HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-15-2007
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 November 15, 2007 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these
8
minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc,
9
the compact disc shall control.
10
11
CALL TO ORDER
12
13 Chairman Hearn called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
14
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
15
16
ROLL CALL
17
18
19 Members Present:
20 William Hearn ....................................Chairman
21 Susan Caron .......................................Vice Chairman
22 Brad Culverhouse...............................Board Member
23 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member
24 John Knapp ........................................Board Member
25 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member
26 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member
27 Barry Schrader ...................................Board Member
28 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio
29 (Ms. Hensley arrived at 6:10 p.m.)
30
31 Members Absent:
32 Glenn Rains ........................................Board Member
33
OTHERS PRESENT
34
35
36 Mark Satterlee ....................................Growth Management Department Director
37 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney
38
ANNOUNCEMENTS
39
40 Mr. Satterlee announced that there will not be a December meeting of the Planning and
41 Zoning Commission. Mr. Satterlee also updated Board members on the upcoming EAR
42 meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled for January 10, 2008; and,
43 the meeting on Chapters 10, 11 and 12 will likely be scheduled for the first week in
44 February.
45
DISCLOSURES
46
47 None.
1
1
Item #1 Minutes
2
3 Review the minutes from the October 18, 2007 regular meeting for approval.
4
5 Ms. Hammer requested that on page 5, line 3
6 requested that on be changed to
7
8
Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes.
9
10
Mr. Mundt seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
11
12
13 There were discussions and questions on votes on the Shinn Lakes item
14
15
Item #2: Ordinance No. 07-014
16
17 The purpose of this public hearing is to amend Section 7.10.23 of the Land Development
18 Code Establish Guidelines for the Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Towers and
19 Antennas.
20
21 Ms. Young presented this item explaining that the purpose of this Ordinance is to
22 exercise the maximum authority to the County to regulate such facilities under federal
23 and state law and to provide that placement of such facilities is compliant with applicable
24 law, compliant with County development, zoning and building codes and aesthetic
25 objectives.
26
27 Ms. Young advised that staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the Board
28 of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
29
30 Board members reviewed, page by page, the proposed ordinance and offered the
31 following changes and/or suggestions:
32
33 On the memo from Katherine Mackenzie-Smith to the Planning and Zoning Commission,
34 Chairman Hear
35 number 2.
36
37 Ms. Young explained that is the Federal requirement. However, the State is more
38 restrictive and the time frame is clearly spelled out within the Ordinance.
39
40 Mr. Hearn also mentioned that the wording
41 of said memorandum is not very clear. The County currently does have an ordinance;
42 therefore, he suggested
43
44
45
46
2
1
2 On page 1, at the second Whereas
3
4
5
6
7
8 In addition, for consistency, Board members requested that it be referred to as Wireless
9 Telecommunication Towers and requested that staff make that change throughout the
10 document.
11
12 Mr. Mundt noted that at the bottom of page 4 the word collocation is hyphenated when
13
14
15 At page 5 after number 7 the wording is repeated at the paragraph directly below it.
16
17 Ms. Hammer noted that the definitions starting on page 5 should be numbered (rather
18 than using letters).
19
20 Mr. Hearn commented on the magnetic fields associated with cell towers. He feels cell
21 towers should be located in areas where people do not spend a large amount of time. Mr.
22 Satterlee advised that this ordinance encourages cell towers be used in agricultural zoning
23 areas.
24
25 After discussions with Board members, staff suggested that
26 be re-worded and the reference to a licensed contractor be lumped into the bracketed
27 (at page 6).
28
29 There were discussions of the misused punctuation marks throughout the document. Mr.
30 Satterlee advised that it could have been the result of a format change. Mr. Mundt noted
31 that he will give his marked-up copy of the ordinance to staff in order to ease their
32 revision making.
33
34
35 last line ths should be
36
37 Board members suggested removing the language proposed to be added at page 12,
38 number 9,
39
40 On page 12, number 11,
41
42 Board members do not feel a pre-application meeting should be required as is noted on
43 page 13.
44
3
1
2 noted that they will
3 reword the language for clarification.
4
5 At page 14, number 2, ASCE should be spelled out.
6
7 On page 15, at the first line, Federal Aviation Administration should be capitalized; three
8 lines down it is an FCC license (not licensor).
9
10 Page 15, at 1(a) s
11
12 At paragraph F (on page 15)
13
14
15 Board members discussed landscaping requirements noted on page 18. Where it
16 mentions the Growth Management Department Director, should be changed to the
17 Environmental Resources Director.
18
19 There were discussions of bond requirements as mentioned on page 19. Board members
20 feel that the bond requirements should be clearly noted in this ordinance (such as the fact
21 that they are required for as long as the tower is up).
22
23 Ms. Hammer made mention that on page 20, Security Fund, mentions section 7.10.23(P),
24 which should now be referred to as (Q) due to lettering changes.
25
26 Board members questioned why the radius was changed from 1 mile to ½ mile as noted
27 on page 21. Staff advised they will look into it. Board members noted that they would
28 like to see it remain at a 1 mile radius if at all possible.
29
30
31
32 requirements.
33
34
35 start a new sentence.
36
37 Mr. Culverhouse expressed his concern with the fact that the section covering historic
38 buildings needs to be expanded (at page 24).
39
40 At page 25, letter e, (third line) expend ninth
41 line a period should follow Sshould start a new sentence.
42
43 On page 28, letter e, Board of County Commissioners should be clearly spelled out.
44 Also, the letter s should be removed from construction at (1).
45
4
1
2 included after each subparagraph.
3
4 At page 31, number 2, the Code and associated sections should be clearly spelled out.
5
6
7
8 Board members questioned 4 at page 36. This issue was previously addressed. Ms.
9 Young advised she will discuss with staff and remove if appropriate.
10
11
12 should be removed from the last paragraph.
13
14 That concluded the
15
16 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and the public
17 hearing was closed.
18
Mr. Knapp motioned to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
19
approve the proposed ordinance with the changes suggested tonight by Board
20
members.
21
22
Mr. Culverhouse seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
23
24
25 The Board took a break at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8:08 p.m.
26
Item #3: Ordinance No. 07-056
27
28 The purpose of Ordinance No. 07-056 would be to implement an economic development
29 i
30 positive economic and fiscal impact on the County and meet the requirements of Section
31 288.106, Florida Statutes.
32
33 Ms. Young gave a brief introduction to this item by explaining this ordinance would
34 enable qualified businesses to apply for a waiver of the impact fees paid to the County.
35
36 Staff is recommending that this Board forward this item to the Board of County
37 Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
38
39 Mr. Brillhart with the Economic and Strategic Development Department presented this
40 item explaining that St. Lucie County is in the process of trying to recruit new businesses
41 and/or aid the expansion of existing businesses.
42
43 The County currently has an adopted Targeted Industry List and having this type of
44 ordinance would give the BOCC the discretion of mitigating impact fees based on certain
45 criteria.
46
5
1 Mr. Brillhart explained that adopting this ordinance would allow St. Lucie County to
2 have a more competitive advantage to recruit new businesses.
3
4 Mr. Hearn noted that although jobs are important he is concerned that the County may be
5 with this type of impact fee mitigation program.
6
7 Mr. Brillhart emphasized that this is not an entitlement program, but it is a discretionary
8 tool. This is clearly stated in the ordinance.
9
10 There were discussions among Board members and Mr. Brillhart with the fact that there
11 does not seem to be any penalty to those companies that do not provide the number of
12 jobs required and/or stay for the entire 10 years as is required by this ordinance.
13
14 Ms. Young suggested that a provision can be included where a refund to the County will
15 be due if a business does not meet its contractual obligations as is required under this
16 impact fee mitigation program.
17
18 Mr. Knapp expressed his displeasure with this proposed ordinance and explained that it is
19 not something he is in favor of.
20
21 Mr. Schrader expressed his favorable opinion with regards to this proposed ordinance.
22 He feels that a company coming to St. Lucie County and staying for ten years and
23 providing health coverage would be a benefit to the County. Mr. Schrader feels that a
24 bond or some other type of security should be required.
25
26
27
28
29 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and the public
30 hearing was closed.
31
32 At page 2, (c), Board members
33
34
35
36
37 Mr. Knapp, again, expressed his displeasure with this ordinance. He feels there are too
38 many loopholes. There are too many ways for companies not to live up to what they
39 promised in order to receive the impact fee mitigation.
40
41 Board members also discussed health care coverage and requested that the word
42 expanded upon in the criteria for qualification for participation in this
43 program.
44
Mr. Culverhouse motioned to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
45
adopt this proposed ordinance with the changes agreed upon tonight based on
46
6
comments by Board members and that a provision be added providing that the
1
agreement between the BOCC and either existing businesses or new businesses may
2
include but not be limited to the provisions, which may include the requirement of a
3
bond.
4
5
Mr. Mundt seconded.
6
7
8 Roll Call
9
10 Mr. Schrader yes (but would like to see a bond be required)
11 Ms. Morgan no (because it needs some wording and other changes)
12 Mr. Knapp
13 Ms. Hammer yes (but it should provide some type of protection if a company does not
14 live up to its contractual obligations)
15 Ms. Caron yes (this is a viable tool but something needs to be in place to ensure it is
16 being abided by)
17 Mr. Mundt yes (but would like to see a graduated waiver of impact fees)
18 Mr. Culverhouse yes (but agreements should be fashioned individually and would like
19 to see a payback if a company does not keep its side of the bargain)
20 Chairman Hearn - yes (but would like to see a provision requiring the hiring of a
21 respectable amount of local workforce)
22
23 The motion carried 6-2 with Mr. Knapp and Ms. Morgan dissenting.
24
Item #4: Indrio Groves Limited Partnership RZ 920071318
25
26 Petition of Indrio Groves Limited Partnership for a change in zoning from the RS-2
27 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the AG -1 (Agricultural 1
28 du/acre) Zoning District.
29
30 Kara Wood, TVC Planning Manager, presented this item and explained that the purpose
31 of the requested action is to bring the zoning of the subject parcel into compliance with
32 the Comprehensive Plan and the Residential, Estate Future Land Use.
33
34 The subject parcel is located west of Emerson Avenue abutting the centerline extension
35 of Russakis Road, south of Indrio Road.
36
37 Staff is recommending approval of the subject rezoning.
38
39 Larry Storms, representing the applicant, spoke briefly and requested that this Board
40 forward a recommendation of approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County
41 Commissioners.
42
43 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and the public
44 hearing was closed.
45
7
Mr. Mundt motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County
1
Commissioners grant approval of the proposed rezoning request.
2
3
Mr. Schrader seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4
5
OTHER BUSINESS
6
7
8 Mr. Knapp mentioned, in light of recent news coverage of ocean-front residences, that he
9 feels allowing properties to be built east of A1A is just asking for trouble. A waiver of
10 some sort should be signed by those who build that close to the ocean clearly stating that
11 the County is not responsible for providing aid in the event of a storm.
12
13
14 Board members thanked Mr. Hearn for his service, hard work and dedication to St. Lucie
15 County over the past several years.
16
17 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
18
19
20 Approved: 1.17.08
8