Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-16-2000 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2000 Room 101 at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Moore, Mr. McCurdy (Mr. Moore was excused prior to the meeting.) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Lancaster, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Dawnelle Lewis, Office Assistant III CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes. ANNOUNCEMENTS: There were no announcements by staff or members Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items are heard, Staff will give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations. AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES Mr. Kelly stated that this item needed to be passed on. AGENDA ITEM 2: RZ-00-003, COVENANT PROJECT DEVELOPMNET CORPORATION Mr. Flores stated that Agenda Item #2 is the application of Covenant Project Development Corporation for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project to be known as Lake Forest Park, PUD and a change in zoning from the RS-4 Zoning District to the Planned Unit Development, Lake Forest Park Zoning District for 12.1 acres of property located on the th West side of South 25 Street, approximately 900 feet North of Edwards Road. The applicant is proposing the development of a 59 Unit multiple-family residential development, consisting of 19 duplex units and 7 triplex units. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Mr. Grande stated that on Item #5, there is a recommendation for a waiver on the transportation impact report. He would like to know why there is a recommendation for that waiver is there. Mr. Flores replied that staff was just informed that the applicant had applied for a waiver from the requirements of the transportation impact reports. He also stated that this has not gone to the Board of County Commissioners at this time, but it will in the future. The Traffic Engineer, Scott Herring looked over the request and approved it. Thus, meaning it will be forwarded with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Hearn stated that on #2, the wording for relating to the preservation of the environmentally sensitive wetlands uses the word encourages. This is a word he is not real comfortable with, when talking about preserving sensitive wetlands. He asked if there could be a more definitive word uses that will mandate the preservation or something to that affect. Mr. Flores replied that in all projects staff tries to urge the protection of environmentally sensitive properties on sites. In fact on this property the wetland will be preserved in its entirety. Mr. Hearn replied that he understands staff will encourage it. But in a case like this where this board is voting on the Planned Unit Development, he would like to vote on something that he that is the case in this situation. He would rather see stronger wording for that. Also, on #2, he called the Planning office and never got a return call. He would have handled this by phone if he had received that returned call. It states that this Planned Unit Development will result in a lesser density than which would be allowed under current zoning. He is not sure if that is correct. Mr. Flores replied that was taken in to account if took in to account the underlined future land use, Residential Urban allows 5 buildings per acre and the Residential Medium allows 9 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Hearn replied he assumes his confusion is where is it says under current zoning would be allowed. Chairman Matthes interjected that it would require a rezoning to get those 97 units and that is what we are looking at now. Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative. If this was maximized under the PUD that is what would possible. Chairman Matthes stated that is exactly what is being done at this meeting for the rezoning. Mr. Trias asked since this was a rezoning to a PUD, and then is the site plan is part of that rezoning. Some of these questions might not really be relevant since there is a specific site plan. If someone wanted to do something different, would they have to rezone it again. Mr. Flores replied that once it is rezoned to a PUD, the zoning would be tied to this specific site plan. Ms. Dreyer asked if someone could tell her what the actual density of the property to the west and what it has been developed at. She understands it is similar to RS-4, is that what it is developed as. Mr. Flores replied that he is not quite sure what the density is. It looks to be about quarter acre lots, so that would mean about 4 per acre. He stated that Mr. Kelly just informed him that they are about an acre each. Ms. Dreyer stated her only concern with this site plan is it does seem to be an appropriate location for this type of facility. She does have a little bit of concern about the density of the units on the west portion of the property bordering the larger lots. If indeed they are acre lots it would seem to be quite a bit of difference between the neighboring properties. She asked if all Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative and stated every property owner in 500 feet. Chairman Matthes stated that in Section 7.01.03, the code requires a minimum 15% of native upland habitat preserved in natural condition. In reviewing this site plan, he does not see where the 15% is. He asked it can be located. Mr. Flores replied that according to the environmental report 3.9 acres, approximately 7.5 acre under the environmental plan. Chairman Matthes reiterated that there are only 3.9 acres of native Oakland habitat currently. Then 15% of that habitat would be .75 acres. Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative according to the environmental report. Chairman Matthes stated that if the applicant is present and would like to address the board this would be the time to do so. Mr. Aquart, introduced himself he is with CPH Engineers. They are the site planners and engineers for the applicant. The representing applicant is also in attendance. He briefly would like to address some of the site plan issues and then ask the applicant representative to address some other issues. Mr. Aquart stated that there are 59 units proposed in duplex and triplex building. The access is th off of South 25 Street, with an internal roadway going in to two cul-de-sacs. The existing lake on site in the North West corner will be preserved. In addition to that the wetland will also be preserved. The road to the South of that area was taken so that the entire wetland area can be preserved. The upland preserve area has been located around the wetland and in front of the property. That has the best existing vegetation that is there with Pine and Palmettos. That will make a very nice entry in to the property. He will answer any questions on the site plan. Mr. Poloskey wanted to clarify the purpose of the project. It was described as a multi-family PUD, however more specifically it is an independent retirement community. It is intended to work in conjunction with the assisted living facility that is under construction to the North of this property. It will eventually have common ownership. He just wanted to clarify that. The resulting project will have an array of services. It will have a number of alternatives for the retired and senior residents in the area. The profile of the residents are of 75 year old person, who may be single or may be married that they are concerned about issues of safety and security. These types of activities will be on that same site working with the assisted living facility to the north. It is a gated community. There will be a community center on site and a walkway around the lake itself. So he wanted to clarify that this project is going to be low impact. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing for comment. He explained any member of the public that wished to make comment for them to state their name and address for the record. Mr. Driscoll, 2906 Grove Drive, he lives immediately West of the proposed property. His main concern is if there will be screening on the west side of the property that would protect the neighbors. He has not looked at the information close enough to tell if there is a screening on the West side. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Flores who he would rather answer the screening question. Mr. Flores replied that in the landscape plan it does show a hedge along the North and West boundary to Wildwood Lane. That landscape plan also shows trees every thirty feet. Chairman Matthes asked if the members had a copy of the landscape plan. Mr. Flores replied in the negative. Chairman Matthes asked if the landscape plan is something being voted on as part of the PUD at this meeting. Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other members of the public willing to speak. th Ms. Englishman introduced herself as the managing partner for the property South on 25 Street. She can understand that concern from the property owners. She would like to bring up the fact that the property South of the proposed PUD project, and their prime interest is to sell that property for commercial use. She is fully aware that intersections are already designated for commercial use. She would like to raise several questions. The developer made the comment that this would be a low income. She perhaps misunderstood the comment. But would like to know if the units in this project will be privately owned or owned by a corporation with renters living in the units. Mr. Grande replied that he believed the developer stated it would be low impact, as opposed to low income. Ms. Englishman stated she stood corrected on the low-income issue. She would still like to know if these units will be privately owned or will the units be rentals. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like the applicant to answer the questions point by point. Ms. Englishman stated that she is not familiar with the PUD zoning. She would like to know if there are other PUD zoned areas in this County. If so, she would like to know where to use as reference. Chairman Matthes stated that he would explain a PUD very briefly, and then let staff pick up what he might have missed. PUD is a planned unit development it gives the applicant the opportunity to lay out the entire scheme and the land development plan during the rezoning process. Rather than go through two different processes to change zoning and then show what he plans to develop. It gives the ability to look at a project in its entirety during conception. He stated there is a lot more to it, but that explains why there are plans in being reviewed tonight instead of just a straight rezoning. He asked Mr. Kelly to elaborate on this definition some more. Mr. Kelly stated he thinks the Chairman has covered the definition pretty well. The follow up question was if there were examples of any PUDs in the County to use for reference. The answer is yes there are examples but they are not always helpful, because a PUD for a nonresidential development can be a convenience store all the way up to the Reserve. So the intent is for the developer to come in and present a site plan and the rezoning becomes that site plan. In other words there are no two PUD that are the same they are each individually defined by that particular development. Chairman Matthes asked her to point out which property on the overhead map was the CG property she managed. He then asked Mr. Poloskey to address the low-income question and then the ownership of the units. Mr. Poloskey replied that this is not a low-income project. However, one of the objectives is to be as affordable as possible, considering there are not any subsidies available. They would like to be as responsive to the economic profile of the area. This is not subsidized or low-income housing. (He showed photos of what the units will look like to the board and public.) He feels this look is very typical of the housing in the general area. One of the things they have tried to do for the purpose of the project is to create a lot of buffers along the street and make it more isolated. People passing by will not be able to see much of the project because of the preserved th buffers on 25 Street. The developer and applicant do not feel it is a problem that there is a commercial project on one side. As far as the financial arrangement, it is a rental community. That is the most responsive to the targeted persons. Chairman Matthes thanked Mr. Poloskey for his comments. Mr. Merritt would like to clarify that this is not a subsidized housing of any kind. Mr. Poloskey replied in the affirmative. This is privately financed. Mr. Merritt asked if they would object to the screening on the West side of the property being increased with additional hedging and trees. Mr. Poloskey stated he is happy to make it effective. It is not currently effective with the natural screening enhanced with the landscape plan. If that is the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board that it needs to be enhanced then it will be done. He feels with the current landscape plan will provide a decent buffer. Mr. Merritt asked what is currently there that would create screening if it were not natural habitat. Mr. Poloskey replied that there is natural habitat there currently; with the addition to the landscape plan it will be augmented with a planting seed. Mr. Trias stated that it would be good to be able to see the landscape plan. (The landscape plan was passed to the board from staff.) Chairman Matthes asked staff if there was a clearing plan also and was there a vegetation removal permit applied for. Mr. Flores replied in the negative, referencing a vegetation removal permit. After approval of the project then the vegetation removal permit will be applied for. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if he could ask him a question, since he would be a neighbor. The information that Mr. Lounds has it shows a 35 ft. drainage right of way, which is apparently between this development and the area of concern for Mr. Driscoll. He would like to know who controls that right of way. Mr. Driscoll replied that the County comes in and mows the right of way once in a great while. Mr. Lounds asked if he had to call the County to get the right of way mowed. Mr. Driscoll replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lounds asked if there was native vegetation between the east area of the properties and the Mr. Driscoll replied that the right of way backs up against his lot. The amount of vegetation varies by the lot. His has a great deal and his neighbor to the south does not have a whole lot. The neighbor to the North has a lot. That lake is so deep no one will do anything with that. Mr. Lounds asked the engineers if they planned on the water from this development stay in this development, or will it go in to the right of way. Mr. Poloskey replied that the proposed discharge would go in to that ditch. There is a fairly limited discharge that is allowed for the property by the Water Management District and Water Control District. But there will be an outfall going in to the ditch. Mr. Lounds reiterated that the ditch was between his property and groves. He asked where the outfall and overflow of the lake would go. Mr. Poloskey replied it would be at the same location of the existing outfall. Mr. Lounds asked if currently the natural drainage from that property to that drainage right of way or will it be enhanced. Mr. Poloskey stated that there is a portion of the property that drains to the lake, which then outfalls to that ditch. All of the property does not currently drain in that direction. Mr. Lounds has two concerns that he would like to share. One is he feels the landscape barrier should be enhanced between your property and the property to the west. He is concerned with the added drainage that is going to be from that property to the thirty-five foot water right of way. This will intern have an impact on the residents on the western area and those residents have not been confronted with. Mr. Poloskey stated in response to the second question. This site had previously been approved as a sub-division; part of that approval included a drainage plan. The Water Management District and North St. Lucie River Water Control District had approved the drainage plan with the outfall governmental agencies. There was an entire drainage study done for that pond. The proposed discharge to the outfall is consistent with that. He does not have the exact numbers. Basically, the discharge is very limited. He does not feel there will be a big concern for the discharge. Mr. Lounds asked him where he lived. He asked if he understood how wet St. Lucie County gets. He asked where the water would go when it leaves that drainage ditch. Mr. Poloskey replied that he lived in West Palm and he understands how wet all of South Florida gets. He stated that the water would go to the North St. Lucie River Canal #9. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if there is a current drainage problem in this neighborhood after a heavy rain. Mr. Driscoll replied that a number of years ago there were a problem. He stated he would like to ask the engineers a question. There is a culvert that exits from that drainage right of way in the back of his property and goes in the North St. Lucie Canal. He would like to know if it has been evaluated and will it be changed. He does not know what it is. Mr. Poloskey replied that the culvert was reviewed. The culvert was found to be adequate and it will not be changed. The size of the discharge pipe that is going to be put in will be the same size or even smaller. Chairman Matthes added that there would be a permit from the South Florida Water Management. The requirements that are involved completely will stop them from creating more discharge from the current amount of discharge. Mr. Driscoll wanted to add that all of the houses to the west of this property are on septic tanks and if there is a drainage problem it could become a bigger problem. Mr. Hearn asked what percentage of the lots in this subdivision has homes on them. Mr. Driscoll replied there are 15 building lots and there are only 4 vacant lots. on 1-acre parcel of land compared to 6 per acre. It brings a completely different landscape situation. He would like to see the buffer strengthened. Mr. Lounds stated that his concern is not just the residents in the sub-division, but also to give a barrier to the cliental that Mr. Poloskey is looking for. He would feel more comfortable if the landscape to the west is strengthened. He is satisfied that South Florida Water Management will do their purpose of dealing with the drainage some what. Then it will all be passed back to the County. He thinks this board can ask if the landscape barrier on the west can be enhanced. Mr. Poloskey stated he does not see a problem with the requested enhancement. He is asking for guidance as to what should be added to please the board. Chairman Matthes stated the Public Hearing is still open and he would like to hear the rest of public comment. th Mr. Digiuseppi introduced himself he lives on the corner of 29 Street and Grove Drive. There has already been a problem up to the point of his home. There is a section there that the County has not maintained and it backs up every time it rains. If there is any more water added to that the people to the rear would get flooded. That is his only comment. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Trias stated to staff that the cul-de-sac is extremely long and asked if it meets the code requirement. Mr. Flores replied that he has not received any information from any of the departments that have reviewed the site plan that there is a possible problem. Mr. Trias stated that he thinks there is a maximum length that a cul-de-sac can be. He imagines one of the issues that may let them get away with not meeting that requirement is it is a rental and there is only one parcel. That is an issue that might want to be looked in to. Mr. Kelly replied that he knows that is a concern of at least one County Commissioner that concern was rather than a cul-de-sac there was a connection in there. Mr. Kelly feels it is important to note the rational for this and for the traffic. This type of community, which is an elderly rental community and more elderly than rental is the key, made it inappropriate to link it to the North. The traffic report also relied on a lowered trip generation because of experience in other areas with that particular age group. If it were not designated to the elderly the trips would be expected to be higher. It is important to note that the elderly slant is there. Mr. Trias stated that that sometimes there could be emergency connections that are done. Not necessarily on opened streets and make it a little better and safer. He is not going to make any comments on the quality of the grid around this area or the type of urban development that happens. He does not have any particular objections since the same method is being continued. He did state that there are some issues in reference to safety, the cul-de-sacs are very long. That is a code issue. Mr. Kelly replied 1,000 feet is the length for the cul-de-sac to meet code. Ms. Dreyer stated she is understands that there will not be a separate manager on site, but that the management of this community will be governed by the ALF to the North. She asked if this was a correct assumption. Mr. Poloskey replied that the two projects together would be operated as one campus. There will be staff associated with the functions required as far as maintenance, activities, and security. The general Ms. Dreyer asked staff how this project would be monitored to make sure it would be a retirement community. It is being approved on the basis of it being for elderly, is there a mechanism to ensure that is what it will be used for. Mr. Kelly replied that it was a very good question but he is not sure if he has a good answer at this time. If that question is referenced in the motion then he will have an answer before it goes before the County Commission. Ms. Dreyer stated that if it were a few simple lots then maybe deed restrictions would be an avenue. This is a rental community and she does not think that would work in this case. Mr. Kelly stated that with the companion project under construction to the North and working with the developer and knowing his intent of going through with this group living thing staff had not seen a problem. He stated maybe there is a need to lock that down and if referenced it would give Staff time to check in to it. Ms. Dreyer stated that there is a need to reference it and research it. Mr. Hearn has two concerns. There three structures at the east end of road leading in to the th property. He wants to be sure there is enough room for traffic to exit 25 Street and not be backed up in anyway. He understands that this is an elderly community and there probably will not be that much traffic. Several months ago when he was on the Board of Adjustment, they had to deal with a project on North Hutchinson Island. They were denied their request to have a gate in front, due to concerns of traffic. If there is room to meet code there that is fine. Mr. Poloskey replied in reference to the gated entrance, they have the requirements from the County Code. This entrance does meet that particular code. Mr. Hearn asked which one of those structures is where their cars will stop. He asked if it was the center structure. Mr. Poloskey replied in the affirmative to the center structure. Mr. Hearn asked how much distance is between that and the road. Mr. Acquart replied that it is about 80 feet. Mr. Hearn stated that it should be fine. Mr. Acquart wanted to point out that as a licensed assisted living facility there is no age limitation to move in to one. However, the reality is younger people and families do not want to live in a setting that is geared toward the elderly. The social programs, services offered, and activities are very geared toward the elderly. He does not have a problem creating an age limitation that they are allowed to create. But from a practical matter they have never had a middle age person with a family want to move in to one of the retirement projects. It just is not a compatible living arrangement. Mr. Merritt stated there is a parcel in the m asked if someone else owns by this corporation or that parcel. Mr. Acquart stated that is a separate owner entirely. Mr. Merritt asked where their access is. Mr. Acquart replied that he believes it is Wildwood Lane. Wildwood Lane runs right up to that lot. Mr. Poloskey explained that the way staff is showing it is different. Chairman Matthes reiterated that this is not a separate parcel; it is part of the whole. Mr. Merritt asked if the zoning for that parcel is also RS-4. Mr. Flores replied in the affirmative. Everything in yellow on the map is RS-4 and the ALF is Institutional. Mr. Merritt asked about the screening takes in that parcel, since he did not have a landscape plan to look at. Mr. Flores said the screening goes up the north and west property lines. Mr. Merritt asked why there were not be a screening requirement. Mr. Flores stated that to his understanding from Residential to Residential there is not a requirement for screening. He stated that is something the developer and engineering firm put on their property, this board could condition that the screening is extended. Mr. Merritt stated that his concern is that there is a special type project and more less an enclave in the middle that will not get in protection from screening. Chairman Matthes asked if at this point do they know what the enclave is going to be. Mr. Flores replied it is currently used as a pasture. Mr. Acquart stated he has been out to the site and it is a heavily wooded lot. Mr. Trias asked what type of screening would be satisfactory. There have been several comments to that issue and there has not been a specific proposal. It would be useful if someone can make a specific recommendation. Chairman Matthes asked for any comments. Mr. Acquart asked if a 6 foot high opaque screening. He asked if that would accomplish any concerns any one has. Mr. Lounds stated that 8-ft might be more conducive. There will be more height at a distance and a thicker sound barrier. There have been several things that have been used for vegetative barriers from red cedars, which are native to Florida to anything thick. Trees are not as good sound barrier as to a vegetative hedge would be. He would not ask anyone to put up a fence because no one will maintain it. Mr. Acquart stated to clarify there is a vegetative hedge already proposed as in transition with the trees. Mr. Lounds stated he did not see that but he will look at it closer. AGENDA ITEM #3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT Chairman Matthes declared that the Board was now meeting as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated that in the packet was the last part of the Comprehensive Plan that will be seen for a while. This is the Capitol Improvements Element, it is one of the most difficult to put together. Part of that reason is because the financial picture of the County is not always rosy. There is one table in this element that is still blank and will be referenced at a later time during this meeting. The reason for the table being blank is the budget is still being worked on and it is hard to get the numbers until that is done. This does have a data and analysis section and a goals, objectives, and policies section. It is broken down in to four areas. One is the overview of the Mr. Grande stated that the Goals, Objectives and Policies, page 1 of 28, Objective 11.1.1 the second line establishes, should be establish and on the third line determines, should be determine. He believes these are just typos, but these need to be changed to be consistent with the previous. On page 10, Policy 11.1.1.27 on the second line it mentions the Port of Fort Pierce, which should be struck out. On page 14, Policy 11.1.2.4 B Existing Development, he asked if on Mr. Kelly replied that he believes it should change. This is an area that did not change, so this is the wording that came out of the existing plan. That does not make it right, he just has to change it. Mr. Grande stated he agreed with that comment. The reason why he asked the question is with that change if you go back to the top of that page Policy 11.1.2.2, then that entire paragraph should be deleted. That paragraph defines the existing development requirements. Which are development and the second definition is correct. He suggests deleting Policy 11.1.2.2 and leaving the 11.1.2.4 B Existing Development definition. Mr. Kelly reiterated the definition and explained he was trying to think in his own mind why there would be two definitions there. Mr. Grande stated that he looked at this very closely. He thinks the second one was added and at the time it was added the first one should have been eliminated. Mr. Kelly replied that he would scratch it and read it very carefully later. At this time it appears Mr. Grande is correct. Mr. Grande stated on page 19, Item #6 at the top of the page should be deleted. If you go back to page 9, the Neighborhood Park land has been deleted, so it should also be deleted off page 19. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative. Mr. Grande Mr. Kelly stated that Port facilities were not deleted for a reason. The reason is because the County might still have an obligation in the Channel. If it is called a facility, that would be a place that there could be publicly funded infrastructure. He mentioned that instead of deleting, it just needs to be clarified. Mr. Grande stated that the reference on page 28 only relates to Port facilities in Coastal high hazard areas. If you look on the bottom of page 27, the last part is strictly the Coastal high hazard area portion. He does not believe the County has intentions of having Port facilities in the Coastal high hazard area. Mr. Kelly concurred. Mr. Hearn stated t explanation of that meaning. Mr. Kelly replied that is a title that was in the previous plan. In his mind it is kind of odd and different from all of the other Goals, Objectives and Policies because they do not have a little centered title above each goal. The intent was to say that the needs were being looked at with this. The most important thing is the goal rather than that title. On page 19 there is a title that useful these little titles are and possibly they should be deleted. These were just wordings that were in the prior plan. Mr. Hearn had no objective with the title, but would like to see something that is a little easier to understand or know the purpose of it. It just seems like incorrect wording and also seems out of place. There was a general discussion of other wording that could be used in replace of the titles as they are currently. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not sure what should be used there. He is just stating that he is not comfortable with the way it is. On page 7 of 28, the new table, he would like to make one comment. As a member of this board he sometimes feels a little uncomfortable approving documents that the table is blank or incomplete. He would like this comment sent to the Commissioners. On page 8 of 28, Policy 11.1.1.13, Section C, he would like that sentence to end in a period and place Section D behind it. level of service at the next opportunity. The purpose of providing for the temporary operation below the adopted level of service is to provide a reasonable period of time to restore the level of service through appropriate improvements to roads that are forecast to operate at the adopted ems like it would make more sense to have it read that way. Mr. Kelly stated he followed what Mr. Hearn suggested, but he did not follow when he suggested it read like something else. Mr. Hearn replied that Section C would read exactly as it is with a Then continue C with section D after the first sentence. Mr. Kelly stated that he understood and had just got confused some how. Mr. Lounds asked if that would change the intent at all. Mr. Hearn believes the change will clarify it. temporary operation below the adopted level of service. She said that did not seem to be consistent with it and made no sense to her. She stated obviously no one would be putting up a permits, unless she is missing something. standard. Then we have listed four items that may be utilized to fix that situation. The first one of them is to enter a contract, which will result in additional capacity within 6 months. The for the upgraded facility. The third one is to amend a plan to a lower level of service at the next opportunity. That is a pretty permanent decision in change and linking something temporary to that. He does not think makes any sense. What is being said is there is an adopted level of Ms. Dreyer s all. It actually is a continuation of the introductory paragraph at the top. She thinks it is a formatting error. is not consistent with what Mr. Hearn has suggested. Mr. Kelly replied that we have not ever got to a point where we refused to issue any permit. There has been a point where a developer has come in with a site plan for 20,000 sq ft of retail Mr. Merritt asked if we refuse to issue development rights. Are we not taking the property rights and can the County sue. Mr. Lancaster stated that was a complex issue. The easiest way to look at it is if there are vested rights there. Then they have a right to build at that time. Without any other consideration it would be difficult for the County to say no. It is more of a vested rights issue. Mr. Merritt asked if the vested right if the zoning said something conflicting. Mr. Lancaster replied that just zoning does not give a vested right. Generally it takes some movement toward proceeding with a development investing money to get final approval. Mr. Merritt stated that at a certain point either by the applicant or property owners; there would be vested rights to proceeding to a certain point. Mr. Lancaster stated that was the theory of vested rights. Now how that works with issues are in conflict with an existing Comprehensive Plan. He is not sure if that has been litigated or not. Mr. Grande stated he does believe that having this type of series of possibilities in the Comprehensive Plan would actually be helpful in the litigation situation. That is the more that is here defining the situation, more than likely the easier it would be to avoid or settle litigation if it came. He thinks if this kind of thing was not here, we would be much more likely to have litigation due to the ambiguity. He also believes that the prior comment was correct that is nting to A through D. if he wants to permanently lower the level of service. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not know if amending the plan temporarily is possible. There is no mechanism to force the LPA to come back and there are sunset provisions. Mr. Lancaster needs to speak to all of that issue. He would like to point out that there may me a time when we might wish to permanently amend the plan. In a more urban setting, someone Mr. Matthes explained level of service. Mr. Hearn said okay t is not an indication that must be done. It is an indication that if lowering the plan made sense it is an option that is available. Mr. Kelly stated not an option. Ms. Dreyer stated that on the question of stopping all development. She believes the Courts have ruled that reasonable regulatory delays are acceptable. She believes that the different options that are provided here would constitute the reasonable regulatory delays so one of those options could be used. Mr. Kelly prefers to avoid those situations. Mr. Heard PG 9 Policy 11.1.1.16 thru 24, they all start out with all the same wording and he would like them all to be consistent wording. To make the document more compatible. On. 11.1.1.16 and 17 he would like David to go explain the 88 gallons per day vs. the 130 gallons. Kelly does not remember Hearn stated it had to do with potable water and gray water. Kelly stated FPUA standards do not remember difference. Matthes stated difference is one is potable water and the other is sanitary sewer. Grande believes that is not the case. He believes both are potable water standards. He thinks 17 are the standard for potable h20 in areas that are served with sanitary sewer by FPUA. Kelly that was consistent with discussion Grande thinks the standards were based on experience reported these two systems. They came from Bill Blazak. FPUA served area is the islands where the sewer is and that are the reported information. He thinks they are accurate. Kelly some rational does not remember Stef cannot remember Hearn stated if both were potable water then the word needs to be used on both of them. plan. If you eliminate those four words you are covering the whole county. Trias does not understand what that means. What is the practical application of that? Hearn is saying that new development has to pay Trias understands the theory he is asking about policy does it mean high impact fees Kelly explained new public facilities would be funded in some manner. Merritt (HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HE Uttered!) residents will not subsidize new development. Hearn agrees Grande believes that change makes that paragraph consistent with all others adjust for the lack of revenues by an the overall comp plan. Dreyer has a problem in doing that. Because she is not sure the County always has other sources of revenue. The County only has sources of revenues that are given by the State. She is afraid this would put us in a bad situation. She would rather let the budget officer find ways to address those issued. Rather than just increase other sources of revenue, sometimes you must accept a lower level of service. option Merritt concur with Dreyer, Matthes concur with Dreyer, Grande concurs. Elected officials need to make the decision. of SLC to just sell the development rights. There was a discussion held by study group Kelly needs to read the whole policy in context to look at the #2. Hearn stated that the study group people should expand on that a little bit. Hearn PG 27 Section C, flood proofing water and sanitary sewerage facilities. He feels should Grande states County is in the business and still will be in the business in the future to provide H2o and sewer facilities in the Coastal high hazard areas. County currently considering purchase of existing facilities from FPUA or Martin County. He asked Hearn why he would want to strike that Hearn stated if want Grande says is true then he is wrong for wanting to strike that. Grande negotiations are in order Kelly thinks Hearn recognized that we he suggested it change it to existing. That would allow the flood proofing of existing plants. Grande greater probability for H2O. Hearn understands what Grande is saying. His intent was to limit the flood proofing to existing, not realizing they wanted to build new ones. Hearn would like to mention the grammatical errors and spelling areas. TURN THEM OVER TO STAFF Kelly if it borders on policy it needs to be discussed. rd Hearn pg. 3, 3 paragraph down Comp Plan for plans in the future. Page 4 discusses annexation in to the City. It does not have to take place immediately. Trias the annexation takes place when it becomes contiguous to the City. me language to change that clarifying of when the annexation takes place. th Hearn PG 6, 4 paragraph down talks about amending the boundary of the urban service area. His question is how does that amendment take place is there provisions or is it just staf Kelly distance 1500ft can be done by BCC w/out plan amendment. Hearn asked if that was a public hearing Kelly replied in the affirmative ndnd Hearn pg11, 2 paragraph, 2 construction industri hing everyone needs to realize and put a lot of emphasis on when discussing developing the County. ve the same heading. He thinks it would be a good idea if all the tables matched tional license fee has not increased at all. Trias stated that the City of Fort Pierce had the same problem and the City Clerk just changed them. Hearn the rest just typos will give them to staff. concerned about the fundamental idea behind all of this that the level of service drives all the decisions. Which means they are driven by new growth. Given the fact that there is limited money in this County and in this world. That would be a direct policy of this investment of whatever roads, libraries, or any other facilities that are in places that are already existing. Lounds asked what the difference between a community park and a neighborhood park is by definition. Lounds asked about the Lakewood Park and that it is used heavily. Kelly stated that goes with the was a designation thing and all parks were put somewhere. There were no parks closed over this. Lounds problem is eliminating future growth of a development from having a nice community park that is specific for that development areas needs. e main thing that needs to be looked at in the Capital Improvement Trias asked what the process for doing a neighborhood park was. Murphy stated that the process is a neighborhood group would contact there County Commissioner and then it would trickle down and then staff would come back and say if it could be done or not. General discussion between Murphy and Trias. Lounds asked if the language in this document means there will not be a new Sports complex built in PSL if the money is not earmarked or funded for that. Murphy said NO Lounds asked if it was developed and the plans and the money for that park do not materialize does it prevent the County from picking it up and doing it. Murphy replied if the money is not available to construct the County facility from the variety of sources that are being pulled. Then the project will not proceed. Dreyer page 11-23 data analysis, Economic Enviro Murphy said not anymore Dreyer stated BCC has been supporting the Econ. Dev of the Chamber of Commerce. She thinks it needs to be expanded. Column 5 believes the amount of money in that column does not go to nd the chamber. Back to GOPS, PG 5 second. Paragraph, 2 sentence must have got dropped. It makes no sense to her. Dreyer PG 7-8 she does not understand the difference between B and C. are you just list specific roads under B and then everything else goes under C. Matthes stated once the table is there it will be clearer. Dreyer PG 10, Port of Fort Pierce, channel maintenance. It was taken out of the definitions on page 2. Does anything need to be in there governing any remaining interest that the county has regarding to the Port, recreational property and so on. away. He thinks what has ha of having separate standards Dreyer stated she understands now. Page11 she wants to know what the level of service, that are identified roadway segments. Kelly & Murphy answered. Matthes asked if that was with committed trips. Murphy explained more Dreyer reiterated that D was supposed to be the improved level of service. She is not certain if this paragraph would then allow an increase of 5% a year indefinitely. Because there has not been a year of improvement programmed. Murphy and Matthes agreed. Dreyer stated this whole section of the plan needed a chart to showing what the levels of service are on the roads that may exceed what we are proposing in our plan. Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Shirley Burlingham, blah County needs to delineate (change the title) pg 2, 11.1.1.2, Section C - be interpreted as being either Comp Plan or Dev Plan. You recognize it on 21 but not D. Kelly reiterated. Burlingham will be a lot of renumbering Kelly they decided they to not renumber until the end Burlingham PG 21, she has been going through this whole area. She believes the whole type sheet that she submitted way back in the beginning about impact fees had a lot to do with what is here. History shows that people used to put pilings out on the island and leave them there for years and then bulldoze them out and start putting up buildings. There have been a lot of resale out there and things have been grand fathered in for the last 20 years. She told the story of certain developers on the beach that have cleared land partially built and now they are at a standstill and all work has stopped. The property has been abandoned. This property will either go through bankruptcy or resale. When she looks at this section she wonders if you can put wording in there that will take care of the person and/or business that is buying this abandoned property. She wants to make sure that when someone buys an existing development that has not been completed that is a sore eye and we do not have the letters of credit and performance bonds. She would like to know if something could be added that in the event of bankruptcy or resale we are amending the plan. She would hate to think that there is not language in there that would take care of the next 5 years and be concerned with amending during that 5-year period. th Arena, in data section, page 11-1, 4 e needs can not be meet to nd paragraph. Kelly stated it is the correct word Matthes specified location of word. it seems Arena page 11- suppose to be? (Very difficult to understand what he said) Kelly made the change couple different small ones. Kelly can change that Kelly okay sorry Hearn where is that at? Arena, page 8, policy 1.1.11 in his opinion A & B should be switched, because redevelopment Transit is Economically feasible. Grande back to page 6, his understanding once that order is approved it is considered a done deal of vested interest. He is thinking that existing A, Band C are correct. Where redevelopment is discussed it is actually new order for redevelopment which are lowering the priority scheme then Arena has a different opinion but Grande is probably correct. On page 10 of 28 Section D should be a list of policies on the preceding page. You have policy 19 standard for level of service such. Grande stated it should be part of the paragraph under 11.1.19, A Arena, page 13 Objecti Arena has a question on Policy 1.2.1 it refers to reject by referendum on the bottom 9. Does SLC have referendums? Kelly explained uphold the standards of the community. Kelly thinks he is correct. To say it is never amended is to say it is always right and he does not want to go there Arena, every third page it mentions amendment to the Comp Plan. On the back of data and Hearn would like to agree with Arena. It needs other language that could say as a last resort we could amend the Comp Plan. To make it so acceptable to do that if we are going to raise our standards Grande feels everyone is running ahead of ourselves. On #3 PG 21 is within the context of the within the context of allowing an exception. Arena, why not amend the Comp Plan now and make room for exception. agrees it is not the most comfortable language. Matthes the Comp Plan is a comprehensive document. Arena page 24 of 28 why would policy 11.1.4.7 be struck out. It seems it should be there Kelly believes it came out of the evaluation and appraisal report General Discussion. Matthes asked if the Comp Plan is only updated 5 years. Kelly stated that is correct but there is a policy to review it annually. Murphy Capital Improve Element is supposed to be updated annually. It is the only one part of the Comp Plan that is allowed to be self-amending. Normally you must have a formal amendment process to amend the process. Matthes should this policy be in or out? Murphy it should stay in. At least 11.1.4.6 should stay and 11.1.4.7 should stay Matthes could this be referenced somewhere else Kelly does not recall referencing elsewhere. He will put them back in and check if they are referenced elsewhere. Wells PG 8 of 28 GOPS, 11.1.13, Section C & D she wondered if it was possible to say rvice at the next opportunity until the road is General discussion taken out Matthes NO Wells, it should be in there as a possibility. There is a state law that governs that. Matthes D will stay as a single sentence issue of a development order, if it is constituted the order were constitute a threat to public Matthes ROAD RAGE Wells, not saying to take out just saying to consider adding something to cover ourselves. Lancaster that is a very BROAD issue Grande narrow for a person BROAD for an attorney defining Kelly Thank you Wells, are those 4 roads in no need for improvement. Matthes NO madam they are on a list for improvement. There is not any funding Wells, perhaps there should be wording to not allow us to overcrowd a backlogged road. Matthes the intent is to allow some development to occur General discussion on general discussion on how the roadway process works Wells concerned about this due to ROAD RAGE. You constantly hear of people moving up here to get away from bad traffic situation. Wells, page 27, discussion of flood proofing, would it be prudent to make the change Hearn suggested. Hearn from the comments he heard there will be a need for new facilities Grande on this specific item, this is North and South Hutch Island. Very unique situations. (Explained to Wells what he explained to Hearn earlier) Matthes close the public hearing Lounds asked Lancaster if the County can ask a new development buying an uncompleted development (resale or bankruptcy) come back and resubmit and is it in the plan or do they only come back to change what has currently been done Lancaster within the context of that particular part the bond will cover a period of time. Lounds stated in one of the plans we extended from 5 years to 8 years on development request. Murphy there was a modification on vegetation issues. (Explained general changes) Grande motions forward the Capital Improvement Element to the County Commission with the recommendation of approval with the changes that have been made at the meeting this evening as recorded by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Merritt seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 6-1 and forwarded to the County Commissioners for approval with the recommended changes. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lounds made a comment on last month meeting, he indicated that there were a tremendous amount of information given out in the black book regarding the impact fees matters, the more he reads it the more he understands it and the more he ask questions about it. He thinks with the book the members of the board can do two semesters in community development and economic development growth the blue book. The county commission is going to vote on that in 2 weeks. Mr. Murphy replied that the only thing that change in the ordinances where the fee tables. The real guts are chapter one, section one. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Murphy if what they approve was a lesser amount than what it originally was submitted in December by the consultant. Mr. Murphy answered that was the actual amount. Mr. Grande informed that Dr. Nicholas suggested numbers in some specifics areas and by the time th Mr. Murphy respond there was a review draft that had a higher number in the fire area that was Tape change Mr. Murphy stated that on policies 16 and 17, county portable water system was 88 gallon a day for the unincorporated county serve by sanitary sewer system own by FBUA the standard is 130 gallon a day Mr. Mattes questioned the difference; as per him it should be the reverse. Mr. Grande explained that both were portable water standards, 17 are the standard in area that has sanitary sewer system serve by FBUA. He believes that these standards came from Bill Blasac and they are based on experience. The FBUA served area like basically the islands; he thinks they are dirtier out there than the rest of the county. facility on base o benefits receive by existing and future resident so that current resident will not Mr. Trias asked what that policy means It means as we looked to new public facility, they should be founded in some manner that looks at the benefit receive by existing and future resident. Mr. Grande supported the change in the verbiage. amended to adjust for the lack of revenues in any e, their only source of revenue is given by the state, she thinks the budget officer look for ways to address those issues on lack of revenues. Mr. Grande stated that the problem is the elected officials and if they consistently make the wrong choices. People would tend to chose new elected officials, they need this options because Mr. Hearn pursued on page 21, #2 raised his concern about a note that says in the event of bankruptcy by the developer t be in the county interest to just sell the development rights without going to the same process ould Mr. Grande rejected Mr. Hearn point, the county is in the business and will be in the business in the future of providing water and sanitary sewer facilities in the coastal high hazard areas, the county is considering either purchase of existing facilities from FBUA or Martin County and if proofing that should been done. Mr. Hearn agreed that he was wrong Mr. Grande said there is a movement in the county to move the sanitary sewage facility that are serving the main land of f of the islands but they are sanitary sewage facility separate from the one in Fort Pierce on the island, that serve the islands, the latest one was completed in the last 24 months, the sewer facility on South Hutchinson Island. ng, those systems while the plants are there, there is additional infrastructure needed in order to make them continue to serve the resident on the island and there maybe flood proofing needed with some of that new infrastructure which is associated with the existing plant. Mr. Grande stated that the same is true of water. There is even a greater probability on the water side because the sewer sanitary facilities are in place and generally speaking they would be existing but there may be additional construction of water facilities sometimes within a close Mr. Hearn added: rd On page3, the 3 significant the future. place immediately, it take place when it become continuous to the city he requested some clarification on the time of annexation because it could be 10 years from now, it would be wrong to put it the way it is. th On page 6,4 paragraph where it talk about amending the boundaries of the urban service area how does the amending the boundaries takes place. Mr. Kelly informed there is the ability to amend the boundaries on limited amount and the distance is 1500 feet, county commission can do that without amending the plan. More than that would require an amendment of the plan. It may come up as a part of public hearing on another item rather than its own public Hearing. nd Mr. Hearn prolong with page 11, 2 paragraph says Ste. Lucie county depend grandly on Agriculture and construction industry for creating a solid economic environment he would like to see the tourist industry mentioned in the sentence. In the next paragraph it says Ste. Lucie will have to depend very heavily on the increase in land valuation, the development of the county lot of interest because land valuation going to give the tax pace witch going to pay our bill. fee had not increased. Mr. Trias asked what are the capital improvement that are going to happen and the fundamental idea behind all this is that all those decisions are doing by the level of service witch mean they are doing by new growth which mean considering the limited.