Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Workshop Minutes 02-28-2001 St. Lucie County Community Development Planning Division Transportation Workshop Meeting Minutes February 28, 2001 PRESENT: John Arena, Earth First; Lloyd Bell, Owner in Port; Harriet Brenner, Resident; Shirley Burlingham, North Hutchinson Island & St. Lucie Waterfront Council; Howard Conklin, Attorney and Chamber of Commerce; Mike Eduoff, St. Lucie Economic Development; Study Group; Emily Grande, South Hutchinson Island; Bill Hearn, Bird Sanctuary Owner; Ed Hearn, Resident; Jeanne Hearn, St. Lucie Waterfront Council; David Hefflebower, Marine Interests; David Kelly, County Planning Manager; Bill Lesché, Indian River; Harry Levine, Resident; Dawnelle Lewis, Planning Assistant; Wes South Hutchinson Island; Rick Minton; H. B. Moore, St. Lucie Village; Martin E. Murphy, Marina; Kenneth Roberts, Works with Mr. Bell; Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director; Cyndi Snay, County Planner; Richard W. Thoma, St. Lucie Village; Alex Verdi, St. Lucie Village; Betty Lou Wells, Conservation Alliance and Study Group; T.A. Wyner, Sunny Palms Nature Wildlife Sanctuary and Study Group. Mr. Kelly said the Draft Transportation Element, which was requested at the County Commission meeting the other night. Mr. Kelly distributed the Draft Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly asked for any inconsistencies. Mr. Hearn stated on the August 31, 2000 Draft, the language started out the same in the to provide airport facilities that st Mr. Hearn stated down a little further on the August 31 Draft, there were two policies that were not numbered, they were shaded, and they have disappeared. Mr. Kelly said he does need to check one to the other with Mr. Hearn. Mr. Kelly said the focus of today is really for the Port, probably as much or more than the Airport. 1 AIRPORT : Mr. ? stated that the Transportation Element just handed out is quite inconsistent with what was approved by Planning and Zoning to the degree that he is not sure we are starting from the right spot. art facility serving general aviation and the air transportation of the community. policy seems to be gone. Mr. ? stated there is a place that it should be which is following Objective 4.1.1. It is the first policy that was approved following and relating to that specific Objective and it Ms. ? stated when there have been changes in the past, the changes have been done in italics, shaded or deleted out, and what we saw as changes appear to be as though there are no changes. They are part of the document as though they have always been part of the document without any italics, shaded or deleted. Mr. Kelly replied the way to handle this is to distribute the pre-existing policies and review policy by policy. Mr. Verdi stated that there is nothing in the Element to take care of the citizens living near the Airport. Mr. Thoma commented on the diagraphical errors, the inexact reference to the length of the runways, which is in conflict with what is on the map. Ms. ? asked if there could be included any hours of operation or hours of testing jet engines. The Airport needs to be neighborhood-friendly to some extent. Also, have the Airport Director live within 2 miles of the Airport in case of an emergency situation or so that he can see and hear for himself what goes on. Mr. Kelly mentioned that he is not sure the Comprehensive Plan is the proper location for the hours. That might be included under Operations. It will be researched. Mr. ? suggested to continue to work with the Airport in developing sensible rules and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande commented that in the new versions, recognition of the Savannas on the Airport has been deleted. Mr. Kelly stated that he would look into that also. Mr. McKay mentioned that the name Walton Road Bridge should be deleted. 2 Mr. Kelly agreed and stated that the map will not show a crossing at that location. They will speak of a third bridge crossing at an undisclosed location. There were two sets of maps for some strange reason, but they will be changed. Ms. ? mentioned Lakewood Pond either. And there was a noise abatement problem at both places. PORT : Mr. Kelly handed out policies that are already in the Coastal Element in lieu of what is in the Port Element and also the description that is in the data and analysis. Ms. Shewchuk said the previous Goals and Objectives are being replaced at the request of the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Arena mentioned that there needs to be a limitation on the size and volume of ships coming into our inlet and showed a diagram of one primary reason blowing sediment up into the water column which needs to be taken into account. Mr. Hefflebower stated that they have a marina in the Port area. The County, acting as a currently all privately owned except for 20 acres that the County purchased. He would like to see the County, acting as a Port Authority, enter into some sort of a joint port operation with a private group, perhaps appointed by the Governor or appointed by someone who can provide an even-handed operation. Maybe some property owners in the area should be appointed to operate the Port. Ms. Shewchuk stated why there is no mention of these specific details in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wells mentioned that at their Study Group meeting Monday night, they came up with a very simplified Policy, Goal and Objective, which is on the Blue Sheet passed around. The Goal wo Master Plan that will encourage new development and redevelopment at the Port of Ft. Pierce which will be both economically and ecologically sustained, broaden the tax base, protect the quality of life and the habitat of the Indian River Lagoon, the Ft. Pierce Inlet, shall by January 15, 2002, develop and implement a Port Master Plan that provides for development at the Port of Ft. Pierce which is consistent with Goal 13.1 and with the City Mr. ? said the old Comp Plan is a very technical document. Maybe rather than to try to put a lot of Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Comp Plan and a Port Master Plan, maybe we need to do something that is a lot simpler to lay the groundwork for the Port Master Plan. 3 Mr. Kelly responded that we came remarkably close with what the Study Group did and what was just passed out. Mr. ? asked if this is intended to give the City of Ft. Pierce the veto on any plan unless it has their plan incorporated? Ms. Shewchuk responded that no, this is intergovernmental coordination. Mr. Kelly started to review the Goals one at a time beginning with Goal 7.5. st Mr. ? asked if October 1 is a state-mandated date that the Port Master Plan has to be developed by. Ms. Shewchuk replied that no, we just wanted to get it done with the next budget fiscal year. Mr. Hearn expressed his concerns about the increase of cargo ships into the Ft. Pierce Inlet. ster Plan existing Mr. ? asked if you were to take 7.5.1 and modify it as Ms. Shewchuk had proposed, that Mr. ? said to review 7.51.4 because the language is extremely loose and sloppy in the sense that the City and County has had a long workshop about jurisdictional issues and who does what in the Master Plan, but he thought the County had primary jurisdiction and the City had to make its plan comply with whatever the County came out in its Master Plan. Is that correct? If it does not conform, where are you? Ms. Shewchuk said the two documents have to be consistent with each other, but to question which one takes precedence if it comes to the point of argument, has not been thout the other and they have to be consistent with each other. Mr. ? said if you go for State funding, which you are going to have to do, it will come to what they want to do. The Charrette more or less cut out, except for one area, large enough about that Port to pay out of their tax money, out of their homes, for the purchase 4 of that land. Immediately the County should have turned around and also put on the Policy 7.5.1.1 is a State Requirement. Mr. ? asked was 7.5.1 changed and are we disregarding the inclusion of the 1996 Port of Ft. Pierce Charrette report? Ms. ? said there was great disagreement about what that Charrette actually decided and produced. The flex zone was put in there after the whole thing was over. Policy 7.5.1.2 Mr. ? suggested that 7.5.1.2 either be expanded also or have the following sentence that Lucie County B the way of putting the Indian River Lagoon and its interaction with existing and proposed Port activities that would give you the oversight, if you will, to make sure that the plan that is produced is consistent with the policy. Mr. Bell stated that we are overlooking one very vital factor that this Port is not a local facility. It is one of 14 major deep-water ports in the State of Florida. The Federal Government took this Port over one time in the past and it could be taken over again. We have to be consistent in our use of the Port so it remains an asset of the United States of America. It is now being maintained by the U.S. Corp of Engineers and not by Oskaloosa County. It is vital to the economic good of this County that it stay in the maintenance of the Corp of Engineers because it is rather expensive for us to take over that responsibility. We should look at what requirements are imposed on us by the Federal Government, then by the State Government, then by the importance of the Port to the region, not just St. Lucie County and then to our local needs. Mr. ? asked Mr. Bell is it mandated anywhere that St. Lucie County or the City of Ft. Pierce expand the cargo operations at the Port of Ft. Pierce when we have a viable cargo operation going on there now that is underutilized? Mr. Bell responded that there is no mandate to his knowledge that says how it has to be used or to what level it has to be used, but there is a mandate that says it has to be maintained for the public good and cargo use for those that demand the service. If we Mr. ? said the airports until they are used to their capacity and Indian River Terminal Company could use some expansion as he sees it. 5 Mr. Bell said there were 87 acres of land in the Charrette a Port, it just said that that 87 acres was addressed and it gave very explicit details of what was approved. Ms. Shewchuk said this discussion gets more to a detailed level, which will be addressed in the Port Master Plan, which we are awaiting submission of the scope of work from some consultants, where the public participation will be very extensive. We are taking down comments, which will be addressed as part of the Port Master Plan. The Advisory Council cannot say it has to approve it because it is Advisory Council. We can add a policy to this where we can say the Draft Port Master Plan should be reviewed by: The Blue Way Advisory Council, by the Port property owners, the Port group, with recommendations to the Board of County Commission. We can add a policy to that insuring that all the parties that hopefully will be involved anyway in the process of developing this will have a final review with the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners but we cannot give them authority to approve or deny. Mr. ? said he has spent the last 3 years focusing in on the coastal element of this Comprehensive Plan and he appreciates what Mr. Bell says about the importance of the Port on a State and Federal level. That Port is also in the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary, which is a National resource that must be protected for the people of the United States. nobody mentioned. We have messed up generation after generation. You better be thinking about the next 3 generations coming up about what you put in those guidelines. Ms. Shewchuk said we will research and the Plan will be consistent with both Federal and State guidelines. Mr. ? said Chapter 163 is a State Law but the 1989 Master Plan tries to speak to who is this new plan to clear the air here. Not only should it be consistent with the State statutes, it should be consistent with whatever County and/or City elements that are out there that impact the Port Master Plan. Policy 7.5.13 Mr. ? asked if the length of the inlet of the seaboard could be included in the limits since that dredging is a crucial part. Mr. Arena asked if tourism could be added after recreational? Policy 7.5.14 Ms. Shewchuk said in one of the letters the DCA sent, if there is a conflict between the goes to the Treasure 6 appropriate language. Mr. ? said he remembers at the DCA workshop there was a deadline placed that State st funds were dependent upon this Plans agreement by December 1. Com. Coward said if we are not concerned with those funds were, then we are not really under a deadline. He is not sure exactly what funds were included. Mr. Kelly said they would work on some language that deals with that. Ms. ? said this Port could expand similar to the Port of Palm Beach. Mr. Kelly said the intent was not to ignore the City first of all to avoid the conflict, but to attempt to address what happens if we are not successful at avoiding that conflict. We are still leaving the City there as a player, but we are trying to do a better job than just say Mr. ? said the Ft. Pierce Council of the Chamber of Commerce have spoken with the Mayor of the City of Ft. Pierce and the representatives from the Terminal present at a very informal meeting and just from that interaction, he thinks there were two directions being talked about. He thinks there will be a conflict situation. Mr. Kelly said the attempt is to address if and when it occurs, rather than to cut either side out. Mr. ? said Ms. Shewchuk seemingly brought some finality to what happens if there is conflict. The conversation he overheard between the DCA and our attorney, there is still some question as to whether or not that was even the case. a law which DCA referred to as to how any conflict will be resolved and we will refer right back to that. Ms. ? said when DCA was here, he thinks they offered to come back and help us. Ms. Shewchuk said we would call the DCA and make sure that we have the right references to this policy. Mr. Ginns said in order for the language to be consistent throughout, these polices on Page 65, 7 saying the Port Master Plan controls the implementation of these policies? Mr. ? said he because you get into a matter of if one party, i.e., the City wants to stonewall you, you 7 indelicate way to treat it. Coordination seems like a spirited cooperation language as e Port Master Plan with the St. Mr. Hearn said in 7.5.12, he thinks it would be consistent with the intent of the Comp Plan Study Group that if some of this language that we have proposed be incorporated into that policy. More specifically it talks about new development and re-development of weak statement as far as really protecting the lagoon. Policy 7.5.15 Mr. Ginns said in 7.5.15, to really have a multi-modal system, you have to have balance of roads and transit that access into and between major activity centers, ports and airports. The idea is to have a systemic approach and a balance of investments and that is what our comments will be directed towards. Look at the language in 9J5 and have it match. Policy 7.5.16 lop new Mr. Kelly said it was intended to be only examples. Mr. Ginns stated that TIP is the mechanism used by the Community Redevelopment Agency to fund improvements within the Community Redevelopment Agency. The taxes are set at a predetermined level and any improvements made to properties above that are then redirected. Ms. Shewchuk mentioned the increase in property taxes above that value, rather than going to the General Fund, would be redirected back into that area for improvement such as infrastructure. Mr. Kelly said it could be used as a financing mechanism. Mr. ? said he has not seen any reference to the OEDP (Overall Economic Development Council), which is being developed by the Regional Planning Council in terms of its responsibilities as Regional Economic Development Council. That OEDP is crucial to getting Federal funding for any project. It is required by the US Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration. If it is n qualify. 8 Ms. Shewchuk said now it is SEDS and that will be added. Blue Sheet Ms. Shewchuk will submit to the County Commission as a suggestion from the Study Group and submit with all the changes discussed today as a proposal from the group who worked on it today. They will have two different versions at the second public hearing. The Board of County Commission can pick and chose between these two different versions. Ms. Shewchuk said the copies should be available by the end of next week. Ms. Shewchuk handed out an agenda which gives the times and dates of the public hearings. She said the newspapers would give a bit of an advance notice regarding the elements. Ms. ? said the major elements (Future Land Use, Transportation) should be designated so people can plan their schedule ahead. th Ms. Shewchuk said that will be discussed at the March 6 meeting and see if the County Commission is willing to do that, designate a certain element for a certain date. Ms. ? asked if the Capital Improvements could not possibly be finished up and moved up a little bit so that it would not have a first hearing and then a second hearing potentially a week apart. Ms. Shewchuk said she is working with the other departments to get their five-year work programs, but as she goes along, she may be able to schedule it earlier. Ms. ? asked if they can assume that the most recent data is now part of the new Transportation Element. Mr. Ginns said there are actually some policies from the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee that are looking to be incorporated into the new berth management laws that are coming out. There is some legislation adopted from that Group, but it -ng that said these are the recommendations, these are the rules that came out of that. In fact, it really Federal document and that is a State study. Mr. Kelly said this was 30-some recommendations, most if not all of which were aimed particularly at things the State should do for local governments instead of things that local governments should do, so it was very difficult to incorporate into the Comp Plan. It was really a policy statement about things above local government and what they should do for local government. 9 th Mr. Kelly said on March 6, we are going to start with Infrastructure and Economic Development and Intergovernmental Coordination and we are going to go as far as we can go in two hours. Ms. Shewchuk said this is the second public hearing. The comments that were received at the first public hearing have been incorporated into these elements and will be presented as such to the County Commission. Any comments you have on this now should probably be presented at the hearing. The elements have been distributed so we Mr. ? asked to get together later with Ms. Shewchuk regarding the DNA. Mr. Hearn said this was a very meaningful and opportune time to exchange ideas with each other. Mr. Kevin ? asked about the map that was just passed out. Ms. Shewchuk said they were passed out at the County Commission Hearing and she Ms. Shewchuk also had the Planning and Zoning Meeting minutes handed out. She asked for any comments regarding the Transportation Element and any inconsistencies. Mr. ? asked about the Urban Services boundary. The Urban Services boundary should be was his understanding that there was direction to take off the map all new roads outside the Urban Services. Ms. Shewchuk said there were specifically mentioned two roads that were supposed to be taken off. Mr. ? asked if the Becker Road Extension was mentioned. Ms. Shewchuk said there was no direction to take that one off. you had seen the Urban Services boundary or not. Ms. Shewchuk said they would show the Urban Service area on those maps. Mr. McCurry asked which two roads were going to be affected on these maps. 10 Ms. Shewchuk said the one that goes to proposed Westchester, up and connects to Shin Road. And the other one was the alignment of the connection through The Reserve that we showed basically as a straight westerly alignment and it was supposed to be changed to go up the canal as to be consistent with the development order, just to Glades Cutoff. Mr. McCurry asked for a quick explanation of the relationship between the 20/25 Plan and the Transportation Element. Ms. Shewchuk responded that consistency is the relationship. Mr. McCurry asked which one is supposed to be consistent with the other? Which one drives which one? Ms. Shewchuk responded that since the 20/25 Plan is going to be adopted before the Comprehensive Plan so it is incorporated into it but the Comprehensive Plan is more general and more encompassing. Mr. McCurry asked being that those roadways are being taken off the maps within the Transportation Element, is that to construe that those roadways would not be supported if they were ever proposed? Ms. Shewchuk responded that is an issue that is going to come up at the MPO Meeting on Thursday. Mr. ? said that is why, again taking roads off a map versus policies is important. to take them off the map. Mr. ? said that he thought he heard a policy direction there too, but if not, maybe it is something that we can comment on. He will put it in my comments. Honestly, do you think that is inconsistent with taking those roads off the map or is to have a policy that Ms. Shewchuk responded that it certainly is not incons do it but if you want to include that as a portion of your comments and suggest that for inclusion and action by the Board, certainly do so. Mr. ? asked if there was any reason for leaving St. Lucie Village off these maps? How long ago did you do these? A month or two? Ms. Shewchuk responded that St. Lucie Village is probably included in the 20/25 Plan, but in the County Comprehensive Plan, St. Lucie Village is not part of that. Mr. ? responded that we are a community, a village in St. Lucie County. 11 Ms. Shewchuk responded that if there is room, St. Lucie Village will be labeled on there. Ms. ? asked going back to the Goal which appeared different, once the Element has gone to the Commission once, has gone through the hearing, then the Study Group has changes that came from the Commission? Before italics, underlining, etc. were done to show the changes. Ms. Shewchuk responded that we will do something very similar. The Transportation Element now went through it for the first time and comments from the Board were received. Those revisions will be presented in italics. We will present this one and shade it and we will present the recommendations from this group in reverse italics. Basically that is how you will see it. All the revisions will be included in the draft that will go to the second public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners. What will appear for the second public hearing is the revisions that came out of the first public hearing. Ms. ? asked in the Housing Element, remember back when it went to the Commission and there was the talk of the $10,000 Grant to study migrant housing needs and that was diverted to studying mobile home parks. Can you tell me why we need to study mobile housing? Ms. Shewchuk responded that there is definitely a need to study migrant housing. At the time it was Board direction there was more of an immediate need to get an inventory of the type and location because there is no handle on it on RVs and mobile homes to do a survey to see where they are for structural positions and that was pretty much, she thinks, for taxation purposes and see where they are because of the general tax revenue. Ms. ? asked if there is no demand for a study of migrant housing for the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Snay responded that they utilized the data that was given to them from the State of Florida. Ms. ? asked if anyone else in this room lives within the city limits of Ft. Pierce. Raised hands showed about seven. She said she was at the Charrette for all three days. It seems as if we are working under organized chaos. There is lack of cooperation, lack of inclusion. She does sit on the City Planning and Zoning Board. Remember, the prevailing wind in St. Lucie County is predominantly east to west. Or it fluctuates between northeast to southwest, southeast to northwest. She lived next door to a Port in Morehead City, North Carolina. Mr. ? commented that his plan in mind was a merger of interests between the Bahamas and Ft. Pierce, very simple. These other aspects that have come up that he knew nothing about, he believes, put Ft. Pierce in a very enviable position of possibly becoming one of 12 the great success stories in the history of Florida. He got back this week from an exploratory trip to the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. From there he was looking at the cargo potentials. He went on to Germany and searched the mega-yacht industry. There is a tremendous capability of very clean cargo, very beneficial economic cargos that could come out of the Middle East here, but today, this afternoon, an hour before coming to this meeting, he received a fax from representatives of the mega-yacht industry saying they would like to have all the property he has. The retrofitting, the maintenance and the housing of mega-yachts would be working with something that is already existing. That to him looks like it is relatively depression-proof. Three of the majors said they would like to have all of his 67 acres. He does want to make a statement that in looking into the Corp of Engineers and U.S. Government assistance, we can have a limited amount of cargo like we discussed in the past, but just enough that we could meet the criteria of the Government in order to help maintain this as a Government program from now. He of Engineers do all the dredging and maintaining the channel if we can keep it like it is. Ms. Shewchuk said they have a little bit more information on the mega-yacht industry here if anybody is interested. They have a couple of reports that outline the detail. Contact Mike if you are interested. 13