HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 05-11-2005
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
May 11, 2005
rd
Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Russell Akins, Pamela Hammer, John
Knapp, Ed Lounds, Stephanie Morgan, and Ramon Trias.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Carson McCurdy without notice; Kathryn Hensley without notice.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank
Flores, Planner III; Ms. Diana Waite, Planner III; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael
Bowers, Utilities Director; and Ms. Kathleen Thaxter, Acting Administrative Secretary.
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission at 6:15 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
DISCLOSURES
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
hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie
County Board of County Commissioners.
2
Mr. David Kelly announced that the roll call was done by
a new member filling in for this meeting, also known as acting Administrative Secretary,
Kathleen Thaxter.
The first announcement is regarding the alternate written forms that the Board members are
provided with for their motion either for or against each petition. These forms are provided for
legal reasons to ensure that the motions are completed properly.
Mr. David Kelly announced to the members and audience present that Agenda Item #5; Scenic
corridor text amendment, Agenda Item #6
commercial to residential medium, Agenda Item #7
commercial to mixed use, and Agenda Item #8
industrial to residential high,
be rescheduled for another meeting after posted announcements have been made. Those
members of the audience present for these items were free to leave this meeting and return
once the items had been pla
Heather Young, County Attorney also requested to make an announcement regarding the
rescheduling of the meeting for the North County Charette and proposed Town, Village and
Countryside (TVC) amendments. Ms Young expressed the request to have those amendments
originally scheduled to be heard on May 19, 2005 be rescheduled for another meeting due to
the fact that interested parties received new revisions today May 11, 2005. Growth
Management staff agrees with the request and will accept the responsibility of rescheduling the
meeting. Chairman Grande agreed with the recommendation of Ms. Young and opened up the
subject for Board consensus on rescheduling. Chairman Grande requested that a copy of the
item to be reviewed, due to the complexity of the TVC item, at the rescheduled meeting be sent
at least one week prior to the meeting. A meeting has been scheduled for May 18, 2005 where
additional input will be accepted. Chairman Grande suggested the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council (TCRPC) incorporate the new input into the document and prepare a copy that
would be acceptable for review by the board and the DCA.
today as well.
Ms. Hammer then asked if the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for May 19, 2005 had
been cancelled.
Ms. Young confirmed that there will be no meeting next week of the P & Z Council.
Mr. Trias agreed that more time was needed to review the TVC information. He also wanted to
make a statement for the record that he has noticed that more time is being taken by the Board
to address issues before them. Mr. Trias provided the example of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Chairman Grande asked the Board if there were any members that were opposed to the
recommendation set forth by staff.
Mr. Akins asked if that would be the only item on the agenda for that special meeting.
3
Ms. Young stated that the Board requested it that way due to the complexity and the amount of
time it was going to take.
Chairman Grande stated that the date recommendation will come from the staff once a poll of
the board members has been completed.
Mr. Kelly stated that the same procedure will be used.
Chairman Grande asked if any board members had additional items that needed to be
announced.
Vice-Chairman Hearn announced that he had spoken to at least one member of the public
regarding an item on the agenda. He inquired about the timeliness of addressing the
information.
Chairman Grande suggested that since the announcement was item specific, that it waits until
that item was addressed.
4
AGENDA ITEM 1: PUBLIC UTILITY CONNECTION REGULATIONS ORD05-008:
Mr. Michael Bowers, Utility Director introduced the agenda item. This is Draft Ordinance 05-008
which proposes to amend Chapter 1-20-5 the Water and Sewer of the St. Lucie County Code of
Ordinances. A previous draft was presented on March 17, 2005 to the Board. The Board
directed at that meeting that the Utility Department have a workshop. A workshop was held on
April 8, 2005 which resulted in several amendments, changes and additions. This item was
pulled from the April 21, 2005 meeting due to the numerous items that were on that board for
the meeting.
Staff has incorporated all deletions and changes. Copies of the item packet have been provided
for those who need a copy however there have been no changes since the last presentation to
the Board. Red line copies were handed out previously and for those that were without a copy,
additional copies were available on the corner.
The request is that the Board approves the agenda item and passes it on to the Commission for
advertisement and public hearings. Mr. Bowers was open for any questions the Board may
have for him.
Chairman Grande asked the Board if they had questions before the item was opened to the
public.
Ms. Hammer stated that she had a number of questions for Mr. Bowers.
Chairman Grande opened the floor to Ms. Hammer.
Ms. Hammer began with page 1, section 1.2, and line 4 the definition of Division 2 provides for
those utility connections which are mandatory. Ms. Hammer thou
taken out of the headline of Division 2.
Mr. Bowers
Ms. Hammer confirmed that it had been. However the reference to utility connections which are
mandatory was still made. She stated that Division 2 outlines which utilities are mandatory.
Mr. Bowers agreed.
Ms. Hammer suggested that on page 2, line 4 the second item in the series be corrected to say
r from (1) the county, (2) another governmental entity, or (3) the Florida
Mr. Bowers agreed.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked Ms. Hammer to repeat her correction.
Ms. Hamm.
Vice-Chairman Hearn responded thank you.
5
Ms. Hammer then pointed out page 3 at the very bottom. 1.8.1 At the bottom of the paragraph
reference is made to the agreement between Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority and the county
provision for bulk water, waste water and reclaimed water service. Ms. Hammer suggested that
the date of the Agreement be added in case any future agreements were made.
Mr. Bowers stated the date was in the paragraph of February 10, 2004.
Ms. Hammer reread the section which included a date of February 10, 2004 for one agreement
then referenced another agreement. She asked Mr. Bowers if both agreements were made on
the same day.
Mr. Bowers stated yes and that the date would be added.
Ms. Hammer stated that the information would be clear for future readers.
Mr. Bowers responded that it would be no problem.
Ms. Hammer had one general comment. For those that are not familiar with the terms used by
the Utility Department it would be helpful for the acronyms used to be spelled out. Ms. Hammer
stated that the definitions in the back of the item could not be changed to being placed in the
front.
Mr. Bowers agreed to explain the acronyms.
Ms. Hammer then pointed out Three -
Hammer is concerned about the first statement granting the Utility Director the authority to
determine the operational feasibility of connecting existing and/or proposed development. Her
concern is that an incident will occur where utilities are promised to an individual and the
lawsuits.
Ms. Hammer then suggested that the term Board of County Commissioners be added to
Section 3.3, line 4.
Ms. Hammer asked that attention be given to page 12, Section 3.6, line 4 regarding rates and
charges and how often they are reviewed.
Mr. Bowers stated that they are reviewed based on the cost to do business. He stated that no
profit is made by the Utility Department, so the utility cost is determined and then that rate is
paid by the consumer. Mr. Bowers stated that an audit is performed each year and the rates
are determined by the amount of money spent by the department.
Ms. Hammer then went on to page 14, Section 4.4, 4.4.1, line 5, the request that the installation
by the County of interim on-site potable water, wastewater, or reclaimed water facilities. The
question is whether the County should be building an interim facility? Ms. Hammer suggested
that a private developer would be able to build at less cost and asked why put the county in the
position that they are responsible for building these interim facilities?
Mr. Bowers stated that these facilities can be built by the developer or the county. The main
point of the statement is that the facilities be built by the direction and approval of the county.
6
Ms. Hammer replied okay.
Mr. Bowers stated that if the developer were to do it cheaper, better, faster, he could as long as
it was done to specification and with engineering approval.
Ms. Hammer replied okay and then wanted to bring to the attention of Mr. Bowers a minor
correction page 17, Section 4.6, 4.6.1, line 3 St. Lucie is spelled incorrectly.
Mr. Bowers agreed.
Ms. Hammer then moved on to page 19, Item 4.6.2.1. Again Ms. Hammer made reference to
initials that were used. The general public needs to read the document and the initials should
be spelled out at least one time on the page for ease of reading and mentioned the same for
item 4.6.2.4 the CIP and on page 21, the last item AGRF .
Mr. Bowers provided the definition of AGRF, which is Accrued Guaranteed Revenue Fees.
Ms. Hammer had another section on page 29. Ms. Hammer asked that the second item
regarding on-site wastewater disposal facilities be explained, specifically the difference between
this definition and on the previous page located at the fifth one from the bottom, which is the
Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal Facilities.
Mr. Bowers explained the Individual would be for a single dwelling.
Ms. Hammer responded okay.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if it was more commonly known as a septic tank.
Mr. Bowers responded that that was correct.
Ms. Hammer stated that she understood that and concluded.
Chairman Grande inquired for Vice-Chairman Hearn to speak.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked legal staff to give a description of the purpose of and the meaning
of the Urban Service Boundary as it applies to documents such as the one like this.
Ms. Young stated she would give a description and that if David Kelly or Mr. Gilden would like to
jump in and give a more technical one, she would invite them to do so. She stated that it is a
line or an area in which the county has recognized efficiency in providing urban services within
that area up to the line or boundary. Beyond that, whether it is as a result of population density
scale development, whatever it might be that that those open services are not so efficiently
provided and generally you are trying to keep those consolidated in an area as opposed to the
concept of urban sprawl. Ms. Young inquired to David Kelly or Phillip Gilden if they have
anything that they would like to add. However, Ms. Young stated that this is her understanding.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if it would it be reasonable to assume that utility services be more
economical to provide inside the urban service boundary than outside the urban service
boundary.
Mr. Kelly responded that generally we would consider provision inside the urban service
boundary more efficient than outside the urban service boundary.
7
Vice-Chairman Hearn then asked Mr. Bowers if a higher fee for services outside the urban
service boundary than inside the urban service boundary would be paid.
Mr. Bowers attempted to answer Vice- deferred the
question to his attorney.
Phillip Gilden is the attorney for the Utility Department. Mr. Gilden stated that the county has
uniform rates that it charges. He then stated that the individual will be charged a greater cost
for the capital component of their impact fee. Mr. Gilden stated that they would have a higher
impact because they will have to pay the impact for getting the services there, which have
already been identified as higher cost than providing the services inside the urban service
boundary.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if he was speaking of the lines.
Mr. Gilden clarified that he was speaking of the lines and/or interim plants or plants for the
cluster villages.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if the county were providing water and wastewater for all
developments outside the USB that request it or if the county mandates that they build their own
facili
Mr. Gilden responded no to both of those. Mr. Gilden stated that it is not the intention of the
county to be running utility services out there. However, if a property, because of compliance
with other parts of the code of the comprehensive plan, is entitled to water then according to the
regulations it must be provided, which may mean putting an onsite system up for that village or
cluster and not running lines or it may be the other way, but it is going to be in accordance with
these requirements. The goal is to avoid people haphazardly putting up utilities and
undermining the purpose of the comprehensive plan. The ordinance proposed today would be
a regulation that ensured that utilities would be provided to areas of development within
compliance with all of the development parts of the plan and meet the basic requirements.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if services would be provided for the towns, village and countryside
development element being discussed now.
Mr. Gilden stated that if it was approved and the developments complied with requirements,
then services would be provided.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked Mr. Bowers about the terms all development inside the USB was
going to be required to hook-up to utility service and was it ever clarified that if a person has a
one-acre lot with a single family home on it is he going to be required to hook up to it if he has
provisions for sewer and septic tank there.
Mr. Gilden stated that provisions were made for those comments and those changes were put in
the ordinance and that a person would not be required to hook up and it gives discretion back to
the County Commission. He stated that if an individual is allowed by other law to use the well
and septic tank, he has those rights. However, if another law not having to do with the county
forces that, then obviously he has to comply with those laws, but this regulation is not forcing
that.
Vice-Chairman Hearn thanked Mr. Gilden.
8
Mr. Gilden stated that this ordinance provides a framework in place that will allow the
comprehensive plan adopted by the County for development to be implemented and allows a
plan so that the development plan is not undermined by other options not currently in place.
The main factor/protection of this ordinance is that property owners have the ability to put in
their own utility services and they can go beyond and behind the County to the Public Service
Commission and get a certificate from the State. This ordinance is attempting to get control of
the process so that the unified plan of the County Development works and avoid what happens
in other counties, namely developments putting up package plants and garbage things all over
the place and then selling out and leaving so that the counties or cities have to come in a pick
up the pieces. This ordinance
to operate so that people who are entitled to utility service by doing, for instance the cluster plan
if it gets approved, this has a plan for how that gets done. It is really just again to make sure the
plan works and we have a framework in place so that no one can undermine that plan and go
beyond that.
Mr. Akins asked that if the comp plan amendment passes and the North County Charette is
adopted as part of the St. Lucie County Comp Plan and if this ordinance passes does that then
create an entitlement to anyone developing within the North County Charette to County Utilities.
Mr. Gilden responded that if the County Commission passes the regulation, passes the
ordinance and someone has come in with a development that would fit within those
requirements then under this plan they have the requirement to come to the County and say
that utility services are needed for a project which has been approved. This plan provides for
how that utility service will be provided.
Mr. Akin asked if the county would be required to provide services to an area such as the North
County Charette. He asked if there was an area already in place and part of the comp plan that
develops first if St Lucie County would be required to provide service whether or not there is any
interconnecting development.
Mr. Bowers interjected that Mr. Akins was talking about the interim facilities.
Mr. Gilden stated that if the County Commission approves a development in an area such as
the north county and under this rule they come to the utility and they say we now need utility
service. The Utility Authority, under this ordinance has the ability to inform the individual that
no plans for utilities are set, no lines will be built, however the individual may put in either an
interim plant or a permanent onsite facility to serve that utility.
Mr. Akins reiterated that the county would not be required to run lines.
Mr. Gilden confirmed the statement. However, he stated that if a development were approved
and if a plan was in place, then a mechanism either an interim or permanent onsite facility will
be used.
Mr. Akins asked if the County would be providing the package plan.
Mr. Gilden responded that all the impacts or all the utility services are paid by the developer;
county funds are not involved in the process.
9
Mr. Bowers concurred.
Mr. Kelly requested that he may ask a question.
Chairman Grande
Mr. Kelly stated that at a prior hearing a project was considered in the Charette area which was
off Johnson Road up on the county line and it was 160 units on 160 acres. Mr. Kelly stated it
was what was known as a - kind of development.
Chairman Grande interjected that it was Rocking Horse Ranch.
Mr. Kelly stated that he agreed that it was Rocking Horse
Ranch. He stated that during that meeting the Board had a rather lengthy discussion about
whether a project like Rocking Horse should be provided utilities when it was the one-per-acre,
TVC was mandatory and would have required something like Rocking Horse to fit in to the plan.
The latest revision that we heard about today kind of backed off from that and went back to the
statement that if you had those rights in the past you still have them, so that someone could
develop a low-density development far away from one of the villages. And I think what we saw
seemed to be part of the discussion and I guess I am asking really for clarification for everybody
because that seems to be part of the discussion here. As I understand it, a low-density
development on the periphery of the area not adjacent to or connected to any one of the villages
has rights to develop, but they have the rights they have today which is probably a septic tank
and there is no obligation for the County to ever provide utilities over long distances for a few
homes in a low-density kind of area.
Mr. Gilden agreed.
Chairman Grande stated that Mr. Kelly was correct and that he was waiting until all the
comments were made to address this. Chairman Grande stated that he sat through the meeting
that afternoon and heard a couple of things which relate specifically to this, that was one of
them. That is prior to the latest TVC definition, Rocking Horse Ranch would have been
inconsistent with the TVC and therefore not have been a problem for these regulations, but as
of today, at any rate, they are saying that even within the TVC area, if you choose not to go with
the town, village concept and you have a one-per acre entitlement you can develop at one-per
in TVC affects that. And reading this it seemed to me that this was aimed at the old TVC
definition. And if you look on page 2, in 1.3 in the middle of the second paragraph, whereas
what I think you were talking about, developments that were consistent with the old TVC
definition, and I think rightfully you took out the TVC language and you replaced it with
consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the assumption there was that the TVC, in its old
fashion, would be in the comprehensive plan that definition has now changed and if you take
evelopments located inside or outside the
urban service boundary that meet the goals objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County
approved for development by the Cou
That sounds right last week, but wrong this week.
10
Mr. Gilden asked if he could address the issue. Mr. Gilden stated,
that they can come and say, to the County, we would like to have utility water for this
development.
Chairman Grande responded that in the beginning of the ordinance it says everybody has got to
Mr. Gilden agreed.
Chairman Grande responded that this ordinance
Mr. Gilden stated that the document says that you are eligible. But eligible means you can
come and ask us to put in utility service and then you go to the regulations, which I have just
explained, which says we choose how you are going to get utility service. This could mean
individual on-site systems. It could also mean if you are willing to pay for it, and you are for that
development and you are willing to put in an on-site plant, it could mean an onsite plant. Or if it
mean
the line at your cost. Eligible simply means we have the option of showing you how you are
going to pay for what utility service that you are going to get and it could be from individual
septic tanks or wells if that is the proper means of service for a particular development and it
could mean any
construct or do any particular kind of utility service for you. But, if the County Commission
approves that plan, you have the right to come in and ask us, we would like utility service for this
property, and then , one,
constructing septic tanks or by constructing an on-site system or by extending this line which
mean that you are entitled to make us do anything.
Chairman Grande Okay
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked Chairman Grande if the language needs to be a little clearer. He
stated that it may be interpreted a different way by any number of people who come before the
Board for approvals.
Mr. Bowers responded that the lettering in blue was a re-write specifically for that purpose. Mr.
Bowers asked if it seemed clear enough for the Board.
Chairman Grande responded that he thought it was absolutely clear if the game
changed.
Mr. Bowers asked if Chairman Grande was referring to the prior meeting held today.
Chairman Grande responded that if they were still saying that you need to meet the TVC town
and then this is clear. But now they have said you also
retain the option of n-per acre, you can build at one-per acre and
that still conforms to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, although it is not consistent with
the TVC. Where we went and changed all of the TVC references to the St. Lucie County Comp
Plan references we have now, at least implied, I mean if I were looking to develop Rocking
Horse Ranch now, and I read this, come to you and report that I am
11
Mr. Bowers stated that
services.
Vice-Chairman Hearn stated that a well and septic tank are not eligible to utility services.
Mr. Gilden replied eligible means that you can come in and ask how utilities will be provided.
Mr. Akins provided a reference to the section. He stated that he thought that there could be
serious ambiguity litigation over the verbiage.
Vice-Chairman Hearn stated that an appropriate version may be
service
Mr. Akins agreed.
Mr. Gilden responded that those words would be a very good addition.
Mr. Akins agreed and added that the options available be referenced in the ordinance, because
not necessarily eligible to
receive services from St. Lucie County, but you may be able to build your own package plan.
However this is not receiving services from St. Lucie County.
Mr. Gilden you are eligible to apply to receive services
more appropriate.
Chairman Grande responded that it would be incorrect to use that phrase because earlier in the
document you say everybody has to apply.
Vice-Chairman Hearn stated they are applying.
Chairman Grande agreed that y
apply.
Mr. Gilden eligible to receive services subject to the
requirements of Division 3 and Division 4.
Mr. Akins agreed that the verbiage would be plainer.
Ms. Hammer stated that the words that were troublesome now were
service if I am putting in my own well and my own septic tank, so I think they are the words that
could come back to haunt us, especially after the 3 hours we just listened to.
Chairman Grande advised that before the ordinance goes to the County Commission, it needs
to be clarified because there is an implication that the county is going to provide services.
Mr. Gilden replied that the ordinance states that an individual can put in a well and septic tank
for an individual lot by other laws, not this. The ordinance
well and septic for that development, they come to us and then we follow under Division 3 and 4
the mechanism for getting them non-well and septic tank.
12
Chairman Grande stated that at the ordinance says that, per the comp plan no subdivision of
real property or any act of proposed development of property within the unincorporated area of
the County shall occur without first requesting utility services for potable water, wastewater and
reclaimed water from the County. So, an individual well and septic still
has to come in.
Mr. Gilden replied yes, and he would have to talk to us.
Chairman Grande added that the individual would
Mr. Gilden agreed that the statement was correct. He also stated that in the ordinance it says
that the department would grant the individual the right to put in his well and septic tank.
Chairman Grande commented that that was right.
Mr. Trias stated that he had a question and realized that some of the discussion just seems to
be policy issues. My question is, why is this ordinance not an amendment to the comp plan,
why is it something else? It appears to me that a lot of the concerns here deal with some very
fundamental issues of development and what development should be. Clearly this is not a very
subtle and perfect tool to deal with those things. Other tools may be more appropriate. So, my
question is, why are we getting this in this form, as opposed to some other form?
Mr. Gilden responded that there are two things. Number one is that the ordinance is meant to
implement the policies of the comprehensive plan. It does not create comprehensive plan
changes or deal with those issues, which is why great pains were taken throughout the
ordinance to state that the County Commission is the authority that makes those decisions.
This ordinance follows the County Comp Plan, it and it
rights. Mr. Gilden stated that great pains were taken to discuss that. He advised that
regulations of how this is going to be implemented need to be in place and
What you have now is no implementation process and right now you have the option, the
opportunity for development to take place outside of the scope of this and contrary to the
comprehensive planning requirements, and can get around those. What this is, and you have to
have this vehicle to implement what the county has already and will in the future put in place,
mp plan says it, then you better
Mr. Trias stated yes, says that in one
page, I would be very happy and if I had a comp plan that explained all the policies and all the
ideas in great detail, I would also be very happy. What I see here is a variety of things that
seem to be in both places at once, and in none at the end. I think that some of the ideas are
very good; in fact -defined for development. But, I
The
point being that this by itself does not explain what we need to know.
Mr. Akins commented that at this point, his concern if at all remains a question declaring, is the
ordinance a necessity?
this
assessment of whether or not this property can receive services and what type of services. If
so, why are we messing with it?
13
Mr. Gilden responded that there are two answers to that.
Mr. Bowers responded yes we do. But first, we do receive that.
Mr. Gilden stated but secondly, right now, under many different conflicting laws, individual
property owners can provide their own utility services, they can create their own utilities, they
can go to the Public Service Commission, they can create special districts and do these things
-
within the control of the County, or the other utilities for that matter, too, that are within their own
and right that the public, frankly has to pick up at the end of the day. That right now is the
current state of the law. T
that you now have a unified provision of the services, together with the comprehensive plan.
around and says the project should not have this type of utility service, they can go just bypass
doing. They could create the same urban sprawl that you are trying to eliminate, or the county
is, with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Akins stated is is exactly what a few weeks ago
T
Mr. Gilden responded that it did not. This says that if the County has approved a development,
that development goes through this process, which is how you get the utility services. This
put up, that goes through the comp plan, and that comes from the Commission. All this does is
say, if you have gotten there, to follow and implement the county plan; here is how we get utility
services.
Mr. Akins responded
you is that this is already done now
that they can do under state law
a County Ordinance?
Mr. Gilden stated that there were
y, which is a whole
different set of rules and regulations and we already frankly have that in place. This again deals
with what is going to happen outside the urban service boundary so that when the county, on
their comprehensive plan, deals with how development takes place there. This addresses how
the utility services get provided. Under this code, by ordinance, you can create these rules and
regulations
utility service area. So, this does now give you, and you have the right to implement this plan,
that will allow people to do and create their own utilities and do anything they want. Once you
create this you have control over that process.
Mr. Akins stated well partially. My concern is that you as the utilities authority have control. It
seems more that you are resting control from the County Commission by this ordinance. How is
14
the project going to be approved by the County Commission without a water source to begin
with? Explain that to me and then we will get to this ordinance.
Mr. Bowers responded I think that the approval for any development in the county the water and
a
component of it. You could certainly do, well we have in the past done developments without
n various locations.
Mr. Akins agreed that this has been the choice of the approving authorities of that project.
Chairman Grande stated that more importantly it has been part of the application.
Mr. Bower disagreed and stated that the ordinance needs to be put in place or run the risk of not
having control of it in the future. He also stated that this gives control of what happens and
Mr. Akins stated that the County Commission had control over it to begin with.
Mr. Gilden disagreed and stated that the County Commission did not have control over the utility
service. He stated that the County Commission can not dictate what provisions are going to be
put in place in a development.
Mr. Akins responded that the County Commission did have the authority to do that.
Mr. Gilden rebutted that if the Public Service Commission authorizes a private utility to create a
utility and send lines throughout an area, the county commission cannot deny them that right.
Under this regulation the county commission would be able to deny. The goal is to avoid private
utilities from destroying the comprehensive plan determined by the county.
Mr. Akins replied that development cannot occur outside the comprehensive plan just because
utilities are in place.
Mr. Gilden agreed, however he stated that with a private utility service placing lines in areas, an
individual may say that the lines are accessible because of the private utility service.
Mr. Akins stated that the ordinance still does not create any more entitlement to development
than a private company existing in an area would.
Mr. Gilden stated that it is two different points. The situation that the ordinance is trying to avoid
is a private utility company placing lines in an area and then a developer coming in and saying
that they are entitled to develop mainly because utility lines are accessible and available.
those lines being non-existent.
Mr. Gilden stated that the ordinance specifically addressed this situation and made it so that
developers would not have an entitlement to existing utility lines. He also stated that this point
could be argued today because this situation has not been provided for in the existing
documents.
Mr. Akins replied that a project cannot go before the County Commission solely on the premise
that there are utilities in the area.
15
Mr. Gilden stated that the ordinance gives the county the ability to regulate and avoid the
situation of a developer trying to claim entitlement just because the lines are in place.
Mr. Lounds suggested that the meeting be open to a public hearing. He stated that perhaps
some of the questions of the public could be answered by the staff.
Chairman Grande opened the meeting to the public.
Mark Mathes, member of the audience. Mr. Mathes stated that if an individual is developing
under the standard zoning criteria of the county, there are thresholds that allow staff approval of
those projects. Even if Commission approval was required under standing zoning districts if the
objective criteria are met there is no legal basis for denial. This could lead to circumstances
where utilities could be available that are not regulated through the county that would provide
utility availability to a parcel that would not necessarily be in the best interest of planning of the
county but would meet the technical requirements for straight zoning and would then have to be
approved. Mr. Mathes suggested that the point they were trying to make is that it would give the
county another tool to say even under straight zoning situations where utilities may be available,
the individual must still go to the county for determination of the best utility service for that area.
Mr. Akins replied that the situation that they are addressing today, more specifically the North
County Charette, was not a straight-zoning situation. There were complexities with the many
projects and the amount of increase of density.
Mr. Mathes agreed with Mr. Akins and stated that his intention was to demonstrate that there
were situations in which an ordinance such as this would be helpful in avoiding possible
problems.
Vice-Chairman Hearn inquired of Mr. Mathes if he supported the ordinance.
Mr. Mathes responded that he did not know the ordinance in detail however he did feel that it
was in the best interest of the public to pass the ordinance.
Vice-Chairman Hearn agreed with Mr. Mathes.
Chairman Grande asked for additional members of the audience to come up and speak.
Chairman Grande closed the meeting to the public.
Mr. Trias stated that his impression after all that has been said is that the goal of the ordinance
is to make the County the sole provider of utilities.
Mr. Bowers replied that the goal of the ordinance is to control the provision of utilities.
Mr. Trias stated that several people had stated explicitly that the goal was to make the county
the only provider of utilities.
Mr. Gilden replied that the goal was to control the utility provisions within the service area of the
county. He stated that the other utilities including Port St. Lucie would be included as well.
16
Mr. Trias stated that there have been many unsuccessful attempts to solve disputes among the
utility companies regarding service.
Mr. Gilden replied that at this time there are service territory agreements between the FPUA,
Port St. Lucie and the County are in place and are not being disputed now. Individual service
issues are present, but not the service territory.
Mr. Trias asked how long these service agreements were going to last. He then reiterated that
the point of the ordinance was very clear and that it was to expand the ability of the County to
provide water and sewer services and Mr. Trias feels that this is the wrong approach. Mr. Trias
then stated that in terms of development throughout the County the comp plan is the most
effective way to deal with this development.
ent and stated that he felt the point of the
ordinance was to define the areas in which the County was not responsible for providing utilities
for. An example would be the towns and villages which are outside the urban service area, the
county would say that if developers were along the way to the towns and villages there would be
no right for the developers to hook into county utilities.
Mr. Bowers stated that this statement was correct with the additional statement that if it was a
non-approved development by the County. Mr. Bowers then stated that if it is an approved
development on the way then you happen to be lucky if it is approved development.
Chairman Grande then referred to Mr. Akins statement of not being able to have an unapproved
development.
Mr. Bowers provided an example for clarification. An individual that owns a 10-acre parcel with
one dwelling on it could hook into county utility lines. They would have that right. However,
they would not have the right to create 10 units and receive county utilities. That would have to
be approved by the Board. Once approved then it would fall under the eligibility again.
Chairman Grande expressed his opinion. He senses that the content of the North County
Charette has changed significantly within the last week to ten days. This document was aimed
at the comprehensive plan changes that were formulated for the North County Charette. This
document is one iteration behind its comprehensive plan partner. If the Board were to approve
this document today, we would be specifically approving section 1.3, which would be
inconsistent with the current comprehensive plan. Chairman Grande also referred to the last
statement, which is an exclusion statement making those things that are not mentioned okay.
There is an exclusion statement which states that, proposed developments located inside or
outside the urban service boundary that do not meet the criteria of either goals, objectives or
policies of the comprehensive plan are not eligible to connect to utility line extensions even if
such developments are proposed in proximity to a utility line extension. This statement says
that if they are consistent then they are eligible to connect. However, the comp plan meetings
are saying no to that. Chairman Grande stated that he thought the document had been written
for things consistent with the North County Charette Plan and changes were made to be
consistent for the comp plan under the assumption that the North County Charette Plan would
be part of the comp plan.
Mr. Gilden stated that it was actually the reverse and that this was written prior to the knowledge
that the comp plan change. The commission requested that the document be changed and the
language that was stricken was added by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel
17
people, which is why when it came back, that was taken out because the Commission felt that
the opposite.
Mr. Trias stated that that was exactly his point.
logically comes first, the policies go in the comp plan and then the regulations are done to
implement the policies of the comp plan. The comp plan has not been accepted, adopted or
finished yet. These regulations should be approved once the comp plan has been approved.
Mr. Gilden stated that that point was exactly why the verbiage was taken out. He stated that
this ordinance was written to implement the existing comp plan and was meant and drafted so
that it would apply to the existing comp plan. Additionally, if the County changes the comp plan,
the regulations are already in place and then changes become binding on the ordinance. Staff
agrees that these regulations should be in place for use with the existing comp plan.
Mr. Trias stated that there were two main points to the ordinance. Encouragement of
development outside the urban service boundary and that the county will be the sole provider of
utilities. Mr. Trias declared that the two main points are the fundamental concepts. Mr. Trias
also stated that the basic issue is finding answers to explain why there is a need for
development outside the USB and why there is a need for a single provider which most
definitely is the County. There has been some direction from the County Commission that has
not been implemented in a way that is effective and really reflects what is necessary in this
county. Mr. Trias stated that we need better planning, and better ideas as how to implement
that planning.
Mr. Gilden agreed with Mr. Trias regarding the point of having the county as the provider of
utilities, however, he disagreed with the statement of encouraging growth outside of the USB.
He stated that this ordinance was designed to do just the opposite. The ordinance does not
encourage growth outside the UBS boundary, however, it recognizes that others can get around
the existing comp plan and do encourage growth. The County is able to keep the comp plan.
Mr. Trias stated that at this time the ordinance is not written in a manner that clearly states the
intention of the ordinance is to discourage developing outside the USB. He stated that perhaps
the verbiage should be rewritten that does clearly discourage this kind of growth.
Mr. Gilden responded to Mr. Trias and declared that the ordinance is to protect the County so
that nothing happens without their consideration. The protection of the Comprehensive Plan is
supposed to be in action and it does not get out of hand by things and actors outside of that
control, in which it does exactly the opposite of that.
Mr. Trias disagreed and stated that it clearly does not do the opposite of that because several
members are not persuaded to that belief. Mr. Trias clarified that they do not disagree with the
concept; however, they disagree with what is before them because the language does not do
exactly what Mr. Gilden was saying.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Bowers how often are the service bills audited.
Mr. Bowers stated that they are audited annually and that it is a typical budgeting process.
18
Mr. Lounds asked if the utility service was a means of revenue for the county.
Mr. Lounds then asked Mr. Bowers about the requirements of an individual to receive services
from the county. The services were confirmed as water, wastewater and reclaimed water. The
question was then put forth in the format of an example stating: that if an individual were to have
a property with a dwelling and decided to use county utilities, does he have a choice as to which
utilities he received?
Mr. Gilden responded that there is a choice and the options are between water and sewer in
which reclaim is preferred instead of sewer. That information is in a separate document and not
in the ordinance being discussed. It is in the uniform extension policy, which is already in place.
Mr. Lounds asked if he was to develop a property out
discussed in this ordinance have to be solved/resolved under a PUD. Proof of sewer, water,
etc. would have to be provided before development could begin. If utilities are not currently
available, then it would be the responsibility of the developer to persuade the Board of County
Commissioners and the P&Z Board that the plan was okay and if this is not successfully done,
then the PUD is denied.
Mr. Bowers responded yes, it is the normal procedure.
Mr. Lounds then asked if this regulation, the board would be able to regulate and control growth
outside the USB.
Mr. Bowers responded that it would not be due to the regulation. This regulation will not allow a
developer or individual to hook up to county utilities on the basis that an individual does not
comply with the comp plan.
Mr. Lounds then stated that if a developer was not given the authority to put in a water and
sewer plant, then the PUD would be denied.
Mr. Bowers confirmed that statement.
Mr. Lounds then stated the utility service is controlling whether development could occur outside
the USB.
Mr. Bowers responded that it would be as a PUD and it would be different. Mr. Bowers also
stated that that scenario would be under the PUD process and he is not familiar with that
process. He deferred that statement to the planning department, stating that they would be the
authorities in that area.
Mr. Lounds had another question which regarded the TVC. He made reference to the
discussion that occurred prior to this meeting. He asked how this ordinance was going to affect
the Charette and how utilities would be provided outside the USB.
Mr. Bowers responded that it would be an economic consideration. Mr. Bowers stated that
perhaps a package plant within the cluster would be the resolution. However, it would be that it
19
depended on how the cluster was developed over time and perhaps running lines from nearby
services would be the logical thing to do. The opportunity to decide would then be made by the
Utility Service.
Mr. Lounds then turned the focus to the South County. Mr. Lounds inquired about the ability to
petition other utility services for water and sewage provisions. He used the example of a
property located north of Midway Road.
Mr. Bowers stated that the right to petition other utility services would depend on the location of
the development, property. He replied that the particular location Mr. Lounds used would be
within the county service area.
Mr. Lounds then stated that south of Midway Road
would be able to petition them for utility services.
Vice-Chairman Hearn asked if a developer could get an approved package from an outside
entity that the County Commission would have to recognize and approve development. The
county would have to approve a development if they could prove they had services from another
outside source.
Mr. Gilden replied that under current regulations that statement would be true.
Mr. Bowers added that under this ordinance in Section 1.3 the same would be true.
Mr. Lounds read Section 1.3 stating that it said that if there is proof of adequate water treatment
plant, wastewater plant then a developer could proceed.
Mr. Bowers confirmed that if the Board approved the plan, then yes, the developer could
proceed.
Mr. Lounds stated that if the Board did not approve a plan and utility lines would not be run, then
a project would not be able to proceed.
Mr. Bowers replied that the statement made was incorrect. In that case the individual would be
eligible to apply to receive services from the county. The cost extension of lines to the property
would be the responsibility of the individual. An interim plant could also be constructed as long
as they were built to county specifications.
Chairman Grande inquired as to any additional questions.
Mr. Akins inquired about a particular scenario using the location of Indrio corridor. In this
hypothetical situation under this ordinance with the approval of the comp plan amendment, the
corner of Indrio and Russakis is approved for development and the county as the utility authority
decides that a line will be run by the county and services provided by the county. The
assumption is also made that Emerson Lake is not there. The parcel is then later approved for
development; can the county under this ordinance deny provision of utilities?
Mr. Bowers asked for clarification of not providing utilities.
20
Mr. Gilden stated under this ordinance the county has the right to determine if approval for
development is given and has the right to decide where utility services will be coming from. The
county is able to make the decision that hooking into a line is not to be done, but instead an
interim facility will be constructed due to the fact that it would be financially economical, sound
of engineering and compliant with the comp plan. The ordinance gives the county the control to
determine the best method of receiving services and ensure that it is in the best interest of the
community.
Mr. Akins then put forth the assumption that the cost of putting in an interim plant far exceeded
the cost of hooking into a county feeder line. How then do you propose to defeat a lawsuit
under an arbitrary and capricious standpoint?
Mr. Gilden responded that the cost of the line is not the only factor that goes into the
determination. Plant capacity, line capacity, other connections are all other variables that are
factored into the determination. These are provided for in the ordinance not as a list of
variables, which might not be all-inclusive, but instead lists the factors that are reviewed. These
include engineering, financial and feasibility and then the determination is made.
Mr. Akins asked if this ordinance creates an entitlement for an individual to access a line unless
the county authority can establish that it is unreasonable to allow them to do this.
Mr. Gilden replied that this ordinance does not create entitlement. What it says is that you come
to us and ask for service and we determine the most economical, feasible mechanism for an
individual to receive utility services.
Mr. Akins then asked if a person meets all of the criteria, must the county approve services?
development which means that the right is given for service for that development.
Mr. Akins stated that confusion aroused because it appear to be a usage of two different terms.
The right to have services is granted to the developer but it appears that this right is only the
first level, if the right to have services is granted to the developer, why is it that the County have
the right to determine if or not the developer can hook up to the existing lines or purchase their
own package plan?
Mr. Gilden replied yes, or the developer can accommodate with one of the other options for
those services.
Mr. Akins restated again that under the availability of the criteria, County is initiating that is okay
to hook up to the lines. Mr. Akins was enforcing that a measurable criteria must be used to
hook up to the lines.
Mr. Gilden agreed stating if the analysis is done and it declares the best for the public meeting
all of the requirements allows the developer to hook on into the lines.
Mr. Akins said okay, and questioned about the entitlement to hook on into the lines.
Mr. Gilden responded that it is not an entitlement, and then the developer would have the right
to hook on into the line. Mr. Gilden clarified that the word entitlement has two different
meanings: In terms of land use, it defines how the service is going to be distributed to the
21
customer, which is the economical and engineering feasible way to get the job done. Mr. Gilden
clarified the entitlement confrontations and arenas to avoid mixture of the two.
Mr. Akins stated his concern of creating a situation that can be interpreted to an entitlement that
may create litigations. Mr. Akins announced that the possibilities of the issue opening upfor
interpretations will be created if initiative purposes are not stated or met and the issue will be
discussed and interpreted by the courts.
Mr. Gilden responded that the order of the plan manifests criteria for which to analyze the given
information. A document can not be created today that list every single possible element, the
weight that is given to that element, and timing. A regulation can not be made that shows and
goes through a laundry list of every possible issue. However, a reasonable criteria and a
baseline is established and the decision making alternative is placed in the hands of someone,
and obviously, anyone for any decision that the County makes or any other one makes, has the
right to go and challenge those decisions. The process is in place with the criteria generally in
place and then the decision is made.
A speaker calls for Chairman Grande.
The speaker approaches Mr. Bowers and states a concern about a piece of land close to the
city, preferably the Lenore piece of land located on Jenkins Road and Orange Avenue. The
question is, can a developer or owner of a piece of land in this area approach the city and
ex if the demand is met?
so yes the demand can be made and annexed.
ation.
The speaker asks If we go farther West and cross Kings
Mr. Bowers asked was the particular location on Orange Avenue.
The speaker replied that he would be North of Orange Avenue, just outside of the research park
area, west of the jail.
Another speaker clarifies that containing the research park, the East half of it is in and the West
half is out of the city.
The previous speaker asked if this does anything to the areas where the city is right close or at
the boundary of the county. Does this prevent them from annexing that area?
Mr. Bowers replied no, it has no impact of the issue of annexation.
The speaker asked for Mr. Bowers to clarify reasons why it does not.
22
Mr. Bowers clarified that annexation is not a factor of this particular utilities service, concerning
this regulation. There is a whole statue of how a city can annex and the guidelines are required
to be followed. However, this issue has no implication to that statute toward requirement.
Chairman Grande summoned Mr. Trias.
A speaker spoke of an exception of a service area. For instance, in the future if the city were to
annex, this would already cover that.
Another speaker replied, okay.
The pre
Mr. Trias interfered stating that the assumption is that the service boundary is going to be there
for a long time, and not going to change next Month, next year and so forth. Mr. Trias
clarified that the statement is only and assumption to the best of his knowledge.
Sure
the city. He clarified that it was his opinion. In addition, Mr. Trias concluded that to go on such
flimsy regulatory conditions is unreasonable.
A speaker replied to Mr. Trias stating that it is apart of the ordinance, when the agreements
between the city and the county are called out.
Mr. Gilden clarified that there is and inter-local agreement that establishes the service territories
among and between the three entities.
The speaker agreed.
Mr. Trias replied, however, the issue had been worked on for several years and if is well known
of the type of changes of mind that have occurred and so forth. He concluded that with a track
record of this type of discussion, unless there is an amendment to the comp plan or a clear
regulation that is long-term and long-lasting, it is impossible for the idea to work.
Chairman Grande concluded that the discussion needs to maintain focus on the curriculum of
the issue.
Mr. Lounds implied to Mr. Bowers that the meetings and ideas behind towns, villages, and
county sides are changing and it is going through a metamorphic system. He questioned about
the mechanisms that are in place t change the ordinance to adapt to the need that may arouse
half a year from now or even a full year from now, when towns, villages and country sides really
becomes to gel and harde
amendment to the ordinance?
Mr. Bowers replied that the ordinance is an ordinance, which means that the County
Commission has the right to change it and amend it and go thorough the entire process again.
If in fact something is adopted six Months from now or a year from now that changes or has and
changes or adjust the changes by ordinance.
23
Mr. Lounds questioned and confirmed whether or not the changes will come back before the
county.
Mr. Bowers confirmed and agreed.
Mr. Lounds thanked Mr. Bowers.
Chairman Grande motioned for all other comments, and then commented himself. He stated
that he has two problems. Primarily he begun by agreeing with the indictments made from the
podium, in terms of the way the County would like to handle the utilities. In addition Chairman
said to be.
Furthermore, the concept of eligibility to hook up when a line goes pass the property is
single member of the group is able to edit the ordinance and clearly proclaim what it says. In
every instance that was brought up as an example, there has not been a profound conclusion of
what the ordinance is concerning the decision, and its impact on the citizens. The summary is
very strange to make, however,
simply a not that complex situation. Chairman Grande concluded that he is thoroughly
convinced that section 1.3 does legally provide entitlements to citizens and there is no place for
those
confirmed and
mentioned about the pure view of the comprehensive plan. Commission Grande clarified his
reasons for going through this explanation. In addition, he added that he speaks for himself and
himself only. His own sense or recommendation is that the issues need to follow the comp plan
rather than precede it. It needs to be consistent with the comp
down the pike. There is no definite reason for establishing anything now, even though it creates
more delays which already existed, Chairman of any
reason in the world to pass this issue tonight. He also concluded that he does not understand
the terms and he left the opposition open for anyone to challenge his judgments or clarify the
misunderstanding. Chairman Grande stated that if he was put up against it, he would vote
against it or he suggests that the proposal is taken back. Chairman Grande concluded that he
does not suggest that the proposal be taken back and brought forth again a couple weeks or
Months later. More work is required or is necessary, the words need to be simplified, and the
law needs to be direct. The proposal must be readable and understandable. Also, Chairman
Grande concluded that agreements must be made concerning the main idea of the ordinance.
Unfortunately, there are no agreements upon this proposal.
Mr. Trias agreed with Chairman Grande. Mr. Trias also made a recommendation requiring that
no action is taken upon the proposal because the business needs to be broken into several
documents rather than one. Preferably the language terms concerning the comp plan need to
be examined and adjusted. Mr. Trias clarified that this recommendation is his opinion and he
speaks for himself.
Chairman Grande summoned Mr. Trias if or not he wanted to make a motion to that effect.
Mr. Trias motioned that the item be postponed to an appropriate time so that a revision can be
made that includes additional information concerning the comp plan.
Chairman Grande opened the motion up for discussion.
24
Mr. Lounds discussed and questioned Mr. Bowers about the timeline, if any that were given to
try to make the comp plan go for the developments that are coming west of the area in the
Charettes.
Mr. Bowers replied that the timeline revolved around avoiding postponements and further
delays.
A speaker motioned for a final comment. He restated that the ordinance was modeled on the
ordinance that was adopted by Hillsborough County. He concluded that the ordinances are
identical with slight variations. He also added that the ordinance has been working in
Hillsborough County successfully for a sufficient amount of years with no problems or
challenges to the implementation of that ordinance since it has been in place. He concluded
that the ordinance has work and has in fact solved the same issues that are being discussed at
this meeting. He appreciates that the document is very lengthy and it has a lot of legalese
contained with in it. He also reminded the Board that the ordinance has been in place and has
worked well in another county that is ahead of our county, facing the same problems.
Mr. Trias addressed the Chairman on the subject of the last statement concerning the ordinance
creating Hillsborough County.
The speaker clarified that the ordinance will vacate what had happened in Hillsborough County.
He concluded that what happened in Hillsborough County happened because they did not have
the ordinance in place. However, since the ordinance has been in place, Hillsborough County
has developed control of that process. He concluded that before the ordinance was put in place
in Hillsborough County, they faced the same problems that the County is now facing.
Mr. Trias agreed to agree with the speaker upon proof and explanation of the ordinance and its
impact or effect on Hillsborough County. Mr. Trias concluded that there is not enough
information presented for him to believe what he hears. Mr. Trias inquired a practical example
of how not to become Broward County or any other county in terms of sprawl, which in turn
would be very useful. Mr. Trias concluded.
A speaker made brief comments voting against the motion that was presented. He stated that a
more profound foundation of terms needs to be established. He agreed with Mr. Knapp who
stated that although the language is a bit incomprehensive, the intent is clear that the county
needs to get control over what type of services are provided in unincorporated areas.
Chairman Grande concluded and inquired for a roll call.
A speaker inquired for a review of the motion.
Vice-Chairman reviewed the motion which is to delay table until additional information on the
comp plan comes back.
Mr. Trias confirmed the motion. He also added that the information may come back in a short
time frame.
Chairman Grande inquired for the roll call again.
Roll Call was made.
25
Mrs. Hammer voted no to delay.
Mr. Hearn voted no to delay.
Mr. Lounds voted no to delay.
Mrs. Morgan voted yes.
Mr. Knapp voted no.
Mr. Trias voted yes.
Mr. Mc Curdy was absent.
Mr. Akins voted yes
Mr. Grande voted yes.
The results of the mending of the motion were four to four. Chairman Grande stated the
procedures concerning the voting order.
Mr. Lounds inquired a revote.
Chairman Grande inquired and answer from the Board.
A speaker approached Mr. Lounds on the matter of a revote. He stated that they are only
advising the county commissioner of how they feel and a message by a four to four vote had
already been sent to the Commissioners and a revote is left up to him to decide.
Mr. Lounds replied that if a fifty-fifty point of confusion is taken to the County Commission, he
hopes that they realize that the votes are not one-hundred percent accurate concerning a
majority vote.
Chairman Grande intervened and stated that the vote is not sent forth as a even split vote rather
there is an action one-way presentation of the votes.
Mrs. Hammer replied that because of the even number of members present at the meeting, the
vote for or against the delay may or may not be split in half. However if it is the only action that
can be taken, then further recommendations concerning the votes will be forwarded on to the
Board. She concluded that a change in voting can not be enforced. Normally, there would be a
vote on recommendation approval or denial. The votes that were made tonight were not
approving or denying anything, it was simply delaying the issue. She also recommended that a
motion for approval or denial would be made so that it could be presented to the Board.
A Speaker moved to approve what Mrs. Hammer had stated.
Another Speaker motioned to second that approval with slight adjustments added to the
agenda. He recommended that the maker of the motion would agree to insert language terms
that agree upon the revisions that were made during the meeting. Also he recommended that
the package plan be located as far away from existing residentially zoned property as possible.
26
Chairman Grande inquired of an explanation to clarify what the speaker was purposing.
The Speaker clarified that he was speaking of the package plan that the
Board was ultimately making a requirement for.
Another speaker stated that he did not understand what was being said.
A speaker clarified that Mr. Bowers had aforetime spoken of the location of the wastewater
treatment plant on Indrio Road. The speaker was seconding the motion that it be located as far
away from existing residentially zoned property as possible.
A Mr. Mc Curdy stated that his motion to approve was made to move the motion on, which will
allow the Board to approve or deny the proposal.
Chairman Grande confirmed that the speaker was asking for the meeting to be moved on,
telling the County Commissions to approve it as it is.
The Mr. Mc Curdy
motion is moved and approved by Commission as it is with the amendments that were
previously spoken of.
Mr. Knapp seconded the motion.
Chairman Grande opened the hearing up for comments.
Mr. Akins expressed his opinion. He feels that the exchange that was just made about the
package plan manifested the clarity which the ordinance possesses.
Mr. Mc Curdy expressed that the issue need to be pushed forward or not at all so that Mr.
Bowers will be given another direction wherein he may be able to determine how to get to the
conclusion of how attain the point of doing what needs to be done.
Chairman Grande agreed. He added that upon his agreement he it identifies whey the motion is
misunderstood. He stated that it seems as if it has become pretty evident that no one really
understands the motion. He concluded that if the motion is going to be passed forward, is it a
necessity that approval is recommended?
Mr. Mc Curdy reiterated that his motion is amended, because he does not understand the
terms.
Chairman Grande replied that the question was fair and he apologized for any offenses taken.
He stated that he would have made a motion to deny, so that the motion gets passed forward
saying that it is not ready to go in, and it need additional repairing.
the maker of the second would also agree.
Chairman Grande inquired if the motion to deny would be made.
27
Mr. Mc Curdy moved to deny.
The motion was second.
A speaker intervened and stated a point of order. The motion and the second needed to be
disposed explaining the acceptance from the maker of the second concerning the withdrawal of
the motion.
Mr. Trias inquired if there was a second.
The second was confirmed.
Mr. Trias inquired if the second was accepted.
A speaker confirmed that the second was accepted by Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Trias confirmed and apologized.
A speaker confirmed a withdrawal.
Mr. Akins stated that the board will deny the passing of the ordinance.
The motion that was made by Mr. Akins was second.
Chairman Grande opened the seconding of the motion up for discussion.
Chairman Grande inquired for a roll call.
Mrs. Hammer voted yes to deny, because there are additional questions that need to be
answered. There was a lot of input given at the meeting however, the issue needs to be
processed rather than rehashed for hours again. She motioned yes to deny but required that all
comments are carried up to the minutes up to the County Commissioner.
Mr. Hearn voted no.
Mr. Lounds voted no to the deny, because enough information was given to Mr. Bowers to
determine the decisions that need to be made to the comp plan in order to make it efficient.
Mrs. Morgan voted yes.
Mr. Trias voted yes.
Mr. Knapp voted no.
Mr. Akins voted yes.
Mr. Grande voted yes.
Chairman Grande announced the vote. The motion to deny passed by five to three. The
motion will be passed on to the County Commission with a full set of minutes.
28
All were in favor.
29
AGENDA ITEM 2: CARROLL COLLINS RZ-05-006
Linda Pendarvis introduced Agenda Item 2, which concerns Carroll Collins. This item is about
family four dwellings per acre to Hutchinson Island Residential District. The property is located
on the west side of north A1A and it is south of Ocean Harbor Villas Condominiums. Carroll
-family development on the property.
Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review that are set forth in St. Lucie County
land developinComprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends that the petition is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Pendarvis. He also asked for any inquiries of Staff.
Mr. Lounds inquired of Staff if the petition is approved, what are the numbers of residential
dwellings that can be placed upon the half acre?
Ms. Pendarvis replied stating that the density or the land unit at this particular time is nine
dwelling units per acre. The density is based upon three other parcels that Mr. Carroll Collins
also own that are also zoned Hutchinson Island residential district. All of the area would come
into the play of his number of dwelling units and it would all be based upon land above mean
high water.
and are they being asked to considered having more than three and a half per half acre?
Ms. Pendarvis co
Mr. Kelly confirmed both statements and inquiries made concerning the acre density. He also
added that there are a couple of other parcels that go beyond the exact land that Mr. Collins
controls. He concluded that the land could be upped to slightly a little more than a half acre.
The real issue becomes the type of site plan can Mr. Collins could develop that will allow multi-
families to come onto the land. He concluded that theoretical assumptions can be made,
however, definite insights are impossible to know.
Chairman Grande intervened and inquired that the location of the other parcels be shown.
Mr. Kelly summoned for the other pieces of the land that Mr. Collins owned besides the pieces
that were located and given on a map.
A speaker pointed out on a map, the other pieces that Mr. Collins owned including the strip that
is on the eastside of A1A that runs out to the ocean.
Chairman Grande asked for clarification concerning the strips and their usage in terms of
access or rights of way.
A speaker confirmed that the strips are used for access, however, the strips are owned by Mr.
Collins.
Another speaker opposed that the strips are not contiguous.
30
Other speakers confirmed that to the best of their knowledge, the strips are contiguous.
A speaker inquired of information regarding the strips. She asked if there is a road located on
A1A.
Chairman Grande confirmed what th
middle, and agreed that it is A1A. However, in the particular county area, if the right of way is
the road and A1A was not there, and if the two parcels were to touch and the road being not
there, then they are considered contiguous.
The previous speaker that spoke of the strip not being contiguous inquired of the width of the
little strip to the right of the road.
The width of the road was confirmed and found to be five feet.
A speaker clarified the misunderstanding and stated that if the criss-cross area, which is the
including the parcel mentioned, the five-foot strip east of state road A1A, the twenty-foot strip
back to the parcel and then the parcel that runs from the single family lots back to Queens
Road. Mr. Collins will own all the contiguous parcels and the total acreage on the parcels
certified to be above mean high-water would be eligible for the computation of density.
Chairman Grande added that he has one question concerning that matter which in terms
regards what is legally correct of either using parcels that are contiguous to the contiguous
parcels or using contiguous parcels for density in the parcels that developers may decide to
build upon. Chairman Grande concluded that he understands that the right of way parcel to the
south of the cross-hatched area is contiguous to the cross-hatched area. However, the area to
the west is contiguous
to that parcel. He also believes that the same thing is true regarding the parcel of the east, that
is being five foot wide if it has a common southern border with the right of way to the west, then
match up either, although it connects by a connection. He is not sure if their contiguity definition
states that if one is contiguous to a contiguous parcel, then one is contiguous. He concluded
that he is aware of the definition stating that if one is contiguous to the parcel than, one is
contiguous. Chairman Grande asked for a legal definition of the statements that were made
before the meeting proceeds.
A speaker read the definition taken from the Land Development Code. According to the LDC,
contiguous is defined as: abutting, touching, and the sharing of a common border at one or
more points of intersection.
Chairman Grande restated that, the parcel to the south that shares the border with the cross-
hatched by definition is contiguous to the parcel that is being mentioned. However, the others
although they are in common ownership, are not contiguous to the parcel that is looking to use
for density. They are contiguous to other parcels that are contiguous.
31
A speaker proclaimed that she is looking at the definitions for calculating density and the details
provided with the examples do not include a situation where there are four parcels in which all
are contiguous to one or more of those parcel. It is her understanding that all of the parcels
under joint ownership and their contiguousness are reviewed for density calculation.
Another speaker approached Staff inquiring the size of the area that is cross-hatched.
The speaker questioned if the area that the red lines are on is the .49 acres.
Another speaker confirmed that her understanding is correct.
The speaker asked when the other pieces are added in, what is the total.
A speaker replied that the amount is unknown because they did not have the total survey on the
far west parcel to determine exactly how much of the land is above mean high-water.
The speaker said okay.
The speaker confirmed that the total would be a site plan issue based on the survey.
Chairman Grande questioned if the rezoning should go through.
The speaker said yes.
Mr. Trias approached Staff inquiring the maximum density that could be allowed if the rezoning
goes through.
Staff replied, nine per acre.
Mr. Trias asked about the public benefit that is seen if the petition is approved concerning the
zone request.
Mr. Kelly responded that there is a consistency with the major area which may or may not be a
public benefit. Another issue is brought up that further complicates and confuses the whole
issue. On the 1984 zoning maps, the partial shows are HIRD. On the 1990 zoning maps, it
shows as RS-4. There have been no location of action by anyone in the county that changed it
from HIRD to RS-4; neither can anyone recall such action. This may have been a map error.
There was a discussion with Mr. Macintyr
maps for going on fifteen years, from 1990 until now, then it certainly could not be change by
Staff as a map error back to HIRD, without some kind of public action. No action could be found
that created the existing RS-4 for that parcel.
Chairman Grande questioned if it had been RS-4 for fifteen years.
The Previous speaker clarified that it has been RS-4 on the County Maps since sometime
around 1990.
Another speaker inquired if Staff is familiar with the length of time that Mr. Collins has owned the
property.
32
A speaker replied no.
Chairman Grande inquired of further questioning from Staff before the hearing is opened.
Chairman Grande opened the hearing up to the public.
Mr. Carroll Collins stated that he purchased the four parcels of land over a period of since 1979.
When the land was purchased it was commercial at that time. It was Zoned eleven units per
acre. He was told by the County that it was contiguous and that the density of all parcels of land
would be figured out. He added that he has checked with the county over a period of time and
each time that I have ever checked with them, I was told the same thing. He received a letter
concerning hooking up to the sewer system. He added that he does not have a sewer or any
buildings in that area. Mr. Collins stated that they were asked to pay approximately sixteen or
eighteen- hundred dollars in advance for the sewer, even though they did not have one. Mr.
Collins assured himself of this information by checking with the people there. They were being
brought in under HIRD; Mr. Collins pointed the four parcels mentioned on the map. Mr. Collins
clarified that three of the parcels are HIRD, and have been marked HIRD with the County. The
remaining parcel, for some reason, got marked RS-4. Mr. Collins concluded that information
concerning how the remaining parcel got marked RS-4 can not be found. He also added that he
did not received any notification informing him that his property was going down in density, from
eleven units per acre to four units per acre. Mr. Collins concluded by stating that informing him
would give him an opportunity to come before the County Commission and argue his point. He
was never given that opportunity. Mr. Collins stated that he feel like this is just and error in the
books, which are common to occur. The lots that are seen in the back that are also marked RS-
4
judgment, they are governed here at the time of purchase, by deed restrictions. Deed
restrictions are very strong in the courts in the state of Florida. When properties are purchased,
copies of the Deed Restrictions are given to the owners. The deed restrictions told the owners
what their setbacks would be. They were also told that it would only be a CBS-block house, and
that it would only be one story. Everyone upon purchase of land is given deed restrictions. Mr.
Collins concluded that the RS-4 never even applied to the rear lots because the lots are under
deed restrictions. Mr. Collins reiterated that the parcels of land being mentioned, are HIRD to
the south, east, north, west, and even across the right away for Queens Cove road. The area
west is also HIRD. Mr. Collins believes that the misunderstanding is due to an error, and feels
that the property should also be HIRD nine units per acre or sought back to eleven units per
acre as was upon purchase. Mr. Collins added that he is satisfied with a HIRD zoning, which
from the information that he received, concerns the land.
Chairman Grande motioned for Mr. Kelly to address the RS-4 on the other lots.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the lots are RS-4 and the County RS-4 requirements certainly do apply
to the area. If
then Mr. Collins to a certain degree is correct. The RS-4 is meaningless because the deed
restrictions are greater. However, the County is going to enforce RS-4. The County is not
going to get involved in enforcing any of the deed restrictions. Mr. Kelly concluded by saying
that it is an RS-4
between individuals.
Chairman Grande questioned if indications were made concerning 1990 and the changing of the
maps, from HIRD to RS-4. He also questioned if the maps were changed on the lot in question.
33
Mr. Kelly replied yes.
Chairman Grande continued with his inquiries asking if the maps went from HIRD to RS-4
without having any transactional trail.
Mr. Kelly responded yes. He also clarified that the maps are hand drawn and that they are
different.
Chairman Grande asked questions concerning the other RS-4s to the west.
Mr. Kelly clarified that they are RS-4 on both maps.
Chairman Grande confirmed that it was the remaining map that was made consistent with the
others at that time and there is not an order for that transaction.
Mr. Kelly confirmed.
A speaker asked if there were any questions.
Chairman Grande asked there were any questions of the applicants.
Mr. Akins asked Mr. Collins if he proposed to change the area that is to the far east of the map
which is the red-cross hatch.
Mr. Collins replied yes because all of the other parcels of land are HIRD to be conforming to the
surrounding areas.
Mr. Akins concluded that the RS-4 parcel that Mr. Collins spoke of is the parcel of land that can
not be explained of how it got to the RS-4.
Another speaker confirmed Mr. Akins response.
Mr. Collins confirmed.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Collins of the number of units that he plan to put on this half acre.
Mr. Collins replied that he had not worked that out with the county because they had not held
any meetings concerning this issue. The primary information that they received was pertaining
to the RS-4 grounds. Mr. Collins concluded that further information concerning the units had not
taken place yet, and the initiative is to correct the error or change in the terms back to HIRD.
Mr. Lounds questioned Mr. Kelly stating, that at 4 ½. Acres at a/per acre, under HIRD how many
units can Mr. Collins put there?
Chairman Grande intervened stating that the question was open-ended, because of the western
parcel. Chairman Grande also inquired if the question was concerning whether of not if the
western parcel is above mean high water.
Mr. Kelly replied that the practical matter being discussed is if or not Mr. Collins is going to gain
some amount of additional land that can be calculated for density which will distribute a higher
number. An approximate assumption of the number was made and it was thirty-five. The
34
speaker added that only three or four will fit on the parcel. All of the other numbers will be paid
at probably does not fit on an eighty-foot, deep
parcel. There will be set back. If Mr. Collins proceeds beyond three units in a building then the
building spacing formula requirement is to be met.
Another speaker asked how high Mr. Collins can build.
Mr. Kelly replied, thirty-five feet.
A speaker confirmed if thirty-five feet was three stories.
A speaker stated that there will be some severe constraints on the development through the site
plan and no further answer can be given concerning a minor site plan until more work and
preparation is done.
Chairman Grande questioned if the only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that the
plan would be a multi-family plan of some sort.
n would be yes.
Mr. Trias questioned Mr. Kelly if there would be any real practical differences between the
developments of potential parcel as zoned with RS-4 as suppose to if they were rezoning.
Mr. Kelly intervened stating that the RS-4 would allow only single family homes.
Mr. Trias questioned if the units will be one unit.
Mr. Kelly replied that the units might be able to be split into two units. The RS-4 would allow
only single family detached product. The HIRD zoning would allow a multi-family attached
product.
A speaker approached Staff asking if the multi-family was for more than one family.
A speaker from Staff replied thirty-five feet could be single family more than one story.
The speaker questioned if it was multi-family, could it go up to two stories or three stories.
A speaker from Staff clarified that it could go up to thirty-five feet.
The speaker asked if one could go three stories and possibly three units on the ground. She
also asked for the dimension of the red-hatched area, and the frontage on A1A.
A speaker replied one-hundred feet.
The previous speaker inquired of the depth on A1A.
A speaker replied that the top depth is 266 and the bottom is approximately 240.
The previous speaker questioned if the rest of the RS-4 blocks to the left are single family
homes.
35
A speaker replied that they were vacant; however, the intent is for them to be single family
homes.
The speaker inquired of what was north of the RS-4. She clarified that the information given
state Ocean Harbor Villas RS-4.
Chairman Grande motioned that a presentation of the subject area be brought forward.
A speaker confirmed that a PUD was placed on the table, and the amount of units that if was for
was unknown. He added that right behind the sketches lie existing built buildings that are now
there.
Another speaker stated that in general to the north of it there are condominium tower buildings
to the east of state road A1A and on the west side there are either two or three stories. There
are lower level multi-family condominium structures and there are three of those structures that
run kind of parallel to A1A, which are shown on the map with the yellow marking on them.
Mrs. Hammer asked if there was anything approved behind them that would be directly north of
the single family lots.
The previous speaker replied not at this time.
Mrs. Hammer inquired about anything south of the single family lots and anything approved on
that strip of land.
A speaker replied that one single family residence exists.
Mrs. Hammer continued asking questions about the lot and its length concerning what it is.
Mr. Collins stated that on the north side, the property is HIRD. Also there is an application for
Pelican Bay with numerous units. To the south, the property is also zoned HIRD. Mr. Collins
south have the same zoning that they have. He still believes that the RS-4 is an error containing
his property. He also reiterated that errors do happen. He continued with his theory that errors
are possible by using an example of one taking place concerning his property out on West
Town. He concluded that the situation became an error because of something that was written
in the book and he reiterated that the RS-4 is an error because he is surrounded on all four
sides of his parcels by HIRD. Mr. Collins asked the Board to grant his property its right to be
zoned HIRD, as it should be.
Chairman Grande opened the issue up for discussion.
Mr. Craig Mundt a resident of North Hutchinson Island at the Atlantic View Beach Club which is
a high rise complex and it is approximately 1.3 miles north of the property of a Florida lifestyle
that is being lost along with the subjugation of division and planning that preceded the twenty-
first century in St. Lucie County. He clarified that the eastern length of the property on A-1-A is
eighty-five feet, eighty feet on the west side and the depth dimensions are 240 feet on the south
and 266 on the north or vise-versa. He clarified that it does not have a hundred foot frontage on
A1A. he quoted a few lines from the preamble of the comp plan stating
of characteristics some physical and some social that special about St. Lucie County at this time
and are of such value that they should guide the goals, objectives and policies of our
36
Comprehensive Plan: the value of attributes and characteristics of St. Lucie County, beautiful
landscapes, opened space, opened skies, Atlantic Ocean, beaches, Tranquil Indian River
Lagoon, St. Lucie River, Everglades-
. He added that item sixteen in the last item reads as are
followed: and most important, energized citizenry desirous of maximizing St. Lucie
opportunities but determined to retain a unique historic and natural resources in its old
Florida relaxed
ensure the best living environment and community possible built on the needs and desires of
the residents of St. Lucie County. Goal 1.1 declares to ensure the highest quality living
environment possible through a mixture of land uses reflecting the needs and desires of the
local residential and how they want their community to develop. The goal shall be implemented
by strictly enforced building, zoning and developing codes based on objectives and policies that
-made resources while minimizing any damage
or threat of degradation to the health, safety and welfare of the county citizens, native wildlife,
and environment.
the consistent and predictable application of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Rs and
their quality of life. He concluded from the preamble. He continued stating that in 1982, the
Board of County Commissioners passed a construction moratorium on Hutchinson Island as
they thought the request for permits were coming too rapidly and the island was in danger of
build out. A one-hundred thousand dollar study was performed by Kimberly Horn which resulted
in a reconfiguration of zoning, particularly on North Hutchinson Island. To enhance residential
areas, the commercial strip that had run up the west side of A1A was reverted to residential and
commercial properties were concentrated at the south end of the island. If Mr. Collins had
commercial property there is no exact way to say that the commercial was zoned eleven per
acre. The ques
Mundt motioned for the first photo be shown.
As the photo was being reviewed, Mr. Mundt pointed out in the upper left-hand corner of the
screen that the image being viewed is the Atrium and it was CU zoning in 1994. He continued
to point out in the upper right-hand corner that the image being viewed is the Aquanique, which
was a restaurant called the Surf. The lower left is the Sands Plaza and its zoning is CG and it
has eight acres. In addition, heading towards the front is a proposal called the Enclave PUD.
This application is for RH and 91 units. It had been withdrawn within hours of coming before the
Board and two restaurants had been lost that were in that facility. The lower right property is the
Atrium2 and in 1999 it had been changed from CG to HIRD.
Mr. Mundt asked for the second photo.
Upon review of the second photo, Mr. Mundt declared that the image seen is the Radisson
Resort. The Radisson Resort is 110 room hotels which have meeting room facilities and two
restaurants. It was also a center for island activities. Mr. Mundt also stated that once that
property is cleared a request for high rise condos will be given. This item stood as a hotel ten
days ago, however, that property is cleared and there is no building on the site.
Mr. Mundt continued that on north Hutchinson Island a total of six restaurants were lost. On the
south Hutchinson Island area, Rotties and Shuckers had also been lost. Mr. Mundt added that
soon there will be no beach site restaurants from Vero Beach to Jensen Beach, and St. Lucie
County will be the poorer for that. Mr. Mundt pointed out that a great deal of thought, planning
37
residents. However, it has slowly been eroded. Each piece in itself seemingly is insignificant,
but shocking in totality. The County spent one million dollars with a Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Counsel to develop the Towns Village Country side plan for northern St. Lucie County.
North Hutchinson Island has the same neighborhood
slipped away. Islanders would like to retain and develop the concept the early BOCC gave
them. As for the parcel being presented, it is not happenstance for its zoning designing it was
with a purpose which is being asked to second guess.
A speaker asked that the subject property be reviewed and the next photograph was brought
forth.
Mr. Mundt presented a photograph of the zoning map. The photo was taken the morning of the
meeting by Mr. Mundt. Mr. Mundt pointed out a very sharp margin that was located around of
the properties that are in the block, including the subject block that is being discussed at the
meeting. There is no thin line, pencil, or question mark and the page is dated in the zoning map
as, April 11, 1991.
Mr. Mundt presented the area in a large scale and pointed out more features.
Mr. Mundt pointed out on the map, that the Ft. Pierce cut which comes down through and
across the western edge of the properties that were being discussed, is the RS-4. Mr. Mundt
also pointed out the subject property and the Ft. Pierce cut. He continued discussing the
additional contiguous property that Mr. Collins owned that was being extended is to be included
in the property shown. He also pointed out a navigable waterway that ran through the property
that was being shown. Although the area is designated HIRD, HIRD doe
low density. The green striped area that Mr. Mundt pointed out will probably have no further
total develop. The upper area that Mr. Mundt pointed out is twenty-one acres. On the twenty-
one acres, only two homes in total will be permitted on the acreage, because of a 1982 site plan
that was approved by the BOCC, and also a court stipulation. The density of the property was
transfigured to permit a high rise to be built in that area. If additional work was done on the
property, the density that was transferred over will be validated because double dipping is not
permitted. Eighteen months ago a hearing concerning Pelican Bay was scheduled to be
discussed and evaluated before the Board.
Mrs. Hammer intervened inquiring of a confirmation regarding the land north of the single family
development rights over to the beach.
Mr. Mundt
Mr. Mundt clarified that there is not application coming in for the area mentioned above. He
added that the project called Pelican Bay was scheduled to be heard by the Board concerning
their proposal fifty-four condominium units. However the meeting was avoided by convincing
everyone that double dipping was not permitted which in turn led to withdrawal of the
development within hours of the formation of its proposal.
Mr. Mundt pointed out Ocean Harbor Utilities in the upper right-hand area. Ocean Harbor
Utilities is the water supply in the mentioned area. No information concerning construction
regarding Ocean Harbor Utilities development was given.
38
Mr. Mundt reiterated that the RS-4 properties are the subject properties in red and the dirt road
is the twenty-foot wide strip that extends back. The next item on that Mr. Mundt pointed out is a
parcel of five acres which belongs to Bob Tabor. Mr. Tabor owns a single family residence that
is located approximately in the area. Below is another five acre property.
Mr. Mundt pointed out that both properties are about fifteen acres are going into either
conservancy or the mosquito control district because the density from the two properties was
transferred over to the Oceanic property, which is a high rise condominium facility. Mr. Mundt
added that Mrs. Young
agreement that will give the land over in either conservancy or mosquito control district.
Mr. Mundt asked for Mrs. Young to confirm the information.
Mrs. Young confirmed that the information is correct. She added that she have received back a
signed copy of the conservation easement that was sent from the developer.
Mr. Mundt thanked Mrs. Young.
Mr. Mundt continued stating that in the area mentioned there will be slight or no developmental
occurrence. Everything around except immediately north or across A1A is going to remain
largely undeveloped and except for the adjacent RS-4 neighborhood.
Mr. Mundt presented the neighborhood and he pointed out that the residents and land owners
might want to speak on the matter.
The first photo was presented.
Mr. Mundt pointed out that the photograph displayed the entrance to the property and the dirt
road which is overly stated to be twenty-feet wide, although it is labeled twenty-feet wide. The
dirt road is a mounded piece of property. The dirt road is eighty-five feet long and it is A1A
frontage in which the road goes far back in the mentioned direction.
Mr. Mundt motioned for the next photo to be shown.
The following photo viewed the immediate entrance into the property. Mr. Mundt pointed out
Mr. Collins property. The property is a single
hundred feet from A1A.
Mr. Mundt motioned for the next photo to be viewed.
Mundt concluded that
there is a high rise building located across the street,
property.
Mr. Mundt inquired for review of the next photo.
Upon review of the next photo, Mr. Mundt pointed out that the area being shown is just passing
Mr.
Mundt
39
seen in the house. The house is what used to be a road during the training actives in WWII.
The density of the foliage and no development back in the area can be seen.
Mr. Mundt inquired to view the next photo.
Upon review of the next photo, Mr. Mundt pointed out that this photo resembled the previous
photo. However, this photo is further back wherein his position is adjacent to the next to the last
piece of property going west. The north is positioned to his north and there is an open field and
piece of area back in the direction mentioned. Mr. Mundt reiterated that the road is very dense
and undeveloped. An idea can be drawn as to the type of condition that residents are currently
living in.
Mr. Mundt inquired for review of the photo.
Upon review of this photo, Mr. Mundt announced that it was the last photo and it is the Ft.
Pierce cut, which is located at the end of the RS-4 properties as they are shown on the zoning
map. The property is a navigable waterway and it has tidal flow as obviously seen. Mr. Mundt
added that the shoreline moves up and down. Mr. Mundt also added that Mrs. Egnello owns the
property located off to the right on the Ft. Pierce Cut going north and the next inland property to
the east of the area shown. He concluded that she owns two lots in that area. He pointed out
the view that Mrs. Egnello will have when she develops her home sites in that area. Mr. Mundt
concluded that Mrs. Egnello will have an unimpaired view of the Ft. Pierce Cut.
Mr. Mundt thanked the board for their time, and he inquired for any and all questions.
Mr. Akins questioned Mr. Mundt if he is a resident of Hutchinson Island.
Mr. Mundt responded yes, he is.
Mr. Akins questioned Mr. Mundt if he lives in a high rise area.
Mr. Mundt replied yes he does.
Mr. Akins asked Mr. Mundt of the length of his residency in that area.
Mr. Mundt response was five years.
Mr. Akins reiterated some of the language that Mr. Mundt restated, concerning the local
residents and the old Florida relax lifestyle. Mr. Akins inquired if it is Mr. Mundts premise
initiate whether or not if Mr. Collins, who had owned the property since 1979, was not deprived
of density rights when the error took place.
Mr. Mundt replied that he does not agree. He added that Mr. Tabor can verify to what had
happened concerning the properties. He reiterated that in the 1982 study that the Board of
County Commissioners commissioned, the area on A1A had commercial property running on
the west side to a two-hundred foot depth approximately. When the Kimberly Horn study came
through, the Board of County Commissioners changed the zoning and pulled the commercial
designation off of the properties and transferred it to the south end of the Island, which in turn
created a larger commercial zoning for a neighborhood concept. The two-hundred foot strip
area became residential.
40
Mr. Akins questioned if Mr. Mundt was stating that the property was aforetime zoned
commercial.
Mr. Mundt confirmed that at one time, the property was zoned commercial.
Mr. Akins questioned if a record showing that the property was commercial was present.
Mr. Kelly proposed to review previous maps to verify if or not the property was commercial.
However, there was no actual recall.
Mr. Mundt suggested deferring to a land owner that had been a land owner in the area since the
Chairman Grande opposed Mr. Mundt's suggestion to include a witness and stated that is not a
necessity. Chairman Grande inquired to confirm if or not the property was commercial upon
purchase is 1979.
Another speaker inquired to confirm whether of not if the property was commercial upon primary
purchase.
Mr. Collins reiterated that upon purchase of the property, it was zoned eleven units per acre.
Using all four contiguous properties, evident information concerning the actual amount that
could be built upon all of the properties can be accumulated. He added that the same terms
that applied to the property upon purchase should be in effect today, unless the properties were
placed under HIRD. He concluded that the misunderstanding may be due to a mistake.
Mr. Akins asked Mr. Kelly if or not at any point was the property designated HIRD.
Mr. Kelly replied concerning the 1984 zoning map. The map showed as HIRD.
Mr. Collins added that three of the parcels remain under HIRD. He concluded that the fourth
parcel that has mistakenly been changed.
Mr. Akins inquired to confirm if it was the 1990 map that has the sudden change of information.
Mr. Akins asked if the information would be concurrent with the action that Mr. Mundt
mentioned.
Mr. Mundt -hundred foot
strip up the west side of A1A that was designated commercial. Mr. Mundt referred Mr. Tabor to
speak on the matter concerning the area up the west side of A1A.
Mr. Akins reiterated his question concerning the designation of HIRD in 1984 on the property.
Mr. Mundt confirmed that he had not seen such a map designating HIRD on the property in
1984.
A speaker approached Mr. Kelly concerning inquiries about the other lots that are zoned RS-4
regarding their zoning on the 1984 map.
Mr. Kelly replied that they were zoned RS-4.
41
The speaker thanked Mr. Kelly.
Chairman Grande summoned for any other speakers.
Mr. Bob Tabor, a resident of 4201 N Hwy A1A in a single family dwelling on five acres, who had
lived on the property for five years, took the stand to speak. He stated that he have seen almost
everything that had been mentioned during the meeting including what Mr. Mundt had said
including CU zoning and CG zoning. He added that at a particular time there was no knowledge
of what was happening in the area. He reiterated that when he bought his property, the first
two-hundred feet was on commercial. His home sits back two hundred and sixty-five for that
reason. He wanted to maintain a clear commercial property. During this time, he had been a
good land neighbor with Mr. Collins for about twenty-five years. He added that Mr. Collins
comes out and rarely misses the opportunity to see how he is doing. He also added that they
are approximately the same age, and he is informed of Mr. Collins physical condition.
Mr. Tabor stated that he had never spoken negatively about anything and he added that he had
always been in favor. He explained that the reason being for his favor is due to his idea of the
intellectual County Commission who proposed and created the comp plan for the county. It was
difficult to find any errors in the comp plan. When the property holders were asked to give up
their two-hundred feet of commercial property for the area where the Holiday Inn (at that time)
was located all the way to the county line, pressure was initiated. However, the plan proceeded.
The commercial property was taken and property holders were convinced that the procedures
taken were a necessity and indeed made much sense. The commercial property was taken and
made available to all people instead of individual usage or development. He added that Harbor
Federal Bank was not aware of loaning finances because if their uninformative knowledge of
upcoming developments. However a genuine comp plan was still invented. The district is
located down around the Radisson and the whole area is commercial, however, it has not been
There are several pieces of property, a real estate office in particular, that were zoned
commercial and they were built upon and left to stand.
Mr. Tabor stated that when he had first moved into the area, there were not as many people
living there that live in the area now. There are now about five-thousand people living in the
area. Mr. Tabor added that he was offered civilization because he and hi
saved by an ambulance that was stationed approximately a mile away from them. Mr. Tabor
clarified that he stands for people, progress, bicycle pass and neighbors.
Mr. Tabor explained why he stood against Mr. Collins request. He used Mr. Collins red lined
map to discuss the land shown in the northern direction on the map. He reiterated that the ten
acres shown on the northern part of the map will remain the way it is because there can only be
two single family dwellings built upon the ten acres. Of all the single family lots that are on the
map, in which his children own one of the lots that they intend to build upon, Mr. Tabor added
that he would have never allowed his children to purchase the property had he known that it
would become a five unit motel that sat at the end of the road. He reiterated that family units
are not the only structures that can be built upon the land if County HIRDs the property. Mr.
Tabor also mentioned that with HIRD, a four or five unit motel can be built.
Mr. Tabor stated that fishing is not allowed in the state park after a certain time at night. Mr.
Tabor also included that if a five unit motel is established, business will be in effect all year
round. Mr. Tabor added that customers, can chose from a variety of activities to engage in such
as boating and swimming and leaving and returning is optional. The five unit motel transfers the
42
excess traffic onto -
Mr. Tabor clarified that he was not trying to keep the people who enjoy the good life from the
excitement, however, there can be two single family dwellings or ten single family dwellings.
Mr. Tabor concluded by stating that family life for some of the developers began in the area that
he and Mr. Collins own, including parts of his life. Mr. Tabor also stated that he and Mr. Collins
spoke often of remaining neighbors as Mr. Collins spoke of his determination to build his
retirement home out on the island. Mr. Tabor spoke of the changes in life that were destined to
occur regarding Mr. Collins motive. Mr. Tabor concluded that the issue concerning the area that
he lives in is invalid because it is a single family residential area. He also added that the HIRD
that was on the map was right over the top where the two houses were able to be built. Mr.
Tabor clarified that the restrictions given concerning the property also stated that the two
houses that are able to be built have to be at least twenty-five hundred square feet. To the
reiterated that the area is beautiful, single family and family occupied. He also added that the
activities that happened in the area are not hazardous to anyone living in the area. Mr. Tabor
concluded that the neighborhood is a safe environment. Mr. Tabor petitioned the Board to
maintain the safe environment that already exists in the Hutchinson Island area.
Mr. Tabor concluded by quoting what Mr. Mundt
only were we to watch for the natural things and protect them on the island, but we should
Mr. Tabor thanked the Board.
Chairman Grande opened the issue up for further discussion.
A speaker clarified that a hotel/motel is not a permitted use in HIRD. However, it is a conditional
use. He added that it would be possible for the hotel/motel to be there but it would require a
hearing before the public and the county commission for.
Debra Egnello of 3100 N Hwy A1A approached the stand to speak. She began by stating that
upon arrival to the hearing, she was nervous due to her dislike for public speaking. She clarified
that she was now more comfortable to speak due to her understanding that the Board gets as
confused as she gets. She reiterated that she is truly confused.
Ms. Agnello pointed out that she and her husband are the owners of the last two lots that are
located on the western end of the small private sand road, which is the same road as the
subject property. She added that the subject property is marked in red on the map. She stated
that the two lots are substantially the same size and shape as the subject property. She and
her husband had a chance to review the memorandum from David Kelly to the commission.
She reiterated that the document was the most confusing document that she has seen. She
concluded from a personal standpoint, that on page two of the memorandum under surrounding
land usage, it reiterates that the subject area is not a high density area. She also added that the
zoning map may indeed be incorrect, and until further proof or notice of any mapping error(s),
she will maintain that the HIRD that is seen on a 1984 is accurate instead of the RS-4 that is
now shown.
43
Ms. Agnello stated that her concern is having read the memorandum; it was as if their
neighborhood did not exist at all. She concluded that within the map that was included in the
packets, there is no evidence existence. All impact has been
erased from the memorandum. She addressed and examined item number two and three on
the next page which mentioned that Hutchinson Island is a Hutchinson
-density that does not exist in the area. Exceptions to the
non existing land include the Ocean Harbor Villas that are located directly to the north of the
subject property which predate the current comp plan. The Ocean Harbor Villas had been in the
area since before the comp plan was established.
Ms. Agnello examined item number six which addresses adverse environmental impact. She
stated that the waterway had been left off the map completely, which in turn did not notify
viewers of its existence. The adverse environmental i
proposed amendment is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts on the natural
mandatory eight to ten parking spaces that
would have to go on the parcel to accommodate four to five density units would necessitate
virtually paving over the entire parcel.
Ms. Agnello
Ms. Agnello pointed out that a severe drainage problem existed. Seasonal rains and hurricanes
are currently causing run-off from the six-foot pile of dirt that was dumped in the area several
years ago by Mr. Collins. She also added that the road is currently being flooded. She
reiterated that the road runs directly into the Ft. Pierce Cut.
Ms. Agnello asked that the attention be directed at another image that was being
shown.
Ms. Agnello pointed out that the fill that was being shown had been in the area for a couple of
years. She added that the fill was not in the area upon purchase of the property that she and
her husband possess. Every time it rains, the road is filled. She also stated that the road will
never be more than twenty feet. She also mentioned that the road is the deeded access to all
eleven residential building sites. All of the home sites have to use and have deeded egress and
ingress on the road. However, there is no more that seven or eight feet have ever been
passable. If the road is bull-dozed out to its full twenty feet, the lot is going to decrease in size.
She reiterated that the Fort Pierce Cut is only four hundred yards away from the subject
property. She added that her property is at the end of the four hundred yards, and the sludge
and mud will flow past her and into the Cut if the half an acre is paved over, in which her parcel
is the exact size and shape of the subject parcel.
Ms. Agnello addressed item eight which is public interest. She stated that public interest is the
most confusing to her. She stated that majority of the neighboring property owners are against
item eight for obvious reasons. The neighboring property owners feel as if they all would suffer
a decrease in the value of their surrounding properties due to the flooding of the narrow road.
They also feared that there will be an increase in traffic. She pointed out that the road is a small
dirt-like passageway. All property owners in the area possess the eighty by a hundred buildable
lots that go down the dirt road. Before purchase of the parcels, the property owners devoted
four months to do diligence. The entire area was fully abstracted at the courthouse. The
property owners met with planning and zoning.
44
Ms. Agnello mentioned that she got to know Mr. Flores really well. She also added that she met
with senior planners as well. The comp plan was included within their meeting and a decision
was made based upon assurance regarding the agreement that the property would never be
surrounded by high density housing. She confirmed that she was fully assured that they would
never be surrounded by high density housing. There is a court order in place wherein the issue
be reheard before the board again. The ten acres that are above the north lot line of the lot in
the Hutchinson Island will never have no more that two single family homes. She added that to
home. She concluded that the eleven lots on the dirt road will never have more than single
family homes on the petite buildable lots.
Ms. Agnello added that the property holders were given a letter in Growth Management upon
their arrival. The letter stated that their two lots, which she reiterated that is substantially the
same size and shape as the subject property, were valuable for one single family home. Mrs.
Agnello added that a significant amount of time and effort have been invested to verify and
ensure that their homes would not be surrounded by high density housing. years were spent in
Therefore concerted efforts were made, to meet all requirements of maintaining their property.
She concluded that allowing high density on the lot is not going to conclude anything to the
public interests. She clarified that the interest was only in one property owner.
Ms. Agnello stated that any up zoning of the lot would unjustly and enrich Mr. Collins, and grant
Board to deny the motion.
Ms. Agnello concluded and thanked the board for their time.
Chairman Grande opened the public hearing up for further discussion.
Mrs. Diane Andrews is a resident of Queens Cove. She lives on the west side of the subject
property. She clarified that her residential area is RS-4t
She inquired a
confirmation on HIRD entrance into existence.
1990 to its current date.
the beginning date of the maps in general.
Mr. Kelly clarified reasons for early maps having relevant information that was not processed
until further down in the years. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the maps are the very early maps,
wherein the earliest zoning categories are marked in the county.
Mr. Kelly reviewed the subject parcel on the early 1972 -1984 maps. Mr. Kelly defined that
-family (the four initiated multi-family, which is
, instead numbers, letter ranging
Of the four that stood in the multi-families, the one that had the lowest density was single family
which was approximately three per acre. The residential multi-families were eighteen per acre.
Mr. Kelly concluded that he had no recollection of commercial up and down the strip. He
clarified that the information that he had, was as far back as County records show.
A speaker inquired confirmation regarding if or not the property is now RS-4.
45
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the property that was once before R4E is now RS-4.
Mr. Kelly continued stating that the designation would have been single family for the multi-
family dwellings at the particular appointed time.
Mr. Kelly moved on to the 1984 through 1990 maps.
Mr. Kelly pointed out that the RS-4 that had been mentioned and the HIRD designation can be
seen.
Another speaker inquired confirmation whether of not if the map began in 1984.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the map initiated in 1984 and followed out into 1990.
The speaker stated that the map was created in 1984, and that HIRD existed in 1984.
Mr. Kelly clarified that the map was created in 1984 and overtime each zoning changed from
1894 throughout 1990. Mr. Kelly also clarified that the changes concerning the zoning areas
occurred after the very first comp plan was established. Mr. Kelly reiterated an indication stating
that the early parcel had been shown as HIRD. The mapping that had been reviewed by Mr.
Mundt showed that the parcel is now RS-4.
A speaker questioned if the map that was not presented showed as RS-4.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the map that was not presented indeed is RS-4, and he concluded that
it is consistent with the previous map that was shown by Mr. Mundt. Mr. Kelly clarified that as
the photograph of the parcel and a map of the parcel is placed along side each other, they are
identical, and they have the same identification numbers. He also concluded that change in the
identical information can be viewed. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the maps viewed showed that
the parcels were identical, with slight differences in the drawings.
The previous speaker asked if there was any supporting documentation to explain the change.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that no supporting documentation has been found. Mr. Kelly also added
that he and Dennis Murphy, who is no longer with the county, have been with the county for a
good portion of time and can vouch to the fact that there is no evidence concerning the change
of the documents.
Chairman Grande inquired for further discussions or elaborations.
Mrs. Janet Collins, wife of Mr. Carroll Collins, approached the stand to speak. She reiterated to
the committee than the hearing is based upon motions to zone and retrieve clarifications and
understanding regarding their property. She also added that on the 1984 map, their property
was zoned HIRD, and mysteriously on the 1990 map, their property showed RS-4. She stated
that a thirty or sixty story condominium will not fit on a half acre lot. If a half of a condo is gained
by using the property west of the Cut, still not much can be developed. She concluded that she
and her husband love the area, and Mr. Collins have manifest his love for it by hanging on to it
for the past few decades. She also added that they would not hurt the environment. She also
concluded that things do change, and she used an example of the uprising of the condos
located on up and down the road.
46
Mrs. Collins included that people driving on A1A could barely see the ocean due blockage from
the garages that are built upon the setback and huge walls. She concluded and petitioned that
clarification concerning their change from HIRD to RS-4 be made.
Chairman Grande inquired of further discussion.
A speaker approach the stands to ask Mr. Kelly a question.
The speaker asked Mr. Kelly if any type of PUD could be applied for on the subject property.
The question was for area development clarifications.
Mr. Kelly replied that there is a minimum size PUD which he believes is five acres. He
concluded that PUD could not have been attained without a variance to allow it.
Mr. Mundt stated that he believes that the property west of the Cut cannot be included as a
portion of the parcel. He added that the property is not contiguous and its location is across a
navigable body of water. He inquired confirmation regarding correct interpretations from the
county attorney.
Mr. Akins questioned if the previous statement was relevant to the subject matter.
Another speaker stated that matters concerning the western part of the property are irrelevant
because its zoning is not the primary focus at this particular meeting. She stated that that
definition referred to ignoring man-made changes which occur after the effective date of the
code. From an overall perspective, she concluded that the Cut has been in the area since
before 1984. She also reiterated that the property to the west was irrelevant to the subject
property although additional information concerning it will not be overlooked. She also added
that density issues will remain despite the zoning on the property.
Chairman Grande inquired for further discussion.
Mr. Mark Mathes who is not a resident in the Hutchinson Island area spoke on the matter. Mr.
Mathes reiterated the discussions that he had heard during the meeting. He asked if there was
anyway that the applicant would be willing to sit down with his neighbors and develop a
compromise that would revise the deed restrictions on the road. Mr. Mathes proposed that the
revisions to the deed restriction could prohibit the development of the front piece to utilize the
road, and there would be no concerns regarding
Mathes also proposed that gates could be put up to reinforce the privacy upon
development.
Mr. Mathes concluded that there is an error in the maps. Mr. Mathes also added that he
aforetime had worked as a county staff wherein he himself have processed map errors. Mr.
Mathes concluded that something can be developed in which the people could work together
and figure something out.
Chairman Grande closed the public hearing and opened the issue back up to the board.
Mr. Lounds approached Mr. Kelly inquired confirmation about the vacant lots located down the
country road that are not developed at the time being.
47
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the vacant lots are undeveloped at this time.
Mr. Lounds questioned if he would be able to get a building permit based upon the present size
of the road.
Mr. Kelly replied that he believes that it is possible to get a building permit based upon the
present size of the road. He also added that the lots are almost non-confirming lots of record
because of the amount of time that they have been in the area. He also concluded that
ownership of more than one of the lots will qualify developers of only one home, as mentioned
by a previous speaker because of the nonconforming status of the lots.
Mr. Lounds commented about the great deal of the issues that residents on Hutchinson island
face and have brought before the board regarding survival of their restaurants and preservation
heartburns, from
time to time. Mr. Lounds posed that if the residents stayed home during a few of summers, then
there would be a survival of the commercial entities through the summertime. Mr. Lounds
continued by stating that he realizes that it is hot.
Mr. Lounds continued discussing the current changes that Mr. Collins was petitioning to be
corrected back to HIRD. He questioned if anything else besides a multi-family could be put
upon the property.
Mr. Kelly responded, without going through a whole explanation HIRD, stating that under the
HIRD zoning as permitted uses on uplands there is permitted uses for wetlands and dune
preservations zones.
Mr. Lounds intervened clarifying that the information concerning the permitted use is nothis
concern.
Mr. Kelly continued stating that the permitted usage involved detached single family units, two
and three family units (which are duplexes and triplexes), multiple family units ( more than
three), parks, and accessory uses ( houses with pools or accessories).
Mr. Lounds confirmed the information that Mr. Kelly gave regarding parks and residential units.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that the information that he gave was absolute.
A speaker stated that there is a total of ten letters of residents on North Hutchinson Island that
if the opposing
obligate them to vote one way or another on such an issue. He added that there was no one in
favor of the change. He also added that his major concern was how the neighbors felt
regarding a piece of property whether or not it be rezoning.
A speaker clarified that the letters stand in the same as the people that had spoken for the
public record. She reiterated that the letters are apart of the record for the hearing. As far as
the fact that letters were all opposing the proposed change, there can not be a dictation made
concerning denial of the motion. The letters are factors of consideration regarding the impact of
the environment on the neighborhood etc. She reiterated that the letters do not dictate the
results of the votes.
48
Mr. Lounds approached Mr. Kelly inquiring whether or not if the change is granted , is Mr.
opportunity limited to anything.
Mr. Kelly clarified that if the change were not granted, the opportunities are limited to single
family homes. However the situation must be examined to discover if it would be one or two
because of Mr. Collins
lots that actually do not have frontage on a road. Mr. Collins is limited to single family homes,
and he can not have the two or three family homes and he can not have the multiple family
homes.
Mr. Lounds asked if at best, Mr. Collins could put two homes on the half acre of a round.
Mr. Kelly clarified that at very best two homes could be put on the half acre.
Mr. Akins reiterated that he had never stood for high density on the island. In 1972 possibly
1973, he was a part of unruly surfers that protested the building of the Holiday Inn. Mr. Akins
stated that their protest declared that a storm was going to knock the building down. He
included that it took about thirty years to indicate what they were saying, however, it was
accomplished.
property right is an error. He concluded that the ultimate petition is to correct a mistake that
took rights away from Mr. Collins. Mr. Akins concluded saying if a zoning change is not granted,
the mistake needs to be corrected without further delay.
A speaker stated that she respectfully disagree with Mr. Akins statement. She reiterated that
the most current maps that have been viewed, zones all of the section RS-4 and decisions
should be attained according to the maps that have been used as evidence. She restated what
Mr. Trias had stated about public benefiting. She concluded that she does not see any public
benefiting to rezoning the subject property. She believes that a compromise of placing two units
on the half acre would be consistent with the rest of the homes in the subject area. It is the
to assure that properties are consistent with their surrounding areas. She also
single house was on the five acres to the south and that there could only be two homes on the
whole twenty to the north. When she looked at the picture of the condos that Mr. Mundt
reviewed, she concluded that the two story condos did not look as high as they should. She
also stated that two units could be allowed to be developed on the half acre if all other details
could be resolved. She stated that to put in multi-family and multi-story next to single family
homes is not fair to the people that already live in the area.
Another speaker inquired about fairness to the property owner that has had a taking of his
rights.
Mr. Akins stated that there was a hearing from the county and public speakers as well, who all
stated that the main issue might be an error and he feels that, the particular information was
avoided because of disapproval.
Chairman Grande intervened stating that he has a tremendous amount of sympathy for the
previous concept. He continued stating that if it is an error, then it weighs very heavily. On the
other hand, he is not sure that this is the venue for the fact that if there has been a taking or it is
an error. Chairman Grande also stated that they are not in the proper place to correct the error.
He also stated that there is a normal civil channel for the correction to take place. Any
owner/land owner has the ability to go into the legal system and make a case and get a ruling.
49
He also feels as if they are looking at a zoning change and a zoning change decision needs to
be made, based upon the hearing that is received at the meeting.
Mr. Trias concluded that
the Staff if or not the main issued is an error. He added that if it is a drafting mistake, the way to
correct it is by drafting/drawing instead of rezoning. Again Mr. Trias restated his question
concerning if or not the issue is an error.
Mr. Kelly declared that he believes that it in fact is a drafting/scriveners error. The way to
correct the error is to redraw the map. After discussing the matter with
and recognizing that it had been on the map for approximately fifteen years, changing it without
notifying any neighbors was thought of as being not fair to the residents. It was recommended
that Mr. Collins had already applied for the rezoning, and in order to make effort to correcting
the errors the proper procedures must be carried out and brought forth. Certainly if
recommendation of rezoning took place, there would be no need for additional requirements or
steps that Mr. Grande alluded to. If recommendation of rezoning did not take place, the
additional steps and or requirements are still of necessity. He concluded that performing the
proper procedures necessary is a way to fix the errors. He also concluded that other remedies
are available.
A speaker approached the stand and stated that she was totally confused again. Upon voicing
her perspective, she inquired that if she was the owner, such as the Collins in the particular
position, and all of a sudden she went to apply for a permit or to have something done on her
property only to find out that it had been rezoned by error, why would rezoning be considered
when the property should have not been rezoned at all. She restated that the whole mix up
appears to be a huge, legal issue. She also questioned how can something be rezoned that
should not have been rezoned primarily. She also added that the property was zoned or
rezoned by error. She ended her speaking by asking the audience if they were confused.
Mr. Kelly responded that he was not confused. He also stated that he was concerned with the
same kinds of issues. He added that it was impossible to declare without a doubt what the
issue might be. He reiterated that he believes that it was an error. He went to Mr. Macintyre
and they discussed the issue. Mr. Macintyre believes that the hearing process was appropriate
for correcting the error. As stated by Mr. Grande, if the issue is not fixed at the hearing, then it
needs to be over or taken into higher legal affairs.
Chairman Grande included that at this particular point, an agreement need to be drawn. He
also added that if the owner does not understand what his right is, then further legal action can
be taken from then on.
Chairman If
The previous speaker included that there is no evidence proving that the issue is or is not an
error.
Mr. Lounds moved the following petition: considering a testimony presented during the
public hearing, including Staff comments from the standards of review set forth in section
110603, St. Lucie County Land Development Code. I hereby move that the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County commissioners deny
the application of Carroll Collins for a change in zoning from RS-4 residential single family for
units the acres zoning districts to the HIRD Hutchinson Mr. Lounds
50
pointed out that the evidential material that has been given is supportive to approval or denial of
the motion, rather than subjugations
that they are still at RS-4. He also feels that Mr. Collins is a mistune businessman and with the
precedent set from the Board to the county that Mr. Collins has one more step to cover with the
county. The step will turn the issue over to the civil service which is the legal end of the matter.
He concluded stating that legal actions need to be taken to resolve the whole matter. He
commended that as he perceives the given information presented aforetime from staff and all
other speakers, he move that the board denies the petition.
Ms. Hammer seconded the motion.
Chairman Grande reiterated that a motion and a second were made, and he inquired of any
discussions on the motion.
Chairman perceived that there was no further discussion made concerning the motion and he
inquired for a roll call.
Mr. Akins replied no.
Mr. Hearn voted for the motion because he felt as if he had been an owner in the subject area,
he would much rather see RS-4 zoning instead of the HIRD district. He added that his vote is
also weighed heavily on the amount of people that came and spoke against it and the amount of
letters that were received.
Mr. Knapp replied no.
Mr. Trias relied yes.
Mrs. Morgan voted to deny with an additional comment concerning a necessity for further
research and further examination concerning the change or error.
Mrs. Hammer voted yes to deny.
Mr. Lounds voted yes.
Mr. Grande voted yes.
Chairman concluded that there was a clear majority to deny the application. The application will
be forwarded to the BOCC. A hearing will take place wherein the case will be presented and
the BOCC will receive the transcript of the hearing, the minutes. All are welcome to attend the
following hearing. Chairman Grande thanked all attendees for their presentation.
All were in favor.
51
AGENDA ITEM 3: HOME DYNAMICS CORPORATION PUD-04-018
Ms. Diana Waite opened up Agenda Item 3 by giving an overview of the subject. This is a
petition of the Home Dynamics Corporation, requesting your consideration of a preliminary plan
unit development application for a project called Frontera. This property has been reviewed
before as part of a requested future land use change on the subject property. The property is
th
located at the corner of Edwards Road and South 25 Street. It is a thirty-five acre site that
currently has a further land use designation of commercial and zoning classification of
Commercial General. There is a pending future land use application that is expected to go to
st
the BOCC in June. The BOCC transmitted the propose change on December 21 and in March
will they receive of the Department of Community Affairs comments back on their review of the
proposed future land use change. They had no objections to the proposed change from
commercial to residential medium. If approved, this will allow up to nine dwelling units per acre.
In conclusion, the applicant has prepared a plan unit development site plan that will be
considered at the same BOCC hearing as the adoption of the future land use change.
Chairman Grande intervened asking if the speaker had said that the property would allow up to
nine units per acre.
Ms. Waite replied yes.
Chairman thanked the speaker for the confirmation.
Ms. Waite continued stating that it would be a total of three hundred and eighteen dwelling units.
Based upon the pending of future land use change, the applicant has prepared a plan unit
application that provides for three hundred and eighteen dwelling units. The site plan includes
one hundred and eighty-four multifamily units and one hundred thirty-four single family units.
The plan has been reviewed through the development review committee process and it has
Staff recommends that the project be forwarded to
the BOCC with a recommendation of approval. The intent is to have the hearing on the BOCC
agenda on the same evening as the proposed future land use change. She concluded that the
proposed future land use change would come first, and the hearing on the Preliminary PUD
would follow
subject to the change in future land use from commercial to residential. She also included
several other conditions on the agenda and she recommended that the other conditions are
included with the recommendations that will be submitted to the BOCC.
Chairman Grande asked if the five conditions that were listed are the conditions in which the
previous speaker mentioned.
Ms. Waite confirmed that the five conditions listed are the conditions mentioned.
Chairman Grande inquired of any and all questions from Staff on the application.
Mr. Akins inquired if the subject property is the piece of property that they had seen a couple of
different times.
Ms. Waite replied yes.
Mr. Akins asked if the property had been changes aforetime.
52
Ms. Waite replied yes. She included that initially, it had was a request to change future land use
to fifteen land units per acre. She added that the proposal was ultimately denied and the
request was modified in the site plan. She stated that the applicant has provided a draft
agreement with the school board and the fire district.
Mr. Akins recalled if the last meeting was about the future land use.
Ms. Waite
provided for your review. However, since the plan had been reviewed in December (early
December), there have been major modifications to the site plan. She stated that the
modifications are in the package given to the members.
Chairman Grande confirmed that the modifications were in the package.
Ms. Waite continued stating that the modifications were to place residential areas to the west,
which would be closer to the lower density residential areas that are on the Westside of the
th
drainage ditch. The multi-family units are along 25 Street.
Mr. Akins recalled if the mentioned information was consistent with some of the discussion from
the last hearing.
Ms. Waite confirmed that there were changes based on recommendations related to the
previous discussion.
Chairman Grande intervened and inquired confirmation on previous statements that he had
heard concerning the previous hearing of the future land use change. He asked if this board
had recommended denial in the previous hearing.
Ms. Waite
Okayin regard to a former question
wherein the motion was passed along with a recommendation to deny.
Ms. Waite confirmed Chairman Grande statement. She also included that the vote was a '4-3'
vote.
Chairman Grande agreed
Chairman Grande inquired for further questions.
Mr. Trias asked if there was a traffic survey provided with the motion.
Ms. Waite replied that a traffic survey was provided. She also stated they had recently received
and update because of the timeline from the last one. She stated that the dwelling units have
been decreased since December, which has reduced the trips. It does show that the project
meets the concurrency requirements.
Mr. Lounds asked if anyone is prepared to speak on the behalf of the traffic. He is concerned
th
about an entrance regarding Edwards Road and an entrance regarding 25 Street for the
people to move in and on, which will be rather thick.
53
Ms. Waite stated to Mr. Lounds that she the traffic report was reviewed by the road and bridge
staff and there will be turn lanes, to address the traffic impact.
Mr. Lounds thanked the speaker.
Chairman Grande stated that such information will come from the applicant upon opening the
public hearing.
Chairman inquired for further questions related to Staffs presentation.
Mr. Hearn spoke to Mrs. Waite inquiring of the amount of units per acre when all is concluded.
Ms. Waite replied, three hundred and eighteen units.
Mr. Hearn restated his question in specifications to the amount of units per acre.
Ms. Waite clarified that it is nine per acres.
Mr. Hearn asked if it was exactly nine units per acres.
Mr. Akins confirmed that it was exactly nine units per acre.
Mr. Hearn inquired of the size of the lots in the single family homes.
Ms. Waite stated that the lots are thirty by one hundred in the single family homes.
Mr. Hearn thanked Mrs. Waite.
With no further questions at this point, Chairman Grande opened the public hearing with
the applicant presenting first.
Jonathan Ferguson, an attorney with Ruden McCosten, spoke on the behalf of the applicant.
Along with him was Mark Mathes, the land planter and designer of Thomas Lucido and
Associates. Mr. Ferguson stated that Mr. Mathes will carry most of the ball, and go through the
details of the plan at this hearing. Mr. Ferguson stated that Mrs. Waite did a good job of
introducing them pre the hearing. He recapped and elaborated that they had been going at the
issue for quite a while. Mr. Ferguson stated that the proposal had gone through several
iterations. He also added that they originally came in asking for a density higher than the one
that they have received form the County Commission, which had ultimately been denied. The
motion had been denied when they asked for mix of RM and RH on the property. They then
went back where they heard them loud and clear. They then came back in with a straight RM
-endorsement from the county
commission to transmit to DCA. They thought that it was very appropriate for the piece of
property and that it had the potential to be a very good project, which in fact is something that
the county needs. The issue was post-hurricane and as it has developed, the county is in dear
need of affordable housing, attainable housing, workforce housing, and or housing for heroes.
Housing for heroes is a place where the firemen, policemen, teachers, and the day to day
workers live and afford. They are not relegated to purchases twenty or thirty year housing, but
they have an oppo
Realistically, the only way to attain an affordable price point for housing is through density. The
county commission recognized that and they gave them permission to come back with a plan
54
that will provide that for them. As stated by Mrs. Waite, they received a comment report form
DCA, and they had no objections to the land use change. Presently, they have been waiting to
get to the point where the PUD can go to the County Commission concurrent, with the adoption
hearing for the land use amendment. He concluded that they
review. Mr. Ferguson added that they think that the plan is good and that it fits into the
character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ferguson also stated that the plan provides for a mix of
s clearly in the urban service district. Mr. Ferguson declared
that at some point, the county needs to step up to the plate and allow for higher density housing
if it truly wants to provide housing product that the normal day to day worker in this county can
afford. Mr. Ferguson restated that their goal was to develop a plan to achieve their proposal.
Mr. Ferguson closed with mention of their plan. He stated that without further questions
regarding the history or development of their plan, additional speaking on their behalf will be
turned over to Mark Mathes, who will in turn run through the details of the project. He also
stated that Mr. Lounds, to the best of his ability, will address the traffic impacts regarding
improvements and location of entrances.
Chairman Grande thanked the Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Akins asked inquired information regarding the price range for single families in Vero and in
St. Lucie County.
Mr. Ferguson responded stating that according to typical answers, it will be market driven, by
given of what the product is. He also stated that Mr. Alehandro Delfino form Home Dynamics
can further elaborate on price ranges.
Mr. Ferguson reiterated that Mr. Delfino stated that the single family will be in the mid two
hundred thousand dollar range and the town homes will be in the high one hundred thousand
dollar range, in which the limit is being further pushed for affordable purchase. However it is a
lot less that the typical eighty hundred foot wide single family lot that currently being developed
in the county.
Mr. Ferguson stated that all of the products are fee simple and they will be owner occupied. He
also included that the town homes are not condos, and every home will touch the earth. He
also added that there are elevations of the proposed product that Mr. Mathes will review.
Mr. Hearn pointed out and inquired clarification regarding and error under number four, on page
three. He asked should or should not the second line in December 2005 be a four.
Chairman Grande responded that the clarification was correct.
Mr. Hearn confirmed the clarification.
Mr. Mathes, Lucido and Associates, addressed the questioned concerning the entrances. He
th
stated that the first entrance along 25 Street had been given directions of alignment with
Elizabeth. Although there is no full median access, it is sill a preferred scenario in aligning
th
driveways and intersections. In terms of having additional connections on 25 Street, the
direction of the county staff desires to minimize the number of curb cuts, thereby maximizing
safety and flow on that street. The second connection located on Edwards Road was sited, in a
location that was far enough from the intersection but not so deep into the curve where visibility
sites may be available. Although there was some flexibility on where necessary to align it, there
also was spacing requirements from the intersection that had to be addressed. Mr. Mathes also
55
commented on the very same reason also for access to Edwards Road in which the number of
curb cuts needs to be minimized. It is specifically directive to eliminate the existing curb cuts
th
that exists approximately one hundred feet from the intersection of 25 Street. Mr. Mathes
concluded that it is noted on the site plan to be eliminated. Mr. Mathes stated that he hopes
that the informal that he gave answers the questions with regards to traffic. However, he
highlighted some of the features on the sited plan. He stated in particular that from a project
that is attainable for many people in the community, he believes that it still provides a lot quality,
wherein he added that he favored to comment on some of the items.
th
Primarily, Mr. Mathes stated that the buffer from the exterior perimeter along 25 Street and
Edwards meets the requirements of the city and exceeds the requirements with regards to
landscaping. The number of species and the size of the species are above and beyond code
requirement. Mr. Mathes concluded that the development would be very attractive, from the
road. It is not a gated development with walls. Instead, it will be landscape and beautiful in that
fashion. At the same time, provisions for pedestrian connection to the roadways have been
done. Locations for pedestrian connection along Edwards Road is along through the entry way,
th
and along 25 Street, it is along the entry way. Also about midway approximately across from
Barbara Avenue, a school bus stop has been provided. The school bus stop will be provided as
part of their development, both to shelter and the construction of the necessary pull out if
required for that bus stop. In addition, they have committed to build that and they have
committed to at least set aside land if needed along Edwards Road for a future Transit stop, if
the east-west transit is the necessary Avenue along Edwards Road in the future.
Mr. Mathes stated that internal to the side, it is perceptible to see that all of the roadways
interconnec
Each of the access ways are equally accessible for entry and exit into the site. Although there
is no definite knowledge of where people will go or work in the development or shop, there is an
opportunity to go both ways. Mr. Mathes stated that they also tried to accommodate some of
the many varied different types of recreation opportunities, both active and passive. They have
committed to the active component which basically is somewhat centered between the single
family and the multi-family but down towards the south of the project. Going down towards
south of the project includes both a pool, and a tennis/basketball court. It also includes a small
Cabana. There is an extensive walking trail system throughout the site, both formal hard-
surface for ADA and also informal surfaces. The formal surface wraps from the recreation area,
around the town house lake and connects back to some more passive and recreation areas
which occurred to the north. Each of the areas has substantial greens for picnics, Frisbees,
-
Gazebo for the more passive activities. Mr. Mathes also added that the access to the
residential lake, that they have committed to place within their restrictions for the single family
homes. The restrictionsnot restricted by the use of
the single family backyard. Therefore, even the lake within the single family component is
accessible to the community for their enjoyment. They have also provided a few unique
features for recreation purposes in the site. One of the things that were done along the north,
which is Edwards Road, is a very long thin green. This green is felt to have the ability to provide
some recreation use again, despite what it may be. It is a place where people can go out and
recreate or just passively sit and enjoy the landscape. Enjoyment is not only derived from the
landscape around the buffer, but the landscape around the entire site as well. Both landscapes
are building foundation landscaping, interior landscaping and lake landscaping, both laterals,
which are the wetland plants and also the upland plants.
Mr. Mathes also spoke in terms of the single family report and the traffic coping devices which
56
had been placed along the perimeter road. The coping devices were placed in the single family
area to connect the multi-family to single family, in order to discourage the speedway effect that
can arise in the mentioned types of developments. Mr. Mathes also stated that they have
extensive pedestrian connections across the road. He pointed out that they are clearly shown
on the multi-family section. Mr. Mathes added that there are just as many on the single family.
Mr. Mathes reiterated that they show best on the colored/dark areas shown upon the screen
that cross the road. Each of those is a textured paved pedestrian crosswalk. It is obvious to
see that they are frequently located to allow convenient pedestrian access through the site to
some of the areas in some of the amenities that were provided. Mr. Mathes added that he
would be more than glad to share elevations at the hearing. He also stated that if the option of
answering any questions is made, not that much time will be taken with the hour. Mr. Mathes
concluded that they are certainly available to make more detail presentations.
Mr. Hearn addressed Mr. Mathes stating that St. Lucie county requires all swimming pools to be
fenced. He also stated that the lakes concern him with young children. He added that Florida
has a track record of babies and young children drowning. He asked if there was any provision
regarding fencing at all on the lakes.
Mr. Mathes confirmed that there is no provision.
Mr. Hearn spoke of his concern for toddlers regarding the attractive nuisance of lakes to them.
Mr. Hearn stated that he had another question, however he did not write it down and he will
address it later.
Mr. Lounds spoke to Mr. Mathes regarding the blue prints that were given to study. He asked if
the typical single family lot is thirty by one hundred.
Mr. Mathes replied yes.
Mr. Lounds asked if some of the houses are four bedrooms.
Mr. Mathes replied that they are two stories.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mathes what was going to be his typical square footage of that four
bedroom/two-story house.
Mr. Mathes responded stating that Jonathan has put on some renderings of the units, which are
not necessarily of the units.
However, they are a fair representation of the mass of the buildings. He concluded that they do
not necessarily show all of the architecture details. In terms of the site plan, there was a typical
lot layout on the site plan that showed minimum setbacks and the footprints could be calculated.
Mr. Hearn asked if the plan was to develop multiple-story, two-story buildings, which are zero lot
line buildings.
Mr. Mathes stated that he was informed by Mr. Delfino that on a single family footprint, it ranges
from twelve hundred to twenty-one hundred. Apparently the typical footprint that is on the plan
can accommodate up to a twenty-one hundred square feet on a single floor room. He
sought along one of the side lot lines and the five foot setback occurs on the other side. In the
57
five foot setback, the units are architecturally connected one to the other without structural
connection. He defined that they have created a decorative arched structure which forms
something similar to a courtyard patio type entrance into the side yard. He concluded that
creation of the arched structure was to develop some architectural features and interest along
the area. Mr. Mathes also stated that because of that, they had to provide breaks between
groups of units. Every two hundred feet, the Fire Marshall requires a break, the minimum of
twenty feet in width. Mr. Mathes also added that they have exceeded
requirement. Mr. Mathes also added that in some cases the width was required to be twenty-
five to thirty feet in width. The extended width is for fire truck access and paramedic access can
reach the rear of the houses.
placement of three
hundred-eighteen units at the mentioned price range. He asked if the price ranges are of a
necessity and are they what the area is demanding/ desiring. Mr. Hearn also asked would or
would not it is better to put a hundred units in the area and receiver four-hundred thousand
dollars a piece from them.
Mr. Mathes stated that with the demand for the housing at the price level that is presented and
expressed through the media, testimony, the experiences that all know exist in the community,
th
and through the neighborhood that exist immediately to their east across 25 Street, they are
not sure if they could support the price range of a hundred units at the mentioned price. They
think that a combination of the demand for abounds of housing in the community and or a lot of
the land that is going forward is more of a typical lot program. Mr. Mathes concluded that there
is a demand for this and in their opinion; the area is an appropriate location.
Mr. Hearn stated that his concern is the quality of the remains after it is build out two years from
now and turn over to the city. He also is concerned about what the city is going to have to deal
with regarding the rental units that are being discussed at the hearing.
Mr. Mathes clarified that there is no rental here, but they are all fee simple ownership pieces.
development with the necessary association documents. He also added that he
has trust for individuals and the choices that they make to maintain the value of their homes,
new homes in particular. Mr. Mathes stated that sometimes in the older neighborhood it is not
seen, without the association. He also added that sometimes there is a decline in maintenance
and property values. Mr. Mathes concluded by stating that he feels that because the project is
new there is no price range for the new quality units that are available. There is a capability of
purchasing an older home where there is a risk of not having an association or not having
protection of the association and a new product that will be an assist.
Mr. Hearn stated that he would be very interest in hearing
Chairman Grande motioned for further discussion.
Mr. Trias stated that he happens to live in an old house and he is pretty happy with it. He stated
58
that he finds no reason for any objection to old houses. He stated that he is not going to
support the project, reason being that it is too dense. In additional speaking, Mr. Trias stated
that the density could work if it was designed better. He also stated that as he views the picture,
he have a hard time finding the front doors of the houses, which he concluded as a simple
symbol of the problem. He stated that the house was all parking garages, and it will all be cars
in which the public spaces will not be very good. At the mentioned density, Mr. Trias feels that
most certainly a better quality of design needs to be developed. He stated that when there are
lots as narrow as the subject lots, there is a necessity for an inclusion of allies to deal with cars.
If there are no allies, then all of the cars will be in the front. Mr. Trias commented that the idea
of the project is better than the former project proposals. He feels that it is great that there are
no cover stacks and there is a reasonable layout with the streets included. Mr. Trias clarified
that the streets are parking lots and that what they will be. He also stated that the parking lots
will determine the degrading of the quality of the projects. He clarified that it is not a high quality
public space. He also added that it is nice when homes are sold new, but then later on it gets
worse and worse. He concluded stating that density has its challenges and it requires better
design, architecture, a better site planning. Other wise he can not support density. Density by
itself does not work. There have been no real explanation regarding the traffic; however it is not
the main concern. Mr. Trias stated that his main concern is that they can not continue to rezone
properties at density and not do the design changes and qualities that are needed for keeping
Chairman Grande asked Mr. Trias to state how he really feels about the project and he opened
the discussion up for father questions or remarks.
Mr. Hearn recalled a former question that he had written down. He asked if it was up to the
developers to plan to have deed restrictions on the subject properties,and do they include only
ower occupied homes.
Mr. Mathes replied that all of the details of the restrictions have not been worked out, but
typically what are done with the projects to protect against several things are impositn
conditions to avoid speculative buyers. He continued stating that after the speculative buyers
have viewe the premises, the following buyer(s) will then flip it and get a quick profit. Mr.
Mathes added that the flipping of the product is due to the functioning of the market. Retaining
a right to capture part of the product discourages the activity. They typically will impose some
time period where renting the product is restricted. It is not importunity because it is not a
government subsidized type of project. However there will be a year of two where it will need to
be owner occupied. The procedures taken are done because they are market driven which
maintains the equality of the product and the price point that can be achieved. He concluded
that all detail have not been worked out, however it will not turn into an instant rental project
because it is fee ownership.
Mr. Hearn stated that he appreciates what Mr. Mathes is saying, however, he stated that his
concern is not per year to its ten, twenty years down the road. His concern is the impact,
whether positive or negative, that the development will have on the community. Other deed
restriction recommendations include cars not being allowed to be parked along the streets, but
in the garages at night. The restrictions add an awful lot to the degradation of any project that
involves various cars parked in various places.
Mr. Delfino nodded as of agreeing with Mr. Hearn.
Mr. Hearn stated that he hopes that the deed restrictions will be ready upon presentation to the
59
BOCC, because it is and intrical part of how voting will be done.
Chairman Grande inquired for further questions.
Mr. Hearn declared that he had one more comment.
responsible for enforcing any of the covenants that are adopted with the property and
maintaining the public areas. Mr. Mathes stated that Mr. Delfino clarified that there are
provisions against parking on the streets.
Mr. Trias stated that half of the project resigns on the parking lots, therefore it makes no sense.
Mr. Mathes clarified that he was talking about the single family units that have garages and
driveways.
Mr. Hearn commented on both the area and the plat map. He stated that the density for that
neighborhood is extremely high. He clarified that he did not declare that it would not work, but
from a personal perspective, he would not want that type of density moving into his
live in single family homes on fairly large lots, and they will be heavily impacted by the project.
Mrs. Hammer asked if there was a clubhouse on the site plan. She pointed out that she saw the
swimming pool, basketball/ tennis court.
Mr. Mathes clarified that in between the basketball and the pool is a Cabana, but it is not a
clubhouse.
Mrs. Hammer repetitiously asked if there is a clubhouse at all. She inquired of information
-
Mr. Mathes clarified that the misunderstanding was his mistake. He also reiterated that the
open space contains a cabana, instead of a clubhouse.
Mrs. Hammer asked if the cabana was similar to a restroom.
A speaker stated that there is always a trade-off because the more amenities that are added,
the higher the monthly maintenance fee is for the residents. He concluded that the whole
purpose is to try to keep the project reasonable.
Mrs. Hammer clarified that her main point is in regard to former experiences. She included that
with the experiences that existed last fall with the hurricanes, it seems as if there is a need to
make preparations to take care of residential communities in some other way rather than by
using the county shelter. She also added that she have had some discussions with some
individuals lately about when approving projects and making the shelter building more of a
weather/ hurricane protection shelter for the residents in the community. The shelter should
also have back up supplies such as a generator that could be used for cooking, air conditioning,
or something in that area. She stated that initiative actions need to be in preparation for future
preferences so that they themselves will be taken care of and multitudes of people are not
placed out on the street or dumped into the community shelters. With that said, she assumes
that this will be annexed into the city.
60
Mr. Hearn stated that the water and sewer services through the Ft. Pierce Utility Authority do
require an annexation agreement. He also added that within the next couple of years become
contiguous to the city and be annexed.
Mrs. Hammer replied okay and she addressed affidavits form the schools and fire. She stated
that she would like to start seeing a copy of the sign-off on the board. She also added that she
was present when the Fire Chief took the stance and stated that he had heard of the developers
claiming to have spoken with him regarding safety procedures. She stated that the developers
were saying that everything was fine and had been agreed upon, but the Fire Chief had not
signed-off on anything. She concluded that she would like to see future agreements in writing.
In addition, she stated that she can not fathom that the school district would sign-off on a project
like the subject project. Usually they count half of child per home, which in turn would be
approximately one hundred and fifty-nine kids. The subject project is not going to be one half a
per home and
school systems are already overcrowded. Her question is how they are absorbing
approximately three hundred more kids. Is there any address to this concern?
Mr. Mathes replied stating that he certainly can not speak for the school district because the
address it in several way. Mr. Mathes stated that in one way the school district collect impact
fees, which are in excess of three thousand dollars per unit. He also added that they have a
voluntary unit fee per unit to help pay for land acquisition. They have a formula, wherein the
planning manager. Mr. Mathes concluded that they will go to the school board at the next
available school board meeting. He also added that the fee is an excess of four hundred dollars
per unit. Mr. Mathes stated that they had an opportunity to review the site plan and they did not
have any negative comments. In addition, the Fire district had two reviews. During one of the
reviews, they review the site plan for meeting codes for access and ability to fight fires and they
signed-off that it meets all of the codes. They also have a voluntary payment in lure of land
donation, which is one hundred and fifty-four dollars per unit and the agreement is pending
before the Fire District as well.
Mrs. Hammer inquired of police protection or assurance regarding handling the additional
amount of units and people.
Mr. Mathes reiterated that there is an impact fee that addresses that capital cost of providing the
increase service that is generated by the project. The numbers are calculated by experts hired
by the county and it is assumed that the experts are aware of what they are doing by proper
calculation of the capital costs. It is certainly paying its fair share under the current impact fee
regime.
Mrs. Hammer moved along to the next question regarding the information on page two. She
stated that it talked about the level of road service not changing. She inquired of the level of
service on the intersections, including those within a half mile of the development.
Mr. Mathes apologize for not bringing a copy of the traffic report with him. He stated that he is
not sure if Mrs. Waite had a copy with her either.
Mrs. Waite replied that she did not have a copy with her.
th
Mr. Mathes stated that he is aware that 25 Street has been designed and was susppose to be
61
out for construction sometime in December or January. He stated that he is not srue of exact
th
statistics, howerer to the best of his knowledge, 25 Street is programmed to be four lane, with
a turn lane improvements. He included improvements to intersection Edwards Road, where
there may be no level of service problems. He concluded that he has no knowledge or further
information regarding all other neighboring intersections.
Mrs. Hammer thanked Mr. Mathes.
Chairman Grande reiterated that they are now discussing the public hearing and the applicant
had just spoke. He also reiterated that the discussion is opened for discussion.
Mr. Akins stated that he understands that due to the placement of the project in proximity of the
th
Edwards Road, 25 Street intersection that there are certain requirements of where entrances
can be located.
Mr. Mathes confirmed Mr. Akins statement.
Mr. Akins stated that he assumes the Elizabeth Avenue entrance is located where it is because
th
it has to be so far back from the Edwards Road/ 25 Street intersection.
th
Mr. Akins stated that there may not be an impact on the traffic on 25 Street. He inquired of any
th
proposal for any signal to be at Elizabeth Avenue and 25 Street.
Mr. Mathes replied no.
Mr. Akins asked Mr. Mathes how his people are going to get out of the project when people are
coming to pick up their kids from school. He included that the road backs up from the middle
school almost to the intersection during the beginning and the ending of the school day.
Mr. Mathes reiterated that the traffic that comes through the intersection is based on existing
conditions and the road will have twice as much capacity in the near future. He concluded that
some of that will be alleviated with that.
Mr. Akins stated that the school ground will not have as much capacity and people will still try to
stop and try to get in the school, which in turn will lead to back-ups.
Mr. Mathes continued his thought stating that there are two accesses from the site and if the
residents of the community see a better route to take at different hours, than they will chose to
go the other way wherein may lie full access to the community at the intersection.
th
Mr. Akins reiterated that there may not be a major impact to 25 Street; however, the residents
of the project may be affected.
Mr. Mathes agreed that the residents of the project may or may not be affected; however, we as
humans all have issues in accessing our property.
Chairman Grande inquired of further questioning of the applicant.
regarding the thirty foot
62
lots with the extreme amount of cars that will be parked in the area. He concluded that a thirty
foot lot really does not offer much space for development besides building a house. He inquired
of further addressing to clarify the thirty foot lot, the cars and additional access such as allies.
Mr. Mathes reiterated that they chose a single family product to provide the variation housing
choices. They had the option of going town house for the whole development. Mr. Mathes
added that there is a pride of single family ownership in this country. In addition, trying to
provide the opportunity for the density, which keeps the prices at an attainable level, resulted in
the single family production type. This project does not lend itself to side loaded garages or
things of that nature. Certainly taking a stab at the proposal from an ally access could have
been an option; however, front loaded garages have been the traditional sense for many years
post forty to sixty years ago. He also added that there are an untold number of stable
neighborhoods with front load garages wherein many of them can be pointed to all day long. He
Mr. Mathes stated that they did consider other things and their overall thoughts had been
combined to create the subject product. He also added that the product is a single family
product; however, it still provides the density that they are looking forward to achieve.
Mr. Knapp asked to be a little more specific on the comment of the different design to
accommodate for any or all alternatives, not only involving an overload of cars in every
driveway.
Mr. Mathes stated that on a single family product wherein there is an addition of public spaces,
there is a natural reduction of density. He also added that ally ways take up space on the
property that is otherwise set aside for units. He also stated that achieving their goal of the
price range that they were aiming for (i.e. the density that they targeting) and the mix of units
-
year old traditional definition of a house with a rear loaded garage. He concluded that they did
think about alternative options, however, there were constraints that they were put up under for
a design process that were unable to be achieved.
Mr. Knapp inquired of information regarding the stops for public school buses. He stated that he
did not find any more information regarding other types of public transportation.
Mr. Mathes reiterated that the school bus stop can serve for both purposes and it exist in terms
th
of a shelter and a pull out on 25 Street. He also stated that they themselves will build the pull
out. However, they have committed to an additional opportunity for a stop along Edwards Road.
Mr. Knapp asked if there was anything inside of the development.
dded
that they do not expect any school buses or transits to enter into the development. With the
th
pedestrian linkages that they have, they expect that the connection on 25 Street would be
adequate.
Mr. Akins asked about any exceptions for handicap students.
Mr. Mathes replied that handicap students are not necessarily serviced by the large buses, so
they can access the site.
63
Mr. Akins asked if the small bused could access the site.
Mr. Mathes agreed that the small buses could access the site. He also added that there is fire
truck access throughout the site. Therefore any bus can navigate the site but standard bus
service is expected to be on the road.
Mr. Knapp asked if they were going to be slabs up high or stem wall.
Mr. Mathes stated that he does not believe that there is any grading issues that would require
stem wall. He feels that these are just the standard slab on grade construction.
Mr. Kelly asked if there will be a list of the fill-in site.
Mr. Mathes confirmed that there will be a list of the fill-in site. He also added that there was
some benefit on the site that it was covered with exotics, so they did not have to worry about
habitat protection. Mr. Mathes added that they managed to rearrange some of the features of
the site location of the building to preserve the few specimen trees that exist on site. He
concluded that they were able to accomplish that. He also stated that if or when they get into
the actual final site construction drawing, which has not been done yet, and they find out on
those few units that are adjacent to a specimen tree that they need to go to a stem wall to
continue to protect that tree, than they would go to a stem wall in those locations. He concluded
that generally speaking, it will be slab wall grading.
Mr. Trias stated that the request is for rezoning and in his view unless there is a clear public
benefit, he feels as if a closer look would be taken toward the development. He reiterated that
the applicant had said that what he looked at was most economical, and most effective from a
not meet his standard of
what needs to be done when there is a change in zoning. He stated that he feels the
suggestions that were made are fairly normal, and everyone is a part of it. He also added that
St. Lucie County is one of the places who apparently not catching on yet. In his view, he does
not support the product because it is not a straight zoning project. In this case they have a right
to expect a higher quality.
Chairman Grande reiterated that the hearing is public and inquired for all other speakers.
Chairman Grande closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lounds
and he ter
considering a testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments from the
standards of review set forth in section 11.06.03the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. I
hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Home Dynamic Corporation for
primarily planned development site plan approval: a change in zoning from the CG (
Commercial General) in RM5 ( Residential Multiple Family) zoning district to the PUD zoning
however; the density itself is too great for the subject location. Mr. Lounds also stated that the
fact that they are looking at hero/ workforce housing, they are going to have some place in the
neighborhood where in approximately twelve hundred and seventy to thirteen hundred folks
living in the area that have children. If a third of the residents are teenagers that will add to
more automobile usage. If there is a workforce wherein both husband and wife drive, that
contributes to more automobile usage. He concluded that this type of density or development is
64
suited for the subject location.
Mr. Trias second the motion.
Chairman Grande announced that a motion and a second were made, and he inquired for
further comments or discussion on the motion.
Chairman Grande inquired for a roll call.
Mr. Akins supported the motion and he voted yes. He added that the density does not
necessarily concern him. However, he agrees with Mr. Trias. He also stated that the density
can remain but the quality of the design of the project needs to be increased. He concluded that
he supports the motion.
Mrs. Hammer stated that she supports the motion to deny. She added that one of the problems
that concern her is that the subject property was thirty-one acres of commercial. She stated that
commercial is jobs. She also added that the opportunity for additional jobs is being taken away
and an overwhelming burden is being placed on the school district. Mrs. Hammer stated that it
cost about nineteen thousand dollars for a student learning space and the impact fees that had
anywhere near addressing that problem. She feels that the density
is just absurd for the subject community.
Mr. Hearn replied yes.
Mrs. Morgan replied yes.
Mr. Knapp replied yes.
Mr. Trias replied yes.
Mr. Lounds replied yes.
Mr. Grande commented that he thinks that this is a typical example of everything possible to
maximize the density that could be squeeze on to a piece of property and there is no
consideration at all for what was learned about planning, space use and human living. Hero
housing is not the way to sell poor products. He concluded that he strongly supports the motion
and he voted yes.
Chairman Grande stated that the motion will be sent to the County Commission with a
unanimous vote to deny and that will be a chance to get an official vote. Chairman Grande
added that the denial was unanimous at that level.
There was a 10 minute recess.
65
AGENDA ITEM 4: SIGNS ORD-05-004
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, assistant County Attorney, opened the hearing. The agenda being
presented is Ordinance 05-004, also referred to as the Sign Ordinance. It is kind of a clean-up
Ordinance on the signs. There have been recent court cases in process regarding free speech
and efforts to make sure that the sign ordinances are in compliance have been made. They are
trying to make them as content neutral as possible. They felt that there may have been
previous terms included that may have implied the content of the sign and they are trying to
avoid that. Mrs. Smith also stated that they have increased the regulations on their political
signs as to the time frame of when they need to be taken down and regarding size. She added
that they adjusted permitting process, the application and the time frame that they must
respond. She stated that this is for First Amendment reasons. She concluded that there must
be definite time frames regarding when the county must respond to someone and have an
appeal process. She concluded that they recommend that their proposal is forwarded on to the
Board with approval.
Chairman Grande inquired for questions from the Staff members.
A speaker inquired of confirmation regarding his understanding of the readings. He asked if he
correctly understood that there have been about thirty-eight different ordinances added on to in
the last fourteen years and have it been changed that many times.
Mrs. Smith replied that she thinks that she might actually have been more because they ended
in April of 2004. She added that she made a note stating that they probably have had more
since then. She confirmed that there have been about thirty-eight or more different ordinances
added on.
Ms. Young clarified that the amendments are for the entire Land Development Codes that were
adopted, not just amendments to the sign ordinance.
Ms. Young continued stating that all were listed because the land development code is being
mended; however the sign ordinances have not been mended thirty-eight times.
Mr. Lounds asked of the opportunities of changing the political signage from forty-five days to
thirty days.
Mrs. Smith stated that it was a possibility because the time frame was picked as reasonable.
Mr. Lounds asked if there was any vehicle/ venue that could be used to fine the candidates if
they did not pick there signs up and the cleaning up was left to the county. He inquired of any
fee for the be the fee will encourage
the candidates to pick up their signs.
Mrs. Smith stated that some of the jurisdictions require that a permit is pulled to establish the
campaign signs in their area. She also added that they chose not to go with the permit,
however, they have code enforcement and there is a seven day deadline post the election for
clean up. Code enforcement is used upon disobedience of cleaning up.
Mr. Lounds added that he feels that more consideration needs to be given to the proposed idea.
66
He stated that after the election it is hard to get the areas and the signs cleaned up. He stated
that it is not difficult to identify who the signs belong to because their names are on them. He
added that he would feel good if verbiage included, emphasizing that the code enforcement
reacts to the seven day limit. He concluded that seven days prior to the election is a sufficient
amount of time to pick up the signs. He also added that thirty days post the election is a
sufficient amount of time to have all signs out.
Chairman Grande inquired of confirmation regarding his understating petition.
He asked if Mrs. Smith suggested that a law was passed along at the hearing with a change
from forty-five to thirty on page 9.15.
Mr. Lounds replied yes.
Chairman Grande replied thank you.
Chairman Grande inquired for further questions/ comments from Staff.
Mrs. Hammer added that she feels that it makes sense. She added that Ft. Pierce has thirty
days, she petitioned to examining the time frame for Port St. Lucie. She also suggested that
-five. She was hoping that all areas and cities would
have the same rules for traveling purposes. She concluded that she suggested that the time
frame in Fort Pierce would be thirty days and in Port St. Lucie, it would be forty-five days.
Mrs. Morgan stated that she agrees with Mrs. Hammer. She added that it would be nice to be
consistent with the City of Fort Pierce and with the City of Port St. Lucie. She concluded that,
that would be her recommendation. She asked what .
A speaker clarified that the city of Fort Pierce is thirty days.
Mrs. Morgan inquired of She assumed that it was
forty-five days.
Mr. Akins supposed that the city of Port Saint Lucie should
frame period if possible.
Mrs. Hammer included that she does not think the permit usage should be done away with. She
added that Port St. Lucie issued an application for a permit wherein a deposit was taken. If
candidates did not pick their signs up, they did not receive their deposit back. She concluded
out and retrieve their signs. Mrs.
Hammer continued that on page 9.19, 9.03.00 prohibited signs item C sidewalks signs/ signs
and sandwich signs
Mrs. Smith agreed that she h
Mrs. Hammer said okay. She also examined item E. She added that it did not make any sense
Chairman Grande implied that there wa
it.
67
Mrs. Hammer continued with page 9.21. she inquired about item Q: vehicular signs, located
under prohibited sings, asking if it includes political/ real estate magnetic signs that attach to
vehicles.
Mrs. Smith stated that further examination will be done.
Mr. Lounds stated that he had concerns regarding the vehicular signs. He asked if or not
vehicular signs are meant to be signs that are reckoned in the rear of vehicles such as pick-up
trucks or are they put on top of vehicles. He also stated that if a vehicle is painted up and used
itself as a sign, he does not interpret that as a magnetic sign that says (i.e.)
to such vehicles, further explanation needs to be addressed pertaining to vehicular signage.
Mrs. Smith clarified that there is a definition of vehicular signs. She added that it addresses
signs that are affixed to vehicles or trailers. However, it is located on a parcel for the primary
purpose of conveying a commercial message.
Mr. Lounds asked if the information that Mrs. Smith gave was written in the packet or was it
established elsewhere.
Mrs. Smith clarified that it was in the definition sections at the very beginning on page two of the
definition.
Mr. Lounds said okay and he thanked Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Hammer spoke and said that on page 9.22, under Exceptions, the second line reads
. She also added that in this chapter are not designed or
one of the words needs to be eliminated.
Mrs. Smith agreed.
A speaker inquired of clarification regarding what Mrs. Hammer spoke about.
the page, on the second line towards the end.
to be eliminated.
inserted between the two.
Another
Mrs. Smith agreed to insert
Mrs. Hammer concluded by saying okay.
Mr. Hearn commented on the fact that upon arrival into St. Lucie County from Indian River
68
County, there are a 3 ½ sign/ billboards every mile, informing drivers of their where about. He
stated that it is embarrassing to have his children return home, have been out of state,
proclaiming that they were aware of their arrival into St Lucie County because they see all of the
billboard right along I-95. He also included that if there is any way, without revoking existing
rights, he desires that permission of signs to the mentioned degree discontinues. He concluded
that it is degrading to the county to have that amount of billboards and he added that
surrounding counties do not have them. He also added that he notices the excess usage of
signs because he travels from the north upon leaving the county. Mr. Hearn addressed further
notes regarding page 9.7. He noted that within commercial on page 9.5, it allows a 3sq. ft. per
dwelling unit. He asked why the subject dwelling unit was only 2 sq. ft. on the name plates.
Mrs. Smith stated that she hopes that Mr. Kelly could assist because she did not make any
change to the spacing. Mr. Hearn reiterated that he was addressing information under the
residential mobile homes, under C. He also added that for a single family home it state that a 3
sq. ft. sign name plate could be used. He also included that under the commercial office; only a
2 sq. ft. is allowed. He concluded stating that he thinks that the sq. ft. should be consistent and
he clarified that he is aware that the differences were not changed by the developer.
Mr. Kelly stated that it had been in the code for many years and he is unaware of why it
changed.
Mrs. Smith stated that there will be further examination.
Mr. Hearn proposed to address notes that he had on 911, however he could not interpret his
notes closely. He continued and addressed 9.24. He stated that after 11.05.01B Sign Permit A,
rmation that he
addressed.
Mrs. Smith stated that there have been no changes to the mentioned section.
Mr. Hearn inquired for further clarification. He added that there were others that are unchanged
in the languages presented.
Mrs. Smith apologized.
Mr. Kelly stated that it will be discussed shortly.
Mr. Hearn replied at the particular hour, he is not really concerned.
Mr. Kelly stated that there are several pages of the building permit section that was left out due
to no use of repeating the terms again.
Mr. Hearn replied stated,
Mr. Hearn stated that the thing that concerns him is the fact that people are going around nailing
signs on phone poles, and jamming signs into the ground. He added that the code enforcement
officers ride pass them continuously and never pick them up or do anything about them. He
concluded that he would like to see something in the regulations that prohibit those particular
signs if it does not already exists.
69
Mrs. Smith clarified that they are prohibited already. She added that code enforcement, to the
best of her knowledge, was removing the signs when they see them. She also added that the
approximate amount of signs that are being moved a week is fifty.
Mr. Akins implied that the code enforcement officers are not picking up signs by Indrio Crossing,
because it has became a real polite site for trashing.
Mr. Hearn suggested fines are issued to the folks that distribute the signs.
Mrs. Smith added that they could be fined under code.
Mr. Hearn asked if code enforcement officers have the right to site liters on spot without going
before the board.
Mrs. Smith stated that they could do a citation process, or they could take them to the code
board right now and issue a fine.
Mr. Hearn added that it is a lengthy process.
Mrs. Smith agreed that the process is lengthy however; she added that once the people are
bound to have been in violation it leads to a repeat violation that can be used against them. The
repeat violation would be five hundred a day, beginning with the day that the officer notices the
violation.
Mrs. Hammer included that the county could earn money.
Chairman Grande inquired for further questions or comments.
Chairman Grande opened the public hearing.
Chairman Grande closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hearn moved that the Board recommend approval of the amendments.
A speaker seconds the motion.
All was in favor of the motion, no one opposed the motion.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
A speaker inquired of information regarding the next meeting.
th
Mrs. Hammer stated that the meeting that was scheduled on the 19 of May had been canceled
because of the rescheduling for the Town Village County site. She also added that she believes
nd
that June 2 is the considered date for the comp plan amendments that were not on the
agenda.
70
Mrs. Hammer implied inquiries regarding the distribution date of the Township Villages and
Country site. She added that she thought that there were going to be delivered by May 11,
2005.
A speaker clarified that it was sent through overnight mail and it will be delivered on the morrow
(May 12, 2005).
Chairman Grande stated that it does not matter because the meeting that was arranged for that
hearing had been canceled. He added that the distributions may be changed based on the
following meeting, which is the meeting that was scheduled for the public.
AGENDA ITEM 4: KENNETH PALESTRANT, M.D. RZ-05-001
Vice-Chairman Hearn made the motion to move for approval.
Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion.
71
Upon roll call the item was approved unanimously. Chair Grande wanted the record to show
that he recommend that the height limit be removed from this particular document.
72
Other Business
Ms. Hammer reminded the board about the workshop on May 4 and 5, and for members who
would be really worthwhile.
Next scheduled meeting will be the Special Meeting on May 11, 2005.
73
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Morgan made the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
_____________________________ _______________________________
, Secretary Charles Grande, Chairman
74