No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-21-2007 (2) 1 St. Lucie County 2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency rd 3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 4 July 21, 2007 Regular Meeting 5 6:00 P.M. 6 ß ½±³°¿½¬ ¼·­½ ®»½±®¼·²¹ ±º ¬¸·­ ³»»¬·²¹ô ·² ·¬­ »²¬·®»¬§ô ¸¿­ ¾»»² °´¿½»¼ ·² ¬¸» º·´» 7 ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»­» ³·²«¬»­ ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ®»½±®¼ò ײ ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ±º ¿ ½±²º´·½¬ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» 8 ©®·¬¬»² ³·²«¬»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±³°¿½¬ ¼·­½ô ¬¸» ½±³°¿½¬ ¼·­½ ­¸¿´´ ½±²¬®±´ò 9 10 11 CALL TO ORDER 12 13 Vice Chairman Caron called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 14 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 15 16 ROLL CALL 17 18 19 Susan Caron .......................................Vice Chairman 20 Brad Culverhouse...............................Board Member 21 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member 22 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member 23 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member 24 Barry Schrader ...................................Board Member 25 26 Members Absent: 27 William Hearn ....................................Chairman 28 John Knapp ........................................Board Member 29 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio 30 OTHERS PRESENT 31 32 33 Faye Outlaw .......................................Assistant County Administrator 34 Robert Nix ..........................................Growth Management Department Director 35 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney III 36 Kristin Tetsworth ...............................Planning Manager 37 ANNOUNCEMENTS 38 39 None. 40 DISCLOSURES 41 42 Vice Chairman Caron and Board Members Culverhouse, Hammer, Morgan and Mundt 43 disclosed that they had conversations with members of the public and staff on Ordinance 44 07-031 (n/k/a 07-044) and Grande Beach. 45 Item #1 Minutes 46 1 1 Review the minutes from the June 21, 2007 regular meeting for approval. 2 3 Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes with the following changes: on page 2, 4 should be deleted; on page 23, line 3 5 spoke was Phil 6 Stickles. 7 8 Mr. Culverhouse expressed his concern with the fact that compact disc recordings of 9 these meetings are not made part of the public record. He expressed his concern with the 10 fact that these are summary minutes as opposed to verbatim minutes. 11 12 Ms. Morgan expressed her concern with the fact that these minutes are only a summary 13 and appear to have missing information especially with regards to the discussion that 14 took place on Ordinance No. 07-031. 15 16 Mr. Nix and Ms. Young explained th 17 18 language that will be included in the minutes stating that the compact disc recording of 19 these meetings will prevail if there is a discrepancy between the audio/video recording 20 and the typewritten minutes. 21 22 Mr. Culverhouse seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 23 24 Mr. that will probably move 25 faster than those before it, out of order (specifically the items under New Business). 26 27 There were discussions between Board members with reference to the above, but 28 ultimately Ms. Caron decided to move the three New Business items to the front of the 29 agenda. 30 Item #3: Sarbojben Patel CU 320071076 31 32 Petition of Sarbojben Patel for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the retail sale of liquor 33 in a CG (Commercial General) Zoning District for the property located in St. Lucie 34 County, Florida. 35 36 Ms. Kristin Tetsworth presented this item and advised that the Conditional Use Permit is 37 being applied for a property located on South Hutchinson Island approximately .75 miles 38 north of Martin County. The proposed liquor store is located within a 1,600 sq. ft. retail 39 store in an existing 18,270 sq. ft. retail center. The liquor store was previously operated 40 approximately a few blocks from the proposed site, but due to hurricane damage, they 41 relocated their business. 42 43 Ms. Hammer questioned the discrepancy in the name of the applicant which is noted on 44 page 2 of the resolution. 45 2 1 Ms. Tetsworth apologized for the error, and assured the Board that it will be corrected 2 before going to the Board of County Commissioners. 3 4 There were discussions between Board members and staff with regards to the hours of 5 operation. 6 7 Ms. Patel, the applicant, confirmed that the hours of operation will be 9am until 8pm 8 Monday through Saturday and 1pm until 7pm on Sunday. 9 10 Ms. Caron opened the public comment portion. 11 12 Adnan Aghita spoke and expressed his concern with the access easement he has and the 13 utility easement that was granted by the previous owner of the shopping center over his 14 access easement. He is neither opposed nor for the application being heard tonight, but 15 would like some type of remedy to this issue. 16 17 Ms. Young explained that she is familiar with the situation. With regards to the utility 18 easement, that was acquired by the County when they acquired the utilities from the 19 private utility company. There is an issue between Mr. Aghita and the owner of the 20 shopping plaza with the construction of a wall, but she will look into it further. 21 22 Mr. Aghita spoke again and questioned whether the utility easement is legal. 23 24 Ms. Caron assured Mr. Aghita that legal staff will look into these issues before this item 25 goes before the Board of County Commissioners. 26 27 There being no further public comment, Ms. Caron closed the public comment portion. 28 29 Mr. Mundt motioned to forward this application to the Board of County Commissioners 30 with a recommendation of approval. 31 32 Mr. Culverhouse seconded. 33 34 Ms. Hammer suggested an amendment to the motion which would include a resolution of 35 the issue brought up by Mr. Aghita. 36 37 Mr. Mundt agreed it should be a point of discussion, but it should not be an obstacle for 38 the approval of the application. Board members agreed. 39 40 Roll Call 41 42 Vice Chairman Caron yes 43 Mr. Culverhouse yes 44 Ms. Hammer yes 45 Ms. Morgan yes 46 Mr. Mundt yes 3 1 Mr. Schrader yes 2 3 The motion carried unanimously. 4 Item #4: Grande Beach Text Amendment Ordinance No. 07-032 5 6 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, 7 amending Land Development Code Section 7.03.00, Planned Mixed Use Development; 8 amending Section 7.03.03 to modify the standards and requirements to allow greater than 9 40% residential development and modify the standards for horizontal and vertical 10 integration of uses, for a 9.44 acre parcel of land located at the northwest corner of State 11 Road A-1-A and Marina Drive on North Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, to 12 implement the development project and related Comprehensive Plan Amendment known 13 14 severability; providing an effective date; providing for codification; and providing for 15 applicability. 16 17 Kristin Tetsworth presented this item and explained that this is an application from 18 Grande Beach North Hutchinson Island, LLC, whose Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19 was approved on March 27, 2007. This application would enable them to supersede the 20 restriction of the 40% residential in a PMUD. 21 22 Bobby Klein, Esq., on behalf of the applicant, complimented staff on their help and work 23 on this item. 24 25 The public comment portion was opened. No one from the public spoke and the public 26 comment portion was closed. 27 28 Ms. Hammer clarified that this application allows more than 40% residential units in a 29 mixed-use development. Ms. Tetsworth confirmed (although for future developments, it 30 would be on a project-by-project basis). 31 32 Mr. Mundt motioned to forward this item to the Board of County Commissioners (the 33 34 35 Mr. Schrader seconded. 36 37 Roll Call 38 39 Ms. Morgan - yes 40 Ms. Hammer - no because it was already approved from commercial to mixed-use and 41 they should not be allowed to increase density and she is opposed to approving something 42 that is beneficial to one property only. 43 Mr. Culverhouse - yes 44 Mr. Schrader - yes 45 Mr. Mundt - yes 46 Vice Chairman Caron yes 4 1 2 The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Hammer dissenting. 3 Item #5: Grande Beach PMUD 06-002 4 5 A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida 6 granting preliminary Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) site plan approval for 7 the project to be known as Grande Beach-PMUD; providing for determinations; 8 providing for approval subject to conditions; providing for applicability to the described 9 affected property; providing for expiration; providing for additional permitting; providing 10 for enforcement of conditions; and providing for a record file location; providing for 11 conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. 12 13 Kristin Tetsworth presented this item and explained that staff is recommending approval 14 of the project. It will contain 70 residential units and 16,930 sq. ft. of commercial uses 15 on a 9.44-acre site located on Hutchinson Island. 16 17 Bobby Klein, Esq., representing the applicant, addressed the Board and thanked staff, 18 again, for their hard work on this project. 19 20 Michael Houston, Houston Cuozzo Group, representing the applicant, addressed the 21 Board and displayed a large site plan of the proposed project. He also distributed copies 22 of site plan photos for Board members. 23 24 Ms. Caron opened the public comment portion. The following members of the public 25 spoke in favor of the proposed application 26 what was originally submitted; and both developer and residents in the area worked 27 together to reach an amicable agreement): Diane Andrews, Bill Medina, Michael 28 Riordin, Karl Williams, and Joan Miller. 29 30 The public comment portion was closed. 31 32 Ms. Hammer questioned information on the site plan and asked that the building key 33 information be corrected. Ms. Hammer also questioned 34 the fact that the site plan depicts a 6 35 has checks and balances in place to ensure items like that are addressed. 36 37 Ms. Hammer also questioned whether or not salt tolerant plants will be used for 38 landscaping. Although Mr. Klein could not confirm, he assured Board members that the 39 appropriate members of the team will ensure that be done. 40 41 Mr. Mundt thanked the developer for the modifications that were made and for working 42 with the residents in that area. Ms. Caron expressed her thanks to the developer also. 43 44 Ms. Morgan motioned to forward this application to the Board of County Commissioners 45 with a recommendation of approval. 46 5 1 Mr. Mundt seconded. 2 3 6 1 Roll Call 2 3 Mr. Schrader yes 4 Ms. Hammer no because of the high density, because there are still errors on the site 5 plan, and because the landscape plan still does not match County Code. 6 Mr. Culverhouse yes 7 Mr. Mundt yes 8 Ms. Morgan - yes 9 Vice Chairman Caron yes 10 11 The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Hammer dissenting. 12 Item #2-A: Ordinance No. 07-019 Environmental, Open Space and Recreational 13 Level of Service Standards and Provisions for Impact Fees 14 15 An ordinance of St. Lucie County, Florida, amending the St. Lucie County 16 Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the Recreation and Open Space 17 Element of the Comprehensive Plan relating to desired outdoor recreation standards 18 (Table 9- 19 providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for 20 applicability; providing for filing with the Department of State; providing for transmittal 21 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs; and providing for an effective date; and 22 providing for adoption. 23 24 Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Director, presented this item and explained 25 that this ordinance is coming about as a result of direction from the Board of County 26 Commissioners who directed staff to work to establish an adopted level of service for 27 passive recreation areas in the County. Staff has been working with Dr. James Nicholas 28 to accomplish this task. 29 30 Staff is recommending that this Board forward this ordinance on to the Board of County 31 Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 32 33 Mr. Culverhouse had discussions with staff and Dr. Nicholas with reference to the 34 number of acres of community parks in the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. 35 36 Dr. James Nicholas introduced himself to the Board and confirmed that the County meets 37 the level of service, currently, County-wide and he also confirmed that, currently, the 38 County provides more than 1200 acres of park space. The future level of service is the 39 issue that brought about this Ordinance. There were discussions of parks within the 40 unincorporated County and the number of residents/population contained within the City 41 of Port St. Lucie, etc. 42 43 Mr. Mundt questioned Exhibit A, Table 9- 44 45 all those facilities are listed under the Classification System. 46 7 1 Ms. Hammer questioned if a limitation of the type of boating would be included in the 2 passive outdoor recreation section. Ms. Bessey confirmed that it would be electric 3 motors only and that language will be added. 4 5 Ms. Caron opened the public comment portion and the following members of the public 6 spoke in opposition for reasons such as: it needs additional work and research and should 7 be brought back under the EAR-based amendments, an additional impact fee will make 8 housing even more unaffordable, and whether or not this is a requirement of the TVC 9 area.: Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., Ron Heiman, Dennis Murphy and Tom Babcock. 10 11 There being no further public comment, the public comment portion was closed. 12 13 Dr. Nicholas explained that the Board of County Commissioners charged staff and 14 himself to come up with a program that would maintain the level of service of 15 environmental lands. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners decides the level 16 of service. He went on to explain that the impact fee would be applied to any lands that 17 are either acquired or voluntarily deemed as part of the environmentally sensitive lands 18 program. He also explained that maintenance and care expenses will be a detailed topic 19 as this issue moves forward. 20 21 Ms. Caron questioned whether or not this would apply to the TVC area. Ms. Bessey 22 explained that in order for it not to apply to the TVC, they would have to be exempted 23 and at the present time there have been no discussions in that regard. Dr. Nicholas 24 suggested that an exemption be done by ordinance rather than be included in the 25 Comprehensive Plan. 26 27 Mr. Culverhouse questioned what the proposed impact fee would be. Dr. Nicholas 28 explained that it would be approximately $680.00 on a single-family home. 29 30 Ms. Morgan expressed her concern that she feels more work needs to be done and does 31 not feel this is ready to go forward. 32 33 34 County Commissioners, but this would be a tool that would allow the County to set aside 35 funds needed for future acquisitions and if changes need to be done at a later date, it can 36 be amended.. 37 38 39 before it is entered into the Comprehensive Plan instead of adopting something that will 40 need to be changed at a later date. 41 42 Ms. Hammer motioned to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they 43 transmit Ordinance 07-019 with the following conditions: (1) that Table 9-6 include the 44 in column two; (2) on page 6 boating be identified as electric motors only; 45 (3) on page 8, Policy 9.1.1.1 include the wording Community Parks: 5 acres per 1000 46 population in the unincorporated areas; and (4) that the TVC be exempted. 8 1 2 Mr. Mundt seconded with an additional caveat that Table 9-6 be changed to accurately 3 reflect the Classification System. 4 5 Ms. Hammer agreed. 6 7 Roll Call 8 9 Ms. Morgan no 10 Mr. Culverhouse no 11 Mr. Schrader no 12 Mr. Mundt yes 13 Ms. Hammer yes 14 Vice Chairman Caron yes 15 16 Motion failed 3-3. 17 18 The Board took a break at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m. 19 Item # 2-B Ordinance No. 07-044 Agricultural Planned Unit Development Open 20 Space Policies and Policy Regarding Transfer of Density from One Parcel of Land 21 to Another 22 23 An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, 24 amending the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element by 25 amending Policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 to prohibit yards on development sites from being 26 included as part of the required 80% or 50% total open space in Agricultural 5 and 27 Agricultural 2.5 Planned Unit Developments, and allowing the Board of County 28 Commissioners to develop Land Development Regulations that permit the reduction of 29 the 80% or 50% total open space requirement in return for the provision of preservation, 30 conservation, or other agricultural, environmental, or passive recreational benefits, or by 31 providing additional common open space and by adding a new Policy 1.1.4.5 that 32 prohibits transferring density to a parcel of land from which density has been previously 33 transferred, and providing an exception; providing findings; providing for applicability; 34 providing for filing with the Florida Department of State; providing for transmittal to the 35 Department of Community Affairs; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; 36 and providing an effective date. 37 38 Mr. Nix presented this item and explained that this ordinance started out as a very small 39 part of Ordinance 07-031. The issues contained in this ordinance are the issues which the 40 Board of County Commissioners directed staff to work on and bring forward. 41 42 Mr. Nix also discussed that all of the provisions of Ordinance 07-031 that were staff- 43 initiated are not included in Ordinance 07-044. There remain only the Agricultural 44 Planned Unit Development open space provisions and the prohibition on the transfer of 45 density to a parcel of land from which density was previously transferred. Both of these 9 1 amendments are the staff 2 Commissioners. 3 4 Mr. Nix also discussed that the amendment regarding Agricultural Planned Unit 5 Developments not including yards as part of the required open space is a clarification of 6 the present policy, and does not change the effect of the policy. Mr. Nix also presented 7 information that the policy does not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted on 8 any parcel of land now existing in the AG-5 Future Land Use Map classification, and that 9 the County has a Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Florida Department of 10 Community Affairs which includes the AG PUD Open Space Policies as a means of 11 preserving agricultural lands to correct problems with the Future Land Use Map and 12 Element. Mr. Nix pointed out that the new provision allowing an acre for acre credit in 13 return for additional common open space and other benefits that may be approved by the 14 Board in the Land Development Code actually reduces the impact of the policy on yard 15 sizes, and he presented calculations that show the increase in the average yard size with 16 development at maximum density before and after the amendment. Mr. Nix presented 17 that the Board of County Commissioners directed a policy change to specifically prohibit 18 the transfer of density to a parcel of land from which density had been previously 19 transferred during the discussion of the proposed Pelican Bay Shoreline Buffer Variance 20 request. 21 22 Mr. Nix discussed the issue of yards being included in open space on future 23 developments and developments that were approved in the past. 24 25 Mr. Nix also discussed the goals and policies of this ordinance. 26 27 Ms. Morgan questioned the advertising requirement with reference to these amendments. 28 29 Ms Young explained that, legally, one advertisement is all that is required. Ms. Young 30 confirmed that this amendment has been legally advertised. They included the other 31 advertising dates in an attempt to avoid confusion. 32 33 Ms. Morgan expressed her concern that this ordinance was advertised previously, under a 34 different number and on a holiday weekend. She feels that there may be a large number 35 of people who are unaware of this ordinance because of the change in number. 36 37 Ms. Morgan also questioned the steering committee that was to be set up with reference 38 to the issues brought about by this ordinance. She questioned whether or not it had been 39 formed and if they had met yet. 40 41 Mr. Nix explained that the steering committee is being set up to work with County staff 42 to provide assistance on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. They will assist 43 with public input. To date, 13 people have expressed an interest in participating in this 44 steering committee. 45 10 1 Ms. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator, addressed the Board and explained 2 thhad discussions with the Board of County 3 Commissioners and determined what components of Ordinance 07-031 they wanted 4 moved forward at this time. Ms. Outlaw further explained that she consulted with the 5 Office to ensure that, since this Board voted to continue the item 6 indefinitely, they would be able to bring it back to this Board 7 8 was decid 9 that would be moved forward (which were included in previous Ordinance No. 07-044). 10 11 Board members discussed, at length, whether or not to proceed tonight or continue this 12 item to a special meeting in August because of the confusion that may have been created 13 by the difference in the ordinance numbers. After the discussion, it was agreed to move 14 forward tonight. 15 16 Ms. Caron opened the public comment portion. The following members of the public 17 spoke: 18 19 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., representing Edwards Properties, spoke in opposition to this 20 proposed ordinance because he feels it should be part of EAR-based amendments that the 21 County will be going through soon. He feels these are material changes in policy. 22 23 Charlie Wilson, representing The St. Lucie Association, spoke in opposition to the 24 proposed ordinance because of what this may cost the taxpayer. The County could be 25 spending thousands, under the Burt Harris Amendment, reimbursing property owners. 26 27 Diane Andrews spoke and distributed to the Board, suggested revisions to Policy 1.1.1.5. 28 29 transfer of density. 30 31 The following members of the public spoke in opposition stating such reasons as fear of 32 properties being devalued, the confusion of the ordinance numbers and participating in 33 the committee that is to be formed with reference to these issues: Doug (his last name 34 was hard to understand), Rene Artalia (sp?), President of the St. Lucie County Chamber 35 of Commerce, Sandra Couch, Ron Weaver, Esq., Joseph Miller, Mark Perry, Roland Yee 36 (sp?), Biff Craine (Mr. Craine also distributed copies of a letter he sent to the Growth 37 Management Department in opposition), George (last name was hard to understand), 38 Skeet Jernigen, Bobby Klein, Toby Overdorf, Tom Babcock, and William Eeley. 39 40 Ms. Caron also invited Mr. Dennis Murphy (and any other people in the audience) who 41 wish to weigh in on this issue. 42 43 Mr. Dennis Murphy addressed the Board and gave a lengthy overview of the intentions of 44 staff at the time this ordinance was written. Mr. Murphy explained that after lengthy 45 u 46 was first written it was decided that the majority of land west of the Turnpike were to 11 1 have densities of one unit per five acres. The Comp Plan Map was ultimately sent to 2 Tallahassee but was returned with some comments. The Board of County 3 Commissioners, at that time, addressed some of those comments but not all. It was 4 decided that the County would not change the density on lands west of the Turnpike. 5 However, it was decided that when development applications came in for that area, they 6 would be required to do a PUD. 7 agricultural type lands, the County decided to implement a policy that would, for 8 development of eight lots or less, not require a PUD. If you went above eight lots you 9 would have to do a PUD. The County was in contact with DCA during the entire process 10 of policy change and they had no problem with this new policy. Mr. Murphy stated that 11 staff, at the time, felt this policy worked. Mr. Murphy stated that he feels it still works. 12 There is no definition of terms in the current Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, there is no 13 definition of open space. Staff came up with the 80% over-all, 35% common with the 14 remainder being either common or open space with the intention being that every piece of 15 property would be different. It was never intended to have 80% common open space in 16 the agricultural area. 17 18 There being no further discussion, Ms. Caron closed the public comment portion of 19 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 2007-02. 20 21 scussions with the Board, Mr. Culverhouse motioned to postpone 22 this item indefinitely and refer it to the advisory committee for further study. 23 24 Ms. Morgan seconded. 25 26 earlier comment that this Board had three 27 choices: (1) to pass it along with approval; (2) to pass it on with a recommendation of 28 denial; or (3) to withdraw it and continue it to the next cycle. Ms. Morgan requested 29 clarification of whether or not this is correct. She does not want to delay any of the other 30 amendments, but feels this one needs to be withdrawn. 31 32 Ms. Young said she would like to see the Attorney General Section Mr. Ferguson 33 referenced with regards to the above comment. Ms. Young went on to advise that staff is 34 ready to continue this item to a special meeting on August 2. Ms. Young went on to 35 explain that if it is the intention of this Board to have this item withdrawn, it should be 36 forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with that recommendation. 37 38 There were discussions on whether or not to withdraw this item or recommend that it not 39 be transmitted. 40 41 Mr. Culverhouse withdrew his previous motion. 42 43 Mr. Culverhouse then motioned that the Planning &Zoning Commission/Land Planning 44 Agency recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ordinance No. 07-044 45 not be transmitted to the DCA. 46 12 1 There were discussions of whether or not this would withdraw this item. 2 3 Ms. Hammer stated that she could agree to that motion because there does appear to be 4 two versions of an amendment out there and that she feels yards were not be included in 5 the calculation of open space. 6 7 Then Mr. Culverhouse withdrew that motion and motioned that the Planning & Zoning 8 Commission/Land Planning Agency withdraw 07-044. 9 10 Ms. Morgan seconded. 11 12 Mr. Mundt questioned staff on some of this confusion among Board members. 13 14 Ms. Young explained that the County Attorney himself reviewed Ordinance No. 07-031, 15 but she is not sure if he reviewed Ordinance No. 07-044. With regard to the motion to 16 withdraw, preferably it should be a recommendation to the Board of County 17 Commissioners that it be withdrawn, but that can be left to the motion maker. 18 19 Mr. Nix then discussed, at length, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, the 20 timeframes associated, and the duties of the Planning & Zoning Commission/Local 21 Planning Agency 22 23 Ms. Caron requested that Ms. Young give clear direction as to how the Board should 24 proceed tonight. 25 26 Ms. Young then explained that her recommendation to the Board would be that they 27 recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they transmit it, transmit it with 28 changes, that it not be transmitted, or that it be withdrawn from the cycle (although 29 recommending that it not be transmitted, in essence, has the same affect as being 30 withdrawn). 31 32 Ms. Morgan then withdrew her second and Mr. Culverhouse then withdrew his motion. 33 34 Mr. Schrader motioned to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners do not 35 transmit this ordinance rather that this ordinance , along with 07-031 be forwarded to the 36 steering committee that is being set up and that it should be considered in the EAR 37 process. 38 39 Mr. Culverhouse seconded. 40 41 Roll Call 42 43 Mr. Mundt no 44 Ms. Morgan yes (and Ms. Morgan suggests that this not be transmitted and that it be 45 withdrawn completely and that staff needs to start all over again) 46 Ms. Hammer yes 13 1 Mr. Culverhouse yes 2 Mr. Schrader yes 3 Vice Chairman Caron yes 4 5 Motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Mundt dissenting. 6 7 Ms. Young then advised the Board that a motion is needed 8 recommendations on all the items in this plan amendment cycle to the Board of County 9 Commissioners. 10 11 Ms. Schrader motioned to forward all previous recommendations to the Board of County 12 Commissioners on this plan amendment cycle. 13 14 Ms. Morgan seconded. 15 16 Roll Call 17 18 Mr. Mundt yes 19 Ms. Hammer yes 20 Mr. Culverhouse yes 21 Ms. Morgan yes 22 Mr. Schrader yes 23 Vice Chairman Caron yes 24 25 The motion carried unanimously. 26 OTHER BUSINESS 27 28 29 Mr. Nix addressed the Board and explained that the Board of County Commissioners 30 would like amendments to Land Development Regulations Chapters 10, 11 and 12 31 moved along. Mr. Nix inquired whether this Board would like another workshop before 32 a hearing is scheduled. Board consensus was that another workshop is needed. Mr. Nix 33 stated that he would get with the consultants to work out the scheduling. 34 35 36 them shortly. 37 38 Mr. Nix asked the Board how they felt about special meetings on these items or having 39 one at a time on an agenda. Board consensus was to try having one on an agenda at a 40 time. 41 42 Bobby Klein, Esq., representing The Provences DRI, addressed the Board briefly and 43 discussed the scheduling of this application. They are looking at changing the 44 Development Order and changing the density (reducing the density). Therefore, the item 45 46 14 1 Dennis Murphy, representing Capron Lakes, discussed scheduling with the Treasure 2 Coast Regional Planning Council and will need to figure out the timing before it comes 3 back to this Board. Mr. Murphy explained that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning 4 Council will not be meeting in August which is presenting these scheduling conflicts. 5 6 Mr. Klein advised that for his development he would like to stick to October and this 7 requires a vote. 8 9 Heather Young agreed. 10 11 Ms. Young advised the Board that a motion is needed to continue The Provences DRI to 12 October 18 (at 6:00 pm or as soon thereafter as can be heard). 13 14 Ms. Morgan motioned; Mr. Schrader seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 15 16 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26 a.m. 15