HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 12-09-2003
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes
SPECIAL MEETING
December 9, 2003
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, and Chairman Merritt.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Akins, Ms. Hammer, and Ms. Hilson (Absent with Notice); Mr. Trias (Absent without
Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms.
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; and Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary.
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Merritt called to order the special meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and
Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS / DISCLOSURES:
meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency is an agency that makes
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters.
These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information
gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight.
The meeting will progress in the following manner:
The Chair will call each item.
Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request.
The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board.
Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the
request.
The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the
request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has
specific questions.
The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal
reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff.
Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members.
The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month.
The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity
for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested
parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County
Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision.
No other announcements or discussion.
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM 1: STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that the purpose of the special meeting was to go over the stipulated
settlement agreement that that County has been working with the Department of Community
issues. He continued that this is a negotiated agreement to bring the County into compliance with
DCA. He advised that would mean various amendments to the Future Land Use Element, Utility
Infrastructure Elements, Capital Improvements Element, and our Conservation and Coastal
Management Element. He stated that, through the settlement agreement, if the Board of County
Commissioners adopts the policies as outlined we would be brought into compliance with the
DCA, but would be obligated to do a more substantial update to the Transportation Element. He
explained that there were several issues still outstanding in the Transportation Element, which
they decided would have to be looked at separately and totally revise the entire element within a
prescribed period of time.
Mr. Lounds questioned if changes could be made. Mr. Murphy explained that only minor
changes could be made. Mr. Hearn questioned if DCA offered Administrative Hearings. Mr.
Murphy stated that there were several discussions and meetings with DCA and that these changes
suggestions or what we came up with ourselves. Mr. Murphy explained that the County initially
came up with the draft wording and after some negotiations with DCA there was some rewording
done.
Mr. Murphy explained that Sections 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3 address the Planned Unit
Development requirements for open space and clustering. He continued that the proposed
changes allow open space relief for agricultural subdivisions. Mr. Lounds questioned if it applied
to eight lots or less. Mr. Murphy explained that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) would not
be required until there were more than eight lots.
Mr. Hearn questioned the usage
that this places the burden on the client.
Mr. Lounds questioned why there was a new policy 1-14. Mr. Murphy explained that it was
exactly the same language as before, but has just been moved to a different policy number. Mr.
Lounds questioned if the issue was the movement of the boundary line. Mr. Murphy stated it was
the boundary line, not the property line.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 1. Seeing no one, Chairman
Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy explained that the changes in Chapter 2 Transportation would be totally redone
and that there were also some typographical errors in Table 2-4.
Chairman Merritt questioned why Indrio Road is a state roadway, but Midway Road was a county
roadway. Mr. Murphy explained that in order for a transfer of ownership to be done unilaterally
both parties must agree.
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 3
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 2. Seeing no one, Chairman
Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy stated the next section of changes were to Chapter 6A and 6D the Sanitary Sewer
and Potable Water elements. He advised that these amendments tie utility issues to service
availability issues. He continued that the Utility Service Master Plan makes provisions to allow
for trunk lines to pass through avoiding sprawl. He also stated that there were a few
typographical errors that were corrected as well.
Mr. Grande questioned if there would be an impact on the City of Fort Pierce and County over
designated service areas. Mr. Murphy stated there would not be an impact.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the sewer treatment plant out west is outside of the urban service
boundary. Mr. Murphy stated that it is not outside of the boundary. Mr. Lounds questioned if it
could be done with changes. Mr. Murphy explained that there is a provision for self contained,
uniform, cluster centers to be serviced by a package plant. He continued that the service would
be for that single development, not anyone else.
Chairman Merritt questioned if they ran a line southwest to the fairgrounds could those on
Midway Road hook in. Mr. Murphy explained that if the line were out there the structure would
not allow for additional connections without Comprehensive Plan changes. He stated that the
only exception would be if there were an immediate health and safety risk. Mr. Lounds
confirmed that if there were a water main outside the urban service boundary anyone else would
not be allowed to tap into it for their own use. Mr. Murphy confirmed that they would not be able
to tap in.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 6.
Mr. Bob Bangert explained that at the most recent rural symposium they stated a small village
would be allowed to go outside of the urban service boundary to access utilities. This area would
have their own schools, homes, shopping area, and the urban service boundary would be set up
around the village. Mr. Murphy confirmed that if you have an isolated, self-contained
environment those services would be available beyond the existing boundary line.
Ms. Shirley Burlingham stated that in 6A2.1.4.8 on 6A-10 pages it shows extending the main in
2020. Mr. Murphy explained that information was from the Utility Master Plan, but may not
happen if there is not a demand for it.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy explained that the changes to Chapter 7 were minor typographical and clean up
changes.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 7. Seeing no one, Chairman
Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed changes to Chapter 8 were with regard to Wetland
Regulation. He continued that on Page 8-21 there is a new objective 8.1.14, which states they
will work to amend the Land Development Code to develop a guide for the development of a
classification system. He continued that 8.1.14.3 and 8.1.14.4 explains how the Board of County
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 4
Commissioners can waive these requirements, if necessary, in the event of a prohibition or a
taking situation.
Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about the approach of the classification system. He stated
that he was okay with the intent but felt the language needed to be reworked because it does
include for functional value of wetlands. He continued that a drainage ditch would qualify under
Category 1 so size limitations should be added. Mr. Murphy explained that there were National
Standards for Protection in the Land Development Code regulations that could address that.
Chairman Merritt questioned the tree ordinance and pine tree mitigation requirements because it
is forcing annexations into the cities. Mr. Murphy explained that there were going to be revisions
to those requirements by the Environmental Resource Division coming before them at their
February 2004 meeting, which encourage preservation and provide for a relief mechanism.
Mr. Grande stated that page 8-7, Policy 8.1.4.14 does not allow for a way around the mitigation
requirement and he feels it would be better to have a level of discretion here. Mr. Murphy stated
that the intention it to make sure that the developer does not mess up, but that some consideration
may be necessary.
Mr. Hearn stated that on page 9, Policy 8.1.6.2, describes the prohibition of off road vehicles, but
is not consistent with 8.1.7.5A because of the North and South Savannas. Mr. Murphy stated that
could be corrected.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 8.
Mr. Kevin Stinnette, Indian Riverkeeper, stated that the federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination SystemNPDES) standards are difficult to interpret in Florida because of the
drainage canals. He continued that they are connected waterways and are defined as wetlands
under the NPDES. He also stated that there is an exemption in the clean water act for 100 %
agricultural land under the NPDES. These federal acts and standards need to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned where the setbacks that are listed in Policy 8.1.14.6
came from. Mr. Murphy stated that they were based upon state regulations and common
development practices. Mr. Stinnette stated that he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be
consistent with the 75-foot setbacks that the North Fork requires.
Ms. Betty Lou Wells questioned why there were pages missing out of this element. Mr. Murphy
confirmed that those pages were not included because they did not contain any changes. He
stated that he only included the pages that had some sort of changes on them.
Mr. Hearn questioned who the enforcement body would be for Policy 8.1.6.2 on page 9. Mr.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy stated that the changes to Chapter 11 were part of their annual administrative process
and were because there were some inconsistencies in the level of service tables. He also stated
that the Capital Improvement Plan itself was outdated because of time delays and would include
updates through 2008.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for Chapter 11. Seeing no one, Chairman
Merritt closed the public hearing.
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 5
Mr. Murphy explained that these changes would be heard at the December 16, 2003, Board of
County Commissioners meeting.
Mr. McCurdy made a motion to accept the changes with their suggestions being forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners for review.
Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds.
Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 6
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION:
Next scheduled meeting will be December 18, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
_____________________________
Dawn Gilmore, Secretary
P & Z / LPA Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 7