
has been opened for public comment on the Educational Facilities Impact Fees.
Mr. Harrell, St. Lucie County School Board Attorney reiterating the comments by Mr. Murphy.
The School Board has specifically requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission take no
action at this time. This recommendation is due to the Legislation possible changing some
procedures that will affect impact fees.
Mr. Grande stated that he does not disagree with the recommendation. He would like to verify
what the School Board is asking which would be if the Legislature takes no action following the
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22
February 17, 2000
end of the session we would remain with the existing level of school impact fees. He asked if
that was the correct understanding.
Mr. Harrell replied in the affirmative. If there were no action in the Legislation Session on
impact fees there would be no replacement source of revenue. The fee levels for school would be
at the current level. As Mr. Murphy indicated at some point in time after that the School Board
would come back to this board with a recommendation. The School Board would want to see the
status at that time, prior to making recommendations. So, the School Board has not taken a
all the previously explained reasons that no action occur at this time.
Mr. Grande thanked him for the verification.
Chairman Matthes stated that this was still the Public Hearing for the specific Educational
Impact Fees.
Mr. Sasser of 3124 McNeil Road stated that he is in favor of impact fees. In spite of the staff
recommendation, he would recommend passing the Educational Impact Fees along with the
other fees. So that it may be adjusted after the Legislation ends to take the necessary steps at that
time. Staff must have some kind of proposal ready and there is no need avoiding it. He is in favor
of all the fees. He does not see any need in leaving something off and addressing it later. He
would like it in place, if the State does or does not it will still be there.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Sasser for his comments. He asked if there were any other
comments for the board during the Public Hearing. There being no further comments from the
public the hearing was closed.
Mr. Lounds asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission went ahead and voted for the current
impact fees on the school and the State changes it does it make it null and void.
Chairman Matthes replied he did not know that answer. He asked Mr. Murphy to answer that
question.
Mr. Murphy replied that staff is suggesting no action, because if action is taken right it could
cause problems later, due to whatever the state decides. If there is no action taken at all, it stays
the same until after Legislative action. There are so many variables at work right now in this
arena that staff stands behind the recommendation of no action. He does not know what is going
to happen in Tallahassee, so he cannot answer Mr. Lounds question. That is the reason for the
recommendation of no action. The reason it is in front of this board this evening is due to it
already being advertised. He stated there is already a fee in place that can be lawfully collected
and will go to the School Board.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he was referring to the fee already in place without an increase.
Mr. Murphy replied that nothing is going to affect that.
Mr. Lounds stated that he still was not seeing the whole picture. He does not understand the logic
up his confusion.
Mr. Grande replied that he does not believe Mr. Lounds is confused at all. He concurs with Mr.
Lounds comments. The only question remaining is, since the School Board and the staff have
agreed on a course of action, which is to take no action at this time, does this board have to
choose to follow that recommendation or can this board take what seems to be the logical state of
putting the correct numbers in place incase the State decides not to act.
Mr. Pershun stated that he goes back on this issue before Dr. Nicholas. He thinks the fear is
bizarre but could happen. The Legislature could pass a thing stating that they will do something
for the Counties, but any county that has a threshold of impact fees beyond a certain level can
continue on their own. That is the main concern and is why the recommendation is to wait on the
Legislative decision.
Mr. Hearn would like to compliment Chairman Matthes on allowing a member of the public to
speak and help the board understand an issue. He knows from personal experience when you are
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23
February 17, 2000
a member of the audience and know you can help the board but are not allowed to speak.
Chairman Matthes stated that would not be normal protocol.
Mr. Merritt motioned for no action on Ordinance #00-001. Mr. Grande seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Matthes stated that the next public hearing he will open would be for the remainder of
ordinances under consideration tonight, which are, Library Impact Fees, Fire EMS Protection,
Road & Bridges Impact Fees, Parks Impact Fees and Public Building Impact Fees. The public
can come and discuss any and all. He does request the comments are limited without being
repetitive. He understands this is going to take a while. He asked for any other comments from
staff on the issues just mentioned.
Mr. Murphy reiterated that each ordinance would need separate action.
Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Wells, of 1124 Jasmine Avenue, Fort Pierce, she is speaking on behalf of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan Study Group. Early in the study of the Comp Plan of 1990, the
study group agreed that a priority would be recommending policies to make new growth pay for
nd new business costs should not
fall on present residence in the form of more sales tax, bond issues or other actions that would
voted in support of his recommendations to increase current impact fees. So the cost for building
the facilities that new businesses and new residence require would be paid for by them. After Mr.
Lincoln, Budget Management Director for the County told the Strategic Planning Session last
month that St. Lucie County has reached a maximum of borrowing power, thus making impact
fees one of the only options. To comply with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.1.2.4
pment shall pay for 100% of
the Capital Improvements needed to address the impact of such developments. Future
developments proportion of the cost of capital improvements needed to address the impact of
such development shall be determined in part by the County Impact Fee Ordinances, which shall
include credits for other payments by future developments. Impact fees enterprise fund user
charges connection fees and other user fees paid by new development shall be review every two
years to assure that provision of capital improvement needed to address the impact of future
provision was discovered in the Comprehensive Plan. The study group urges the support of Dr.
Nicholas new fee scheduled.
Chairman Matthes asked if what she meant that the study group supports all issues of increasing
the fees that have been proposed.
Ms. Wells replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Lounds asked if the current plan stated that these fees would be reviewed every two years or
is this study group recommendation.
Ms. Wells replied that was the current plan that was adopted in 1990. She does not know if it is
being reviewed as stated, but it does say that is what she be done.
Mr. Murphy stated that all the current impact fee ordinances do have an annual CPI adjustment
provision that is reviewed on an annual basis. There is another clause that speaks to the complete
review, which is every five years. That would be the cycle currently, the five year update. So
there is always some adjustment for inflation factors and whatever else goes in to it. Every five
years the base assumptions that go in to the fees are reviewed to determine if they are still valid.
In this particular update, it was found that are a number of variances with construction cost. This
is a big change and the value of facilities changed. Anytime that there is a change in the
to increase taxes for transportation improvements, the fees would have to reviewed and adjusted.
Mr. Bangert of Holiday Pines, congratulated Chairman Matthes on his new responsibilities. He
s argue that impact
fees increase the cost of a home. All costs associated with housing remain exactly the same with
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 24
February 17, 2000
cost burden from the present taxpayer to the new homebuyer who receives the benefits.
Mr. Bangert has been fortunate to be a part of a committee, who has been working for the last
several months. This committee has no officers; it is just a committee who discuss the situation.
Bud Adams of Cattle
System Fleet, Grace Stock of the Conservation Alliance, and Mr. Bagart of the Homeowners
Association make up this committee. All of these groups have shown agreement with the
proposed impact fees.
There is a definite growth problem in St. Lucie County and a need for a definite solution
immediately. The proposed increase on impact fees is not the entire solution, but they are a step
in the right direction. Property designed impact fees charge new developments only for a
proportioned share of capital costs. Impact fees shift more of the cost of the burden from the
general taxpayer to the new construction that receives the benefits.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Bangart for his comments.
Mr. Hearn stated that when there are impact fees that are realistic, the citizen tends to help
improve the vacant homes and buildings in the County. He feels this is a huge problem with in
the community. In the discussions that he has had over the last several months pertaining to
impact fees, there are two groups that seem to be divided from the group that stand to gain if the
fees are raised and the other group that will not be affected, other than they will lose with higher
taxes if impact fees are not raised. He thinks that is a very fair evaluation of the two sides. He
hopes in fairness to the residents of the County, that this board will support the impact fees and
support the program that Dr. Nicholas has come forward with. In his opinion it is only common
sense that the people who cause the additional cost that they are the ones that should be paying
the cost.
Mr. Lounds stated that the one thing he would like to hear answered from the general public in
their comments is whether or not you think impact fees would slow down development. He
would like that question addressed and if the public does feel that development will slow down,
will that be good or bad. Also, what areas does the public feel will slow down?
Mr. Bangert stated there was an article in the Kipplen Finance Report that pointed out twenty
cities that will have the greatest appreciation in property value over the next ten years. Third
were Naples, FL, Fourth, Orlando, FL, the Tenth, Tampa, FL, and the Eleventh, Fort Pierce, FL
that was the only one on the east coast of Florida. The expect property values over the next ten
years to increase 67.2%.
Mr. Nixon, of Remax Realty stated he is for the abolition of the impact fees. The reason is
because no one has really done a study on what the long-term detrimental affects impact fees has
on a community. He went on the internet and found a report by the ELPN, he gave a copy to Mr.
Grande earlier and the County Commissioners have a copy as well. It basically outlines why
impact fees are in fact worse in the long run than not having them at all.
Mr. Nixon would like to get to some specific problems. He stated one could be a very realistic
issue. He came to this community in 1989-90, he has a wife and two children. He bought a house
in South St. Lucie County. If he wanted to build a new home in this County. He would have to
pay impact fees, as if he was a new resident. He feels that is unfair. When he sells his existing
home to the out of state person that may have four children that is coming in to the county. That
person will not pay any fees. Mr. Nixon will be penalized for being here by paying impact fees.
While the out of state resident purchasing the existing home is not paying any impact fees. This
is one problem in itself.
Mr. Nixon spoke with Mr. Grande this morning, because he had thoughts that he had never
thought about. These thoughts had to do with the Home Depot situation. Obviously, they started
to come in and then stated they would not come in because impact fees were too high. He does
not know if that is the fact of the matter or not. There were some discussion of people stating
there are a lot of empty building and why not try to fill those building first before adding new
construction. In theory that sounds all right, except if you look to gain revenue that is like
shooting yourself in the foot. If a company is coming in and decide to go to an empty building
first that means they will not pay any impact fees. The building that already exists is paying
property taxes even though it is empty. The new business that comes in that is building, if you do
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25
February 17, 2000
not charge the impact fees and they coming in because of the growth. They are going build an
asset on a piece of property that this community will gain property taxes from. Not to mention,
construction workers will be hired that will yield payroll taxes and those hired workers will pay
sales tax for the necessities they need to survive. That growth is going to give the county even
more money than the business going in to an existing building. There are many reasons why
those existing buildings are not being occupied, either due to price or location. So, there are quite
of few problems here.
In reference to Mr. Lounds question, Mr. Nixon does believe that impact fees will stifle growth
in certain aspects. Due to the fact that certain businesses will not come in because they have a
bottom line. The perfect example is the Home Depot that decided not to come here. If the Home
Depot had come in it would have been an Economic engine that this county needs.
Mr. Nixon keeps hearing that the County is turning to impact fees because there is no other place
to go for money. The County needs to get incentives to get an economic engine in to the County.
This would produce a lot of revenue and property taxes. Manufacturing industry pays far greater
services they require. There is an economic engine in the County right now, which is FPL Power
Plant. A power plant is a huge economic engine. The reason being they get a big capital
improvement. They do not employee a lot of people, but they pay a tremendous amount of tax
dollars for the services they receive. They do not require much of anything. That is where this
county needs to get the revenue. We need incentives to bring businesses in here to spend dollars
and give the asset value to the properties higher to increase the revenues from property taxes. It
his opinion that if this county keeps taxing and impact fees to all these businesses. The people
will get fed up and find other places to go. He feels in the long run that is why the impact fees
are the wrong things to do. It should be considered to keep them the same or even reducing them.
Mr. Grande stated that Mr. Nixon brought up a first example of an out of state person purchasing
a resale house. That is one of the main misunderstandings that seem to be clouding the issue.
Impact fees are not like income tax and not aimed at people. They are aimed at the new
development that requires or creates an impact of new infrastructure requirement. If a resident is
building a new house, that new house creates an impact. The new family coming in to an existing
facility, the impact of that facility has already paid for at the time it was built. So, that new
family should not have to pay for an impact that was already made and paid for. The resident
building the new home is not covered and will need to pay impact fees.
Mr. Grande stated the second example was the Home Depot situation. He thinks it is very
unfortunate at this stage of this discussion to even bring up that situation. It has been abundantly
clear by now that impact fees have no bearing on that decision made by Home Depot. That
situation like any economic engine would have paid no impact fees under the old schedule and
would pay no impact fees under the new schedule, because the infrastructure requirements that
Home Depot would be required to do would have given them credits that more than offset any
proposed impact fees. He stated that it was unfortunate that the people dealing with Home Depot
initially chose not to make that clear to them. Instead, they used Home Depot as a flag to try
fight something that is desperately needed in this County. He would think by now this particular
case would not be brought up.
Mr. Nixon stated it was odd to him that a community would require a Home Depot to put in
$2,500,000.00 of improvements to get a credit of $250,000.00 on impact fees. That is absurd in
his opinion.
Mr. Grande replied that type of statement is exactly what caused the flap. There is no
relationship between how credit they would get for how much work they did. He thinks the only
thing said to Home Depot, was if there work exceeded the amount of impact fees the credits were
offset.
Mr. Nixon stated that Mr. Coward was at the County Commission meeting when he stated to Mr.
Nixon that the City of Port St. Lucie required Home Depot to put in these road improvements.
He asked if that was accurate.
Mr. Coward was in attendance of this meeting as a member of the public. He replied that the
requirement was by the City of Port St. Lucie. To his understanding, the City of Port St. Lucie
was trying to set up a special taxing district to come up with the several million dollars with
several property owners. Home Depot was one of these property owners. The other two property
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26
February 17, 2000
owners pulled out leaving the full amount at Home Depot. This was apparently the cause of the
concern to them.
Mr. Nixon stated that was the $2,500,000.00 they would have to make, to get the credit of the
impact fee.
Mr. Grande replied that the $2,500,000.00 improvement that they would have to make anyway.
It had nothing to do with an impact fee. Coincidentally, because they were warranted to make
that improvement, any impact fee they would have been charge would have been waived.
Mr. Coward replied in the affirmative. If the other selected property owners been willing to split
the improvement cost then it would have worked fine. It had nothing to do with the impact fees.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has worked with Home Depot as a developer. He can tell you for a fact
that impact fees, land costs, and building costs are a big impact on them making a decision on
where they will locate.
Mr. Nixon concurred.
Mr. Grande stated he also agreed with Mr. Merritt, but the impact fees that would have been
calculated in would be zero.
Chairman Matthes stated what he would like to do is ask the board if they have specific
questions for the public. He would like to have the deliberation after the public hearing is closed.
Mr. First stated before he speaks on his own behalf, he is here initially as Chairman of the
County Budget Committee. That committee looks at the financial short falls that the County has
and try to come up with some guidance and helpful suggestions. They have looked at this, gas
taxes and many things over the years and unfortunately there simply must be revenue for the
Budget Advisory Committee and for certain, this county has some real serious revenue problems.
Growth does not take you away from financial problems, it brings you additional financial
problems if you do not plan for it or properly fund it. His committee voted unanimously to
support the revision in the impact fee schedule, because they feel they are justified and needed. It
is a simple matter. Mr. Moore asked Dr. Nichols, he gathers the data and the numbers and stated
this is the cost. It is not his position to say how a community should handle the burden of those
costs. If this community wanted to say that we would all share them equally. So, that growth and
new people do not have to pay. That is the democratic process and if that is the choice, we have
the right to do it that is why there are five elected Commissioners. So, that they can ultimately
make that decision. It is not Dr. Nicho
these things that is what the cost will be and here is the bill do what you want with it. He is only
telling you cost.
Mr. First stated leaving his hat from the Budget Committee, because the rest of it goes back to
him being the originator of impact fees in this County. He is going to run through some of the
things he has heard this evening. Once again, these are his personal comments, not comments by
the Chairman of the Budget Committee. The budget committee voted in support of it and feels it
is necessary. That is their official position and he has relayed it. The following comments are his
personal comments. All the arguments that he has heard have been done much better by the
al development and many other developers. The general development assured
him one time that he would be the demise of their companies if he made them do impact fees.
There was certainly an imposition of them to have any government body or anyone else interfere
with their development with such frivolous things, To them frivolous is being told that the road
should be built to a standard, that drainage is really important, and that it really does make a
difference if your septic tanks ends up in your swells out front. They pose a real government
imposition that all these ridiculous rules that can be imposed that could bring down their
company. This all because you are making them pay the cost related to the things, like the roads
that were needed the drains.
Mr. First was serving on the School Board at that time. He was amazed that the School Board
showed school sites on their maps, most of them were not big enough to build a school on. They
made the taxpayers buy them and there was no revenue for it. The arguments have not really
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 27
February 17, 2000
changed that much and neither has the issue. The old misconception was that growth was
profitable and you wanted to have it. He is a realtor and served as treasurer twice because the
first time he got the position, it was so far in the red it took two terms to get out the red. The
realtors had the same problem the community did. They thought if they had more members they
would be profitable. That does not work and neither does development like that. He has been in
development and like Mr. Merritt he understands the issues. The developer cannot leave the
citizens or County the burden of the cost without someone figuring out who is going to pay for it.
They are all costs related to development. The best example and answer he can give, some of the
very premiere areas in the County that have been mentioned. They have high impact fees and
high prosperity and he suspects that will ruin the relationship. The growth is going to be there for
reasons other than impact fees. The question is do you make them pay their fair share or figure
out how you can get it later and from whom. The two options is either the developer pay or the
West. He worked with Mr. White Sr. when he came to town. His approach was unique. First of
all, he pointed out all of the school site requirements were too small. The kind of community he
wanted to have and the kind of people he wanted to attract would demand a better site. So in fact,
he insisted the size requirements be increased on the land that he was going to give. He had the
best road, central water and sewer, and all these things. It caused Mr. First to move in to his
development. He moved from and existing home and paid all the impact fees, hook up fees, and
the drainage fees: the highest fees in the County then and now were in that development. The
absorption rate is faster than anyone anticipated. Everybody is amazed how quick it is moving.
The fees are the highest, that drainage is doubled what everyone else is. He has never met a
resident at St. Lucie West complain about what they paid in construction fees to get in. He has
not seen a study that could show conclusively that it did or did not. He can see lots of examples
where the impact fees seem to go counter to the theory that it is the problem. He can be in the
most successful areas. He does not feel that is even the issue. The issue is there is a bill that goes
with this development and who is going to pay it. He thin
feels it is a fair question. The follow up to the question is if that is the economic condition does it
not logically follow that if the community is in worse conditions economically than other places
can submit to you that they can. He is like everyone; he would like to pay fewer taxes and
certainly does not want to pay any more fees than he has to. But he thinks when you put on your
different hats you will run in to different angles of these issues. If you do not have funding
sources, then stop the development or make the development pay as it goes. He has not seen in
the 20 plus years he has been involved in it any new answers. He does not think what we have is
the most equitable, and he does not have a problem with transfer taxes or sales taxes. He stated to
pick the tax and tell him the revenue stream and he will go for it. But do not tell him that in the
interim all this other is going to be free and a way will be found later. The way needs to be found
first or do not let it happen. The history has been if no way has been found then the problem is
increased.
Mr. First stated that we are all caught up sometime in the dilemma that is not our doing, but we
must deal with it. As a former School Board member, he can tell you that the State of Florida
backed out of their responsibility to the citizens. It was a state responsibility, not a local one to
proof that exceeds to state level then it is a local problem not a state problem and we can not be
There will either be a way found or live with the situation as it stands: which are inadequate
transportation situations, which he thinks, is a bigger hindrance to growth, than the fees. He has
worked with a lot of developers. The Wal-Mart Building in Fort Pierce is another good example.
They had a perfectly good building with paid fees and everything was going well. They went
behind the building and bought the new property. Then they paid a whole new set of fees and
built a new facility. Thus, leaving the old facility vacant. He remarked that he does not think that
the Wal-Mart staff sat down and planned it so that St. Lucie County got paid some extra fees, nor
did they stop the new facility because of the fees. This was strictly a business decision. Wal-Mart
made a lot of money in the old facility and knew a bigger facility would make them a lot more
money. They paid their money and fixed the roads. The fact that they have an enormously
expensive piece of property sitting their vacant. This community will not drive the economics of
what businesses do with our fees. If their situation is vicarious that are fees make a difference,
probably would not buy it. Major companies will do what is good business and they will not go
somewhere else, because we are running out of somewhere else. Every growth area has imposed
these fees, because they have understood that growth does not make them money, it costs them
money. He stated what General Development did in Port St. Lucie has cost us money. Now, what
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28
February 17, 2000
Mr. White did in Port St. Lucie has made us money. Those are the choices and if you do it right
everyone benefits and if you do it wrong everyone suffers. Those are the choices.
Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. First for his comments.
does would improve our ability to fix our infrastructure that may suffer if we do not have it fixed
to begin with.
Mr. First replied that on the first question no one would know the answer. He would suggest the
evidence would show that the last time he checked other counties were not suffering a dramatic
slow down in development growth. Even if development growth did slow down the question still
has to be who is going to pay for it if it is not profitable. If it is not cost efficient, then who is
should cost one cent more than the cost. He never wanted a nickel more for the school situation
than what could be best measured for impact fees. If it was too high it can be lowered it.
Mr. Lounds asked if the impact fees slow down the growth, would that growth probably not
come in this community, due to the inadequate infrastructure in the first place?
Mr. First replied to Mr. Lounds stating that infrastructure is far more harmful than impact fees.
This community has lost countless opportunities here for lack of central water and sewer. He has
seen a lot of commercial ventures, which simply could not come here because no one was able to
provide water and sewer. It only has been in the recent years that the water and sewer has been
extended. There was a small-centralized area in Port St. Lucie and a small-centralized area in
Fort Pierce. In the north end of the county, you cannot locate major people without central water
and sewer. Just as roads are important, you look at the corridors and the commercial
development in St. Lucie West. It is not a lot of major commercial stuff, but it is profitable stuff.
It is everything from the UPS, Federal Express, and that type of business. They need those road
corridors and they need transportation along with ordinary facilities.
Mr. First spoke to the QVC people when they relocated. One of the most attractive things about
this area was the first class Community College system that could aid them in the training entry-
level workers. The college did not become what it is overnight. It is an asset that was important
to the QVC. Educational facilities and the facilities that they see for their people when they come
are very important. Every business would like somebody else to pay the cost, if that was
possible. Business decisions are based on good business and not having proper facilities are not
good business.
Mr. Merritt stated that Duvall County is probably the most successful county in the state. That
county does not have impact fees. Our commercial base took off and went to Vero Beach and
Martin County. This community has no industrial base and if we do not build our commercial
and industrial base back up. Then all the impact fees in the world out there and the situation is
going to get worse.
Mr. First stated that before there were even impact fees in this county, these industrial and
commercial issues were still here. He does not think there is a relationship to the impact fees and
these types of businesses leaving. They went to Vero Beach and Martin and there are impact fees
there. There are other business factors and it is not related to these fees.
Mr. Merritt stated that he does not think you can take a $784,000.00 impact and put it on a
160,000 square foot building. Those people are going absorb that and move in to this county. He
believes this will not happen.
Mr. First asked him if he believed that Home Depot would not build in Martin or St. Lucie
County anytime in the near future.
Mr. Merritt replied that he does not think that they will build and pay the price of land. Wal-Mart
bought the land they moved on for $.90 a square foot. The average developer is getting $4.00 a
square foot.
Mr. First stated the bottom line is no one knows. Everyone has a theory. He can almost bet that
within 12 months Home Depot will announce a new facility between Port St. Lucie Blvd and
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 29
February 17, 2000
their current facility. At that time they will pay impact fees.
Mr. Merritt replied that it would probably be in Martin County.
Mr. First replied if it is in Martin County that they will pay an impact fee there also.
Mr. Merritt asked why this community would run Home Depot to Martin County.
Mr. First stated that his whole point is the decision was not based on impact fees. If they go to
Martin County instead of St. Lucie County they will still pay an impact fee.
Mr. Merritt stated his point is to put the impact fee away and entice them here.
Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other questions of Mr. First. There being no more
questions for him. Chairman Matthes reminded everyone it is still a public hearing.
Mr. Rivett from the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce stated he would try to be brief. He
would like to state the current policy of the Chamber of Commerce regarding impact fees. The
Chamber has not been opposed to them and at times they have supported increases in the fees.
There is a fine line that we run in regards to fees, providing the infrastructure that we need in
order to have development. Yet, not having too much in ways of fees that we hinder our ability
to do so.
Mr. Rivett stated that another thing that is important to note is in regard to philosophy, when it
comes to the Chamber of Commerce and our Economic Development activities. First of all, the
Chamber is under contract with St. Lucie County for the purpose of trying to market our
community. Primarily for the purpose of industrial development. The chamber sees Economic
Development not being recruitment of people. He thinks that is very important for everyone to
understand. They are trying to provide employment opportunities for those residents that are
already here. They understand that some people may come as a result of additional employment
opportunities. That is not the goal or intent. Their intent is to try to broaden the community tax
base and provide employment opportunities for those that are here. It is done primarily through
industrial development and some in regard to commercial development.
These comments are not to be perceived as the Chamber being opposed to any increase of impact
fees. They do feel there is room for increase in these fees. There are two areas of concern, one in
regard to industrial development and two in regard to retail development. These two concerns are
for two different reasons.
Mr. Rivett would like to first talk about industrial development. Unlike, the Home Depots of the
world that go where the market is. Manufacturers have a much broader scope available to them.
They are going to go primarily where the labor is located. With all else being equal it is a cost
decision. It is a cost decision just like retail. Their costs and location criteria are much different
then retail. They do not follow the market. They can be just about anywhere they would like to
be and often are. Depending on the whims of the President of the company. He has seen
companies locate, because the wife of the President likes the shopping in the various area. It can
be for various reasons, but ultimately the communities that are narrowed down for selection are
because they are in a competitive situation. They are basically the same when it comes to the
costs of doing business from those sites.
Mr. Rivett would like to indicate to the board that the Chamber of Commerce believes that the
community needs to be competitive, particularly with the neighboring communities. If you look
at the impact fee information provided this evening. He is looking at Exhibit C. Even with our
increase the mean is 684 for manufacturing and we are almost twice that with the proposed rates.
That is out of 64 counties surveyed. He would like to further indicate to you that if you look at
the neighboring communities, we are just slightly below Martin County and significantly lower
than Indian River County. While looking at the sheet on the overhead he did some brief
calculations. It appears to him for the sake of argument if we had a 100,000 square foot
manufacturing facility in St. Lucie County then that is $1,443.00 per 1,000 square feet for almost
a $150,000.00 in impact fees for that facility. The same approach in Indian River County you are
looking at approximately $50,000.00 in impact fees for the same facility. A 3% increase is being
looked at for impact fees with what has been proposed in St. Lucie County verses a 1% increase
in the cost of the building in Indian River County. Now all else being equal where would you go.
If you have an opportunity to go to Indian River County for a similar type of a project, you still
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 30
February 17, 2000
could use St. Lucie County labor pool. He had a meeting today with their counter parts at Indian
River, Martin, and Okeechobee Counties that they regularly visit. One of the comments was how
surprising the amount of people live in St. Lucie County actually work in Indian River County.
So they do have the same advantages of our labor pool for a lesser price. He is not going to say
that is the only reason that a company would locate here. Mr. First is correct in saying there are a
lot of considerations. One, which he used as an example, was St. Lucie West and why companies
locate St. Lucie West. It is not because of the fees, but because of the quality of the project. He
thinks that is a variable that needs to be looked at, is emphasizing quality in all of the projects
that are being done.
Hopefully, there can be an agreement in time that there will be consistent on that. Another thing
that
Who provides the impact? He does not think it is businesses that do. The example sited earlier is
Florida Power & Light. The problems can be seen that the School Board, Fire District, and
County have had as a result of the discrepancies of how much they should pay. You can see the
real impact of business and industry on the community and the tax base. He feels we need to do
more to provide incentives to businesses to locate here. This can be done in one of two ways. For
manufacturers the job growth incentive fund and as a criterion for those communities we want.
Also, we can agree to pay their impact fees for them. He believes the Board of County
set up a fund to do just that. His question would be what about speculative
buildings. One of things for industrial development is the need for existing space. This area does
not have a lot that. His question would be if we were going to be provided a mechanism for
paying a developer for building speculative space for manufacturing something that we desire in
this community.
Mr. Rivett feels the entire issue of Home Depot is unfortunate. He feels it was more of
miscommunication than anything. The fact that it has been in the papers, he thinks is making a
projects. In the case of Home Depot, they do have an option than can go to Martin County.
According to information provided by staff, their fees about $1000.00 per 1,000 square foot less
in Martin County than in St. Lucie County. He feels this could make a difference for them.
It has definitely made a statement if this is the type of business that this community wants, if this
is the message we are sending.
Mr. Rivett stated that one of the things Commissioner Coward has been a leader on is Smart
Growth. The Chamber of Commerce endorses that type of approach on development in this
community. The one thing that is important to do is to facilitate retail establishments, so that
there are fewer trips on our roads. The Chamber Members would love for this County to have the
Dillards, Burdines and other stores we must go outside the County for. He would like to see
more encouragement of that type of development. He does not think it is the businesses
providing the problems. We need to do more to encourage them. He will stand corrected, but he
believes in the past the trip allocation has been worked on to be 60% residential and 40%
commercial, industrial. He does not think anything that stops us from adjusting it further to
provide more of a burden. Perhaps, the burden should be shifted.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Rivett if QVC was given a lot of economic incentive to locate here.
Mr. Rivett replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Merritt asked if those incentives offset the impact fees.
Mr. Rivett stated he does not know if QVC did look specifically at the impact fees. They did
receive in excess of $1,000,000.00 total between the City and the County.
Mr. Merritt asked how big of a building was put up by QVC.
Mr. Rivett replied a 70,000 square foot building.
Mr. Merritt stated that was his point. The incentives offset the impact fees.
Mr. Rivett stated that in that particular case there was the job growth incentive fund. It was
available to the County Commission to provide an incentive. He does not know if that was part
of the package. The County did have an opportunity to pay the impact fees through that fund.
There is an opportunity to do that with certain companies, but not all companies are eligible for
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 31
February 17, 2000
that grant and retail is not one of them.
County. The development begged his company to apply for a $650,000.00 CDBG Grant to bring
in the employees that would be needed for the retail. The development wanted this because of
the sales tax it would generate for that county.
Mr. Rivett stated the St. Lucie County has the same opportunity. The Community Development
Department is currently trying to put together a CDBG Grant for a project unspecified at this
point. The right project with the right amount of jobs must be in line in order to qualify for that
grant. He stated that this County has been very progressive in trying to offer businesses
incentives. These incentives can be offered in one of two ways. One way is the business can be
given to the business once the business is here. Second way, is to encourage them to locate here
by not charging fees that otherwise would chase them away. The instance of Home Depot, who
knows how many businesses, may have read the paper with headlines stating the Home Depot is
not coming because of impact fees. Due to that publicity there is no way to know how many
businesses that would not even let this area know they were interested in locating here.
Mr. Grande stated he thinks it is clear with the Home Depot situation. The programs are in place.
This County does have the ability to charge fair and equitable impact fees, then either offset
them or subsidize them if this county chooses to. When there is something that will be an asset to
the community. If there is something that will not be an asset to the community then offsetting
the fees will not be necessary. That gives this community a really tremendous advantage.
Mr. Grande has a specific question for Mr. Rivett. In the middle of his discussion he brought up
FP&L. He thinks everyone has admitted by now that the handling of the impact fee situation
withthe Home Depot problem. This was a very negative effect that never should have happened.
He hates to say this directly to Mr. Rivett but he feels it happens because of the kind of thing that
Mr. Rivett just did. He does not know an easy way to say this. FP&L has very unique
depreciation problems as a nuclear power plant. Most of which are not understood by most
people, but they have created for us an ongoing annual problem between their calculation of
what they should contribute and our calculation of what they should contribute. It certainly has
nothing to with impact fees and he would hate for anyone to walk out of this room and say that
impact fees are related to FP&L. That is exactly what took place with Home Depot.
Mr. Rivett stated he appreciates Mr. Grande bringing that up and giving him opportunity to
clarify his comments. His comment on FP&L was only an example of the impact that business
has on our tax structures. It has nothing to do with impact fees. It is an example of our need to
diversify our economy in order to bring in types of investments that will pay more in the way of
property taxes that will benefit the whole community.
that St. Lucie County is on a move and he thinks our industrial base is growing, in example
places like the Kings Highway Industrial Park and the area around Selvitz Road. He feels what
the County Officials, County Commissioners, County Development, Community Development,
Tourism Development, and occasionally the Chamber of Commerce are doing well. There is still
a problem. There are industries coming to St. Lucie County, it might be unique for the type of
development that we offer, it might be unique to our labor base, it may be unique to a lot of
things to the Community. He thinks the Counties above and below us have said that they do not
want some of that development. Because of that St. Lucie County and Okeechobee County is
picking up some of that labor slack. He certainly hopes that Mr. Rivett was not trying to imply
the our County, Community, and City Officials as well have not been trying to do a job of
bringing industry here. There are several Real Estate Companies that have done an excellent job
of doing it. He feels our industrial base is growing and when it does it creates more problems. If
we do not solve the problems by an impact tax or impact fee, then the landowner pays the bill.
He is tired of that situation.
Mr. Rivett stated that his first comment was not to take his comments as the Chamber of being
opposed to impact fees or an increase in impact fees. The Chamber is in favor to reasonable fees,
the question is what is reasonable. The Chamber has tried to indicate to you that the competition
needs to be considered in regard to determining what that is. He is a little offended because he
thought that very clearly he complimented the County specifically on the efforts to work on
industrial development. The Chamber perceives itself as being in partnership with the County
and the two cities and work at improving that relationship all the time. He feels the Chamber has
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 32
February 17, 2000
done a good job regardless of some of the perception that is out there. He would like to indicate
that at what point do we keep putting a roadblock in front of us. If impact fees are one piece of
the puzzle, but a piece of the puzzle that need to be considered. Are our fees competitive or are
they three times higher to our neighboring counties. If manufacturers have a choice they will
make a business decision and will go to the choice that has their best interest at heart.
Mr. Lounds replied that when that happens then we begin to pull our problem in line. Dr. Nichols
said this is what it is going to cost. He has also stated that if something is not done it will not
correct itself.
Mr. Rivett stated that his other point that he feels industrial development is the type of business
that this community needs in order to broaden our tax base. The Chamber of Commerce
comment has always been who has the impact. He does not think it is business.
There was a general discussion on the impacts of FP&L as an example.
have been a couple of impact fee increases since they were put in to place. It is also to his
understanding that our growth following those increases were not curtailed but in fact increased.
He feels his understanding is, strangely enough, the higher the impact fees have gone, not only
the more we have grown but also the faster our growth has accelerated.
Mr. Rivett said his question would be what kind of growth, is it population growth or
commercial and industrial growth is being looked at. He does not know or will he dispute that
we may have grown faster having had higher impact fees. There is continual population growth;
people will continue to come here. But there must be a reason in benefit provided for business,
particularly manufacturer to come here. There does not need to be another barrier in front of us
to hinder our ability to do that.
read a lot about residential, retail, and industrial growth. He has yet to have an example shown to
him that shows growth means lower taxes. That is his concern more than anything else. He also
has a concern that this County has something special here and we should not have to beg to bring
r.
Rivett mentioned that some people would locate due to very unusual reasons. He submits to Mr.
Rivett that people will locate in this County for the natural resources in this area. Until someone
shows him that growth will lower his taxes, then he will not even be able to begin to support any
notion that we should not consider the true costs that has been presented. He is not anti-growth.
different as black and white. He understands Mr. Rivett has a job to do and he is doing it well.
As a new member of this board he has to express that in some instances growth scares him. He
wants to go very cautiously on this area grows and where we grow and how we grow. He does
agree that the bar has to be raised on the quality of growth in this community. For so long this
community has sold itself short.
Mr. Rivett stated that population growth will always happen regardless of impact fees. It is much
more likely to have people decide to reside here, because of the natural amenities, than have
the type. There is a lot of vacant land in Port St. Lucie that does not lend itself to the type that
commercial and industrial development in order to offset that situation. He appreciates the kind
words regarding his job performance.
Chairman Matthes stated this is still a public hearing.
Mr. Mitchell of 1837 SE Hideaway Circle, Port St. Lucie. He has lived in St. Lucie County for
24 years. He is employed by the Postal Service, he sorts mail in this county. He may be a little
more aware of the growth, than most people are. It is unbelievable the growth that he has seen
here in 24 years. All his life he has heard how we have to diversify the tax base and share the tax
higher now than when he first came here. There has been all of this growth and his taxes are still
getting higher. He is in support of the impact fees, because he feels it is the fairest way that the
growth can be paid for that is going to come. He thinks that if you dug a mote around this county
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 33
February 17, 2000
with alligators and an electric fence and it would not stop the growth. The growth will not stop
and someone is going to continue to get a bill for that. He thinks it is fair for the people who are
going to come and require new facilities should share the cost. He stated there is a large
population of older people here. He has 609 days until he retires, so he is getting ready to prepare
for retirement and fixed income scenarios. There are a lot of people in this county who have done
some amazing things. They fought wars, rationed sugar and put men on the moon and now they
want to live in the sunshine. They are here building schools when they do not even have children
or grandchildren in school. He does not think it is fair to hand them the bills for the percentages
we need to build roads. He is late everywhere he goes anymore. We have reached gridlock in
some areas, because we have not kept up with infrastructure. He encourages the board to support
impact fees and not hand the bills to the older citizens on fixed incomes.
Chairman Matthes asked for any comments or questions.
Mr. Sasser stated he has a question for the people who devised this plan. As far as Law
Enforcement, there seems to be a little bit of everything for impact fees. He would like to know
if the State requires or disqualify us from asking for impact fees for Law Enforcement.
Mr. Murphy replied that we disqualified ourselves. The reason being is that currently the City of
Port St. Lucie has a Law Enforcement Fee for all development with in the City under a sliding
formula scale. It was looked at considering levying a Law Enforcement fee for the County,
because of the current unique structure that we have in financing the road patrol operations in the
County. It was concluded that would have to provide the money. Any kind of impact fee that we
would have generated as a result only the unincorporated part of County would have been so
negligible that it would have been eaten up at the cost of collection as it would be to provide any
benefit. He stated that this is only with road patrols. He stated that under Public Buildings there
is a component that addresses the countywide functions of the Board of County Commission
related to Law Enforcement and that is a correction component. The Police Departments and the
Cities do not pay for housing the County must do it.
Mr. Sasser replied that he knows the County
Department comes up. He is definitely for the impact fees. He believes that we have a quality of
life here that we need to have controlled growth. He has not heard anyone mention controlled
growth. Some people seem to be worrying that the impact fees will stagnate growth or inhibit
growth and using the word controlled growth seems to be a negative. We are growing
demographically and the population is just sprouting up all over. There is no way to keep people
out of this County. If we make the people who come here pay there fair share up front, everyone
will be better off including the people coming in to this area. If they cannot afford to pay our fees
then let them go elsewhere, because we do not need it.
Mr. Grande stated he would like to spend one moment on the Law Enforcement comment. He
would like Dr. Nicholas correct him if he is wrong. It is to his understanding that the impact fees
are restricted strictly to the one time Capital Improvement Cost. We do not use impact fees for
the operational cost. So an impact fee for offsetting road patrol for example is not something that
would be considered, nor is conceivable. We have impact fees to build the jails, but we would
not have an impact fees to pay the Correctional Officers.
Mr. Sasser stated he understood.
Chairman Matthes asked if anyone else would like to speak.
Mr. Nixon stated that he has heard quite a few things that he agrees with. He would like to
address Mr. Hearn with the type of growth. Residential development does not pay for itself.
Industry and business does pay for quite a bit more than their share. All he is saying is the type
of growth that we want should be addressed that way. He stated that Mr. Hearn is very right in
saying that all the growth that we have is residential. There has not been the manufacturing or
industry that we need. He asked Mr. Lounds what industry he thinks has came in here and where
it is.
Tape changed.
Mr. Hearn stated he does not want to get in to a debate about who pays what and where. He has
relatives in the North East part of the country, which is where MR. Nixon came from. There is
no place that he would rather not live, than the North East part of the Country. The places like
Newark, New Jersey and Manhattan are so full of industry that it makes you sick to live there.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 34
February 17, 2000
He apologizes but he does not want St. Lucie County to experience that kind of growth. The
people in that area of the county have taxes that are 3 and 4 times higher than down here.
Chairman Matthes stated this is still a public hearing. There being no further public comment the
public hearing is closed. He stated that at this time the board would deliberate and discuss the
items. He asked if the board had any questions or comments for staff. He asked the pleasure of
the board as to whether to go in to each impact fee separately and discuss them individually or
does the board want to have general discussion and then go through.
Mr. Grande stated he would not mind a single discussion for the whole topic and for the benefit
of the record have individual voting on each fee.
Chairman Matthes asked for discussion.
Mr. Grande stated as a closing comment he would like to go back to page 11, exhibit A. He
stated that we have a cost to pay and we are going to pay it, there is no question about that. There
has been a lot of work done to come up with every other source of income that we have to apply
to each of those costs. What is left is the bill. The Comprehensive Plan says very clearly that the
existing population pays the ongoing cost of the operating cost. The new incoming population
that causes the impact of the growth is to pay 100% of the cost of the growth. That is not even a
decision that is being asked to make it is part of the Comprehensive Plan. The first thing staff
asks to be done is make sure we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He will be voting
in-favor of the impact fees as they are. Although, he does believe they are correct, what is more
important to him is nobody has shown a single place where any short fall could be made up if the
impact fees were reduced. Until such time that someone is able to pull out of the air those magic
dollars, they are going to pay for the impact of the new business and residence. He is not willing
to reduce those costs, because he knows there are only two places they can come from. They can
come from the new people as impact fees or they can come from the existing people as taxes.
This County has already decided for us and directed us to make sure that the costs for the new
infrastructure comes from the people causing that impact.
Mr. Merritt stated that we are in trouble because of the past, not because of what is coming. Most
of the new development will be required to put in road, sewer, and water infrastructure. If there
is a way to go back and collect impact fees to people that have moved in here the last thirty
years, he would vote for it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that cannot be done and unless there is
reallocation of these impact fees from Commercial and Industrial growth back to Residential, he
will not and cannot support it.
illness. He is not sure that the infrastructure within a development is what we are suffering from
as much as it is the support roads, ditches, bridges, culverts, and facilities outside of the
individual developments. The connector roads and main roads that the State has given us, but we
have to maintain them. He also wishes he could find another way to fix it. He thinks Mr. Grande
had a point that two people have to help pay for it. Either the new people coming in or the people
that are here will have to do it. In the end that means we all are going to have to do it. If a
company comes in and the impact fees means they raise the price of their product. Then we buy
their product, and then we are helping to overcome that fee. There was a statement made in a
movie one time the character was telling the Vice-President of the Unit
knowing the difference between right and wrong is really not hard. Once you have made that
know what we have to do and doing it is tough. It is not near as tough on us, as it is going to be
on the five people who sent on the Board of County Commissioners and some are up for re-
election. That is going to be tough and we are going to see what they are made of.
Ms. Dreyer stated she does not feel there is any question that the impact fees and an increase in
the impact fees are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. There have been a lot of impacts on
our local governments over the last couple of decades that have cause shifts of responsibility of
all sorts of things to be pushed down to the lowest level of Government. That puts it right on our
local officials and consequently on the taxpayers in our County. She feels that we have to find a
way to pay for the costs of building the capital improvements in our County and maintaining
those improvements. We have some alternatives, we can lower our level of service and reduce
the costs to all of us, both current existing residence and new residency with industry alike. She
does not think lowering the level of service will give us the kind of community that everyone
wants to live in, nor will it attract the type of business we want to have. We need to find a way
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 35
February 17, 2000
to pay for the roads we need, the water and sewer, and the other types of infrastructure in our
community. She thinks that alternative revenue sources need to be looked for, they are out there.
She does not think impact fees can go on forever. It is a road we have had for awhile, so maybe
they can. She would like to see the County support other new sources of revenue. She thinks the
real estate transfer tax needs to be looked at. It might not be an option this year, but it does need
to be looked at in the future to spread the burden among different industries and different
economies in our communities. She thinks we should look to the State to pick up its share of the
burdens. She feels their needs to be more economic diversity. She does not want to live in the
type of environment that was discussed in the North East part of the Country. There are all sorts
of clean industries that do create a much broader tax base and would help to provide the relief for
the property taxes, which at some point will not be able to be increased anymore. She does feel
the Fire and EMS Impact Fees should be there. The Fire Service needs a source of revenue; they
are getting pretty well close of being capped out. She would like to see more emphasis on
supporting the type of industry that our community would like to have come in here. Maybe not
through not charging them impact fees, but through letting them know there are ways to relieve
those impact fees. She has a hard time dealing with the increases that are proposed. She would
like to see a way of reducing them or phasing them in over a period of time. We have to pay for
the services we have and that we need. Our new development coming in certainly does have to
share its burden. The current taxpayers have to share their burden. She wishes there was a better
solution than what we have.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Hearn if he has any comments.
Mr. Hearn stated that it all boils down to the fact that we have a cost. He knows this has been
said many times this evening, but who is going to pay for that cost. The people that create the
cost or the people that live here now. He agrees that maybe there are other ways that we can help
the tax base. But at the present time this is the only show that is playing. He would encourage
this board to bite the bullet and say that we have problem and we recognize that we have
problem and the problem is not going to go away unless we take action to cure the problem. He
have the problem and it is not going to go away unless we take some positive action to make it
go away. The tax is a tax no matter how you look at it. The citizens of St. Lucie County are
going to have to pay a tax if you put taxes on real estate transaction. All that is, is taking money
from one jar rather than another jar. The people that are causing the impact on our community
need to pay. He is not trying to stop growth. But every possible source of funding has been
exhausted other than making the local Tax Payer fit the bill and he is not ready to do that.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has sit on this impact review once before, probably he is the oldest
member of this board. He has heard all of these arguments before. Then the vote was to cut the
proposed fees in half. The impact fees were still put in and it did not solve anything. We can vote
these impact fees in tonight and two years from now we are going to go through this all over
again. It is not the answer to the problem. The money is going to have to be taken out of the local
as well as taking it from the new comer coming
in. Whether everybody likes it or not, everyone will have to pony up. He can not see putting an
obstacle in front of the commercial industrial base that we need and running them in to Martin
and Indian River County and using St. Lucie County for employment to run their companies.
Chairman Matthes stated he needed to interject for a moment. He has never been against Impact
Fees; he supported them from day one. He actually worked on County Staff in 1985 when they
were first implemented. He understands how they work and want they are supposed to do. He is
board. He has not been able to satisfy in his mind that the Impact Fees are correct. That is not to
say that they are not correct and it is not to say that the work that was done by Dr. Nicholas is not
vote on these proposed fees tonight. He can vote on the Fire Impact Fee, because there is no fire
impact that has been impacted before. But at this moment he can not say from the material that
he has reviewed in the short time he has had to review it that the fees that are being levied are
true and correct to what they should be. The information is probably there, he has been remiss
and has not looked at it. He has spent a couple of three days looking through this information,
but he has not drawn a conclusion himself. He does not know how anyone else feels or has to say
about this but he cannot vote on this issue in the positive.
Mr. Grande motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-002 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 36
February 17, 2000
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Chairman Matthes asked if he had a motion of Ordinance #00-003.
Mr. Hearn motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-003 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 5-1, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt voting against it.
Ms. Dreyer would like to ask a question of Ordinance #00-004. She has heard a number of
comments about the fact that our right of way acquisitions costs were much higher than other
communities nearby. She knows that Dr. Nicholas mentioned that the right of way acquisition
laws have changed which increase those fees. She would like to know if that is the reason this
communities costs are so much higher and is she correct in saying that.
a bit of negotiation on some of the parameters. The roads are where the big money usually is.
That is where the negotiation takes place and one of the factors that are most frequently
negotiated is that cost, because that is what drives the whole model. He can assure everyone that
the cost of cement is no different here than it is anyplace else. The cost of the machinery and the
right of way costs will vary from community to community. That is why in Palm Beach County
they are running at $1.6 million per lane mile and this community is running $1.1 million per
lane mile. The difference is exactly the right of way.
Ms. Dreyer stated that answered her question. She stated that this is the fee that creates the
biggest difficulty in her mind. She has to take the information that has been given on it as
accurate.
Mr. Grande motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-004 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Mr. Hearn motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-005 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Mr. Grande motioned for approval of Ordinance #00-009 and forwarding to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote 4-2, the
motion passed with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against it.
Ms. Dreyer motioned for the Board of County Commissioners continue to look in support of
other alternative revenue sources to decrease both the impact on the advalorem tax payers, as
well as the new industry and residents that move to our community in the way of real estate
transfer tax, sales taxes, and other viable revenue sources. Mr. Merritt seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if there would be any other business at this meeting.
Mr. Kelly replied in the negative.
NEXT MEETING
Chairman Matthes stated the next regular meeting would be March 16, 2000. There will be a
Comprehensive Plan meeting on March 2, 2000. He asked if there was any other business that
any board members would like to bring up.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 37
February 17, 2000
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 38
February 17, 2000