Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-17-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting March 17, 2005 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:06 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Russell Akins, Pamela Hammer, Kathryn Hensley, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Carson McCurdy, and Ramon Trias. MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephanie Morgan, with notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator; Mr. Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Mr. Michael Bowers, Utilities Director; and Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Grande meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Chairman 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 Planning and Zoning Commission. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. The Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Planning and Zoning Commission members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 2 hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2005 Mr. Hearn had a correction on Page 2 the reference to Mr. Trias came from a previous meeting and needed to be deleted. Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 12, second line just was an existing buffer. Clarification was needed on paragraph 4; also on Page 18, second paragraph. Mr. Kelly stated that the tape would be checked to verify what was said. Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 26, second paragraph, Mr. Grande had thanked the board members who attended the seminar in Miami, the word Miami was left out. Ms. Hammer made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. All were in favor. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 4 Mr. Kelly stated that before they moved on to the next agenda item, staff had some housekeeping items to take care of. Anita Neal with the University of Florida, a program for training planning officials. It was previously presented in Lee County on the West Coast and this was an opportunity to do the same program here in this area. The program was a two-day course, scheduled on May 4 and 5 at the Schreiber Center at Indian River Community Colleges and Florida Atlantic U campus in St. Lucie West. The cost would be $40 which included lunch, refreshments and all the materials that were handed out during the program. It would be offered it to all cities and county officials, including the Regional Planning and Zoning to familiarize them with some of the planning abilities that they may or may not be aware of. She felt it was a good program, but wanted direction whether to proceed or not. It would be for Planning and Zoning and any planning associates, as well as county and city employees. Anyone was welcome to attend. It is not specifically for any audience, anyone is welcome to come. Each participant would be charged $40 to cover the cost of the program, as well as all of the refreshments that would be presented at that meeting. Lunch would be provided both days. The cost was minimal due to the cost of the facility. part of where some of that cost was absorbed as well. The program would go from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. both days. She asked the board if they wanted her to proceed with making the arrangements for the workshop. The workshop was also open to Martin and Indian River Counties. Mr. McCurdy strongly encouraged that the County Commission members also attended. Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director provided an updated calendar regarding upc Plan project. The County had been involved with this major effort regarding the North County and its future over the last several months and the Board of County Commissioners recently received the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment package as prepared by the Regional Planning Council and its hired consultant staff. He wanted to also advise that on March 28 and 29 the Regional Planning Council was requesting individual meetings with both the County Commissioners and the Local Planning Agency members to educate and enlighten them on what had taken place thus far and give them a better understanding as to the future Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Meetings had been scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners, and he was going to contact these board members over the next few days to set taking place and to give a little bit more information about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. They would be one-on-one meetings scheduled according to each of the LPA members personal calendars. workshop scheduled for March 29. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 5 Mr. Kelly responded that they did, but the Regional Planning Council had requested this time. th The workshop of the 29 would be rescheduled after. Staff believed that the benefit of the program at the University of Florida and the knowledge that they could all gain from that, that maybe the workshop would be better after that. Mr. Brillhart stated that April 4 was a date being proposed to have a workshop between the Board of County Commissioners, the LPA members and the landowners specifically on the North County Charrette. The Regional Planning Council staff wanted to at least give some perceive the process going as far as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process with review by the board for action and transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, this in regard to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Kelly stated that the workshop that was previously scheduled for the March 29 would be th rescheduled quickly after May 4. Vice-Chair Hearn requested that a hardcopy of the of the North County Charrette revisions be provided to the board members. Mr. Kelly responded that it could also be downloaded at www.tcrpc.org click on Special Projects, North County Charrette, Implementation (these were icons). P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 2: BAY PORT ASSOCIATES, INC. RZ-04-021/PUD-04-015 Mr. Kelly stated that he wished to speak to Agenda Items 2 and 3 which were the petitions of Bayport Associates together. One was for a change from PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and the other was from PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) to PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development). The developer had requested to withdraw both items. Staff recommended acceptance of the withdrawal. Vice-Chair Hearn questioned why they had decided to withdraw. Mr. Kelly responded that it was his understanding that there was a pending sale and a different project would be brought forward and there was no reason to review a site plan that would not be seen again. Mr. Akins moved that we accept the request to withdraw. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 3: BAY PORT ASSOCIATES, INC. RZ-04-044/PUD-04-038 Mr. Akins moved that we accept the request to withdraw. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 4: TESORO BEACH CLUB CU-05-005 Chair Grande disclosed that he had had discussions and meetings with representatives of Ginn Company who were Tesoro. Vice-Chair Hearn also disclosed that he had had discussion with members of the public. Not specifically on this particular project, but similar projects on the island. Mr. Kelly his was the Tesoro application of Ginn Development for a major site plan for 100 unit condominium project and a Conditional Use permit to allow for 7,700 square foot beach club contained within that condominium project. The application presented was for the Conditional Use permit. The location was South Hutchinson Island. The existing zoning was HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District); future land use designation is RM (Residential, Medium). The rest of that line on the memo was incorrect, there was no PUD (Planned Unit Development) future land use. The parcel size was under 15 acres, at 14.89. The board had been provided a site plan. The beach club would be contained in what would have been two condominium units, one on each side of the pool on the ground floor of the building. Staff had reviewed the conditional use and found that it met all of the County requirements and recommended its approval. Mr. Reikenis stated that the pool was located in between buildings B and C and the area for the clubhouse was located within the first level of one unit on the end of each building. Mr. Kelly stated that there was no separate structure for the club facility. It was contained within buildings B and C. Vice-Chair Hearn asked for clarification regarding the statement on Page 2 the third paragraph from the bottom the petitioner was proposing a 7,700 square foot beach club and 100 condominium units, these uses together generate less traffic than the allowable 134 dwelling units Mr. Kelly responded that the wording in the Land Development Code was in the HIRD Zoning District, Athletic and Entertainment Clubs were permitted as Conditional Uses, they had to have e board could only consider them, on any parcel in HIRD if the traffic they generated was less than the traffic that would be expected from the maximum residential unit or intensity. Staff had calculated that on the RM land use and the 14.89 acres, 134 dwelling units could have been built on the site. They looked at the traffic that 134 dwelling units would have generated and then calculated how much traffic a 100 unit condominium and a 7,700 square foot club would generate based on ITE numbers and found that the number was less than the 134 units and therefore, staff could at least present the application to the board to be considered. Vice-Chair Hearn asked if that was assuming that there was no traffic generated going to and from the club. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 9 Mr. Kelly responded that they had looked at the standard ITE numbers for an entertainment, athletic club, they were based on square footages; staff calculated that number, then added it to the number for the 100 units and found that it was less than if there had been134 straight units. Chair Grande clarified that they were strictly looking at a conditional use review for the beach club, not looking at the site plan. Mr. Kelly responded that was correct. Mr. Knapp asked if the beach club was open to the public and not restricted to the residents. Chair Grande said it was not open to the public, it was for members of the Ginn Tesoro Development, Ginn had other developments within St. Lucie County and the beach club would be available to both the residents of this community and the residents of other Ginn communities in the county. Ms. Hammer said that she was not understanding it, as on the agenda item it talked about a 17,000 square foot club house. Mr. Kelly responded that the 17,000 square feet and the separate clubhouse were the application that came in and when staff discovered that those numbers put them over, they told the developer and he made adjustments and came in with a smaller square footage. The numbers were not changed on the agenda. The memo and the site plan were correct. Rick Reikenis, represented Ginn-LA Company. He stated that Ginn had worked in St. Lucie County for a while and thought that the developments that they had moved forward had set a new mark for the county and the area. In regards to this project they had done an extensive amount of work with staff and even up to the very last minute, made sure that they had a product that met county requirements and was also something that they would have been very proud of to have brought to Hutchinson Island and St. Lucie County. He thanked as they had met with them and their representatives on several occasions and the last meeting was in January of this year when they presented a site plan that was actually a little bit more intense with the clubhouse being a little bit larger, but they had received a good reception at that meeting. In order to control access to the beach club there would be membership to that club made available to people who owned property in other Ginn projects in return for a social membership fee that they would pay. Access to the club would be controlled by reservations; there was going to be a limited number of members allowed at the club facility at any one time. Reservations were going to be on a first come, first served basis for people who were members in the club for that facility. The beach club facility as proposed was on the first floor on each unit bordering the pool area, in the middle of the facility, totaling about 7,700 square. Mr. Lounds asked what was the social aspect for the club. Mr. Reikenis responded that there would be some dining facilities, some seats in a restaurant, a terrace bar, the swimming pool, and beach access by reservations only. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 10 Ms. Hammer touched on the parking that Mr. Hearn had raised, if there was going to be access by reservation from outside properties, there was the property Tesoro in Port St. Lucie, were there other Ginn properties in St. Lucie County. Mr. Reikenis responded that currently there In Port St. Lucie, there was Tesoro, Tesoro Preserve, and a project north of the power plant called Watersong, but it was single-family homes on the beach Ms. Hammer asked what numbers in reservations were they talking about. Mr. Reikenis responded that on the site plan, in addition to the two parking spaces per unit that were required, they had a total of 293 parking spaces. There was a surplus of 93 spaces for the residential units and the guest parking. Reservations would be based on parking availability, they would be able to make reservations for up to 90 vehicles at any one time. The distance to travel from Tesoro and Tesoro Preserve was not a small distance and it dididerable amount of time to get from there. If people within the condominium units had guests, the required parking for the condominium was 1.5 spaces per unit and then .5 space per unit for . By County Code, County Development Ordinance those 200 spaces were for the residents of the Tesoro Beach Club, the people who were going to live in the condominiums; the additional 90+ spaces were available for club use and those were the spaces that would be by reservation only. The concierge service at the club and back at their club facilities would handle and regulate that. Chair Grande asked if the common elements got turned over to an association, there would be an association at Tesoro Beach Club, there would also be an association out at Tesoro who actually would run and own the beach club. In regards to taking reservations, how was that to be maintained once Ginn-LA had left. Mr. Reikenis responded that Ginn Company had a club arm that ran the clubs, amenities packages. In their developments, the amenities were very high level, so there was a separate division that ran all the club facilities. In this development the condominium units and their respective required facilities, like parking, access, that type of thing would be run by the condominium association, but there would also be, for those facilities, the club, the pool, beach access and parking spaces assigned to the club facilities would be run by in the prevue of the club management arm of Ginn. Chair Grande asked if the residents of the community could possibly choose not to be members of the club. Mr. Reikenis responded that was correct. Mr. Knapp asked what was the maximum seating capacity of both facilities going to be. Mr. Reikenis responded 75 total. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 11 Mr. Knapp also asked how they were going down the beach. John Olson, with Peacock and Lewis responded that the program as it stood was controlled access with security gate, entrance through a guard facility. There would be a need to get clearance from the management arm of the Tesoro properties in order to get through. Anyone coming in would have to stop at the gate at the entrance and have clearance or reservations to be able to come through to the property. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. James Norris a resident of Hutchinson Island stated that his interest in the development stemmed from the fact that he was a lot owner in Pelican Pointe West which was directly across the street. He wanted to know where exactly on the property site was the facility going to be located. From about half way the middle of their property north was an area of a beach upon which there were a large number of those worm reef type things and somebody, somewhere, not necessarily him, if the swimming club was not in the right place, it was likely to raise an environment impact issue. Secondly, it had been his understanding from discussions that had with the developer of his development that they had a permanent easement or at least a right of access to the ocean across Tesoro property and he wondered whether or not that had been addressed, whether it had been taken into consideration and what impact his rights in that regard were. A third question was that a limited number of parking spaces in addition to those people who were actually residents over there we for employees to park as well. If in fact it was a dining facility that had a very high end employee type of operation, there would be a need for their parking. Rumors that he had heard was that there was going to be a much larger dining area, dining room type of facility somewhere on the site, and wanted to know whether or not that was in fact the case or this was just the only one. Chair Grande stated that the restaurant in relation to the property as a whole, was right about in the middle, the easement was really between Mr. Norris and Ginn Company, whatever was legal would prevail. Regarding the parking, their plan was to have 293 parking spaces in total, 200 were allocated for the residents and the 93 at a very minimum would be for what was a much smaller restaurant. The rumor of the huge restaurant, club facility was not unfounded, the original plan, was for a very large club facility with a very large restaurant and through the negotiations between the Ginn Company and county staff that had evolved down to what was presented tonight. Mr. Reikenis reiterated that the facility was 7,700 square feet, they had looked at a much larger facility at one point, but that was discarded. Secondly, there was an easement access for Pelican Pointe West property owners that was in accordance with the agreement with the homeowners cross over to the beach. As far as the reefs were concerned, the beach club, and restaurant facilities were in the middle, the pool was in the middle, people had access to the beach. All of the structure, anything that they were doing was landward of the old coastal construction control line by quite a bit; well landward of the 30-Year Erosion Line, of the tow of the dune, as it would P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 12 be reconstructed to conform with what was there. They were not going to have any buildings, nothing going into the water or not even close. With respect to the employee parking there was going to be parking there for some of the senior staff who would be there, but most of the employees would move back and forth on shuttles. All the parking would be very well regulated. Mr. Norris thanked him for the clarification and stated that it had answered most of his questions. His concern with respect to the reefs out in front was that that was exactly in the swimming area was a lousy place to swim, he a beach club there. Closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer questioned where would their employees park. Mr. Reikenis stated that they had a very large club facility at Tesoro and they would run shuttles back and forth between Tesoro which was in Port St. Lucie and this facility. Mr. McCurdy - After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and standards of review set forth in Section 11.07.03 of St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Ginn-LA St. Lucie, LLP for Conditional Use permit to allow for a 7,700 square foot beach club contained within a condominium limited to 100 dwelling units in the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District because it made sense. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously to approve. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 5: NH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC PUD-04-025 Mr. Kelly stated that he wanted to take Agenda Items 5 and 6 together. These items were presented before the board two weeks ago and were continued. At that time staff believed that there would be a withdrawal and it was discussed; the board had indicated that if there was a request for a withdrawal, they would accept it and for that reason a roomful of people present. The residents were informed about the withdrawal request. This was the request of NH to withdraw their PUD (Planned Unit Development) and PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) one in each item. Staff recommended acceptance of the withdrawal. Vice-Chair Hearn asked for public participation as there seemed to be people in the audience who would want to speak. Mr. Trias moved to accept the request for withdrawal. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Vice-Chair Hearn questioned why the public would not be allowed to speak. Mr. Akins responded that there was nothing for them to talk about since the project was no longer before the board. Mr. Kelly stated that staff had indicated at the last meeting that the property was under a contract to be sold. The current owner did not wish to follow through with that site plan. The new owner would be presenting a different site plan; and would meet to have discussions with the residents in the area prior to presenting a plan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously to approve. Vice-Chair Hearn commented that when members of the public came out the board should hear what they had to say and he would have liked to have had a public hearing. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 6: NH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC PUD-04-026 Heard with Agenda Item 5. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM 7: PUBLIC UTILITY CONNECTION REGULATIONS ORD-05-008 Ms. Hammer left at 7:20 p.m. Michael Bowers, Utility Director presented draft Ordinance 05-008 which proposed to amend Chapter 1-20-5, the Water Sewer of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. These regulations were called the Public Utility Connection Regulations and were an implementation tool for the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The provision of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water utility service must be coordinated with the goals of the future land use element. These regulations provided a mechanism for that coordination. The public utility proposed regulations were organized into eight divisions. Division One provided for general applicability including purpose, overview, policy, administration; Division Two provided for the utility connections which were mandatory; Division Three provided for applications for reservation of capacity; Division Four provided alternates for construction of interim facilities, if county utility services connection was not immediately available; Division Five provided incentives for connecting to existing facilities; Division Six provided abbreviations and definitions; Division Seven set out the severability; and Division Eight was the effective date and applicability of the regulation. He stated that Mr. Howard Hoffman, the utility business consultant was also in attendance. Mr. Lounds questioned on the very front page of the general purpose and short title, the first paragraph, the last sentence of that first paragraph, stated utility service must not promote linear or leapfrog development, but instead will enhance the ability to use cluster housing and planned unit development techniques which discourage that type of language was part of the North Charrette, if they were going to be asked to approve, vote on this prior to the Charrette being approved or brought before the County. Mr. Bowers responded yes, they had discussed with others, that they might consider not to bring that into the ordinance at this time, but by the time they had it in place, that part of the Comprehensive Plan would probably be approved. Mr. Lounds asked if land that was purchased west of Kings Highway, a density of three to one on 40 acres was placed, which was not clustered, would that development qualify for utility hookup. Mr. Bowers responded no. they were trying not to promote or implement with this ordinance. This ordinance was trying to give the Board of County Commissioners the right to extend water, wastewater, reclaim water services where it may be needed or where it could be used, but they did not at the same time want to take away existing rights or invest any rights that you did Mr. Lounds asked again if he had a 40 acre development with 120 houses on it and you lay a pipeline down the front of that property, could he hookup to that pipeline as you go down the road to a cluster. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 16 Mr. Hoffman stated that the document was basically organized not to be a land use plan in of itself, but rather to coordinate with the land use plan adopted by other agencies in the County. The specific answer to the question was, that if a line was extended from one area to a cluster area and in the process passed an area of some density, the physical location of the line itself did not grant to the property the right of connection to the line because of its mere existence. This document was subservient to land use planning by the County and its agencies. If those agencies entitled the property to which was referred hypothetically, to service, it would be granted. There were other sections that detailed developer agreements and how certain things were done. But it placed the utility in a junior role relative to who should be served from what lines by recognizing the supremacy of the decision that the County itself would make as to how development should occur. Mr. Lounds strongly disagreed and stated that what they were going to do in this ordinance was make the ordinance the director and the direction in what controlled the density in St. Lucie County. The ordinance alone would control the density in everything that was not developed at the present time in St. Lucie County. The more people that could be placed on a utility line, the cheaper that unit would become. Mr. Hoffman stated that the utility stood for the proposition as a business enterprise fund that it wished to provide service to everyone who was entitled to that. It was the County Commission, who entitled them, the utility served them; this in itself did not promote or deny service to anyone. It simply said that first you must be entitled to service under County land planning rules, then you would get it under this ordinance. He read from Page 2, second paragraph which stated utility, water transmission lines, waste water, so forth, collectively in proximity to property inside or outside the Urban Service Area does not imply advance or grant any development rights or approval. He stated that the Utility Department did not necessarily agree that this was the way service should be rendered, but it was not their call. Mr. Lounds stated that the better the environment was if potable water was provided and water was not pulled out of the subsurface areas in a house well as would be there on a 120 units on 40 acres of land. Mr. Hoffman agreed, but they were not the arbiter of that. Mr. Lounds quipped that the ordinance would be. Mr. McCurdy agreed. He had problems with Section 1.3, he saw it as in direct conflict potentially with some of the Burt Harris information they had. In Section 1.3 top of Page 2, subdivision of real property or any active proposed development of property within the , it said that if had to be requested. development mu, he knew they were not going to say service could not be provided if you were clear out on Bluefield Road. He saw it as a tool to manage or a tool that would be used to manage growth in our P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 17 county. He was not completely in concurrence with the way the ordinance was currently written. He thought that the intent may be good, but agree with the verbiage at this point. Mr. Hoffman responded that the reason for that particular provision was that the way the County was structured, nothing really happened in processing unless first the utility was asked whether or not service could be made available. The non-binding or non-rights giving letter that was given, d really do anything but complied with the order of the way things were requested. It did not in itself represent a DAgreement or any commitment to service. Mr. McCurdy asked him to look at Section 1.1 on Page 1 and the first paragraph there under not promote linear, or leapfrog development, but instead it will enhance the ability to use cluster housing and planned unit development techniques which discourage proliferation of urban He thought they were treading a thin line between looking at property rights problems and regulating them through a utility. Mr. Hoffman said he could understand that. At the current time there were areas inside the Urban Service Area, adjoining areas outside the Urban Service Area, leading to areas inside the Service Area and the problem occurred when they tried to provide entitled service in one area of the Urban Service Area from another. What happened to the so called the middle. They were trying artfully to give effect to what they believed the County were. determine who should be entitled to service; their role was to serve anyone who was entitled to service and to whom service could be rendered feasibly. Mr. Bowers comments so that he can incorporate it in the document. Mr. Lounds stated that based on this document, it said, ear or leapfrog the bottom sentence Section 1.1, Page 1, first paragraph, from what he read to begin with. The statement said housing and planned unit development techniques, then that became the guideline for the County Commission. If he wanted to apply and had a 40 acre pasture with 120 units in it and it was not clustered in one corner, pushed together, piled up, shoved in, and stacked up, the County was going to say no, this document said they wereto do that. Mr. Hoffman stated that the language was in there because it was understood to state the position as it existed today of County government, if this specific wording offended this board, then the judgment to eliminate that certainly would have no fight from the utility, the judgment to eliminate that rested Mr. Trias stated that he did not see a problem or objection with the document, and it was something that he would support. Cluster did meant that things were put together in a corner. Clustered development meant that green areas were preserved. The density may be three units to an acre, it did that. It was simply that the lots tended to be smaller. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 18 What ds to have this provision of water and sewer in ways that were poorly he believed they tried to avoid. They tried to provide water and sewer in places that were more defined as villages and with countryside, etc. Vice-Chair Hearn said he was struggling and uncomfortable with the statement on Page 2, the very top of the page where it said . He want to approve something that was going to prohibit folks from building what they wanted to within the zoning code. Ms. Hensley responded that when the entire thing was read the whole thing, it said that a request had to be made. Mr. Lounds said that he applauded anything that got the water lines outside the Urban Service Area to the more unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County as it was badly needed. One example was Avalon Mobile Home Park on Angle Road, if there was anyway to get a water line out there and hook those people up, it was that example that he was concerned about; if a development further west on Angle Road was a clustered unit and the pipeline ran past Avalon and it did meet the criteria, done those people an injustice by not hooking up their potable eady in place development that he would not want to exclude from being able to have clean, clear, safe, potable water. Mr. McCurdy asked about Page 2 the second paragraph, about half-way down and it said inside or outside the USB that do not meet the criteria of the goals, objectives, policies of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan or the intent of the North St. Lucie eligible That language spoke directly to what Mr. Lounds was talking about. His question was, were those criteria codified at this point, and finalized. He thought they were malleable and could be arbitrary. Mr. Hoffman stated that they had what was called the Uniform Extension Policy that sets forth the relationship between perspective customers on property and the utility. It was necessary that the utility respected its role in the overall structure of things. It was not the function of a utility to deny people the right to build. Mr. McCurdy said he saw it appropriate for managing growth. Mr. Knapp said he was in agreement with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Trias said looking at the bigger picture, St. Lucie County was actually engaged in a very effective and progressive exercise about planning, and should be commended. He felt it may be a little premature to look at this ordinance at this point. Mr. McCurdy concurred that it was premature on the ordinance at this point, until there was the North County Charrette and a few other things in line including their planning sessions. They needed to make sure that they were legislating through their legislative bodies and not through secondary documents. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 19 Mr. Bowers agreed with what was said and offered to meet with the members on a one-on-one basis, if they wanted to. He wanted to get all their comments in order to move it forward to the Commission, so that they were aware of how this board felt. Vice-Chair Hearn said he would prefer not to vote on it tonight. Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy agreed. Vice-Chair Hearn stated he would like to schedule a workshop that would be voluntarily attended in order to go over the ordinance carefully before he voted on it. He wanted to see it brought back at the next meeting; whether it be a special meeting or next regular scheduled meeting. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Nelson Ernst, asked if there was some way for the utilities to give a temporary hookup to these clusters instead of leapfrogging depending upon the language of the document being updated to reflect the changes to be made. In other words getting the job done and changing the paperwork to reflect what happened. Chair Grande responded that he thought tter what their political bent was, was trying to avoid; there should be a methodology for determining whether or not you got water. Craig Mundt of North Hutchinson Island, had the benefit of seeing the entire ordinance, but had a couple questions. He asked if there was a similar ordinance that had been adopted by a Florida county. Mr. Hoffman said Hillsborough County had one similar and that the same team that consulted here had done that one. Mr. Mundt stated that his next question went back to he wondered if there had been litigation based on the denial of service to the bypassed developments and what was the result of that litigation. Mr. Hoffman responded that the nobody was ever denied service. You were either entitled to service now or maybe entitled to it later. But that was not a denial by the utility company. Credentials from the County must be taken to the utility company that say you can build in this locale, then if service cannot be provide, they would do the interim things. He was not aware in the nine years that this was in effect in Hillsborough County of any challenge legally to it. Seeing no one else Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds said he wanted to see some input from people who were going to have to develop around this ordinance, have to deal with this ordinance on a daily basis or on a developer basis. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 20 Vice-Chair Hearn requested staff to contact one of the newspaper reporters and get an article on this thing, in the paper, so that the public would not have any excuse saying that they know about it and later on voice concerns. Chair Grande stated that on there was an extra cost in there. Mr. Bowers said the correction would be made. Mr. Hoffman At the next meeting when we discuss it in further depth, you will have the benefit of the author of this document who is unable to have been here. Mr. Lounds made the motion to continue discussion on this Ordinance until the April 21 meeting and to have a workshop to be determined prior to that meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hensley suggested that the workshop should include groups such as The Chamber, Board of Realtors, Builders Associations. Mr. Bowers said they would also invite the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, newspaper, and the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 21 Other Business Vice-Chair Hearn stated that he was concerned about the abrupt dismissal of Mr. Cox and he the atmosphere that was created. He said that Mr. Cox was not given the reason for his dismissal and after checking with the Human Resource Department, there was nothing on record. Mr. McCurdy stated he was also concerned, but didcould be done about it. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator responded that it was matters of personnel dismissals, whether they were in a probationary status or regular employment were really handled and answered by the Human Resources Department. If the board wanted to have further discussions, it would be appropriate to see if the County Administrator would waiver or deviate from that policy and grant further explanation on that matter. It was his call, and he had been consistent with his policy and that was that those were personnel issues not to be discussed with the public. Ms. Hensley stated that legally it was very rare that an administrator would give any justification for terminating employment during a probationary period. The person who was terminated could say whatever they wanted, but there were certain constraints in policy and procedure and protocol that kept the governmental entity from actually making public statements. Mr. Trias felt that the administration was independent for a ver did the things they did. It was none of their his view either, to try to get involved in personnel matters and there was a very good reason for that. He fully respected the decisions that the administration made and if those decisions were wrong, the County Commission could deal with that. Next scheduled meeting will be on April 21, 2005. P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 22 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hearn made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Charles Grande, Chairman P & Z Regular Meeting March 17,2005 Page 23