HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 09-19-2006
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
Date: September 19, 2006 Convened: 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 12:00 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Doug Coward, Chris Craft, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie
Hutchinson, Joseph Smith
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County
Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Robert Nix, Growth Management
Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Mike Pawley, County Engineer, Hank
Flores, Planning Manager, Joann Riley, Property Acquisitions Manager, Millie Delgado-
Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
1. MINUTES (03:47)
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve the minutes of
the Tentative Budget Public Hearing held on September 7, 2006, the Regular Meeting
held September 12, 2006 and the Final Budget Public Heating held on September 14,
2006, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
2.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
None
3.GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. John Arena, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board regarding advertising on T.V, dump
trucks speeding on A-1-A and the port.
Mr. John Susa, representing the American Disables Veterans addressed the Board
regarding their assistance in providing a van to transport veterans to the Clinic.
The County Administrator advised the Board that he is presently working on this request.
Mr. Herbert Beach, White City resident, addressed the Board regarding the general public
being made aware of the definitions of the terms PUD, zoning and various land uses.
4.CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve the Consent
Agenda, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
1.WARRANT LIST
The Board approved Warrant List No. 50.
2.COUNTY ATTORNEY
A.Property Donation- Ms. Yvette Damoulakis- Resolution No. 06-281-
The Board accepted the Warrant Deed, authorized the Chairman to
sign Resolution No. 06-281 and directed staff to record the documents
in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
B.Comcast Cable- Release and Substitution of Bond- The Board
approved releasing the old Adelphia Bond and authorized the
Chairman to sign the attached bond release form.
1
C.Teamsters Local Union No. 769- The Board approved the proposed
Collective Bargaining Agreement with Teamsters Local Union 769
and authorized the Chairman to sign the Agreement subject to
ratification of the proposed agreement by the bargaining unit.
D.Midway Road Widening-N. St. Lucie River Water Control District-
The Board approved Resolution No. 06-288 authorized the Chairman
to sign the resolution and directed staff to record the documents in the
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
E.Budget Amendment No. BA06-173- Transferring $35,00 from
Contingency to Professional Services- The Board approved this
transfer as requested.
F.Unclaimed Moneys Deposited or Collected by the St. Lucie County
Clerk of Court- The Board approved filing the Affidavit of
Publication and recording it in the Board minutes.
3.PUBLIC WORKS
A.Engineering Department- Indian River Estates MSBU- Potable Water
Improvements SLC Utilities- Permission to advertise second public
hearing- The Board approved advertising the second public hearing to
be held on October 17, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon there after as it
may be heard.
B.Extension of Time Joint Participation Agreement- Taylor Creek
Restoration with FDOT and FSTED- FSTED’s Contribution is in the
amount of $1,750,000 towards an estimated total project cost of
$3,500,000 - The Board approved the Grant Agreement with FDOT
for the Taylor Creek Dredging Project extending the JPA to
September 30, 2008 and approved the Chairman to sign.
nd
C.Port of Ft. Pierce Entrance Road (No. 2 St.) Work Authorization No.
6 with Taylor Engineering- The Board approved Work Authorization
No. 6 with Taylor Engineering in the amount of $45,500 for a total
contract amount of $231,036 for Engineering services related to No.
nd
2 Street improvements and authorized the Chairman to sign.
D.Request to reschedule a Public Hearing on Capron Trails Mine from
September 19, 2006 to October 17, 2006- The Board approved
rescheduling the public hearing for October 17, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as it may be heard.
E.Change Order No. 3 and Final in the amount of $85,545.99 Indian
River Drive Middle Project- The Board approved Change Order No. 3
and Final in the amount of $85,545.99 Indian River Drive Middle
Project and authorized the Chairman to sign.
F.Engineering Department- Extension of Time for S. Florida Water
Management District Local Governmental Agreement No. 0T 050698-
Harmony Heights Storm Water Improvements- The Board approved
the contract with S. Florida Water Management District Governmental
Agreement No. 0T 050698 Harmony Heights Storm Water
Improvements Phase 1 extending the contract to May 30, 2008.
G.Approve Change Orde4r No. 1 in the amount of $2,550.00 for
improvements to the Hidden River Estates Emergency Repair Project-
The Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign Change
Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,550.00 for a total contract price of
$217,470.00 to Ferreria Construction Co.
2
4.ELECTIONS
Purchase of Voting Equipment - The Board approved the purchase of voting equipment
5.PUBLIC SAFETY-
9G-19 Grant. County Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund
Program Base Grant EMPA- The Board approved the Agreement # 07BG-04-10-66-01
and authorized the Chairman to sign.
6. GRANTS
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management,
Residential Construction Mitigation Program - The Board approved the acceptance of a
grant agreement from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of
Emergency Management, Residential Construction Mitigation Program awarding an
amount not to exceed $200,000 to further a program to provide wind resistant remedies
for low income homes.
7.HUMAN RESOURCES
stst
Mid year April 1 Pay adjustment- The Board approved implementing the April 1 pay
adjustments for all on-bargaining unit employees, and bargaining unit employees.
8.COMMUNITY SERVICES
Budget Resolution No. 06-287- to encumber and expend additional funds in the amount
of $22,424.00 as indicated in the FY 2005/06 Community Services Block Grant
Modification of Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs- The Board
approved Budget Resolution No. 06-287 and authorized the chairman to sign all
documents necessary.
9.PURCHASING
A.Award of Bid No. 06-108- Sale of 1 Caterpillar 826C Compactor-
The Board approved awarding B id No. 06-108 Sale of One Caterpillar
826 C Compactor to the highest bidder, Marc el Equipment in the
amount of $38,277.
B.Award of Bid No. 06-105 Purchase of Native Trees- The Board
approved awarding Bid No. 06-105 to the low bidder Gray Roberts
Nursery and grated permission for the Chairman to sign the contract as
prepared by the County Attorney.
C.Award of RFP No.06-102- IT Support Services for Mets Baseball
Games to the sole bidder, Data Industries Ltd., for $34.65 per hour-
The Board approved awarding RFP No. 06-102 to Data Industries Ltd
and granted permission for the Chairman to sign the contract as
prepared by the County Attorney.
10.AIRPORT
Approval of Final Payment and Release of Retainage- The Board approved the final
payment including the release of retainage for $26,492.73 to Precision Contracting
Services, Inc/. for the Fiber Optic Communications Project at the St. Lucie County
International Airport.
3
11.CENTRAL SERVICES
Release of Retainage/Dependable Roofing Systems C06-06-344 –Re-roofing of Pod A-1
Rock Road Jail- The Board approved the release of retainage in the amount of $7,060.00
to Dependable Roofing Systems for the re-roofing of Pod A-1 at Rock Road Jail.
12.CULTURAL AFFAIRS
A.Work Authorization No. 3 for continuing professional services with
Keith & Schnar P.A. for work at the cemetery where Ms. Zora Neale
Hurston is buried- The Board authorized the Chair to sign Work
Authorization No. 3 for continuing professional services with Keith &
Schnars, P.A.
B.Work Authorization No. 3 for continuing professional services with
Keith and Schnars, P.A. for professional services for engineering and
permitting of the sidewalk and display areas for the Boating and
Fishing Heritage Exhibit- The Board authorized the Chair to sign
Work Authorization No. 3.
C.Guidance Pathways Systems Inc .- to repair and install the five
Boating and Fishing Heritage Kiosks at the Historical Museum- The
Board authorized the Chairman to sign the contract prepared by the
County Attorney with Guidance Pathways inc., to repair and install
five boating and fishing Heritage Kiosks at the Historical Museum.
13.COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Skateboard Park Committee appointment- The Board ratified the appointment of Sonja
Adams as Commissioner Hutchinson’s appointment to the Skateboard Park committee.
REGULAR AGENDA
5.A COUNTY ATTORNEY (0:18:54)
Petition for Abandonment- Consider staff recommendation to approve Resolution No.
06-267 Proof of Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, Proof of Publication of the
Notice of Abandonment in the Public Records of St. Lucie County.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve Resolution No. 06-
267, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.B COUNTY ATTORNEY (0:21:57)
Petition for Abandonment- Consider staff recommendation to approve Resolution No.
06-268, instruct staff to publish the final Notice of Abandonment, record Resolution No.
06-268, Proof of Publication of the Notice of Intent to Abandon, Proof of Publication of
the Notice of Public Hearing, Proof of Publication of the Notice of Abandonment in the
Public Records of St. Lucie County.
It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 06-
268, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.C COUNTY ATTORNEY (0:24:27)
Ordinance No. 06-043 Amending Ordinance No. 06-006 to correct scrivener error-
Consider staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No.06-043 and authorize the
Chairman to sign the Ordinance.
4
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve Ordinance No. 06-
043, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.D COUNTY ATTORNEY (0:25:25)
Petition for Abandonment- Public Hearing Abandon a portion of a 37.5 foot platted right
of way in Indrio Unit 1 known as Alvardo Avenue- Resolution No. 06-269- Consider
staff recommendation to deny the abandonment of Alvardo Avenue, authorize the
Chairman to execute Resolution No. 06-269 and record the Resolution in the Public
Records of St. Lucie County.
Staff requested this public hearing be continued to October 3, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as it may be heard.
Unintelligible name given- a resident of Alverado, addressed the Board and requested the
Road remain open as an escape route and accessibility of fire trucks.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith to continue this public hearing on
October 3, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.or as soon as it may be heard, and; upon roll call, motion
carried unanimously.
5.E COUNTY ATTORNEY (027:58)
Ordinance No. 06-046- Amending Debris Removal Ordinance- Consider staff
recommendation to approve the proposed Ordinance No. 06-046 which amends the
Debris Removal Ordinance.
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Ordinance No.
06-046, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.F GROWTH MANAGEMENT (029:38)
Consider Draft Resolution No. 06-223 granting a variance from Section 6.02.02 (B)
(2)(a)(2) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code- St. Lucie River Shoreline
Setbacks, and a waiver from the requirements of Section 8.00.05(A) of the St. Lucie
County Land Development Code- Fencing Requirements for property located at 3301
Eventide Place- Consider staff to approve Draft Resolution No. 06-223 subject to two
limiting conditions.
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve Resolution No.
06-223, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.G GROWTH MANAGEMENT (038:06)
Petition of Chez Nous, LLC for a change in zoning from RS-2 to RS-3- Consider staff
recommendation to approve the request for a change in zoning from RS-2 to RS-3 for
property located on the east side of Oleander Avenue approximately 500 feet south of
Ulrich Road, as contained in Draft Resolution No. 06-167.
The Attorney for the petitioner requested withdrawing the petition at this time.
It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to accept the withdraw of this
petition, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.H GROWTH MANAGEMENT (0:38:15)
Petition of MLF Properties LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation
of a motor vehicle body repair service in the CG Zoning District Draft Resolution No.
06-230- Consider staff recommendation to approve Draft Resolution No. 06-230 subject
to 3 limiting conditions.
5
The Planning Manager advised the Board of the hours of operation recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Board as 7:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday, however,
staff would like to revise these hours to 7:00 a.m. –9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Saturday, no operation hours on Sunday.
Mr. Beck, attorney for the petitioner, addressed the Board and stated they are hoping to
open within the next two weeks and advised the Board of the surrounding area. He
addressed the hours of operation and the discussion with the P & Z Board. He asked the
Board not to restrict the hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday so they can serve
their customers. He stated their competitors are not restricted to operations on Saturday
and Sunday.
Ms. Arlene Goodman, White City resident addressed the Board and stated she only had a
problem with the hours of operations. She contacted the competitors in the area and most
of them stated they worked until 5:30 p.m. sometimes 6:00 p.m. She stated to continue
this time frame so late in the evening it may set a precedent and the others may want to
do the same and at this time they are all friendly neighbors.
Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, addressed the Board and stated her only objection is
the hours of operation. She believes the Board needs to look strongly at Sundays and
stated 9:00 p.m. is late and they need to consider their quality of life.
Mr. Beck stated the other dealerships have a self imposed limitation on hours and when
there is a need for a repair especially after a hurricane, you’re not going to want hours of
limitations or even a automobile accident.
Mr. Beck asked for a level playing field and not be punished with this conditional use, if
the Board wishes to mandate this from a governmental standpoint then it needs to be
mandated countywide.
Com. Coward stated he does not believe a blanket rule necessarily applies, since the
Board reviews these issues on a case by case basis.
Com. Craft stated he believes they not looking to contribute additional noise, and he
believes the applicant is not looking to run his operation 7 days a week, but is looking for
the opportunity if there is a need to be able to do so. He suggested placing a clause in the
conditional use as far as undo adverse affect as they do on most of the conditional uses on
the adjacent property owners. He believes this business will not affect any more than
what is already going on in that particular area.
Com. Lewis stated recommended on placing a limitation on this due to the fact there is no
limitation on repair
It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Draft Resolution No.
06-230 accepting condition 1 and 3 and eliminating condition 2 , and; upon roll call,
motion carried unanimously.
Quasi Judicial-
Com. Craft advised the Board and those present he had contact with the attorney for the
petitioner.
5.I GROWTH MANAGEMENT (0.58:20)
Draft Resolution No. 06-165 granting Kenneth Palestrant M.D. Preliminary and Final
Development Sire Plan Approval and Change in Zoning from the AR-1 to PNRD-
Midway Road Professional Plaza- Consider staff recommendation to adopt Resolution
No. 06-165 granting Kenneth Palestrant, M.D. Preliminary and Final Development Site
Plan approval and a change in zoning from AR-1 to PNRD.
The Planning Manager advised the Board Planning and Zoning recommended approval
with the 3 following conditions:
6
1.The development have an access to Christensen Road
2.Provide enhanced landscaping
3.A turn lane on Midway Road be provided
Staff has reviewed the Christensen Road access and asked the developer to indicate it as
an entrance only at this time. Staff stated they had a slight problem with the Planning &
Zoning recommendation.
Staff advised the Board they did not see the need for an 8 ft wall parallel to a roadway to
protect residential property on the other side of the road. The applicant and staff worked
diligently to save the oak trees.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, attorney for the petitioner, addressed the Board and stated they
have one request for a minor change in one of the staff conditions. They heard the no
exit on the Christensen for the first time tonight and they were aware of the issue of using
residential property and thought there was the ability for the Board to waive this
requirement, staff and the County Attorney’s office are under the opinion the Board
cannot waive this, so they will simply wait for the Land Development Code to be
changed so that people may exist that way.
Mr. Ferguson stated the one issue in the staff report they are paving Christensen up to the
entrance into the project, there is a small portion of the property that continues pass that
which they are not paving, staff’s condition was that they figure out a process to
contribute the money to the County so that in the future if it is paved the money is there,
however, what they would like to suggest is, since Christensen has a higher probability of
not being paved in the future, the current residents like it being less traveled, his
recommendation is that they have a condition that if it is paved, they will pay their fair
share of paving costs for that stretch of frontage on Christensen but that they do not have
to at this time, contribute to the county that may sit there and never be used.
Com. Coward requested the applicant consider eliminate 2 parking spaces to the right to
save the large oak tree.
Mr. Ferguson stated their Engineer did not have a problem with this request their only
concern was with the roots being disturbed.
Com. Coward requested information on the architectural style of the building.
Dr. Palestrant addressed the Board regarding the architectural style of the building.
Com. Coward asked the applicant if he had a problem with a condition being placed that
the style of the building would be in the Florida cracker style.
The applicant stated he needed more specifics as to what was considered this type of
architecture. He does not wish to compromise the square footage of the building.
A design of the building was presented to the Board.
Com. Coward asked staff if they were comfortable with this design and felt it met the
standards.
Staff stated they were comfortable with the design.
Mr. Patrick Angle, area resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the project and
asked for a stipulation on the hours of operation. He does not wish to hear ambulances
coming in late in the evening.
Mr. Herbert Beach, White City resident advised the Board the style of the White City
Professional Plaza is what they would like to see in the area.
7
Mr. Greg Malon, Christensen Road resident, addressed the Board with his concerns on
the prior projects approved in the area and when those residents expire and the property is
sold it goes in the opposite direction. He asked who monitors professional buildings.
He advised the Board he is opposed to the project due to the lack of monitoring of these
types of zonings.
Com. Coward addressed the previous projects Mr. Malon alluded to and stated the
present Board members were not on the Commission at the time those projects were
approved. He felt it was unfair to attempt to hold this Commission responsible for prior
Commission decisions and advised Mr. Malon of the permitted changes in use for a CO
zoning. The Board voted against a CO zoning for this project at a prior hearing so they
could have a planned non-residential development which is the only zoning district that
mandates a site plan be presented with it and allows this Board to place specific
conditions on the property.
Com. Coward asked rather than doing the expensive additional paving, if the area could
be modified south of the entrance on Christensen Road and have a small dedication of a
bench or something the children could use for safety. He asked if there was adequate
right of way.
The Planning Manager stated he would need to check with the School Board but he
would be very surprised if they were sending buses down Christensen, he suggested
closer to Midway Road is probably the best area.
Com. Hutchinson stated she did not have a problem with this request as long as it was not
site specific.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis to approve Draft Resolution No
06-165 with the condition relating to the two parking spaces and the maintaining of the
large oak tree, and to include Com. Coward’s request non site specific, and; upon roll
call, motion carried unanimously.
.J GROWTH MANAGEMENT(1:55:34)
Consider Transmitting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-02 to the Department of
Community Affairs. Consider staff recommendation to transmit Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 06-02 which includes the referenced items to the Department of Community
Affairs.
The Planning Manager addressed the Board on this item and advised the Board the
Carbara plan amendment is being withdrawn.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
The Planning Manger addressed the first item the Airport Master Plan. He advised the
Board it is a text amendment to the plan involves deleting objective 2.71 and it’s
associated policies, this objective directs them to write an Airport Master Plan, they have
done this so there is no reason for it to remain in the Master Plan. They are
recommending adding the objective that reads “provide for continually updated Airport
Master Plan that directs Airport growth consistent with this Comprehensive Plan, County
Policy and adjacent Land Uses.”
He advised the Board, Policy 2.71.1 would read, “ the Airport Master Plan is
incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan as a transportation sub-element.”
Public comments
None
It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve transmitting
this component, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
8
CARBARA
Ms. Cynthia Angelos, Attorney for the applicant requested acceptance of the withdrawal.
I t was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to accept the withdraw for the
Carbara Plan Amendment, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
GRANDE BEACH
The Planning Manager addressed the Board on this item and advised the Board of the
proposal which is to go to MXD (Mixed use medium intensity). The proposed zoning
ultimately would be a Plan Mixed Use Development, however, this is not before the
Board this evening. The proposed Mixed Use would be an 80 unit condominium with a
maximum of 14,000 square feet of commercial.
The Planning Manager stated as a large scale amendment, there were several items that
were updated more than changed. He indicated the request is for MXD medium intensity
which would allow up to 9 dwelling units per acre and several sub area policies are
proposed:
1. A limit to 80 residential units
2.40% residential threshold set forth in the Land Development Code not be
applicable to this property.
3.The non-residential square footage would be limited to 14,000 square feet
4.The commercial component of the project shall be integrated into the overall sight
design, color, building materials, and street orientation
5.A designated transit stop shall be provided
6.No industrial permitted in the site plan
He advised the Board the traffic study has been updated to deal with the 14,000 square
feet and he has provided in the information and updated commercial analysis and he
addressed the hurricane preparedness issues that were discussed previously. The
applicant provided copies of the Regional Planning Council’s draft plan which indicates
the need for a 22 ½ hour evacuation of the island, the projections are 14 hours in 2008
and the 80 units would not negatively affect those issues. He also continues to contribute
the $20,000 to the County for shelter space although it would not be placed on the island.
The Planning Manager stated staff has reviewed this but have not actually confirmed
where they are in the development continuation from 2003 to 2008 on its face it looks
like these numbers are very reasonable however, they do wish to figure out how many
units are there since they received the information late. Prior to the Board’s adoption of
this plan they would verify exactly that this is the case with the numbers as low as they
are staff does not see any particular problem with this.
QUASI –JUDICIAL
All Board members disclosed having contact with the applicant, the attorney for the
applicant and the general public regarding this issue.
Com. smith requested staff provide information on the sub area policy referenced.
The Planning Manager advised the Board they had done sub area policies in a couple of
instances. They had two other projects they had utilized these policies on and have
learned if they are going to utilize them they need to be large scale amendments rather
than small scale. They have also learned the policies need to be treated as text
amendments. They have one that they have looked at in detail and that is the 40%
limitation which is really an item within the Land Development Code in Chapter 7 and
this requires there be a maximum of 40% residential in a mixed use project. This
developer felt this does not work for a number of reasons. Staff feels it is an arbitrary
9
and artificial number and quite frankly TVC will have it’s own rules but that one rule
would prohibit the Board from doing a TVC like development anywhere else in the
County. Staff believes it has some problems and should the Board choose to transmit this
amendment, staff would like a the same time some direction for them to go in and look at
the 40% and maybe take this number out of the code because they like the developer and
he has a specific issue and a specific problem. The sub area policies and the limit to 80
units per project is project specific.
The Planning Manager advised the Board the Local Planning Agency after their hearing
voted 5 to 3 to recommend transmittal of the amendment with a low intensity rather than
a medium intensity on mixed use that would change it from the potential 9 units per acre
to 5 units per acre.
Mr. Bobby Klein, Klein & Dobbins attorney for the applicant, advised the Board the
original application considered previously was a minimum of 10,000 square feet.
Com. Coward questioned how many units would be permitted if they were to follow the
P& Z recommendation.
The Planning Manager stated just under 46.
Mr. Klein representing the applicant, stated the reason staff is having calculating the 40%
is due to the fact it has never been done before. There are no PMUD’s and he believes
one of the reasons is arbitrary limitation has been a problem. He felt what was left open
for discussion at the P & Z meeting was the number of units. The square foot concept was
embraced as well as the mixed use.
Com. Coward requested clarification whether they are approving what would be allowed
up to a maximum so that when they come back they could see what is actually on the
table now or are they approving a more specific number as a part of the transmittal.
Mr. Klein stated it is a request for MXD with medium intensity however, they limit that
by no more than 80 units. If you take the 80 units over the 9.44 acres you would come up
with 8.5 units per acre this is what they are doing, The PMUD that comes forward would
not be able to exceed the 80 units, they have limited the 9 down to 8 units.
Staff stated he concurred with Mr. Klein’s comments and stated in one of the earlier
issues in question, while it looks like you could have X residential units and this much
commercial, and you could have this much industrial and they went through this whole
thing and piled everything on with no limit and questioned how this could be and at this
time, the applicant stated this was not they intend, they intend to limit in these ways and
these policies have grown out of that prior issue and yes he believes those limits are in
place in the sub area policies.
Mr. Michael Houston, Houston, Cuozzo, Group addressed the Board regarding the land
use amendment and stated they do a land use amendment based on the surrounding
property, based on the appropriate nature of the transitions that occur. The reviewed the
surrounding pattern and noticed this is an unusual piece of property and is the only
commercial piece of property on North Hutchinson that has this kind of a scale to it.
What is unusual is that it is surrounded by residential, surrounded on three sides by
HIRD. On the south western corner is RS 4.
Mr. Houston stated he believes this is a good quality project and believes MXD is a good
choice.
Mr. Klein advised the Board that MXD was appropriate for the area and stated the two
conditions in the staff report, the first one dealing with the hurricane shelter, he had the
opportunity to speak with Public Safety and there was an e-mail in the Board’s packet
indicting there is adequate shelter space to provide for this development. He believes the
commitment to the $20,000 before is important to stand behind and will continue that
offer. Condition number 2 talks about having an agreement with the School District and
this agreement is also in the packet and has been signed.
10
Mr. Klein stated they are requesting approval of the MXD medium intensity with the sub
area policies proposed for transmittal to the DCA for review.
Com. Coward stated for the record a correction he wished to have noted. The
surrounding properties are not 9, it is largely surrounded by 9,however the southwest
quadrant is not.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ms. Virginia Sherlock P.O. Box 1197, Stuart, Fla., attorney for Bob and Ellen Emery,
adjacent property owners and also for the North Beach Association residents addressed
the Board and stated the sub area policy is not just the fact the Comp Plan no where
authorizes the use of sub area policies. She alluded to Page 1.34 of the Comp Plan.
Ms. Sherlock stated if this amendment is adopted it will affect the Land Development
Code Section 7.03.03 and other parts of the Code. She stated, they need to fix the Code
and the Comp Plan and then look at the individual uses, mixed use is a good use for the
property and felt this was a good project if it was properly reconfigured so as to provide
enough commercial to allow the people on the island to truly have a mixed used
development and it does not over develop on the residential side. LPA had it right, they
recommended approval with a low intensity use rather than a medium which would allow
47.2 units and she believes there would not be any objection to this.
Ms. Diane Andrews, 114 Queen Ann Ct., Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board in
opposition to the project due to the residential component being too intense and asked the
medium intensity be lowered to low density.
Mr. Bob Emery, 220 Marina Drive, Ft. Pierce, Fla., addressed the Board regarding the
offer made to him by the applicant.. He asked the applicant to remove building number 7
and he refused. He is asking the building be removed from the end of the canal and
reduce it to one story and move it to the north.
Mr. Larry Storms 3150 N. A-1-A, Ft. Pierce, Fla., addressed the Board regarding the
project and the sub area policies. He asked the Board not to transmit.
Ms. Ellen Emery, 220 Marina Drive, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in opposition to the
construction of building number 7 at it’s present location and proposed height.
Mr. Robert Tabor 4201 N. A-1-A one mile from proposed site addressed the Board
regarding the fact that there is nothing left for commercial purposes on the island. He
stated he is not against this beautiful project, but opposes 80 units.
Mr. Craig Mundt, 5051 N. A-1-A , addressed the Board and alluded to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs filing a motion to intervene. He advised the Board his
belief was this issue got here due to overworked shorthanded staff that was lead into a
misreading of the Comp Plan and the LDC that could be overcome by Comp Plan
adjustments and LDC stipulations being ignored.
Mr. Bill Medina, 323 S. Lakeview Dr., Ft. Pierce, Fla., addressed the Board and
submitted read comments.
Ms. Lucy Riordan, 213 Marina Drive, addressed the Board and expressed her concern
with the density levels. She opposed 3 story structures in a residential area.
Ms. Kathy Branon, Riverwalk resident, addressed the Board in favor of the project. She
stated 18 residents in her development were also in favor of the project. The applicant
had promised to provide a new concrete wall with an additional 10 feet in height, bury
the power lines and $30,000 to retrofit the sprinkler system.
11
Mr. Nicholas Pecoraro, Riverwalk resident, addressed the Board in favor of the project.
He stated he lives next door to the project and felt it would not adversely impact with
area with the additional 80 units.
Ms. Colen Prants, 3264 Lakeshore Drive., addressed the Board in opposition to 3 story
buildings in the area and stated she did not like the idea of commercial development in
the area.
Ms. Sharon Lowe, 4949 N A-1-A, addressed the Board in support of the project.
Mr. Robert Lowe, 4949 N. A-1-A addressed the Board in support of the project.
Mr. Jeff Mitchell 2318 Cameron Drive, addressed the Board regarding the commercial
area of the project and stated this piece will also serve the northwest section of the
county. He stated he would like the lower density in the area and land to be made
available for future commercial projects.
Ms. Kathy Mayer, 2703 N. A-1-A addressed the Board in favor of the project and stated
the Gallions residents were also in favor.
Mr. Karl Williams 203 Marina Drive, addressed the Board in support of the project and
stated he felt it would eliminate the “eye sore” that had been there for some time,
however he could not support more than 10,000 square feet of commercial.
Mr. George Holtz, 2804 Flotilla Terrace, addressed the Board in favor of the project.
Ms. Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, addressed the Board and stated 4 out of 5 people
adjacent to the property are in favor of the project.
Ms. Ann Vogel, 3305 Sands River Point resident, addressed the Board in favor of the
project.
Mr. Richard Spalding stated he echoed his wife’s comments.
Ms. Linda Samples, 222 Marina Drive resident, addressed the Board and expressed her
concerns about the 3 story buildings.
Mr. Robe4rt Johnson, 3308 Caracal Drive, addressed the Board and stated the majority of
the comments received by his association were in favor of the project.
Mr. Michae Riordan, 213 Marina Drive, addressed the Board and stated he would be
submitting documents for the record. He also alluded to the commercial square footage
needed on the island.
Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, addressed the Board and stated the mixed use in the
area is good however 80 units is excessive and felt they could come to a good
compromise.
Ms. Pamela Hammer, 7672 Charleston Way Reserve resident, addressed the Board and
commented on the lowering of the density.
Mr. Michael Simos , 3212 S. Lakeview Circle resident, addressed the Board regarding
the density issue and asked a compromise be reached of 40/50 units and expressed his
opposition to 3 story buildings.
Mr. Richard Donnelly, 2700 N. A-1-A addressed the Board and stated most of the people
from the condominiums are in favor of the project.
Mr. Klein addressed the public’s concerns and stated low density numbers are not
acceptable to the applicant. Lower density makes the project not financially feasible and
believes the residential density is appropriate.
12
Mr. Klein also stated the order to show cause being issued has no bearing on the merit of
the case because the Judge was only looking at one file.
Mr. Klein requested the Board transmit to the Department of Community Affairs with the
sub areas as they have indicated.
Com. Craft addressed lowering the intensity and stated this must be balanced with a
commercial need that is on the island, but also need to find a way to make that
commercial affordable so that tenants may be obtained because of the seasonality of
North Beach.
Com. Coward stated he liked the mixed use aspect of the project however, the issue is
compatibility. He stated there are single family homes in close proximity and this makes
it not compatible in his opinion. He would like to eliminate building # 7 and asked the
applicant to downsize however maintain enough residential to make this project move
forward he felt 80 units was too much. He would like to see it modified so he can vote
in favor of it.
Com. Smith stated he did not see the negative impact of the project since there are high-
rise condominiums across the street. He would be willing to look at lowering the density
but keeping building 7.
Com. Lewis stated she concurred with Com. Craft and also with Com. Smith. She is
willing to further discuss amending the plan regarding building # 7, however she is more
inclined to proceed and then review the site plan. She recommended transmitting to the
DCA to see if they have a problem with the project and stated she wasn’t sure if lowering
the density was the magic bullet.
Com. Hutchinson requested information from staff regarding compatibility with our
Comp Plan, she has an issue with this using sub policies that were used in the past, but
yet did not receive any complaints on the prior two projects she voted on, yet she is now
hearing they may be in conflict with it. She is leaning more towards transmitting just to
receive the input from DCA at this point because she does not wish to send staff on a fact
finding mission if they are not ready to begin with.
The Planning Manager addressed Com. Hutchinson concerns and stated in the ad from
rd
the Tribune from March 23 which was the DCA notice of intent to find the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment in compliance for one of the other two projects.
The County Attorney stated for the record he was comfortable they could propose sub
area policies as part of a text amendment in the plan.
It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith to transmit to the DCA, and;
upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Coward, Aye’s: Lewis, Smith, Hutchinson,
Craft, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis to ratify the above actions and
transmit the Comp Plan Amendment 06-02 as previously adopted in the component , and;
upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.K GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Consider Draft Resolution No.06-231 approving a change in zoning from RS-4 to HIRD -
Consider staff recommendation to approve Draft Resolution No. 06-231 which would
change the zoning of the parcels from RS-4 to HIRD.
The Planning Manager stated they brought this forward due to what they felt was a
zoning error in the past. He stated, the zoning has been on the map since 1990 and they
believe it was an error it is really impossible to go through the sequence and determine
13
what happened. Staff believes that it should have been HIRD which is the zoning all
around the parcel.
The Planning manger reviewed the map. He showed in 1984 the parcel was clearly
zoned HIRD. These are the zoning maps adopted subsequent to the 1984
Comprehensive Plan. He believes when the map was drawn the line was extended all the
out to A-1-A. No one on staff was willing to go in and fix the map even though they
believe is was an error it has been there too long and people on the beach have come to
rely on the map. He believes there was an error.
Com. Coward asked the County Attorney if this was the proper way to handle an error in
the zoning map is to send it back through the zoning process.
The County Attorney stated there is nothing in the code that allows them to change it. It
was just a suggestion to simply make the change on the zoning map and he was
uncomfortable doing so after so many years and there isn’t a process in the code that
permits them to handle it in a different way. He stated the Board may want to direct staff
to handle these issues separately, but to simply make the change on our own after so
many years being designated a certain way did not seem appropriate to him and he
believes the Planning Manger concurs with this and this is why they are taking this
approach.
Com. Hutchinson asked if staff looked through every possible paper to make sure.
The Planning Manager stated they looked through everything they could find and
continue to believe it was an error. He could not discount the fact that it could have been
where a conscience decision was made either by staff recommending it to the Board, or
the Board making a decision during a hearing that it should be RS-4 and voted on it
cognizant of what it was.
Com. Coward stated this was the problem he was having. Staff is unable to definitively
state that it was an error.
The Planning Manager stated he can not prove this. It is like proving a negative.
Mr. Rusty Aikens, 101 N. Highway 1, representing the property owner, Mr. Collins,
addressed the Board. He clarified a question previously brought up. The property has
been owned by Mr. Collins and or his wife since 1979. This is not a newly acquired
piece of property. The single family lot to the left of the zoned property has another
distinction that sets apart Mr. Collins’ property . Those single family lots have deed
restrictions and no deed restriction appears on this property owned by Mr. Collins.
Public Comments
Ms. Diane Andrews, area resident, addressed the Board and stated submitted a timeline of
events concerning the property.
Mr. Bob Tabor, 4201 N A-1-A, addressed the Board and stated the front 200 feet in front
of his home was zoned commercial. They did not want this so they gave it up and the
only thing that was zoned and was changed is the front 200 feet, so that part that was
HIRD remained HIRD. He stated it was changed to single family it was not going to be
commercial or multi family. Every piece of property has been re-bought over the last 15
years and each person knew this was zoned single family.
Com. Craft stating he is having a difficult time making an assumption that this was a
mistake because it has not been proven one way or another.
Com. Coward stated he was having similar problems with the issue.
Com. Hutchinson stated errors have been made in the past and she does not wish for staff
to take that negatively.
14
The Planning Manager stated the P & Z questioning of it made them go back and re-do
the work and try to determine again and personally he is convinced however he cannot
prove it.
Com. Hutchinson stated the inconsistencies continue to lead her down the line that there
was an inconsistency.
Mr. Aikens reminded the Board there is no other vehicle to correct a mapping error of
this nature.
Mr. Collins petitioner, addressed the Board and advised them when he first obtained the
property it was 18 units per acre. He advised the Board of his ownership of surrounding
property.
The Planning Manager advised the Board the pre 1984 map, was R4-E 18 units per acre.
th
Mr. Collins advised the Board all three parcels are marked HIRD and he felt the 4
should also be zoned HIRD and it was easy to see how the mistake happened.
The Growth Management Director stated with the amending of over 600 maps errors are
likely to occur and based on the staff that was here at the time, and what they have been
able to get from the records and what they recall and looking at the progression of events,
his staff concluded that it was probably an error, they cannot prove that it was not.
Ms. Diane Andres gave the assessed value of the property per her records.
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Smith (for discussion), to approve
the acknowledgement by staff that this was an error on their part with the
recommendation to change it.
Com. Smith stated he would like to more time to review it since he does not have the
comfort level to approve it tonight without having the conversations and opportunity
necessary to make the decision.
The Aikens stated his client concurred with Com. Smith’s comments to have the time to
investigate the issue further.
Com. Hutchinson withdrew her motion.
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Craft, to continue this hearing for
October 17, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, and; upon roll call,
motion carried unanimously.
5.L GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Consider Draft Developers Agreement DVA 06-001 approving a Developers Agreement
between Incom Properties and St. Lucie County- Consider staff recommendation to
authorize staff to schedule the second of the required public hearings for the proposed
Developers Agreement for the Board’s October 3, 2006 regular meeting.
No action.
5.M GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Consider Draft Resolution No. 06-235 approving a change in zoning from RS-3 and IL to
CG- Consider staff recommendation to approve Draft Resolution No. 06-235 which
would change the zoning of the parcels from RS-3 and IL to CG.
Ms. Cynthia Angelos, Attorney for the petitioner was present to answer any questions.
15
The Planning Manager advised the Board all the agreements were in place and for some
reason the zoning never got changed on the three parcels.
Com. Coward and Com. Smith both acknowledged having contact with the attorney for
the petitioner.
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Resolution No.
06-235, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
6.COUNTY ATTORNEY
Resolution No.06-289- Resolution Authorizing Term Loan to Provide Permanent
Financing for Greenacres MSBU Special Assessment Project- Consider staff
recommendation to approve Resolution No.06-289 as drafted.
It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 06-
289, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
7.COUNTY ATTORNEY
Resolution No. 06-290 Resolution Authorizing Term Loan to Provide Permanent
Financing for Sunland Gardens Phase 1 MSBU Special Assessment Project- Consider
staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 06-290 as drafted.
It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Resolution No. 06-
290, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned.
________________________
Chairman
_______________________
Clerk of Circuit Court
16