Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC and P&Z Workshop Minutes 04-02-2007BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOCC AND P & Z BOARD WORKSHOP Date: Apri12, 2007 Convened: 9:00 a.m. Adjourned: 11:45 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Chris Craft, Joseph Smith, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Charles Grande P & Z Board: Pam Hammer, Craig Mundt, Susie Caron, Brad Culverhouse, John Knapp, Kathryn Hensley Staff: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Robert Nix, Growth Management Director, Heather Young, Asst. County Attorney, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk Opening remarks were made by the Growth Management Director. He introduced the changes to Chapters 10,11 and 12 of the Land Development Code . He stated they would continue to schedule workshops to continue to review changes. He advised the Board they had a workshop with the development community. Mr. Craig Richardson, Vice President, Clarion Consultants addressed the Board. Mr. Chris Durkson, Clarion Consultants, gave an overview and a power point presentation. He alluded to the memo/s illustrating the various recommended changes and strike through indicating the changes. He advised the Board all of Clarion's suggestions were not incorporated into the text. Com. Grande advised the consultants that he would like comments from the Board as well as the development community reviewed before updating the plan. Mr. Durkson advised the Board the heart of the changes are in Chapter 11. Com. Grande stated he had difficulty seeing where the changes were made after reviewing the document without underlines and strike throughs to designate these changes. Mr. Culverhouse stated he would like to see where it was stated and where it was going by reviewing the old section and what has been changed or stricken through. Ms. Pam Hammer stated she too had difficulty in being able to refer back and forth within the old and the new and found there was no way to match it. Ms. Susie Caron stated she would like to see goals and objectives. She felt this would be helpful since presently there is no way to tell where we are. Mr. Culverhouse stated he had seen present law and the proposed law and felt something in this order would assist in reviewing the document. Mr. Durkson suggested foot notes at each section. Com. Craft stated he felt they needed a reference point. Mr. Durkson stated he understood the need for a summary of major changes. Mr. Richardson reviewed the Administration Module Goals. Com. Coward expressed his concern with standardizing the applicants. He felt there were two totally different priorities. They needed to prioritize what the development community wanted and also move more toward targeted industries in creating jobs needed in the county. Com. Smith questioned the "fast tracking " Com. Lewis stated she felt some simplification would be useful and this would be in addition to what they already have. Mr. Richardson stated looking at the procedures at this point, there are other areas requiring specific site design standards. Com. Coward staed he did not want to standardize and wants to be able to differentiate between the available process. Com. Smith requested an explanation on the fast and expediting process. Com. Lewis stated she felt the standardizing was being done in the preliminary step process. Ms. Kathryn Hensley suggested a check list to fast track projects. The Growth Management Director stated in order to set up expedited procedures, they would need to know what type of application they wanted to see come through expeditiously. Com. Grande recommended standardization by category. The Growth Management Director stated there are no state requirements for staff turn around time however there are state requirement for public hearing times. He reviewed the completeness review in existence today. Ms. Hammer recommended using a different work in place of "complete". Com. Smith questioned if there would be a fee increase to the applicant. The Growth Management Director stated a fee was established for a second re- submission. Com. Smith stated he was in support of the fee schedule. He also requested knowing which developer/s do not wish to submit the information requested by Growth Management should this occur. Com. Lewis asked if 10 days would be enough time to receive all the necessary information from the applicants. The Growth Management Director advised the Board that the department secretary reviews the document submitted and advises the applicant of what documents are missing. Com. Grande stated he felt it would be up to the discretion of the Growth Management Director as to how to handle the need for complete document submission. Mr. Craig Mundt stated he would like to see the second public hearing made inclusive. Mr. Richardson stated they needed direction this is not required by state law and they had no intent on changing the existing practice now. Com. Grande questioned why it was recommended to have one public hearing rather than two public hearings on certain applications. 2 ~~. ~~ ~.r Ms. Caron requested clarification on the interpretation of the community with regard to "By Right" or "Should be by law". She felt this needed to be clarified so that everyone knows the difference. The Growth Management Director recommended everyone becoming familiar with the "Snyder Case". This would give some an education on the "By Right" issue. Com. Coward concurred with Com. Grande that the priorities should be judged on Quality and agrees with having 2 public hearings. Mr. Culverhouse stated he had a problem with regard to not being able to ask questions of witnesses during the public hearings at the P & Z meetings. There were main changes in : Common Procedures, Public Hearing Procedures and Standard and Requirement for Applicants. Mr. Richardson reviewed the changes. He stated the table is consistent with the new draft. The changes are 1) special process 2) review standard procedures 3) with quasi judicial hearings. Ms. Hammer stated she felt major site plans should go before the Planning and Zoning Board and the DRI Process needed staff comments to the BOCC. Com. Grande suggested having the P & Z Board schedule a workshop and then have a designee meet with the consultant and also have the Board members meet with the consultant one on one. Com. Craft recommended having the consultant meet with staff as opposed to the Board members. Ms. Hammer stated she would like to work from the draft and recommend changes. Com. Craft recommended utilizing the one prior to the new draft with the developers comments integrated. Con. Grande also requested the parties meet with staff take their input and then draft a memo for review. No further comments made. The meeting was adjourned. 3