The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 10-17-05 BOARD OF COUNT~ COMMISSIONERS www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us F.annle Hutchln.on, Chal.man Dltt.ld NO.4 Doug Cowa.lI, Vice Chal. Dbt.ld NO.2 'o.eph E. Smith Dltt.ld No. I Paula A. Lewis Dltt.lct No. I Ch.b C.alt Dbt.ld NO.1 Odobe. 17, 2001 ..00 P.M. I NVOCA TION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REGULAR AGENDA I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Application of St. Lucie County to amend its adopted Comprehensive Plan to establish Chapter 3: "Towns, Villages and the Countryside" (TVC) Element; amend the future land use designation for certain parcels of land in unincorporated St. Lucie County; and amend certain other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan - The Planning & Zoning Commission (LPA) and stoff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve, with conditions, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and transmit to the State Department of Community Affairs. /11 1""" 0 1"'/......- ~ .-..--. .r ~~ a..4"1.~ /6-1 _ ~IW b ':>c. ~.. (i ~ - ¿..&,~, fa/( J A /0 ¡f:. TO /~---, 'l pi< ~ ~ ~ ~ :~::~£. ~¿-- ~ I.-!!:~" .~ /h J'~&':"'::"L""~, ~-: ",t. PT ~,'e~ r·,,· r.: -- - ArI'I'TD~I'I" C. /I ~ L-(,/::;JíL- I. /7) . 1\ ~) '-- _ ,. S /).-J6 f::,Io.C-<I--- . ~ L 0 ~ /Y .,-- /'T,¡I.,èc ",""d ·v C- rH s:-. £..... -,B:::.....¡..--- ,c- /"'6-).4-:1' '-7 .7'2/.>....., ;:T S -Þ.......--,-...., - ~'" t. /...~- 'à-' r } J' NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taRen by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (:172) 462-1777 or TDD (m) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. '-' 'WI OCTOBER 17, 2005 6.00 PM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA WELCOME ALL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED. PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS PRIOR TO ENTERING THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES - Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: CONSENT AGENDA - These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. REGULAR AGENDA - Proclamations. Presentations, Public Hearings. and Department requests are items, which the Commission will discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesday at 6:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M.. then public hearings will be heard at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior to the listed time. The Chairman will open each public hearing and asl?s anyone wishing to speal? to come forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes. As a general rule. when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Boord item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the Chairman will asl? for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the board. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION - Please state your name and address, speal?ing clearly into the microphone. If you have bacl?up material, please have eight copies for distribution. NON-AGENDA ITEMS - These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT - Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting of general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes. DECORUM - Please be respectful of others opinions. MEETINGS - All Boord meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 P.M. and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M.. unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982. The Board schedules additional worl?shops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these worl?shops. Assistive Listening Device is available to anyone with a hearing disability. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at (m) 462-1777 or TDD (:172) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. 10/15/2005 19:58 7724513612 To; "-'UIII: DiMe: Request: l;A~iJJL.t.L 1 ~,t'1 ¡ H'jrcC.'" '-' ...., ,1"'1'...11._ .....1. Boani ofCOIIIIty C"-"$RMn ß>( ~2 ~02/.31 Nœth Fort P.~~ Ovr . ~ 16.200S Plate haYe die ~~~~ ......1eUa ÏIIID die mÎDutes we are uuWc 10 -X.. II '"W'-·s v r ~t... PIcMc u---ÌII ow ....10 OCA . PMt or... ,.. ploœa. T'IIInk w..t ',;' .' ,¿, p;.... :.J!;; c J/t~ u.... MCk "t,.....,-.r _ ..... ......... --..IIIÞ¥I ...... löllbrL~ö~ l~:~ö fi~4Dl~Cl¿ '~.·""'i.LJI....L_..1.\_n-1 1-1"""1....--' ,....,.....- ........ '-' ...." Ne... FerIL '~.......n,. 0.... SIt. L-4'W c.aty C---~._n: ~11". TVC. CItA. "Wd tIeR we .. ~.&... fint we. ·,....äat .. 2.... C.......IFI.n ...t to enete. C&f ... WIllIe CJtJ. ø. ~.. Fort '_...,..I'ty OwMn oppD11 ddI wean.. ......... . W~ 8Ieet * St.... nqain.uø. SePle_If...... de ... .. us.. Yoør try.. to cr,_. CItA fa.... ana te pa,'" œet ,.." CD 'I fII.Il:. See.ReI, we do ROt lib wllat we see cHId becelM . CG··"~ wide n1: "11ña coDld be ....... 1pnWI, ~ J..~I.L 4. by ""~I tile carRIIC dnaify.. lH~tty. Oar C ~ w-M ....___ Í'8fI'Lt.-.t.ft! wtddI WCClUmet .a.nL ..,II..... ~ ..n I1f1Ik:e /Jt'tItt!ctkJII. IIttJR! 4rIIrIa: .,.,. NIl III ... idII!r YJisIIlItutIt IIØt ",Itd'". tü ".,. .... ..tr1lw . ~ fI( SI. l.Mt.W CIJllIIh. _ 'I'IIB tau. ...y lledbillty ., _rt crowt' &ad develøpmat; die Bo.,(... New, ...t.... taflM15 tat. over _ otber tid. tIås Ean.p - a,Ie .... ..... ,...... Whit tIDes tIIIis tel Y'" .a ~ ~ HÚ!ll.IIII..., lnIt...b~t*n:'. n'J [Ilk sduItJI.J. II!IIlI;t ....... iIILJb' ""'IIWIm etcr Have ae. "I iRk. ..... .....Ired1' If... CO back to tile dnW'Î8& beard ... .."'~ Ole aJUWerI before ,... ptlt IDto plU'f" IOIMtIIia& ..... .... .Iect ö.e." .... ...... inøovatwe IM'W idrat IIMNdd k__ .... ........ ... is Earopeaa ÎD .vor ud ... failed .1Ie..... ill odIer ...... From what we see oftlae TVC, ttaen .. _ daD ....,. DO pablk faeitity preparadoa. d dteIe .padoll ....... .. .. tJae taIM befoft you ....b . Mliaiolt to fo......rd tIIia to DCA. 18/1~!28e5 19:58 7724613612 CANDLELIGHT ACRES '-' ..., J. 1:...... tor ~"* .',.n It...-...n ..... elM. ..... .... ae" elMs .....r.di.. iInr...... ......... (1 . pñw... P.....rtJ .W"I" die ....... .-&._~. ... ... p, - -...., niB -...palln 28....re .... wILen....,.. all w -.. .. store to job... "1ft real. .... ... .... Ie --.. . ...... U tile jå ....Þ. die... .... dial' .... an "nd "'I ..r . IhInt -. wlaat are we IooIdDa at! A ~"'''''I' nit ....... tile NIa".atry '0 ..olt Tin....... .....,.,. ... ............ lit ....t1 WIU our es..t~ ... HC_...... .. ... tntlle, "We JunBy dWlk .... sew.. .....¡ ~~ ",''' ~~ .........,. trade off by prov~ .11'0..... II.'P'&. deIIIIe a1lontùlt '.1'1.'''' How wOl y.. 8CCG.p'" .. dill dhtMt .. ........ put .,. .... ovenD pig ..., If tbÎI project wiU effect aU of St. Lucie ~, WIt IIIere ÎII WJaitr: City "'Tbe Noi. f04 ~ aw.n." "lay sit 1-* ... IIeI&Ic; this" befixe you burdeD ai, St. ..... COWIt)'. TIdI.. the }.'IOtCntÌIIl to eft'ectivel)' IJIO\'C dx: .... scrvicc boadary Iiae aD die way to Okeeehobce aM '-cL "If you think. not" j_ remember t.ck. ñ=a lad .. ... III"~I chenpd. in the 1O·s., we wamcd )'0111 ..... c;tw.-. die s.d -" wait wuil me denwnd is dwft. Well. wMi ...~ You..., now fOlœd to IÌYC dcvt;1opcc. the hi_cst '-d UK -- n J10IIIE predecessors welD it listcn~ and JÌve tile "~st IIIDd _ tMÙlattIc,. so wilt you U*n" or wiD Y08 just IRIIte &he ... 4l t".:___ decisions aDd set anodø pl0œcJeøt7 ""'So Please Listeu" .~ ¿t 4t . d"/........- , . ~ 41.....~ ~'1.... ~..... . ''Ir............ r'A\:¡t. '~,j ....., Agenda Reguest ...", Item No:...-1 Meeting Date: October 17, 2005 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ X] Consent [ ] TO: Board of County Commissioners Presented By SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Growth Management Michael Brillhart Strategy & Special Projects SUBJECT: Application of S1. Lucie County to amend its adopted Comprehensive Plan to establish Chapter 3: ''Towns, Villages and the Countryside" (TVC) Element; amend the future land use designation for certain parcels of land In unincorporated S1. Lucie County; and amend certain other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: Please see attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission (LPA) and staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve, with conditions, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and transmit to the State Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: ( ] APPROVED [ ] OTHER: [ ] DENIED Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator County Attorney: %~ Originating Dept: \ ~ Environ.Resources. Y Purchasing: Public Works: ~~ , Other: ~ '-" ...., Board of County Commissioners 10/10/05 File Number PA-05-012 MEMORANDUM GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: Board of County Commissioners Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director DATE: October 10, 2005 SUBJECT: Application of St. Lucie County to amend its adopted Comprehensive Plan to establish Chapter 3: the "Towns, Villages and the Countryside" Element; amend the future land use designation for certain parcels of land in the unincorporated area in St. Lucie County; and amend certain other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND In early 2004, the County initiated a visioning process for residents of North St. Lucie County. This process was undertaken with the assistance of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and includes the North county area located between the Intracoastal Waterway to the east, the C-25 Canal to the south, the St. Lucie County line to the north and an area adjacent to Interstate 95 on the west. The results of a North County Charette in 2004 led to the preparation of a Citizen's Master Plan that forms the framework for the proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan as prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The proposed amendments are intended to provide policy guidance in establishing a "Towns, Villages and the Countryside" development pattem within the TVC Element boundary area (see attached Map A) that preserves the rural character while promoting sustainable, pedestrian- friendly development. The TCRPC has provided a copy of the !Jh Revision TVC Element (dated 09/22/05) to the Board of County Commissioners and Local Planning Agency. At its special meeting on October 6, 2005, the Planning & Zoning Commission, in serving as the Local Planning Agency, approved a motion (vote 4-2) to forward this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for review with a recommendation of approval. Their recommendation includes the 5 conditions for approval as proposed by staff (see Staff Recommendation, pages 2-3) and the revisions proposed by the Regional Planning Council to the County's adopted Future Land Use Element (Attachment "A"). COMMENTS Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments as reflected in the September 22nd TVC Element. While the proposed TVC Element is anticipated to provide a long term benefit to the County in '-" ...., October 10, 2005 Page 2 Subject: TVC Amendment File No,: PA-05-012 terms of managing growth, specific policy questions must be resolved in order to provide policy makers and property owners with clarity. Staff offers the following summary findings: 1. The material submitted by the consultant alternately identifies the amendment as a new land use designation or a new element of the Comprehensive Plan. The supporting documentation required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (FS) and Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), or "data and analysis", refers to the material as amendments to the Land Development Regulations. If the "Towns, Villages and Countryside "amendment is a new land use designation, then, as required by subsection þr # 163.3177(6)(a), FS, the land use designation "must include standards to be followed in æv the control of population densities and building and structure intensity," In other words, ?.,p¿ the County's Land Development Code must be revised prior to final adoption of this {' Element by the Board of County Commissioners /'7;j£ ~ 2. One method used in evaluating a proposed land use change is a comparison between r ~ what is allowed by the currently adopted future land use designations, and what could , r result if a proposed change was approved. The proposed TVC Element assumes that a maximum number of 37,500 dwelling units might result in the build-out year 2030. Based upon the maximum number of units that could be built under the adopted future land use element (22,300), there needs to be further analysis on the financial feasibility and availability of potable water, school capacity and transportation systems to support this increase.. This analysis is currently being undertaken by TCRPC's financial consultants. 3. Clarification is needed as to how the Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) process will be managed. Is this to be a market-driven system, where property owners reach agreements that are then recorded, or is the County supposed to solicit offers to buy and sell development rights and manage transactions? If the latter is proposed, costs need to be identified, but it is desired that the TOR program will be market-driven. 4. The Flow Way concept is an essential part of the TVC Element. The proposal is to create a Flow Way system that serves as the backbone for comprehensive water management within the area. There is current discussion on implementing this concept by continuing to allow each proposed development project to create its own on-site surface water retention/detention area while concurrently connecting to the larger Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District canal system. A final clarification and policy recommendation on the implementation of the Flow Way surface water management concept needs to be finalized prior to adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and transmit to the State Department of Community Affairs with the following conditions: 1. a plan of implementation for the County must be developed prior to final adoption of the TVC Element by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Components of the ~ ...., October 10, 2005 Page 3 Subject: TVC Amendment File No.: PA-05-012 implementation plan must include a recommendation on staffing needs associated with t..-A¡¿ reviewing and administering Special Area Plans. TCRPC has presented the County a plan fsr;>',g' .. for potential staffing options which are currently being reviewed by County staff. 2. a more definitive policy on expanding higher wage jobs and employment opportunities in:fyf'h Î the TVC boundary area must be developed prior to final adoption by the BOCC. 3. the TVC Element must be shown to be cost effective prior to final adoption by the BOCC. 4. a plan of action to address affordable/work force housing in the TVC study area must be !J We)-- developed prior to final adoption bythe-Sot:C. The Regional Planning Council is requiring JNtJJI.J-~ J that at least 8% of the proposed residential units within a Town or Village be dedicated for affordable/work force housing. 5. a final recommendation on the administration and regulation of the Flow Way surface water /~ management plan component must be agreed upon by the County prior to final adoption 1 ~/ 0 by the BOCC. ATTACHMENTS _ Attachment A (Proposed Revisions to the Future Land Use Element) - Map A: North County Study AreaffVC Element Boundary - Notice to Property Owners - Legal Advertisement _ Public comments from April 21st LPA meeting _ Minutes from August 18, 2005 LPA meeting _ Minutes from October 6, 2005 LPA meeting (Hand Deliver to Commissioners on 10/14/05) - Staff comments (dated 06/14/05) _ Comments from the Technical Review Panel Forum (dated 07/18/05) - General public comments ~ ATIACHMENT "A" Chapter 3 ...., Received By OCT 0 6 2005 f3~~wth Management Towns, Villages and Countryside Element Special Area Plans Introduction The landscape in St. Lucie County is changing rapidly. As land values escalate and the availability of undeveloped land decreases in counties to the south, St. Lucie County has become increasingly attractive both for people relocating from congested areas in South Florida and for retirees from the northern states and throughout Florida. At the same time, the viability of utilizing lands in unincorporated St. Lucie County for citrus production has declined due to international competition, uncertain harvests, the threat of citrus canker and severe price tluctuations. In addition, the relatively high residential densities already designated for agricultural lands in portions of the County have encouraged some landowners to undergo a transition from agricultural to residential uses. The wave of development that has impacted many areas of Florida over the past several decades has obscured or destroyed the defining characteristics of many communities. Agriculture, natural habitat, and rural communities have been replaced by homogenous, sprawling development characterized by limited access, congested roadways, inadequate or non-functional open spaces, and housing that is segregated from the civic, office, and retail uses that residents depend on in their everyday lives. Without a focused redirection, St. Lucie County will likely succumb to a similar growth pattern. The principles set forth in the Towns, Villages and Countryside Element (TVC) constitute a pro-active plan for future growth in St. Lucie County. The planning approach outlined in this element contains a strategy for development in the existing rural agricultural areas that will ensure that future growth is sustainable, predictable, protects and enhances the natural environment, and improves the citizens' quality of life. The TVC preserves and enhances existing private property rights while providing incentive-based options to landowners intended to achieve these goals. The TVC encourages a pattern of development that will preserve the rural character while still providing for future growth. Using the principles of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), the strategy for new settlement in the undeveloped areas requires a sustainable growth pattern characterized by a mix of uses, building types and income levels as well as a pedestrian-friendly block and street network. The TVC preserves a significant amount of public open space, promotes strategies for viable agriculture, and helps mitigate the environmental impact of new development in the area. The TVC Element applies only to the Special Area Plan for North St. Lucie County. 51. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 3-ii TVC Element September 22. 2005 '-" ....I Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 3.1: ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK THAT ENCOURAGES A SUSTAINABLE SETTLEMENT PATTERN THAT PRESERVES THE RURAL CHARACTER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, PROTECTS AND ENHANCES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND INCREASES THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITIZENS. Objective 3.1.1: To ensure that new development in the existing agriculture areas is predictable and responds to the vision of the citizens of St. Lucie County. Policv 3.1.1.1: Special Area Plans. Special Area Plans form ~ ª basis for amending the Future Land Use Map in existing undeveloped a,çricHltHral areas. These plans shall be created with a high degree of citizen participation and shall be submitted as part of the data and analysis required to amend the Future Land Use Map. The Special Area Plans shall: 1. Delineate the planning area; 2. Review the existing land use and zoning; 3. Analyze the existing transportation issues including the potential impact of new development; 4. Analyze water management issues; 5. Address other challenges and opportunities within the area; 6. Create a "to scale" map that clearly illustrates a neighborhood structure, a network of streets and blocks including residential, retail, commercial, civic uses and locations for public open space; 7. Identify the appropriate location and amount of new retail. Retail growth shall be planned and projected for the next year, five years and fifteen years based on the existing and projected transportation and infrastructure systems, the market conditions and appropriate trade areas; 8. Identify the appropriate location and amount of new commercial uses; 9. Identify any natural resources that are to be protected or maintained; 10. Provide illustrations that depict the proposed scale and character of the development of the area; II. Establish a financial strategy for the building, operation and maintenance of infrastructure; 12. Provide a Transferable Development Value (TDV) Map; 13. Provide a Transfer of Development Rights credit matrix; and 14. Provide a maximum allowable development program. This program will serve as a basis for setting and evaluating levels of service and will quantify development authorized by the Special Area Plan. St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 3-1 TvC Element September 22. 2005 '-"' ..., O. TOWNS. VILLAGES AND COUNTRYSIDE (TVC) The purpose of the TYC land use desiGnation is to accommodate future qrowth within the Special Area Plan for North St. Lucie County in the existinq, undeveloped rural areas with a planninG strateGY that will ensure a settlement pattern that is sustainable. predictable, protects and enhances the rural environment and improves the citizens' qualitv of life. The TYC requires a sustainable settlement pattern characterized bv a mix of uses, buildinG types and income levels within a compact pedestrian- friendlv environment that accommodates multiple modes of transpOrtation and preserves open space. This land use cateQorv is appropriate for areas that have been analvzed in a Special Area Plan, created with a hiGh deqree of citizen participation. * * * * * * * * >I< >I< Goals, Objectives & Policies Policy 1.1.1.1 The following land use designations/intensities, as indicated on the Future Land Use Maps are provided as the pattern for the future development of the area within unincorporated St. Lucie County. Residential Density/ Land Use Category Max. Lot Cov. by Structure AG-5 Agriculture - 5 1 du/5 acres (.2 du/1 acre) AG-2.5 Agriculture - 2.5 1 du/2.5 acres RE Residential Estate 1 du/1 acre RS Residential Suburban 2 du/1 acre RU Residential Urban 5 du/1 acre RM Residential Medium 9 du/1 acre RH Residential High 15 du/1 acre R/C Residential/Conservation 1 du/5 acres (.2 du/1 acre) Cpub Conservation - Public o du/5 acres-1 0% 1 4 COM Commercial o du/40-50% ' 4 IND Industrial o du/40-50% 1 4 P/F Public Facilities o du/40-50% 1 4 T/U T ransportation/Util ities o du/40-50% 1 4 [Proposed changes are indicated by !;tri¡~lkr8Hgk for deleted lext and underline for added lex!.] 2 '-' '-" MXD Mixed Use Development .2-15 du/acre 23 40% - 50% 4 H Historic o du/40-50% 1 4 SD Special District .2-15 du/acre 23 40-50% 4 TVC Towns, Villaqes & Countryside Variable Pursuant to Special Area Plan * * * * * * * * * * Pelis'J 1.1.1.2 Special Area Plans form the Ða6i€: for ameREliREI the Futl:lre Land Use Map in existinq aqricultuFaI area€:. ðßesial /\rea Plans shall meat the requirements sot forth in Polio'! 3.1.1.1. Objective 1.1.2: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promotes retention of agricultural activities, preserves natural resources1 aAG maintains native vegetative habitats, and allows new development ooÞ; in accordance with the Towns, Villaqes and Countryside Goals, Objectives and Polices for settlement outside of the urban service boundary within the Special Area Plan for North 5t. Lucie County. . . . . . . . . . . Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, thFeI:l€JR tRO Elevelopment donsity aeRI:I€: and incentive programs in the Land Devele¡:¡meRt ~e€Jl-Jlations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary and authorize density bonuses or other incentives for developments inside the urban service boundary that conform to the Settlement Principles outlined in Policy 3.1.4.2 and provide affordable/workforce housinq and/or mixed-use development. Discourage the conversion of property in the agricultl:lral anEl suburban areas to high intensity urban uses except where such conversions conform to the Settlement Principles outlined in Policy 3.1.4.2., while still koeping all åevelepmeRt al:lthorization€: in lino '....ith the adopteEl levels ef sendee within this plan. Prohibit the conversion of property in the aqricultural areas to hiqh intensity urban uses except as specifically permitted or required in the Towns, Villaqes and Countryside Element or other proqrams desiqned to preserve aqriculturallands as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. . . . . . . . . . . Policy 1.1.4.3 Continue to encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the County's Land Development Regulations which shall include: [Propost:d changes are indicatt:d by strikelhreugh for delett:d tt:xt and undt:rline for added tt:xt.] 3 z-< :'l..... J . ~ 1'(" tr~t' ,¡~ ~ iÑ .. ~~ .~ f \..¡ ~ " ~ .L ~ \J\~ C") Lt) N N ~ UJ .!!1 ..- ~ Lt) I'- 6 a co Q) .... <{ >. "C :J ...... en .2:- c :J o U .c 1::: o Z ~ CO "C C :J o III +-' C Q) E Q) w U ~ D~ MAP-A .ò c:: ::! 8 "- ~ Ci: c:: ,<0 "6 .s so iøë ~ ·õ "'0. .;' J::+-J ! 1\. ,I' r~··v· ~I·./ ' _. i "'./'" i~---'- I I <'~~ F~.=¡:=t~·~ ~ \ i-+-+~ _..J "~_ r-=t:-F~ ~ ·gi "" t=:T'T-t~ -~"''''::;-1 .,. _ '~<~:'\T~J "~'. =".>'~.,' ~ 1 '<~:0--' il::~ PI }I~d,¡ ¡; . :'~}~~:~J:)~l~j .. 1. .]' ['..." ,71". ¡ rc·"':'\· , ~,+icn-¿' ~J_~___.¡ ;.1 r.' I i j ¡ 1-1:-i--1, I !\1)~--:'T'-' ¡ 1 '.: IT! .' . (.!). '¡il.~·t¡.".I;jJJLLi~L 1J.~)_L¡~'-H':."';~~: - :.1''';1 I! i ;___.J ¡Tfil,'-r f'r!: f1.4, c:7,(,tHtr'r'i·~'1i 1"4·1"; .o'-lk!': ;I:ilir-"¡';, ....._,.jl,11 I'I-J 'I :t I'~···"'fu" , t·'" I ,! J 1;¡tütTIbJ1L ., ","'" 'l.J..L....l.l_,..L I ! I I \ Iii 11 U. ~I---. I' ~ : 11 :\1 ,ji i1 IIL_~~.. !I II li- il r' .-11' I' Ii ¡-. 1- ~ ...." October 3, 2005 In accordance with the 81. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that the Board of County Commissioners will consider certain amendments to the 81. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to establish a "To'N11s, Villages and the Countryside" TVC Element (Chapter 3); amend the future land use map designation on certain parcels ofland within the TVC Element study area boundary (see attached map), and amend certain other goals, objectives and policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held before the Board of County Commissioners, oJ 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on October 17, 2005, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. The County Growth Management Department Planning Division should receive written comments to the Board of County Commissioners at least 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual County Commissioners on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing( s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the County Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifYing during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date-certain. Copies of the proposed amendments may be obtained iÌom the 81. Lucie County Growth Management Director's Office, 81. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982, and are also available for viewing during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) in the office ofthe Clerk ofthe Board of County Commissioners, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982, Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the 81. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer 0'N11 property within or adjacent to the above-described property, please forward this notice to the new O'N11er. Please call (772) 462-2822 if you have any questions. Sincerely, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Frannie Hutchinson, Chair \w-' tc,rIŒ ::JF Þ¡:;'J'G5E[¡,"A:J'j~1MEFrS FJ THE ::;1 UJ',;t ~r.¡L'" Y;~U'.'~fI!;-=f':: ~=1'¡,,1N r~ ::;llCE JF NTEr T NL"'-"X II,; IIC[1(tw:> I![N Ih", J,. GI,,, ,I ~11:o..n,y ;'.lm~ I" n- :tr,,.f :i. .",H' ;;,..".,, n, r'.~I, ...111 'c,n.,o or Id"I'II~~ êountv r.1r~n¡r"o '.,. '~".o 1~ ,...h nh pr"'~chI/: to".r~;u; "",~ndnanllO r. Iho Sl L1,.- .~tI' 'rlu~t'f CU"'tt'I~h4l..'\'r.·~ ~~~ flll'1I~11"'! 'TD"'tM. ·.·.1 lilU!'!-.! .IHIC1HI"tl"¥,j.·,,, e ~rU'lIt' ,Ç"~1b"r:n. !:mlllld. ·'1 ~lllurl' 1:1['d LI..n!:~llr·1I1 ,:In IIn [;III.:ur )fin=' II ~ltl.l-:t ·~.ilt,h 1111111:./:.'11 ':It.ll ,t¡ IlIoil1l'":l:lln ~_ one ..".nd -K'" <>lh.·II<'! I, oI:¡'jt¡'..ò~. .m! Po '" weith<> C"..,.....ohon.'.'ð 1'\. "./.:011><',,: 1:.,1011; 1'I11'::lialll., .). rlO".."'_ '/1I..,o, 111<' ~U"I"I"",1. ITV"'I 3~ln..,1 rl~ .111 II .1'111 t 1'.1' -II!IIII'" I .JrI' I, J';1! ì:I~I',l~lr"", £l.u..,nJ -,~I ~" 1 ~. I ,1",1 U...'·· T'\t!"' ;¡r.lIii~111'7",,"II',1 rr1') p"titTII T. millrrr. t);IIJd -"'(' Fi! II w' '11 I, I Anu,.I, III UI::I r..'\'":: .w...,¡ I und lhl' (",.¡.:iqpJf·t ç,b·..:I.~ I L: -~In.n:i t..o ,II,,,, 1'...'O"".IOI"n.·1 ~ntv ~ oowunJtru:....itll rile úc.Jo. oJ~J.~w~ ,lid PI' i¡ II',';~" ~!rIU···'t~, 't JUI...M, :" f.-' f~:1I '........od:nuull....' k I[\' 1.1';" . ~,n-!:'\¡j t;:'~1T'.1-r(I!: den)ff!lll;'(,tf1~ ~",.. In úU."'1HanCe1 W"'_IC-J wu-t.An :sr'l¡œ hOlJn:tury. :IIY~~I'I. 11\:lfI\'::rl'!.illrLr:-f ,J~ìn::tI' Ilud ur::'7t WHJr:r.)' III IdUl1 Uthtnlli.·; .I,blU lUlU <:Ia:(~JI L·JtIlÙt per"! tI"" I"Ic .k", In :h.. f\''': Boim8~1 I 1)1 ~:~ l.oJ._J ''''''"'1\11 fu r\~'·WI..' ~·I·tuf teDtu'~" '(.I" ( LI~\.!.Illt.iU:d "t.i..."~, I, :rll1Nl ,.;fUlttÞ:e.·ktrN' .""I'L ,~ ~I. dlnQ d.-,o1"pm.nt"a;IiI'itOI'1 \~IT· tho TV(: ::wmOlT7 .-,Hrr".;r i>t ~ - .;il~ FlI\1Ir. p'(o~r;un I'ü. "J 1 1~..1 l,I'"!h:1 t.. 1111'..... urian df:\o'f 1.'11Mr.n, ~,·tl....'tl~;) .11(,11 ,... .....(I'u.I~1 Glr~,·Ji r..n... J:Jo:ta.llll.llt·ln ~t,. 1":'= E ¡"rN1T~ r ,~I:J'r' ,11', I·· '\'T -lu1lu II-MI. lUrw...n .Ir.. ~h~~U~~f' Il1hrN!JU~ 1.+,1 l.tII-drDJt:'k1c~m:H¡t '.nMh~h I~ L¡:n"'J [,~.·f~ nt.mllnl FiklJUUlII1f"1: ~'Idl ;. - UIII¡,¡ff 1t!f4 S'¥~Urilm.."\ Prlnr"';ll\Ii. ol.tlH-./;,' In ='\'YI '". J·.~,..I Ihq -.IC E 11'i'.nt, ÞI; þ,,, 'I , R. 't rJullll1: III ií.. IIII.!,.I!.. ~(~I t~.. 1.1 1';,4 4,rtillrd 1. ;-:;, !iu..: Brrrøtllt 11.,-:......": 1II::IrT'IIIfIf I;f r.'m'lrrt¡m '-1I....u," r~I}lI<:"r':1 !"t,)oíoi tll.lf....... ".~I 1~!:$aQ .",ìIhm-hupoc .In! ~W1.:JØP·~ 1I.'I-h n I', TVC E·fI'I'.... p,;",'"'R-rt A"n~n III.nt·:uI.:1I1I1,.iI 'U:.UI;",.Jk:J'IC:.A\'/lI~i....hll~,llthll 1111'0:1;:::1 l1tlJ. IIrwlttIIIJI! no'Qhbo'hacdl! tl>I/,' H'·'. tl' ;tß ;lIr..-;¡11 11ft,", 1.1".:j l.i!I<' ""¡I~I"mll'llh:- "r-¡ .."n ,111-, t 1101 ';"\1"'""_~1IWti';'I"; pTlllnrl.,;· D\Ij¡U~' .j,.·.'ud......' . . .... t-hnt't.(· ;:"';"'1",,, 't"" .H 1 - .... ':.. _ _N'" ..~ '--þ..,'" ........ J, ~~ I I ·~r·t·· 1 I .- - . : ~F::·-·:. ',' ,'~: /f=1'i.{, - . . .'¡. ",.' .l." . ,..,.f... .-~: -::~,:::...~:::J:~. ¡;-.E'"1.'" ·f·' . <.-.' : .'- ,',--'. '..... ~~,¡I!¡I :>,.;...::., -:. ....,..~,::JO~" ~:'I""" -' ~~,".".' -.""'--' ".-'1'71--·· :..:,." . . .' ......~ ..~ ....._". \,.1 ,~-'.tJ -' \............ - ......, ." ~.f" ,," . " . .:. " ',..~" :::,:L:\)l~~~(f~ ; - u > >. A -'.. -, ~., .. _." j . * .....~_~~:::\ ":·t~·~;;;r::;·~·~ "...::' :\.. ~,. ",.:,--: - :;.,'..;-. ~:.,\j ." '~ .c, j.. .." J' I" l "' J> " ~ ~Jt. L . !qÍ1-'" .a tl:-, .~.~~ ~"~-\ . ..' .', -"'~--::- ::1 ~ I'>" ~, '., .Þ. -~, -"', ..,. -- " PlJÐU-~ fjEAAINlkn ,11~ rr<: ~<>ta-: JOMIM -.;¡¡·t:....11 b. >t ~ ,"".:>r. ,lit BOfra .;J! '~u1t,'';';'mmlul on· (ni"""'l ç.;\~'lh~~r 11. 7005 .J_~b:': ' _m, fir t,j f1';"~n ,fh' ·021101-.... ¡:Ih· I",,,"~i n..,,· t....,.·lmOlri Irt 1hr-~, 1..-,'1c. r.:II.lnLv:'CO"'""",iI<>n ':¡.',I"l~-','r" 0<11,,· ';l.I.u"¡'" ':';.nI1....';mlnl" .t-lNn ÒUil';In'¡/'IIn;-"'¡ T',lIoJ rJ",;.r, 2'300 VI~'n I ~,~.nu., =c 1 F"Hr., Flo Ide, ·Ar.:,¡u iliad II; ',","' p,,",Þnll1 fhd ::Ht::>trI'{1. ght> m... b. hHld Itlt: JIl 1<....1 UIt.~t. ....1 tl11.~' O!f,.:_...: 14!t';.lðh~i arr~ IIlJlt..~tJ ft. 3tt:.ntJ .... ;'J c...- 1~1J.l Wrrtt:;,.. ((In'tl1'1.Olct 1t'_"':~1J"JI;,¡J II' .;1',"""" ~,r Ihc r;.It,II. 11.,;."11 ';1,..11 nI~;", h....;rtI, (;oplA./ th. prop~...~ ."I~""n·' ma~ be )Þun"" 'Mm!h. SI, l.n:,. ·:C<iõt\' I!.",,,,. ~".nJQomøt1 Ul' l':tt"r'¡:urlt'.,', ~r, WI·I.;'; r; ou ntr ,·,rJ ~'lnfmQ·1 r.lr du Idl hß, lJOn tJ It"rII N t i~'b~' U". rrU11 'It~ '<.ð. ~ M _111. ~m. I:nl' I n. .IIM:1 11..'.111: 11'1 ~ß''''II''l.I·J 'h".·nl!"'nu1ur :nn........ttm hr.,rll (Û:X I.m. 5:C~ jM:¡f'I .huor lico -) It,.<:: "-', ~tIh. S·jllo '0/ Cc,,,nt,'-;V/'òIfT\wÌGnon, l3X ~'If'<¡J"1! iIoiI~U" old - ini.ai1lkn Bulld'no ,1\rllil:'~.:::J~ \.111~lrIØl ,,,",'*'"IIJe.. Fórt N!"'êf'... FlwuJ...Jot!IS2. R~·"-tiò.n!'! tJ 1hft rv)~~' .,11en';IÜ,t·1']b ",,111'1 III' "1.1',' ;:1 ¡¡I!f'. hI :, Itll:~·irv;¡ It ..,'rl....,·"¡("II1. ~111,..~ 'It .pr'" ...,.,dp.- ,,11' "'!jtr-wlth rH.'.......p hq1t1-ymtltlr.· (,lJ!I'- ·Ja¡'.iI t'lthl\ I"III!!!,:, r·1r...:1 1-'111.1' n\ill _~. 11111 tlll¡.IrI~ 1:lm " i .fUlr I¿~mtlll'.uión. i'JI:I\I)'r !;'.J..nt:' Ir ~Ik.:i,t.o;"" ~III:IJ,I, 11.".IIJI!".:lrI ,..,I ·,ood, '''C'I'< 1:'1' ·.¡:·r,;:·:..dlll>'lllllC 1m, ro· $l,K!h PUl':'jH, rnn~ n..d 10 ~c.,,1tol = ·,.'bOOm I.,~¡:.rj ollh. ruc;~~ IIg.'~ """'ð. ..lIlolI.OD'd >/I'~uI1IhCl,d! III. ~ES-_,nJII\'.nd .011:;;'"" U.,OIl ~t'll ~111'1,.ilp~ll:all" IN hn hhlul U~.nIJtlf.....·.;~t!1ó1 tor i.r'f1IoJNY I" It" .1-"1'4,::".:, Ii"..... f\II:"~11. .:I'i 1'~.lr,\" I'D dullnQ ~ h...,.in p_....1 II 1:. o\"I/m In on:, ~1IW t~ th.. ~r'JtNQI·C _'1i1l b.. ?r~;t&~ ¡n "!I,n'ru'lt¡ r~ :.r·»HIIArni·= err! 1:"I:iiYI:1u6I tHtI"'~I'" dun"»1r n,.'in";1 U::M t'f~ue!t - rrqu:14LllllulIlIIl:fmc'lll_nlll 41T:-:rul II:' ·dLr.!':"¡nÜ ~~L.lII..ollfll.:lo,";I-lIllw.f,:;o;I,,"r 1¡.1C:10I':~I·II¡nil\l\ PI", *1- 2 t¡OllCE ~rE;).,,~ ~j -11·! ), j ~,,\',~ 00'0)1:.. _ 'wOb, ~OC"L PLAI¡NI ~03 "'3(; '1<;'( S- L1.Jo;IEClUNlY. I'LOI1IDM, ¡'¡' ~t. ~I\ II: I1L r ,:HI ~i>'UN .1;H.i1 rt "'.e.l SH Ca,TE Oroll.r tJ. ~O~b . 2411LtO '-" AUGust 18th. 2005 LPA Meeting '-'" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chainnan; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chainnan; Stephanie Morgan, Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy and Kathryn Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Russell Akins without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael Brilhart, Strategy and Special Project Director; Ms. Karen Butcher, BikelPedestrian Coordinator; and Ms. Talea Owens, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENT Chainnan Grande gave a brief presentation of the procedures as of what to expect for today's meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. 1 '-" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. ~ These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold today. The meeting will progress in the foHowing manner: · The Chairman will call each item. · Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. · The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. · Members of the public will be alJowed to present information regarding the request. · The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. · The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. · The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usualJy within the next Month. Once again tile Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for tile St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing, you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. 2 --.. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. .."" The roll call was made and Chainnan Grande asked if there were any other announcements to be made. A few of the P&Z Commission members stated they have spoken with a number of residents, and attorneys on the TVC Element proposal. They have also participated in the first meetings or workshops regarding the TVC Element and have read all of the TVC Element documents, Mr. Michael Brilhart, Strategy and Special Project Director for the County, thanked all staff members of the Regional Planning Counsel and consultants that helped prepare the TVC Element document. Mr. Knapp and Ms. Hensley has arrived Presenting this item is Marcella Camblor, the Urban Design Director with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel and Project manager for the TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the 8t. Lucie County Comp Plan, along with Regional Planning Counsel Executive Director and staff. For the past eleven months, the Regional Planning Counsel has been working in public and open ways to create the comp plan amendments. Ms. Camblor stated they believe that they have been able to create a balanced plan, due to the amount of public participation that they have received. She stated the TVC plan is "plan where everyone gets something that they want and no one gets everything that they want." The balance of the TVC plan has not, by any means, compromised the community's initial vision, objectives, ideal of the type of quality of life and character that they envision for the North County Region. The balance has created development that achieves a better relationship with the local ecology and agricultural character that the residents hope to preserve. Ms. Camblor viewed a general location map of the TVC Element. The area in red is the special area plan as listed throughout the document. The boundaries of the special area plan coincide with the boundaries of the Charrette. The TVC area can be seen on the map as the light blue area. The TVC area is approximately 28 sq. miles and the special area plan is about 60 sq. miles. Everything being discussed at this meeting only applies to the TVC area (light blue area on map), not countywide or necessarily to the rest of the special area plan. 3 '-' St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. '..,¡1 The four basic concepts of how the TVC works are as follows: 1. The TVe is based on parcel size. It works differently whether a parcel is over 500 acres or under 500 acres. If a parcel if over 500 acres, a property owner is entitled to develop a town or a village (depending on the size of his /her property). He/She can also decide not to develop and maintain his land for agricultural purposes and participate in the transfer of development rights per rim. If a parcel is less than 500 acres, the property owner has the right to submit ajoint- application. The joint-application involves getting together with another property owner, to get to the 500 acre threshold and submit an application to develop a town or a village. This is also the same as with more than 500 acres, wherein they maintain their property for agricultural uses and utilize the TDR Program (Transfer of Development Rights Program). Parcels under 500 acres also have the option of the 10% rule. The 10% rule is policy that allows smaller land owners to transfer 90% of their current density yield, to a town or a village that is being developed. Once smaller land owners transfer 90% of their current density yield, they maintain 10% of their density yield, for their property for future development. The last option that parcels under 500 acres have is in regards to the land owners choosing not to be a part of the TVe or to build in accordance to any of the settlement principals established by the TVe. If smaller land owners choose not to be a part of the rve, they can subdivide their parcels into individual parcels, equal or less than their current density yield, which in an essence is exactly maintaining their current property rights which is what they have according to the current future land use designation. 2. The second concept is that the rve is a fonn-based element. The neighborhood is the planning unit of the entire TVe. The TVe also introduces the concept of the transact, which is a system that distributes densities throughout the neighborhood to ensure different concentrations of densities in different building types throughout the community. 3. The third concept is the idea that the TVe is based on a system oftransferring development rights. This idea state in order for towns and villages to be built, property rights are moved around and located in the areas where it makes more sense for development to occur. This transfer of development rights as proposed is a market driven transfer of development rights. It is fonned-based because it is based on the neighborhood basic planning unit, and it is not clustering homes, without having to follow a specific fonn. 4 "-' St. Lucie County ...., Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. 4. The fourth concept is the ideas that open space will be guaranteed and perpetuity as development comes along. This is not something that the County has to go out there and purchase, but is something that naturally occurs as towns and villages come in line. The TYC is also aiming at guaranteeing a course preserving the rural character, while encouraging opportunities for continued agriculture. It is also a plan that aims at guaranteeing or off-setting the biological and ecological impacts of all the new development that is proposed in this area. It is a way of managing all the development rights that had already been distributed throughout the North County area, and managing them in such a way that their impacts will be off-set. It is a way to guarantee improvement of the water quality for the Indian River Lagoon. It is a way to guarantee an interconnected system of nature habitat preserves, greenways, parks and open space. It is also a way to guarantee a rramework for a vital community. Ms. Camblor concluded stating this is the physical framework that is being laid out in the TYC that has the objective to accomplish all of these issues. There are five main differences between the last draft of the TYC and the current draft of the TYC. 1. The first difference is the layout of the document. The order of pages has been shifted because the Department of Community Affairs recommends this change for better organization. The concept of the family fanns has been replaced by the 10% density yield rule. There has been a change to the transfer of development rights matrix. The change represents a reduction in the multiplier in a couple of cases and creation and clarification of the categories. There has been a change of fonnula of workforce housing. There has also been a change to one of the maps that delineates the receiving sites. The first change that discusses going from family fanns to the 10% rule is located in the documents on page 3-7 and is policy 3.1.2.6. Before policy 3.1.2.6 there was a policy that allowed for persons that have a 40 acre fann out in the countryside, to potentially transfer some of their density, and build additional homes within their parcel provided that the homes were for family members. This change to the policy, the 10% rule, stated that for parcels that are less than 500 acres in size, they are able to utilize the TDR Program to transfer a minimum of90% of the transferable density to an eligible receiving site within the approved special area plan. The property may then be subdivided into individual home sites up to the number pennitted by the remaining transferable density. Such home sites are eligible to receive urban services at the property owner's expense. 5 .,.... St. Lucie County .." Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. For example, someone (today) who has a parcel that is 80 acres, under the 10% rule those people would have to first transfer 90% of the actual yield. Therefore 72 of those initial units would be transferred through the TDR programs and applied a multiplier. Once they do that, with the 10% remaining (which would be 8 units according to the example given) they may subdivide that property into 8 parcels. The LDR will detennine whether or not those have to be clustered or if they will be large lots. They land owners have to follow the land development regulations if they do this. The flow-way and connectivity of road ways will be maintained as the remaining units are placed into the Countryside. Once the developer does that, it is considered that they have done their portion and have participated in the TDR to help clean up the Countyside of at least 90% of the unit; therefore they become eligible for services provided that they pay for the cost of the services. All of the categories of the change to the transfer of development rights matrix are shown in red on the displayed map. Not all of the categories that are shown in red have been changed; some have been re-worded, rephrased, or split in half The first two multipliers that allow internal transfers when building a village or town have been reduced. The one for the town was reduced from a value of 2, to a value of I 12 and the one for villages was reduced from a value of I 12 to a value of 1.25. It is important to create a category that encourages the transfer of development rights from significant natural habitats, In regards to the proposal, if a parcel that has significant natural habitat is inside of the Urban Service boundary, then the units can be transferred to a town or a village, outside of the Urban Service Boundary. In addition, no units from within the Urban Service Boundary are pennitted to be transferred outside of the Urban Service Boundary and receive the multipliers. If a developer that is building a village or a town, in the amount of countryside or open space that they are required to leave, decides to created new natural habitants (restore the land to its original/natural condition), they shall receive an additional incentive for doing that. In the third draft of the workforce housing component, it was required for every town or village to have 20% of their potential yield as affordable housing. The percentage has changed to 8% of the proposed number of units. The overall number of affordable housing units has not changed, but the mathematical equation has changed. As the underlying land use varied per property owners, the mathematical equation for affordable housing changed. 6 '-' ....., S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. For example, as listed under the initial calculations, 1,000 acres yielded 200 affordable units. Under the calculation of the current 8% of the proposed number, 1,000 acres yield 160 affordable units. The end results are very similar. Ms. Camblor stated they are in agreement with staffs recommendation for approval. She stated staff recommends that the text be added to the TVC Element, which requests that dedication oflands within each TVC special area plan for the use of future public building space in the North County area. She stated they will add additional text for the previous recommendation that will include county buildings. She also added that they will limit the text of "special area plan" to "within the towns or villages." Mr. Lounds arrived to the meeting. Mr. McCurdy asked if the creation of natural habitats will follow the guidelines of the collier county. Ms. Camblor stated it will not follow the collier county because the collier county has percentages that can add over percentages. There program is similar to the collier county in the sense that they are heavily inclined to restoring and preserving natural habitat. It is an incentive for property owners who would like to restore their land and turn it back to the natural habitat. Mr. McCurdy asked ifthere were guidelines that set goals for the credits that are to be achieved. Ms. Camblor stated they will work with the County's environmental resources department to establish goals. Mr. Knapp asked if there were any provisions for developing property under the 10% rule, without selling the 90% (but holding it to be sold), so that property owners can do something with their property prior to the market demanding that 90% is sold immediately. Ms. Camblor stated based on the way it is currently written, property owners would have to sell 90% of their land. However, they are working on an ordinance which states if a property owner designates the 90% to be sold, an easement will be placed on their property and it will allow them to get started. The 90% of the additional density is committed to be sold. 7 '-" ...., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Knapp asked that the current rights of the land be explained (how it is zoned as of right now, as to how it will be zoned for future land use). He asked which of the two, as far as current rights go, is being spoken on. Ms. Camblor stated the base that they are using is the future land use map because it the vision for the County's future. Chainnan Grande asked it there were any other questions. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Russakis quoted "the TVC preserves existing property rights while providing incentive based options to land owners intended to achieve their goals." He also quoted "new development should be compatible in scale and character with existing, adjacent development and shall follow the TVC land development regulations." He asked how property owners move forward with the TVC, without knowing what the TVC land development regulations are. A speaker stated the land development regulations have to be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. He added they will work through the TVC to assure that the intent ofthe Comprehensive Plan and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan hold true, through the LDRs. He stated nothing intended is being taken away through the LDRs that. Chainnan Grande asked the speaker ifhe is inferring that as the comp plan changes, the LDRs will be prepared so that they are ready. The speaker replied yes and that they will be working on that. Mr. Russakis stated as a property owner, the process of waiting on the LDR's is uncomfortable. He stated ifhe was waiting to buy property then he can understand the process of waiting, but when you already own property, how can you go forward. Chainnan Grande asked Mr. Russakis what his recommendation to the board would be. Mr. Russakis stated he would feel more comfortable if they knew what the TVC regulations were going to be. He stated property owners are being asked to trust someone that is going to develop the LDRs that property owners will have to live with. He restated that it is very uncomfortable. Mr. Russakis asked if the TDR Program was in existence. 8 '-' ...., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated they are working on developing the TDR Program. Mr. Russakis stated he would like for the TDR Program to be in existence before the TVC Element is approved. He stated if the property owners have to sell their TDRs before they can do anything with their land, there is no use for the TDRs. He stated the property owners would not mind being apart of the idea of the TVC Element but there are too many unanswered questions for their lack of understanding. He stated he would recommend that staffs recommendation would be table or denied, on the behalf ofthe property owners and their uncomfortable grief of waiting for the development of TDRs and such have you. Mr. Torn Babcock stated he has been in the development business for the past 25 years, developing communities in Broward County-Huntington, Martin County-Martin downs, 81. Lucie County-St. Lucie West and Brevard County, in the community of Vierra. The TVC plan employs urbanized planning and development principles for the establishment of new communities. He stated they have been most successful within the confluence of major metropolitan areas with high wage employment and high job growth. They have also given the perception of success in areas preferred by wealthy second home buyers, where development wasn't necessarily a business but an experiment in social engineering. In both cases, the developer had the option and not the requirement to develop a new urbanized community, with varying sizes and where the developer could exercise control over most development issues. The TVC plan imposes the new urbanized principles over a much larger area, with numerous issues and owners, none of whom can control what the other mayor may not do. It is a major departure from the nonn, when government dictates the market and how it will affect property owners' rights. Our nation and fonn of government is a democratic republic, which was fonned to protect the rights of every single, living being, which includes all of us and not just the majority. This includes every property owner, grove owner as well as every developer. It is a great responsibility that we all share. He asked that the board moves forward with considering to modify and adopt the TVC plan with what is hoped to be a mutual consensus. As a master plan community developer, he recognizes a need for a master plan in the Indrio Road corridor. He stated he is in support of a modified TVC plan that offers incentives to development to be financially successful and pennits the goals of the plan to be achieved without the diminishment of existing development rights. Several County Commissioners have stated during the course of public hearings that there would be not diminishment of existing rights. 9 '-' ...,¡ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated his concern with the possible overlay is that the remaining alternative, namely the TVC plan, will not accomplish the stated goals because of the disincentives that lie within the document. The following are the primary disincentives to successful implementation: . Moving from what is existing under the current comp plan ( 35% open-space requirement to a 60% open-space requirement for a town and a 75% open-space requirement for a village) . Establishing a minimum density which requires a purchase ofTDVs (transfer of density value) . Establishing minimum workforce housing requirements, without a tracking or county system for a balance supply and demand system for workforce housing. Mr. Babcock stated in regards to open-space, poor communities have developed a beautiful community oftraditions. They have planned and implemented the combination of conventional and new urbanized TND (traditional neighborhood design). The TND accounts for 30% of their market demand, which builders are able to supply. As proposed by the TVC plan, 100% ofthe supply of new housing must be TND. The other 70% of the market goes elsewhere. Actual land sales and velocity can never be comparable to traditions. Tradition sells approximately 60% of their land, for both residential and non-residential purchases. The other 40% includes open-space, drainage, civic, roads, and school etc. Under the TVC a developer may only achieve the sale rate 005% of his land. As proposed under the TVC plan, a developer in the TVC area can sell slightly more than one half of the land as Traditions and at a rate that is, at best, 30% of the sales velocity of Traditions. If the developer can not be successful, then the county and residents can not expect to achieve their goals for a different development scenario. This development scenario includes establishing all necessary transportation-utility infrastructures that is required with or without implementation of the TVC plan. The peer review group also recommended a reduction in open-space requirements for both towns and villages, which did not appear in the third graph. Mr. Babcock restated that he is in support of the plan and is asking that the open-space requirement is reduced from the current 60% to 40% or possibly 50%. 10 '-' ..I St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18,2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the Arterial Roads networks should also be creditable towards civic uses and open-space with TDV (transfer of density credits) credits as well. He stated this will help ensure financial viability and provide rights-of-ways necessary to implement the TVC master inftastructure strategy. The recommended changes also include the reduction in minimum density requirements for both towns and villages to allow for the change in open-space in avoiding further compounding of developer's requirements to purchase density from an off site source. Without these compromises, a developer's financial choice may only be to proceed under the existing comp plan because of the proposed rvc inequities and disincentives. Mr. Babcock concluded stating he wants the plan to be successful and urges the Board to consider the changes. Mr. Babcock stated he agrees with the other speakers who stated the LDRs and TDV plan are not yet complete. Mr. Tom Skubic stated he has lived in St. Lucie County for 42 years. He stated he feels that he does not have individual rights. He asked what the community is going to do to protect his rights to his land and property. He stated the constitution gives him the right to protect his property from all invaders. He stated he is not against any developments, but he wants his rights to be protected. Mr. Skubic stated he does not understand the terms written in the proposed TVC plan, but he believes that he has a right to preserve and keep his property the way he bought it. Ms. Camblor stated every policy and objective protects and enhances the property rights of everyone in the community. There has been no down zoning and no elimination of anyone's ability to build or not build or preserve agricultural uses. More options have been provided. Chairman Grande asked if a property owner chooses not to sell TDRs or do anything differently than he/she is currently doing, will she/he be able to do it. Ms. Camblor stated the property owner can still do it. Mr. Skubic stated he is a little concerned that that will never be the case. Ms. Camblor stated properties under and over 500 acres have the right to keep doing what they are currently doing, under the title "Agricultural Uses." 11 '-" ..,¡ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Bob Banger stated he lives in the North County Charrette area. He stated he has been following the TVC concept since it's origin in the North County Charrette area back in February oflast year. He stated he has participated, along with several hundred other residents, in the process of designing their residential neighborhood. He stated the only objection that he has heard in the plan is an increase in density. Mr. Banger pointed out that density in a few small areas can be absolutely necessary in this county. One of the biggest problems in St. Lucie is the availability of affordable housing. Affordable housing will never be reached if the county continues with homes on one to five acres. Valuable people in the community, such as teachers and so forth, can not afford to buy homes costing $400,000 to $500,000. If the present conditions continue of one dwelling per one/five acres are allowed to continue, the cost of the infrastructure needed would be overwhelming. Chainnan Grande thanked Mr. Skubic. Mr. Banger stated in the towns and villages and down town areas, there will be retail stores and offices for the apartments on top to them. Other forms of affordable housing, close to the down town areas, along with the bigger neighborhoods form a community. One of the most important criteria of this plan is the flow-way concept. Storm water will be cleansed before it reaches Taylor Creek, and then the Indian River Lagoon. If only the South Florida Water Management and the Army Corp or Engineers would do the likewise with the discharges of Lake 0, the County can restore its most valuable asset in the Country to its original pristine condition. Mr, Banger stated the TVC concept is the greatest thing to come to St. Lucie County ever. Growth from over 1,000 people a day moving into Florida is not going to stop. If the growth can be managed, just as the TVC proposes to do for the North County area, S1. Lucie County will be recognized as a place where the Broward and Dade County mistakes are at last stop from moving north. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Banger. Mr. Stan Green stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Bob Banger. He stated Mr. Banger said everything that he would have said. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Green. Mr. David Weis stated he lives in Broward County, but his principal place of business is in St. Lucie County. He stated he is an owner of a grove who has interests in the success/and or failure of the TVC. He stated he has attended every meeting since April, when he was first put on notice of the proposed TVC. 12 '-" ....,¡ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Cbamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. The owners ofthe small parcels in the TVC area are the most adversely affected than anyone else in the area. He stated when he first met with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, he asked them what the value of a TDR would be and they could not give him an answer. He stated he feels that the land owners may be forced to buy TDRs in the nearby future. Chainnan Grande asked Mr. Weis to clarify what he was saying be smaller property owners may never be in a position of buying TDR. Mr. Weis clarified that he was speaking of smaller property owners selling TDRs. He stated no value have been given to provide information on the TDR's worth. Mr. Weis wrote a letter to further his beliefs and opinions about the TVC plan. His letter will be included in the minutes. Chainnan Grande thanked Mr. Weis. Ms. Cynthia Angelos stated her client is in favor of the concept and the goals of the TVC. She stated Policy 3.1.2.7 states, "Sub-dividing parcels of record that are 500 acres or more in size in located outside of the Urban Service Boundary for express purpose of avoiding regulation of the TVC is prohibited." She stated this would prohibit a land owner of 500 acres or more from developing their property under the current property rights that they enjoy. Therefore, anything that has been said contrary to that is an incorrect statement as relates to land owners of 500 acres or more, Regarding the proposal concerning open-space, Ms. Angelos' client would rather trade off density and less open-space. Mr, Trias asked Ms. Camblor why the TVC plan states, "An owner of 500 acres or more can not develop under the TVC Plan, under their existing property rights." Ms. Camblor stated the TVC plan states, "For the express purpose of avoiding TVC of having to build a town or a village that the County should not allow that." Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Angelos. Ms. Brenda Hogue stated her family and she have been in the citrus business all of their lives. She added that her family and she understand the value of the land. She stated her family and she have recently changed gears. When the TVC issue up, they were not notified by mail, as others weren't. She stated the Treasure Coast Regional Planning 13 '-" 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Counsel along with the help of a hired attorney have been very helpful in explaining the TVC Element to her and her family. Ms. Hogue stated she has concerns about the LDRs and their effects in the nearby future. Chail111an Grande thanked Ms. Hogue. Ms. Noreen Dryer stated she would like to address four comments that she has regarding the TVC plan. 1. If existing rights are going to be preserved, then it needs to be mentioned in the plan. Property owners are not being treated equally. Property owners with more than 500 acres are not being treated that same as property owners with less than 500 acres. 2. The 60% and 75% of open-space or countryside requirements are too great. When the minimum countryside requirement is combined with the minimum density requirement, it creates a problem for creating the type oflots that are marketable. 3. The transfer of density program is called a voluntary program but, you can't develop a town without buying density. 4. The changes in the July 26th draft make the requirement a countywide application. The new language provides that no amendment to the future land use map "in existing agricultural areas" may occur except through the adoption of a special area plan. Chail111an Grande thanked Ms. Dryer. Mr. John Martin stated he operates a citrus grove and a plant and landscape nursery. He stated he has a 1 0-15yr. business plan for his nursery and has no intentions of selling the property, but he must reselVe the right to be able to sell the property at a moments notice, due to the fact that he has a heart condition. He stated he has great concerns over the current state of the TVC. He stated very little land transactions have taken place in the North County, since the TVC plan has come into effect. He stated this is because anyone considering purchasing a piece of property, in the North County has not idea as what to expect they might be able to do with their property. 14 '-" 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the TVC plan has been a moving target, from the time that it had begun. He stated he was guaranteed that his development rights would not be taken away from him. According to the TVC plan, he has no idea whether he would have to adhere to the 60% open-space rule, which gives the property owner 40% of the property. Mr. Martin pointed out that he was a Local Planning Agency Commissioner for 10 years, in the County of Palm Beach. He added he is a certified financial planner and have been the president of the Boynton Beach Chambers of Commerce. His professional background goes to say that he had a lot to offer to the Charrette process, had he been invited. He stated the property owners were not invited and they found out that the citizen's plan had been created, months after the Charrette was over. He stated he has concerns with population growth management of the TVC. He stated the TVC is proposing to increase what exists now by 76% of the population of the total area, while squeezing that population into 40% or less in the available land space. He pointed out the concept of traffic problems, with the increase of the population by 76%. He stated nearby neighbors will continue to drive their vehicles as the TVC plan proposes to provide walking distances from the development to local stores. He stated the LDRs should be concurrent with the TVC Element's plan. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Martin. Mr. Trias asked Ms. Camblor if the land development regulation will differ tremendously from the current issues. Ms. Camblor stated the land development regulation for the towns and the villages will follow traditional sediment principals and they are already established in the TVC document. She stated they are working on guaranteeing connectivity of roads, connectivity of the flow way and connectivity of the flow-way and of the open-space as development occurs in those other parcels that do not become towns and villages. Ms. Camblor stated, "by no means, will the intensity or the density on any property will be affected by the LDRs." Chairman Grande stated his reading to the 3.1.2.6 options says that under option 6, if a property owner had a 35acre parcel that was zoned I to the acre, an option that is available to the property owner would be treating the property exactly as it is today, and not participate with LDRs, without looking for bonuses and maintain all of the current rights of development. 15 '-' St. Lucie County ~ Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated that is correct. She stated property owners would be better off today, under the TVC plan with a 35 acre parcel, than they are now with the current land development plans. Ms. Debbie Holly stated she lives in the southern most part of the TVC area that will be affected by the plan. She stated as a community member, she is concerned with the housing of the incoming population and the school systems. She asked where the land would be derived from to fit into the TVC that will compensate for the workforce students attending the schools. She stated statistics reveal that approximately half of the workforce students are expected to utilize the County's schooL~. Chairman Grande clarified that Ms. Holly's question related to the arent contradiction between the current school choice plan in the County and the neighborhood school concept that the TVC encourages. Ms. Hensley stated there is no commitment that schools will serve only that community. She stated the idea that schools will serve only the TVC community, was never apart of the TVC discussion. The idea was that there is a need of a school, altogether. Terms regarding utilization of that school as to who uses that school will be in the school district's preview. The concept of schools being able to be used as open-spaces has a good concept, because of the various activities that take place in schools. The idea that there is a school site attached to this, does not in anyway dictate who attends the school. Ms. Holly stated the county as a whole is experiencing tremendous growth in both the north and South County. She concluded stating she feels that the growth of the County deserves a lot of consideration before it moves forward. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Holly. Mr. Michael Busha, Executive Director with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, stated they have been working with the school district, searching for an understanding of creating a plan that works for everyone. He stated the TVC offers diversity in income, age and affordability etc. This diversity offers the ability to kids to attend schools that are closer to home. Ms. Hensley stated the TVC concept provides an opportunity to do something different that will help with over length potentially and the new ideas that are being done in the student assignment process. She stated it is the same issue dealing with workforce 16 '-' 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. housing, as oppose to subsidized housing. She stated the TVC offers an opportunity for a mixed community. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Hensley. Mr. Colin J. Macomber stated he is a resident of St. Lucie County and his children live in St. Lucie County and work in the County. He stated he has a long term interest in seeing S1. Lucie County a prosperous and well planned community for his grandchildren. He stated he applauds all of the efforts that were made to examine the big picture in the North S1. Lucie County. He stated people do not mix in gated communities. Mr. Macomber stated as he listens to the arguments of the public and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel's legal staff, he feels confident that his existing homeowner rights are going to be protected. He stated open-space in traditional community does not mean anything. If you do not live in the community, open-space is not available to you. Those living outside to the community can only view the community's highest density or a wall. Mr. Macomber stated he does not want traditional development because of the reasons that he mentioned. He stated he does not want to drive down a congested street and see nothing more than gates or walls. He stated he wants open-space. He stated he wants diversity. A community that has only one kind of people living in it is boring and stagnant. He stated he want a mixed community. He stated a development wherein none of the home owning residents own homes less than $300,000 demands a certain income and demands a certain kind of person. He stated what is left is the figuration of where everyone else fits into that grand scheme ofthings. He stated there are a lot of people that aren't ever going to make $200,000 a year or such have you, which will allow them to gain entry into that gated community. He stated those are the people that are going to be pulled into houses, such as the teachers and all other county workers that provide services to the County. He stated there needs to be a mixed in place for all of the other people, who don't make enough to live in the gated communities, in the community. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Macomber. Mr. Paul Dereli, a land development attorney with the law firm of Greenberg Toreg, stated he has clients both inside and outside of the TVC area. He stated he concurs with most of the sediments in the development community that the open-space requirements of 60% and 75% are extreme and will result in a difficult development housing product in the market with small lot sizes. 17 ~ ..,¡ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated he is concerned about the special area plans policy. Mr. Mike Harrison stated the answers to his questions regarding facts about the TVC plan and LDRs have not been provided. Mr. Harrison stated he needs answers to the progress developments that are proposed for the TVC plan so that he can plan his life according to the changes. Ms. Julie Orb and stated she has concerns about the school factors. She stated nearby schools do not work for the students, if they are failing schools. She stated the existing schools systems need to be improved before other schools are built. Ms. Susie Caron stated she is in favor of the TVC plan and asks that it is approved. Other comments that Ms. Caron made, had been made previously by other speakers, in favor ofthe TVC plan. Mr. Tom Mitchell asked the Regional Planning Counsel if the amendments of the future land use maps and existing agriculture areas cover the North County or is it countywide. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is an issue in the North County and not countywide. She stated Policy 1.1.1.2 states, "If major agricultural areas are to change their land use designations, that those would have to go through a similar planning process (not the TVe), as the TVC area initiatively went." ..., ~I /' C ¡v(J)& jh¡)rD Mr. Craig Monts stated he hopes that the County works toward a fair balance satisfying both, the cl1izens inside and outside of the Urban Service Boundary, for the sake of the quality of life. Chainnan Grande thanked Mr, Mitchell Chainnan Grande thanked Mr. Monts. Mr. Alex Brown asked how the future land use rights of land owners outside of the study area will be affected under the current language tenns. Ms. Camblor stated the future land use right is affected only if the land owner decides to make a change to the future land use. Mr. Brown asked if the future property rights of the owners throughout the rest of the county are now affected by the TVC plan. 18 '-" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18,2005 6:00 P.M. ~ Ms. Camblor replied no. The future property rights do not change as oftoday. She stated nothing changes in regards to future property rights, for anyone not doing a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Brown stated to make simple future land use change in the future will require a comprehensive land use amendment. He asked if that is what the language affective1y says. Ms. Camblor stated a land use change requires a comprehensive land use amendment today. Mr. Brown asked if the current flexibility that owners outside of the area now have were being taken out. Ms. Camblor replied no. Ms. Camblor stated current DOT absorption rates deal with plans that are designed for sprawl. Mr. Wade Walker stated traffic has two components, which are trip attracters and trip producers. He stated houses to houses are trip producers. There is an increase in the number of housing units. He stated there is a correspondence increase in the proposed infrastructure network, to support the TVC plan. He stated there are very few roadways in the current plan. He stated the TVC Element proposes a fine grain network of major and minor streets which probably increases the east west capacity. Mr. Brown stated there needs to be a set value for the TDR plan. Chainnan Grande stated if the TDR plan floats with the market, it would unreasonable to place a set value on the TDR's because the market is up and down. Mr. Jack Schwy stated he has been a property owner for approximately 20 years and he is against adoption/transmittal of the TVC plan. He pointed out issues such as the small property owners' rights and concurrency that need more work done on them. Mr. Skeet Jernigan, representing the Community and Economic Development Counsel, stated the group that he represents is still in the process of trying to understand the TVC document and have not decided whether they agree or not on the TVC plan. Mr. Jernigan also made comments containing his concerns for the TDR program. Mr. Jernigan made comments containing his concerns for the land development regulations and open-space. Mr. Jernigan concluded stating, he would like the 19 '-" ""'" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. opportunity of receiving answers to the unsolved problems and questions that he has asked. Mr. John Martin made a comment about the value ofTDRs and how they work, in comparison to the TDR program in Palm Beach County. Chainnan Grande thanked Mr. Martin. Mr. Bobby Klein made comments against the TDR program and its impact on those that will be impacted by the TVC plan. Chainnan Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Mr. Hearn wrote a letter reflecting his feeling and concerns about the TVC plan. This letter will be copied and attached to the minutes, Mr. Busha stated their consultants have remodeled the entire base of Water Management for the TVC Element to assure that the TVC plan and the density proposed for the amount of units, work. Ms. Camblor clarified that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel's staff has addressed the open-space requirements and everything that ties within. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias stated he supports the TVC process and he feels that it is a very ambitious effort. He also stated the small details that the land owners opposed can be worked on and improved as the TVC plan undergoes development. Mr. Knapp stated he has concerns regarding the LDRs and how they are set up, along with the rules for the TDRs. Mr. Knapp agreed with Mr. Trias and stated that he like the concept of the TVC and he is for the open-space. Ms. Hensley stated she was leaving but would like to make a statement before she leaves. She stated the school board likes the idea that school sites are classified as open-space. She stated the school board also likes the idea of a mixed use that would help facilitate a more functionality of a geographic area, for parents and kids. There was a 10 minute break. Chainnan Grande announced there are three options for the outcome of the TVC plan. He stated the options are to recommend approval for submission of the TVC plan, 20 '-" ..,. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18,2005 6:00 P.M. recommending denial for submission of the TVC plan or tabling submission of the TVC plan. Mr. Hearn read the letter that he prepared (this letter is attached to the minutes). Mr. Hearn is not in support of the TVC. Mr. McCurdy stated he agrees with Mr. Hearn. Mr. McCurdy asked that the TVC be tabled. Ms. Morgan stated the questions and comments that the land owners made about their concerns, did not receive responses from the Regional Planning Counsel. She stated she does not feel comfortable passing something on to the County Commission that the Local Planning Agency can not support. She stated she wants to approve a project that people are happy with and that the Local Planning Agency can support and back. She agreed with Mr. McCurdy and stated she prefer tabling the project. Mr. Knapp suggested implementing the land regulations so that the small property owners will be satisfied and still be able to do something constructive with their land that follows the plan of the TVC. Mr. Lounds stated he has concerns for the "historic land" vested families that have a historic land vestment in the TVC area land. He stated their families have owned their parcel of land for long period. He stated the vested families have a different look at the TVC plan, instead of a developer who has bought parcels ofland and want to develop it. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that the questions that the land owners have should be answered before the TVC plan goes forward. Mr. Lounds asked what the purpose of talking about a special area plan for this is, other than the TVC. Mr. Mike Busha stated the special area plan is the area that will be the only place that credits can be transferred in and around. He stated the TVC area is the area where the new land use would apply. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Busha if the transfer of density deals with special area only. Mr. Busha replied yes, the transfer density only deals with the special area. Ms. Hammer stated small changes should be made to the TVC document to promote satisfaction and eliminate tabling the TVC causing further delay. She stated she supports forwarding the TVC plan to the County Commissioners along with all ofthe comments that were made by the public. 21 ",,"' "'" S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hearn asked as the TVC plan evolves, will targeted industries be considered to apart of the open-space. Ms. Camblor replied yes. Mr. Trias stated the TVC plan is the best plan that has ever been presented before the Local Planning Agency plan. He stated because the plan is not perfect, that does not mean that the plan is not good. Mr. Trias stated he prefer that the Board recommends approval ofthe TVC, so that the process of the project can move along, and changes to the land use regulations or open-space can be resolve. Mr. Trias stated he would like to make a motion recommending approval of the TVC plan under three conditions: 1. Open space is furthered reviewed. 2. The LDRs are prepared before final adoption. 3. The TVC apply only to the TVC area. Mr. Hammer stated she will second the motion. Mr. Hearn stated he does not support the TVC plan because he does not feel that the project is complete. Mr. McCurdy also stated he feels that the County can do better and does not support the TVC plan. Mr. Trias stated he will amend the motion so that the TDR program will be developed before the final adoption of the TVC Element. Ms. Hammer seconded the amendment to the motion. Roll call was made. Mr. McCurdy said no, Mr. Knapp said yes. Ms. Morgan said no. 22 '-' ..I St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds said no. Mr. Hearn said no. Mr. Trias said yes. Ms. Hammer said yes. Chainnan Grande said no. Chainnan Grande announced that the motion failed 5-3. After the motion failed, Mr. McCurdy made a motion to table the TYC plan. He stated the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel have heard a lot of comments and concerns of the residents. He feels that the project needs to be tabled until the board receives more feedback and a more modified document, for further adoption or development of the TYC. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. A meeting has been scheduled to take place on October 6. 2005 to continue for the tabling ofthis meeting. 23 ~ ~ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: Talea Owens, Sr. Staff Assistant Charles Grande, Chairman 24 '-" NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ..." NOTICE OF INTENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, will consider adopting County Ordinance No. 05-012 which provides for certain amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to establish Chapter 3, "Towns, Villages and the Countryside Element", amend the future land use designation on certain parcels of land in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, and amend certain other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Establish Chapter 3, Towns, Villages and the Countryside (TVC) Element Future Land Use Element - Land Use Categories - Amend Table 1-3, Land Use Designation/Zoning Compatibility matrix to add TVC Policy 1.1.1.1 - Amend to add TVC to Land Use Designation/Intensities Objective 1.1.2 - Amend to allow new development only in accordance with TVC Goals, Objectives and Policies for settlement outside of the urban service boundary Policy 1.1.4.1 - Amend to authorize density or other bonuses in certain instances inside the urban service boundary; prohibit conversion of agricultural area property to high intensity urban uses except where permitted or required in the TVC Element Policy 1.1.4.3 - Amend to require certain features for cluster housing and planned unit development including development consistent with the TVC Element and Transfer of Density Rights Program Policy 1.1.5.1 - Amend to allow urban development activities also in special area plans adopted within the TVC Element Policy 1.1. 7.1 - Amend to also support and encourage innovative land use development patterns in the Land Development Regulations which utilize the Settlement Principles outlined in Policy 3.1.4.1 of the TVC Element. Policy 1.1.8.2 - Delete in its entirety '-' -...I Policy 1.1.8.4 Amend to exclude limited development of commercial/non-residential uses that are not located with in the special area plan adopted within the TVC Element Policy 1.1.8.9 - Amend to provide that local service activities should be located near or within the neighborhoods they serve The proposed Future Land Use Map amendments will affect the following indicated property: [Insert Map] A PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed amendments will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission on August 18, 2005 at 6:00 p.m" or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the St. Lucie County Commission Chambers at the St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, Third Floor, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. Copies of the proposed amendments may be obtained from the St. Lucie County Growth Management Director's Office, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34982, and are also available for viewing during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34982. Amendments to the proposed amendments may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committee, commission, agency, councilor advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ~ -..I made, which record should include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Central Services Director at (772) 462-1441 TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. THIS NOTICE EXECUTED and dated this 2nd day of August, 2005. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 151 CHARLES GRANDE, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DA TE: August 5, 2005 The Tribune Legal Ad St. Lucie County Attorney's Office 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 PUBLISHER: TYPE AD: PROOF TO: BILL TO: Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 3498 g: \atfy\notiœ5\tvc.lpa,wpd ~ ~ April 21st, 2005 LPA p.1eeQng St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6: 15 p,m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chainnan; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chainnan; Pamela Hammer, Kathryn Hensley, Carson McCurdy, and Stephanie Morgan. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Knapp, Ed Lounds with notice; Russell Akins, and Ramon Trias without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator; Mr. Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Diana Waite, Planner III; Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael Bowers, Utilities Director; and Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 1 '-' ....,¡ CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Grande ca1led to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6: 15 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES All board members present disclosed that they had spoken to members of the public in regards to the North County Charrette. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chainnan Grande gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and infonnation gathered at a public hearing, such as those we wi1l hold tonight. The meeting wi1l progress in the following manner: . The Chainnan will call each item. · Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. · The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. · Members of the public will be allowed to present infonnation regarding the request. · The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission wi1l discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. · The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 2 '-'" ......, · The recommendation is then forwarded to the 81. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the 81. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in fÏ"ont of the S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 3 '-' '-' AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF MARCH 3. 2005 Mr. Kelly made a correction of a comment under Roll Call that should be deleted. Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 19, Paragraph 4 where Mr. Cox stated that there was no way of doing this, if they wouldn't enjoy having a facilitator he would find someone. That was not what he said. She requested that staff go back and listened to the tape. Mr. McCurdy made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. All were in favor. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 4 '-" -...I AGENDA ITEM 2: MINUTES OF MARCH 17.2005 Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 16, top of the page, where it stated that Ms. Hammer left at 7:20 p.m. to add due to illness. Ms. Hammer made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. All were in favor. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 5 '-' '.I Chair Grande suggested to the board to slightly change the sequence of the agenda items and suggested that Item No.6 which was the North County Master Plan be moved to the top of the agenda. He felt that there would be a lot of comment on that item and that they may choose not to pass it along at this time. Ms. Hammer was concerned that she didn't know how many people were present for Item Nos. 3 and 4 and to make them sit through Item No.6 seemed unfair to her. Vice-Chair Hearn concurred with Ms. Hammer's statement. He felt that Item Nos. 3 and would be fairly quickly resolved. Mr. McCurdy stated that he liked the chairman's suggestion and had no problem with moving it to the top of the agenda. Ms. Morgan didn't have a problem either way, Chair Grande got the consensus from the board members to move Item No.6 to be heard first. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 200S Page 6 '-" ....,¡ AGENDA ITEM 6: NORTH COUNTY CITIZEN'S MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - ORD-05-012 Michael Brillhart stated that staff would make their presentation which would allow the staff from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) to prepare their presentation information. He stated that in their packet were some comments and staff recommendation for their review that the Planning Growth Management staff had put together for them. Staff had since given an updated version based upon comments that they had spoken of with the TCRPC staff and had come up with another recommendation, which was the modified version. He went on to give a brief history behind the project. The process began prior to February, 2004, but off with a public hearing, public workshop that took place over a 10-14 day time period back in February, 2004. Citizens were concerned about the potential development patterns, the potential for future growth in the North County area and based upon a lot of the allowable one unit/acre development scenario and some of the other types of properties that were being looked at for development potential that were both within the Urban Service Area (USA) and alongside the USA in the rural area. The County realized that there was a lot of concern with the current Comprehensive Plan language Land Development Regulations regarding future development; the Board recommended and put together a process to create optional development scenarios to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. It was currently adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan to work with the citizens on being able to provide some sort of options for three specific goals and there were other goals. The first one was to protect the rural character, agricultural character of the area; the second one was to provide sufficient amount of future open space as part of that; and thirdly, and very strongly to try to control as best as possible urban sprawl. With these three things in mind the TCRPC began a number of months ago to create for the County's review and eventual adoption amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There was an identified study area which originally represented about 18,000 acres, it since had spread a little bit over to the Indian River Lagoon on the eastern boundary to take in a much larger area because of the need to not only look at that initial 18,000 square foot area, but also the entire north county as part of the recommendations for options of consideration by the Regional Planning Council (RPC). Tonight's meeting was scheduled for a couple of reasons; the first one was to provide opportunities for the general public to comment to the LPA on this particular item and secondly, to get potential feedback that staff could present to the board when the board reviewed it over the next four and six week timeframe. Staff has worked with the RPC and some of those comments in the packet from last week and continuing to work with them, both in the Comprehensive Plan conceptual elements and the Land Development Regulations component that would take place over the next several months. Ms. Morgan pointed out that there was a memo from staff requesting a continuance until the next tentatively scheduled meeting on May 11. Ms. Young responded that was staffs recommendation for a variety of reasons so they could do some additional work with the RPC, there were also some questions about the map that appeared in the ad that needed to be addressed. Staffs plan would be to re-advertise it. She stated that if the Board was interested to hear the public, since there was a crowd they would have to open the P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 7 \..- ...J public hearing. They Board may want to hear what the RPC had to say so the people that were present could hear that and if they wished to speak after they could do so. Her recommendation was that the item be continued and any comments made then that could be something for staff and the RPC to look at prior to the 11 tho The board members stated that they received the new draft very late and was unable to review it properly. They requested to get the revised draft at least a week prior to the May 11 meeting. Chair Grande questioned why the next meeting would scheduled to be May 11 and were there other items on that agenda. Sheryl Stolzenberg, Planner responded that staff had originally set the May 11 date for three private sector amendments that were submitted and there was a text amendment that was desired in order to bring the Scenic Highway plan into the Comprehensive Plan and it had been established originally before this came forward and the idea of continuing it came forward. But if it was the Board's desire to deal with only this item, then staff would have to look at what to do with the private sector amendments, because those people hade submitted and they had a right also to be heard and there are only regular amendments twice yearly. Chair Grande asked if it could be heard on the 19th instead. Mr. McCurdy stated he didn't have a problem with pushing it out two months, he had many concerns and felt it would take more than two to three weeks to resolve those concerns. Chair Grande asked staff if they could move the agenda items that were scheduled for the 19th to the 11 th and schedule this item only for the 19th. Ms. Stolzenberg responded that that was okay. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator stated that they were trying to balance a couple of things, operating under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners to fold in a schedule for Planning and Zoning or Local Planning Agency in time to bring something back to them so that they could absolutely meet the first submittal date of June 7 for Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on this particular item. If it was apparent that there was no way this board was going to be in a position to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners so that they could consider those and then meet that first submittal date, that was a reality that the Board of County Commissioners, LP A, and the public would have to accept. She committed staff in getting the comments to the board members in sufficient time for it to be heard on May 19. Chair Grande requested that the finalized version be sent to the board for review on May 11 in order for it to be reviewed for the meeting on May 19. Mr. Busha stated that they had worked very hard reviewing staffs comments and requested that TCRPC go through their presentation as there might be new questions that would come up as a result as well as a lot of questions may be answered as a result. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 8 ~ ...I Marcella Camplor stated that their goals at this time were to accomplish three different things. The first was to review, you have a package that was presented by staff and the package that was presented by staff had two parts to it. An initial part that had six major conceptual issues and then it had a second section where they were making comments or amendments to the language of the April 8 document that we had submitted. So the first thing we wanted to do was to go thru those first six items which I think were big issues. The second thing we were intending to do and then again we were assuming that you had read this report or had sufficient time to read this report was to review the Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVCs) goals, objectives and policies and then take as much time as you wanted to go over those policies. By the way, all the strike- thru and underline version includes all those comments and suggestions that we heard rrom you when we had the one-on-one meetings about a month and a half ago. The third and last thing we wanted to do tonight was proposed and modified language to staffs recommendation also on this report and as Michael Brillhart told you, we did have a meeting with staff today to go over those issues and I think we were on the same page regarding that. Let me go through the first six items first, again these six points are in the document that you received from staff dated April 14, this is the cover of that document. That first item talks about, I'm just going to read, from some of them I'll read the whole thing, from others I'll just read a couple of sentences. The first one says "the material submitted by the consultant ultimately identifies the amendment as a new land use designation or a new element of the Comprehensive Plan, presumably a design element. The supporting documentation required by Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J5 and 911 I Florida Administrative Code or data and analysis refers to the material as amendments to the Land Development Regulations. If a Towns, Villages, and Countryside amendment is a new land use designation, then as required by subsection l63.3.1.7.7.6A of the Florida Statutes the land use designation must include standards to be followed in the control of population, densities, and building construction intensity." In other words, each land use designation needs to identify the maximum allowable, quantifiable tenn like maximum units that we would end up at the end of this, In our conversation this morning with your staff, we talked about the fact that yes, this is a statement, it's a correct statement referencing the statute, however, in your TVC element, you do have this defined, we also have been in conversation with the DCA as to how we were approaching defining these elements and it defines it in four different ways. It defines it in the mix of uses which is stated in Policy 3.1.4.2 Item No.8. This again, I'm not going to go into a policy because just now I'm addressing those six points. It also addresses density and intensity in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, it addresses the transferable density value map which is Figure 3.1 where it establishes densities and intensities, the existing ones. Additionally there is a TDR credit matrix which establishes the maximum number of units as required by the DCA; and we can get into that in just a little bit. The second comment that staff had was an item that had to do with the total number of units that would result of all of this and the method used to evaluate this proposed new land use change. It says "one method used in evaluating a proposed land use change is a comparison between what is allowed by the existing Future Land Use Designation and what would result." A lot of that we've shown you in previous presentations, we're going to show you a little bit of that. Vice-Chair Hearn - Before I forget it and it's passed, what is allowed by existing Future Land Use as compared to the TVC land use? P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 9 '- ....; Ms. Camplor - In number of units? I will get to that in my next.... Vice-Chair Hearn - My question is I don't think it's fair to assume that the existing future land use density is what would be allowed on each given project as it comes up. Ms. Camplor - One thing I forgot to say at the very beginning. Weare a team of people and a lot of, I might refer to different people to answer questions, because our legal counsel is here, Nancy Stroud and our acting consultant Peter Spike, Michael Busha, and Anthea Ginotis. Yes I know exactly what you're saying I mean it is not an entitlement, but when it is being reviewed, what you have to review is worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario is what your Future Land Use identifies as that ultimate lump number that someone can apply for. So we have tested both under the potential worst cast scenario and I don't know if you want to add anything to that Anthea or Nancy, but we can get to that in just a second. Chair Grande - If I may, with all of the effort that we've put into this and along the same lines, same question, granted that you've chosen to make the comparison against the future land use, is there some reason why you didn't figure out what it would be at the current zoning? Ms. Camplor - For the most part your zoning in this area is AG-l (Agriculture - 1 du/acre) and your Future Land Use is one which is one unit to the acre, so there really wasn't any difference and then when you got to the MXD the zoning was compatible with the land use. Chair Grande - That is true, under the zoning it would be roughly the same as under the Future Land Use? Ms. Camplor - Yes, and then the statute says that when you do the comparison that the DCA is looking for you have to go with the Future Land Use. But in this particular area of your county it's potentially the same. If we were looking inside your Urban Service Boundary (USB) to other areas outside the TVC the story is different. Vice-Chair Hearn - Aren't we looking at a lot of land inside the USB for this particular project with this RU which is five units per acre against what is now zoned one unit per acre? That is my concern. Ms. Camplor - There is one portion of that, yes, so there would be a somewhat of a difference, but it isn't a very large area for that. There might be a small difference but again the statutes require that when we do the comparison we do it using the Future Land Use. Going on to point number two I think that one of the concerns we weren't really quite sure where the number 23,300 additional dwelling units as a result of applying the TVC was really coming from. We had a conversation with staff, we agreed that even though the methodology that we both used was the same one, they had used different data, so this is really not the ultimate additional number of units that will result, and I think staff understood that was not the number we were using. The 23,300 was really a number of units to be absorbed by the year 2030 and that includes what's there today mixed with what would be added. So that's units absorbed by P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 10 '-" ..., 2030 that's not added units to what's there today, that was a different, does that make sense? Chair Grande - That does make sense. I think the other thing that the most of us would like to see added as far as information is assuming that it is true that it's roughly the Future Land Use is the same as the zoning so the numbers aren't much different one way or the other, what I think everybody would like to know is what would be the additional number of units under the current one to one and what would be the additional number of units under the, I think it is approximately two to one that this plan results in? Ms. Camplor - I'm getting to that in my next slide. This point talks about comparing again what your land use, your Future Land Use proposes today and what the new plan would propose. Of course in this comparison which we have had to do, we knew from the beginning of the Charrette that the goal was of course to preserve as much countryside and open space that's outside the USB and change the pattern of settlement. I'm not going to go through all the goals, but your current Future Land Use had absolutely no provision for open space, as you just said one unit to the acre or more depending on the area; again absolutely no provision for any sort of public open space or countryside. The proposed model guarantees between 60 and 75% of open space. That is one of the big physical differences. As far as units the difference between the current model, the current Future Land Use Map and what will result after applying the TVC - in the current model you have a potential for 20,904 units in the TVC area, which is what is outlined. Chair Grande - That's new plus existing or is that just? Ms. Carnplor - That's your Future Land Use today, everything in this area that I outlined in the red, 20,904, bear in mind there is no fully developed neighborhoods out there except for Panther Woods, that's probably the largest settlement you have out there today, the rest is .... Mr. McCurdy - Spanish Lakes. Ms. Camplor - No, but if you look at the area, Spanish Lakes is not in that area, that's why I'm saying Panther Woods is. We're not considering the units in Spanish Lakes. Vice-Chair Hearn - With what you say about the 20,904 potential units that's if there is complete build-out correct? Ms. Carnplor - That is what the statute requires, yes, complete build-out under your current Future Land Use Map, yes. Vice-Chair Hearn - I understand that, but I want to make a statement here, this plan has a lot of merit for our community ifit is done right. My concern about using figures like this is that in my mind there is no way all of those units will ever be built and there is no way that all of the countryside will ever be gone. Maybe I'm too naïve, maybe I've been around here too long to think that somebody would be eliminating all of the countryside including the wetlands that we cannot build on and places like that, so I'm just struggling a little bit with these numbers because in my own mind cannot believe that it's going to happen in the worst case scenario. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 11 '-' '-' Ms. Camplor - Well we have a hard time presenting to you the worst case scenario, that's what the statute requires, it is a mathematical calculation, you have to put both plans in and test them at the worst case scenario. I think: the big difference though, and we all know, just as we know when I tell you the number for the worst case scenario under the TVC I like you want to believe that all of this is not going to happen, we're being forced to look at the worst case scenario. I think: the one thing that you know, absolutely for sure, that you can be certain of, is that under your current model you do not have a single provision for public open space. The difference is in this entire area except for a very small area which is worth preserving which is not designated preserve, as a matter of fact it is designated with the highest possible intensity that you have in your Future Land Use Map, you don't have any wetlands. So this entire area could potentially be chopped up into the one acre lots. I'm not saying and none of us are saying that's what's going to happen for sure, we can look at Broward County, we can look at Dade County, we've seen it happen down there. But what this does and what we have to do by law beçause this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment is tell you what your plan says; and this is what your plan says. Vice-Chair Hearn - I understand that, the other thing that I want to point out is, these additional dwelling units 23,300 or whatever number you come up with is only based on the area that we're talking about now, and ifthis plan is adopted, it certainly has the reality of being adopted in other parts of our county and there's going to be a lot more going in for that too. I just want to point out that this is a small area of our community that we're talking about. Ms. Camplor - I think: this is an issue that deals with the multiplier and with a specific policy in the plan. I think: what we're trying to address at this point is just the fact that staffs comments were this had not been addressed and we're just trying to show you how this is addressed and then if you want, Mr. Chair, we can start to talk about. Chair Grande - I think: I'm looking in the other direction; I'd rather not get hung up on the details along the way if we could move along and look at what it would look like in the new plan and keep going. Ms. Camplor - Okay, and in the worst case scenario for the TVC which is the image you have to your right of course we had to go ahead and do exactly the same thing and after applying all those four elements that I told you about in the previous slide the total number of units that you could potentially end up with would be 37,554 which is probably a 16,500 give or take increase in units of which 4,020 would be required to be affordable, not in addition, but of which, and with a guarantee of about 11,000 acres within the TVC a guarantee that 6,661 would be open space. Again, this is the worst case for the open space, it could be potentially more than that as well. So that's how this plan does address that requirement by the statute. I don't know if you were going to ask a question or.. Mr. McCurdy - I have a bunch ofthem. Ms. Camplor - Okay, when we get to the element then. Number three stated that "this amendment contains a policy which is 3.1.1.3 that says when a conflict arises between the TVC and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the TVC requirement shall prevail" this was our language. Your staff pointed out that the language in this policy violates subsection 1.6.331.772 P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 12 '-" ...., which states you know you have co-ordinate all the elements in your Comprehensive Plan. After our meeting this morning with your staff we amended that text to state and also after getting legal counsel, to state "that the TVC element shall apply to those portions of the County where the TVC land use has been adopted, but the most restrictive policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan regarding preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, historical and archaeological features and greenways and trails shall govern." So basically it's changing, this one will prevail with, we're just saying the most restrictive policy will prevail which apparently that doesn't violate that subsection, Item number four talks about the fact that this proposed amendment might create certain property rights issues and I know all of you have questions regarding this because it doesn't offer the option for development if property owners under 500 acres. This is not an issue for those property owners in the TVC, but inside the USB because that minimum parcel size has been eliminated in the version that I guess unfortunately you did not have enough time to review. But it has not been eliminated outside the USB Policy 3.1.1.7 provides options for how to deal with these issues and then that's one of the issues if you want when we go into the elements that we can talk about, and our legal counsel can address. Vice-Chair Hearn - When the TCRPC and I had one on one session I had asked the question about the possibility of several property owners making a co-op to fonn a TVC, have you addressed that? Ms. Camplor - That has been addressed, if you look at the bottom our proposed solution to this policy 3.1.1.7 item number two, initially we had written "cooperate with adjoining property owners" and then we changed that language to say "submitted joint application with adjoining property owners to develop a town, or village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC. I think that the other thing we decided to do to follow with that item number two is to put additional language in the Land Development Regulations (LDR) that states how some of these coops could be organized in order to submit plans. One thing that I can tell you is, since we have been meeting with a lot of property owners that are under the 500 acres, a lot of them, actually two of them that we've specifically talked to just happen to be directly adjacent to some major developments and/or other major land holders and I think that the recommendation we've done, because it states it in this policy, is look, if you, even if you have 40 acres, if you submit your plan in conjunction with this other larger development, you could be a part of this and I think that in two cases already, we've managed to address this issue that way. Mr. McCurdy - Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it is very nice if you're adjacent to a proposed development, but there are a lot of properties and small property owners that are going to be impacted directly by this, which you're not going to be able to participate. I think some of the rules as written are onerous and they are going to be, they're not going to work. I have had 20 years in the real estate field in this County and in adjacent counties in real estate appraisal work in dealing with this type of thing, I really think that the document, I respect what you've done, I know you're taking a stab at it, and I know that you guys are doing a good job, but I just feel that there are very, very many issues here that as this evolves it will continue to come up and we still have a document that is a draft at this point. I literally received this about 10:30 a.m. today and I went through it. I don't feel that, God bless us if we can get it done by the 11 th or the P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 13 '-' ..."", 19th, I don't see it happening. I respect that you're going to make your presentation and the public is going to be allowed to speak here, I think that is part of the process, but I don't think, as is that we're going to be able to get there. Ms. Camplor - I can't apologize enough for you all not receiving this on time, I know that at every presentation we have made, the prime is most of our presentations have been to the Board of County Commissioners but I do recall that when Mike made his presentation to the joint board we, I think, he made the point that this is a living document, it is a draft document and the one thing that we're trying to do and we have promised everyone is that this will still be a living document. But what we're trying to do as your staff said, is get the first transmittal date with the DCA and continue to work and continue to modify this document until September when it will be your official transmittal date. The reason we're doing that, it's not that we TCRPC wants to push this through as quickly as possible, you have a lot of developers and a lot of people that have been very patiently waiting for a long time to see this issue resolved and we've just been asked to try and get it resolved as quickly as possible. Again the whole intention of this was let's at least in a draft fonn get it through, get started with the process with the DCA with the understanding that this is a living document and we will continue to modify this until September. Mr. McCurdy - I have no problem with it being a living document, but I have a problem with trying to pass something that is going to change in intent after I've passed it, if you understand what I'm saying. So I do have a problem with that. Ms. Camplor - The fifth issue was an issue that said that there was need to transfer how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process would be managed. Would it be a market driven system and there were questions referring to that. We know it is correct, it needs to be clarified and it needs to be defined, but that language does not live in your Comprehensive Plan, it's part of your LDR, it is a separate document, we with your staff will work on that. All your Comprehensive Plan needs to do is establish the fact that you will have your TDRs, but how they operate that's part of a separate document. The sixth and last point was a comment regarding the fact that the flow way concept and the countryside concept, even though they're an essential part of the TYC, that they need to be managed jointly and of course, the TYC is talking about this being managed separately. The truth to this point is that the team, TCRPC with our consultants, even working with your Utilities Department and the South Florida Water Management District and the Fort Pierce Fanners Drainage District we still haven't figured that out. We know that that's something that still needs to be addressed, and tying it now and saying it will be only one entity will probably then require coming back and making a change. This is something that has not, we have not been able to define yet. Going on to issue number two which is reviewing the April 8th strike through and underline I will go through this in as much as you all feel comfortable. What I do is I have every single page of the document that I can put on the screen. What we've done is since we met with your staff this morning we've incorporated those really good comments that they had regarding the text, I don't know to tell you the truth, I don't think we should jump directly to those. I can tell you where those changes have happened, but it's up to you Mr. Chair how you want to handle this part P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 14 ~ ....,¡ given that your board is not. .. Chair Grande - I'm looking at the rest of the board, my own sense is unfortunately we haven't had really the opportunity to go through the underline and strike through version, so if you were to walk us through it, it would be a very time consuming process at this point and we would not be prepared to comment, whereas I think, I'm not sure based on where you are now, or I'm pretty sure that as a result of this meeting that's not going to be the document that comes back to us next month. We haven't even heard from the public yet and you haven't really gotten specific comments ITom this group yet and I would assume that there is a chance that somebody is going to say something that is worth something. So I'm going to suggest that the underline and strike through probably will not be what comes back next month. What is going to come back next month should be to us at least a week in advance of next month's meeting, we will have then had the opportunity to go through it individually and prepare our comments and we can walk through the document and approve or comment at that point and time. Assuming that there is no objection up here I would actually skip that part of this procedure in favor of getting whatever comments we're going to receive. Ms. Camplor - I think that's fine I know that... Chair Grande - Unless there are any major philosophical changes that you would like to put on the table now. Ms. Camplor - No, I know that one of our consultants would like to address the board just very briefly and the other thing too is to address Mr. McCurdy's issues. Just remember that if you do have any questions today, and I know we're going to bring our counsel back next time, but she is here. So if I can have Mr. Spike just address the board for a few minutes. Peter Spike - I'm one of the consultants on the team. I just wanted to briefly mention that the cornerstone behind the whole idea is a Transfer Development Rights program where there are currently development rights established over all the land and the end point that we're trying to end up with is a situation where there are large areas of land that no longer have development rights. So that's a TDR thing and the question of whether or not TDRs are takings or unfair to people and that sort of thing are very real and valid questions because if they're not done right, they are. One thing that I wanted to bring up is that this May 4 at our Committee for Sustainable Treasure Coast Rural Lands Subcommittee meeting that starts at 8 o'clock at the Indian River Research and Education Center in Fort Pierce and the morning session is open to the public, this is the subcommittee that's working on the strategy for rural land preservation, that sort of thing. We're going to have Jim Nicholas with us to talk about TDR programs in Florida and other places in the country to talk about where they worked, why they worked, and why they failed, so if, I think it would help everybody if they could understand more about TDR programs as a philosophical way of going about transferring development rights around. That may help this make more sense when you're trying to read this and interpret it and determine whether or not our proposal is a fair way to do it. I just wanted to mention that. Ms. Morgan - We have a growth management planning meeting on May 4 and 5, two days so that's in conflict, and I've already registered for that. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page IS .-. ...., Ms. Hensley - May I ask if Mr. Spike could be sure that there is either video or a hard copy or something that we could look at that. Mr. Spike - Yes ma'am, we're videoing all of those meetings. Ms. Hensley - That would be very much appreciated, because most of us have already committed to the University of Florida program that they're going to offer. Mr. Spike - We're also going to have at the same meeting the growth management directors from St. Lucie, Indian River, and Martin and the Treasure Coast to talk a little bit about North 8t. Lucie, so that's a whole day on land use stuff, our local issues that are going on here. Chair Grande - May I suggest that either you get to Michael or Michael get from you at the end of that day the tape of that meeting. Because I agree with you, I think that's the crocks of this presentation, it is incredibly important that we all understand it and if that's going to shed light on it for us, we should view that before our next hearing on this issue. Mr. Spike - We'll have it up to you the next day. Ms. Camplor - I guess since we're not going to be going through this item by item there is probably no point in looking at the proposed amendment to the tax for your recommendations, so whatever you want to do right now, it's your call. Chair Grande - If there is no objection, if there are no questions up here, what I would suggest is opening the public portion getting the public comments on the record, so that these folks can take what they want from them. Ms. Hensley - May I ask that if members of the panel up here have specific questions that could be addressed that they email them or send them in writing to the TCRPC so they can have their responses ready and will understand what the depth of the questions and I think that could hold true for the public too if they have questions or concerns they can always let the TCRPC know what their concerns are, so that in writing it's sometimes easier to be able to answer. Chair Grande - I know that the next thing that's going to happen before they leave is Marcella is going to put her email address up on the screen, so that she gets bombarded over the next month. Ms. Camplor placed her email address on the screen studio(@,tcrpc.org Cbairman Grande opened tbe public portion of tbe bearing. David Weiss, owner of Bluewater Groves which is a 38 acre grove fronting Coblegard Road north of Indrio. There are several philosophical problems that I have and some actual problems. The actual problems are those that were outlined by Mr. McCurdy. The issue is one of evaluation of TDRs and that is when I met with TCRPC; let me preface that by saying, I was notified of this three weeks ago, I've owned the property for over two years, I was never asked to P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 16 '-' ....,,¡ be a part of this process, I was never included. I am not the only grove owner that's in that position. So for there to be a statement that everyone is onboard with this, is ludicrous, it's not true. Chair Grande - I'm not sure anybody has said everybody is onboard with this. Mr. Weiss - It has been stated. There is a question of due process, there is a question that if I as a land owner have one density unit to the acre right now and after this plan is passed I have one density unit to 50 acres that there's a major problem. What this is, is a taking without calling it a taking. When I asked the nice people at TCRPC, by the way after making numerous phone calls, numerous emails, I then had to hire an attorney and then I did get a meeting with TCRPC. When I asked them how would you value a TDR there was no answer. When I told them that I had a deal on this property that went south as a result two days after the TVC was published, I had no answer. When I told them that three appraisers couldn't put a value on my property after the TVC was passed there was some scoughing and well there's just no way, there's got to be value, but no mathematical fonnula to show me exactly what it would be. Vice-Chair Hearn - Where did the concept of one unit per acre go to one unit per 50 acres, how did you arrive at that? I'm not sure ifI understand what you're saying, I missed that. Mr. Weiss - My understanding of reading of the document and based on the advise of counsel is that there is a density of one unit to 50 acres, meaning that there would be a family fann, I wouldn't be able to have the one unit to the acre and I would be able to basically have it titled to my family for the next umpteen years. Couldn't subdivide it, couldn't sell the one acre parcels that I had planned to when I purchased it after I was done fanning the property. As a little background, everybody knows the hardships that fanners like myself are going through; the hardships that we had two of the worst stonns in the season in this part of the country in history decimated our farm. I've had my, Steve Kassins who manages my farm and a number of other farms in this area basically say it wouldn't be economically prudent for him to continue to manage the fann when it is developed as a TVC as said that it would. So for the idea that we're going to have this Greenacres life, where you have the family farm down the street on Coblegard and we can walk to the Mom and Pop Store, is a fantasy. It's not going to happen. The fanners do not live on these fanns and they're not going to because some plan says they're going to; and no one is going to buy the farm from someone like myself and no one is going to fann it so what is going to happen is it is going to be all vacant land and it will be a taking without calling it a taking. Vice-Chair Hearn - I can assure you this board member will never vote for a document that's going to change your property trom one unit per acre to one unit per 50 acres or anything less than what you have now. Mr. Weiss - Well I would appreciate that. I think that it's important that the document states that. That's a real concern that we have and it's a concern that I had. The answer that I had was, well we're not taking anything from you, because we're going to give you TDR credits. Again we need to have a very thorough understanding of what they are and it's not here. I don't understand how you can send a plan on without a thorough understanding as how you're going to P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 17 '- ....,., value these very important credits. As their expert said this is the fundamental philosophy underlying this document and if they haven't spelt it out in the document, then the vehicle can't work and you've got a wobbly wheel. The way I see it is that you have a wobbly wheel no matter how much you stack on top of that vehicle, it's still going to have a wobbly wheel and it won't work. It will not make it's way to Tallahassee, despite the fact that they want to rush the judgment and rush it up to Tallahassee. The fact that they want to hurry this thing, shouldn't hurry your analysis and careful contemplation and it doesn't mean that, I'm told in the business world that because it is your emergency, doesn't make it my emergency. That's what we're being told today. So if anyone has any questions for me, I appreciate the time. Carin Kilday of Kilday and Associates, land planners - I represent Glassman Holdings who own property both inside and outside the USB area, but entirely within the boundaries of towns, villages, and countrysides. There is a lot of issues out there and I can't go through them all tonight and there's a lot of people tonight and we have another opportunity to come back. I want to hit on a few things just to try to get clarification. The devils and the details as we know, we saw a very nice watercolor of vision for tomorrow, when we saw it, we said, well how are you going to get there and frankly this is a start down the road, but it is a very first small step and we need to; I've gone through three versions of this thus far and I'm going to refer to my last version but my page numbering is probably off now. But I think that making sure that we all know what we're getting is important. Chair Grande - If you're going to refer to a version, could you please give us the date off the front. Mr. Kilday - I'm going to use the April 8 version but without the underlined edition. Three things, first of all regarding my client a specific case, they own the property which is within the USB area at the northwest comer of Indrio Road and Emerson A venue. The property shows up under Table 3. on page 3.2 there's a map showing transferable density. The property shows up at that comer colored grey, as best that I can interpret it, it means it has no transferable density while it is in the area and there is only about three or four parcels which were awarded the color grey and we would like some clarification on that. You go to the back of your document, you have an Exhibit A, no page number, and that shows the current land use and correctly shows the property as being commercial, as it is planned and zoned. If you go to the next Exhibit B.. Chair Grande - Is that the answer to your question, that is, and I'm looking really behind.. . Mr. Kilday - If you want the answer to the first question, that's as I say, that's fine, whichever way you want to go. Chair Grande - Has the TCRPC assigned no density to commercial properties and is that the explanation to what you're ...? Mr. Kilday - I don't know that's why I'm asking the questions maybe someone could.... Ms. Camplor - That TDV plan that Mr. Kilday is referring to is what we need to use to start so that indicates what those properties had when we first began before we did anything in the P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 18 ~ "'wI TVCs. So whatever had one unit to the acre is colored one color, whatever had commercial is colored another color so in your Future Land Use Map that property did not have any residential, it had commercial, that's why it's colored grey. Mr. Kilday - Okay, so I think that answers I have no transferable development rights on this site. Exhibit A shows it's existing land use designation of commercial, Exhibit B shows it in the new TVC color of blue, but then Figure 3-12 which is a figure that shows general retail locations, I think that's on Page 3-28 shows where those retail areas are and if you get to that map you'll see Emerson Boulevard and the map so detailed that it actually shows a little village comer store up the street rrom us on Emerson Avenue. But what it does show is that there is no commercial now located at that intersection. We have concerns, it was just stated earlier that we're not taking away any rights, but if I go through the plan as it is, I have no development option, transfer of unit option, and I have no commercial option in the end plan and I would like to have that looked at. Second item, and I will try to move a little quicker. If you go to Page 3-24 you have Table 3.5 and it gives an example of how the system works and how the density is calculated. I think that this table needs to be further added to because I think it is incorrect as shown or at least misleading. I'll tell you why. If you go through the table as it is, it shows how on a 500 acre village you would end up with 688 units because 75% of your property is open space and you get a 1.5 ratio. In that sense everything is correct on it, the problem is, when you get to the bottom line I now have a village center that has 688 units and 500 acres, but when I go to Table 3.2 which gives me the minimum criteria for village centers, it says the minimum density is five units per acre, so for me to build this village center I can't build it with 688 units, I'm required to build it with 2,500 units. So now I have a piece of property that is allowed 688 units, and I've got to find 1,812 units somewhere else and it can't be within the USB line, because I can't transfer my units rrom inside to outside; so I have to go and find 1,812 units at the density transfer 1.5 units per acre, which means I need 1,200 acres additionally. A village center really is 1,700 acres, because I have to get the development rights off an additional 1,200 acres, that's two square miles of property to build a village center. If you go to the next chart, where it goes to Town Centers, it's the same thing. The other issue it needs to point out and maybe this is where the 16,000 additional units are going, is that I have to put all 2,500 units on 25% of my 500 acres. So I'm now putting 2,500 units on 125 acres and that is 20 dwelling units per acre in the town center. Now if I want some single-family homes, they're going to be 5 units per acre, I'm going to have to have some land in there that's being developed at 40 units per acre. We're now at six, seven, eight story buildings in order to accommodate the mandatory minimum density. The bottom line is there will be a lot of green space in it and there is no doubt in that, but it won't be a Vermont Village as shown in the cover of this document. It is going to look like a downtown urban area stuffed in that 125 acres. I think the plan needs to clarify that because I think the general public is looking at the painting and not looking at the details, and it is a very important detail, 20 units per acre is far and above the densities of average rental garden apartments that we build which are usually only 12, 14 units per acre. Last item, we need data in detail and I think I went through that with you to say that's why we P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 19 '-" ...., need it. If you go to the chart on roads which is 3-32 it tells you the future widening of roads. It shows Indrio Road from Johnson Road to US Highway 1 as remaining a two-lane road through 2030. Now the irony is and you are there two nights ago I had a project on Indrio Road and I can't get it approved today because the road doesn't meet concurrency as a two-lane road. So how is it that we don't meet concurrency today, we're adding all these new units plus all the land that's never been built out there and the road is going to be able to stay as a two unit? We have to have consistency within the planning. Clearly, my problem is, I don't have the data, your own staff report said we think it is 23,000 units, but we don't have the data; we're told tonight it's 16,000 units, we need to know. But then we need to know is how do you make the roads work with that area. My last item and I added this item and I just heard the gentleman before me speak to it. I think it is outrageous that TCRPC would suggest to you that you would send a half finished plan to the DCA and call it a living document. If I'm submitting a DR! to TCRPC, I could be there a year and a half making it right before that thing moves forward. I think the standards that government applies to the private sector also should apply to the government as well. Thank you. Ms. Camplor - I think I would be more than happy and anyone in our staff would be to spend as much time as is necessary as we have spent with all of you with planners like Mr. Kilday explaining the math behind all of this. Actually the number of units that you need in a village to develop a village is 438. I got lost in how he did the math, but the net average density is what we're looking at, not gross five units to the acre over the 500 acres. I don't want to go back to that number because I don't know how he got to that, but this is what I can tell you the units you would need in a village after you do the net average density. All the other issues we can address them I think again when we go back to all the policies and I will address any of the question that you think I should. Chair Grande - Going through what Mr. Kilday was saying one of the statements, if I heard that right was, having to go out and acquire another 1,700 acres and the only concept that I think was missed there was it wasn't acquiring the land, it was acquiring the development rights and that's how the land got put into open space. But I think the most important thing that came out of this presentation and I really appreciate your making it is it seems clear to me that Mr. Kilday as a representative of a major developer in the area and you really need to be in the same room for some period of time and come out of it with some agreement as to what his role as a developer in this future plan would be and it would be real interesting to see what his reaction to the definition of that role would be. I would be real interested to have Mr, Kilday come back to us after having done at our meeting where we're hearing the updated plan and tell us why he is then so satisfied with the answers that he got. Ms. Camplor - And we'll be happy to schedule that meeting. Chair Grande - Great. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, I've lived in the same home for 26 years here in St. Lucie County. I've also been involved in developing a number of master planned communities. Three of which I believe that all of you probably know well and two maybe not so well. First was P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 20 '-r' "wJ4 Martin Downs in Stuart, which I was associated with from 1980 to 1988; after that was Huntington in Broward County; after that it was St. Lucie West, then Vierra in Brevard County, then back here at Tradition, in St. Lucie County. I've been a community developer for the last 25 years. A community developer is one who builds a community that contributes to the economic and social benefits of the community. Today people are buying lifestyle more than they're buying a particular home from a particular builder. So it is important for all the community developers to build lifestyle to build something where somebody wants to live. In Martin Downs is a community of less than 2,500 acres and the actual build out was somewhere around 4,000 units. 8t. Lucie West was 4,600 acres and will reach build out this year with approximately 9,000 units. Tradition which is being built by Core Communities is approximately 8,000 acres and will be something in the neighborhood of 20,000± units at build out. Majority of those communities therefore average somewhere less than 2.5 units per acre overall. One of the slides that was presented here by the TCRPC you have currently approximately 21,000 units on 20,000 acres or 21,000 acres. What they are proposing is 37,000 units on 21,000 acres. An average density of approximately 2.3 persons per household you start with an overall population on 21,000 units of approximately 46,000 and if you do the same math on 37,000 units, you're doubling the population to approximately 85,000. You have in this plan and there is a lot of elements in this plan that are good for master plans sustainable communities. However, the important thing for all of this to work is to have the infrastructure in place. The road way network, a way that those roads, the right-of-ways are going to be acquired and those roads are going to be built. Now that maybe with an impact fee program or whatever, but you need to have that in place before this starts or nothing happens. As happened the other night with the project that was not approved because it did not meet concurrency. I believe that development needs to be concurrency. I believe that development needs to pay its own way. I'm a taxpayer here in St. Lucie County just like the rest of you and I believe that development needs to pay its own way with impact fees, that support schools, support fire stations and support a transportation network. But the transportation network is the key to making this thing work and if you don't have a method, a financing method that gets those roadways built, nothing happens. Some of the specific issues that I have, we don't have the LDRs today and without the LDRs we don't know what some of the other practical issues are with respect to densities that were eluded to by the previous speaker. Multi-story condos are not going to sell out in the countryside. There is no view. Multi-story condos sell on the beach because there is a view, and so getting density or having density transfer may not mean a thing if you cannot sell it. In addition, if everybody is getting it and everybody has to build to the same standard, you're creating an economic issue with competition between developments that will be very problematic for the marketplace and for the local economy as well, because they can't all succeed. The specific issues that I have are with the open space, I believe that the open space, you should be able to have platted lots, maybe they're larger platted lots, maybe they're two and one-half acre platted lots, but they are not put into public ownership and maintenance. Whether that's through a CDD or property owners association, those people are going to be taxed on that. They need to know upfront how that's going to be handled, putting it in private ownership providing the necessary public access points around those platted lots I believe accomplishes the same thing, rather than providing that open space. I don't feel that you need to change your open space requirements. I think the other issue is that I think that this plan needs to encourage development and give some bonuses for development that meet the planning, technical requirements that the County is looking for with new development. There should be some P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 21 ~ -' bonuses for somebody that participates with that. But if you don't participate, you should still have the same rights that you have today with respect to the use of your property. Chair Grande - The last part of what you were saying about there should be some bonuses for participating and you should have the right to do it the old way if you choose not to participate, if 1 understood correctly and 1 think 1 did, 1 thought the new plan did have roughly a two for one bonus built in and is that not what you're talking about? Mr. Babcock - 1 think that there are other incentives that the... Chair Grande - Above and beyond the doubling of the density? Mr. Babcock - Yes. Tom Sullivan with the law finn of Lounds, Drusdick, Doster, Canter and Reid out of Orlando, Florida, I'm here tonight on behalf of Royal Equestrian Facilities which is a family run business that consists of about 75 acres. It is located west of 1-95 and it is within the proposed TYC amendment area, but outside of the USB just by way of background. 1 want to address a point that I don't think has been, 1 want to reiterate a couple points that have been raised tonight, but I also want to address one point that I don't think has been raised at this point and that is when you're talking about agricultural uses that are in existence today as I understand it and it's repeated and for your reference the most recent version of the TYC that I've read is the April 8 version that doesn't include the underlined text. But in at least a dozen places in the Tye it talks about maintaining the rural character and so forth and I think that's obviously a big part of the community, you can see a picture of it right on the wall over there, that's clearly like a cornerstone of the community. I think it is important to point out one of the provisions that was talked about by Marcella I believe is the Policy 3.1.1.7 which talks about properties that are situated in the case of my client that are outside of the USB and it gives development options for those particular properties. And I believe it says and I'll take a look at the language that I quote it correctly, "properties located outside of the Urban Service Boundary have several options for development in the TYC area, the first being developed as a town or village in accordance with the requirements of the TYC; the second, submit a joint application with adjoining property owners to develop a town or village in accordance with the requirements of the TYC; the third is maintain the property for agricultural uses; and the forth is that as well with contemplating the Transfer of Development Rights concept" which I know there's going to be a lot more discussion about it and clarification on that. When we talk about maintaining the property for agricultural uses I think and again I had an opportunity to talk about this clarification with TCRPC and there was an indication that there was a willingness to look at clarifying some of this language, but I think it is important to be able to say that the, and 1 think it is really vital because the proposed TYC Future Land Use Designation, if you look at the back of the packet here, for those of you that have it, on Page 1, but it comes after Page 3-38 you have at the bottom the proposed TYC future land Use Designation and it doesn't show that any of the existing zonings would be compatible within it. I understand that the entire concept of the TYC is to sort of prevent the one to one type of development; 1 think that is kind of a separate issue that deserves discussion. But 1 think that it is important with regard to the agricultural uses that are pennitted in the zoning districts today, that those, that new development within those agricultural areas is pennitted and P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 22 ~ ..I that in other words on a practical level these folks in similar situations can walk up to the permit desk if they want to have another barn put on there for a horse farm and things like that, that's specifically made clear in the language of the TVC element that you can, that something to the effect of that the existing agricultural uses or agricultural uses that are permitted as zoned today are consistent and not labeled nonconforming use with the TVC element and I think. that's important to have that spelt out in some of these regulations. Let me also point out one inconsistency, I know there are going to be redrafts of this, but let me just point this out and something that occurred to me. Chair Grande - Before you go on, I am a bit confused by your concern, and I say this really talking to Marcella, I thought in the example that you brought up where somebody had an agricultural use, 100 acres for example with a house on it that they would, if they were going to stay in agriculture and perhaps build a barn or other accessory uses in the future, that's not a problem; and what they would be getting is the opportunity to sell most of the planning rights that they never planned to exercise anyway, so I guess my question is going through that entire discussion what exactly is problematic? Mr. Sullivan - In my view the way the Policy this 3.1.1.7 is drafted today it says "properties located outside the USB have several options for development. One is, maintain the property for agricultural uses." To me that is not clear that new development can occur of an agricultural character that is zoned for agricultural uses today. I think. it is important to make it clear that there is not some sort of, that's it, if you.... Chair Grande - If you don't have a farm yet, you can't have one. Mr. Sullivan - Right, or additional components to the farm and I just think. that's important to let folks understand that they can continue with that. Let me come back to something that was raised earlier, as I understand it, as it is drafted today, the properties that are outside of the USB really have, they can sort of, if you're not 500 acres, if you're not a town or village, what are you left with if in the future you desire to sell the property or develop it yourself; what are your options? Just to take the example that I'm using which relates to our client; you're 75 acres, if you're not part of a town or village outside ofthat what can you do? I think it is vital that that be clarified whether we're talking about if you revert to the existing future land use designation of one. to one, can you do that? Let me just come back to something that when the TCRPC was talking about this language, was talked about if you submit with was what was said, if you submit with other owners that could comprise, if you could get to the 500 acres in other words to go forward with the village style of development that's great then you could develop under this type ofland use, if that's what you desire. But what if you don't do it at this point, what if you want to keep going forward with your agricultural program now and who knows what the future holds, you might want to link. with that village later, but are you sort of kind of at the mercy of whether they want you to be a part of it, can't you just develop in accord with that type of use. I think. it is important to have really to be able to expressly say that and I know Mr. McCurdy you talked about if you're not adjacent that's another issue then you've got additional problems to consider, but I think for those folks that can't get to the village number in the case of being outside the USB you're talking about 500 acres, there's an ambiguity there that needs to be addressed and I think. can be addressed by revising some of these. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 200S Page 23 '-' .." Chair Grande - I'm going to look at Marcella here because I don't think it is ambiguous, I think it is clear, I think it may not be attractive based on what you're looking for, but I think it is clear. Ms. Camplor - Obviously we're going to think that it is clear because we wrote it, but a couple of things to answer to Mr, Sullivan. I think we did have a phone conversation today, just to go quickly back to the agricultural issue and making sure that those uses could be preserved, I went back to the document and looked at the definition of agricultural and it also talked about livestocks, so that would take care of the horse fanns. Yes, as you said, it's probably not desirable and it is the one big issue in the LPAlBOCC meeting that we had, we said there are two big issues, we're going to talk about open space and how and who this gets developed. We did also recommend to him that even though they did not have the intent to develop today, the fact that they are adjacent to a development that is going to potentially going to be a town, it is just major size, that they should begin conversations with their neighbor to at this point make sure that when that development happens, it happens in such a way that it could plug in, in the future and that their parcel can complete that town or complete that village. I think that was our recommendation to them today. Mr. Busha - Just a little philosophical comment one of the issues that we're trying to solve with this whole idea is the situation where right now almost all of the agricultural land in St. Lucie County has land value that is greater than its agricultural production value. That's a benefit to the landowners. That's important to us to have that value and to preserve that value because obviously that might be our retirement plan, it's a way to get financing after hurricanes and all that sort of thing; so we want to make sure that we preserve that. At current though there is only two ways to capitalize on the value of the land that is in excess of its agricultural value and that is to borrow money against it or to sell the land. Those are the only two ways you can cash in on that value, which means that if you're going to do that, you're out of fanning and that's what happened up in North St. Lucie, most of the land up there has been sold to either speculators or developers. What the TDR programs allow you to do and this has been done in other places, it allows the land owner to capitalize on the development potential of this land without having to sell it. So if you want to be a fanner and stay a fanner, there is a way to capitalize on this additional value that we all have right now without having to actually sell it to a developer to get that or to go into debt. Mr. Sullivan - I think some of those explanations provide some clarification on some of the points. I still do think that the, in cases where there is property that's adjacent to a developing village that there should be some flexibility for the notion of the land owners that are adjacent to that to being able to add on to the village by dealing with the County on some level, and not sort of be essentially out ofluck if they're not able to agree on being part of the adjacent village with the developer to develop that village. That's hypothetical, but I think there are going to be some land owners that fit into that box and I think that is more of a reasonable use of their land to be able to realize that type of development structure in the future. Jim Rjsakis, 8801 Indrio Road, the concerns that I see here are mostly economic inequities in this plan. The family fann we don't totally understand. I'm told about the villages and the towns, 500 acres versus 625, I'm also told that you could develop on as little as 125 acres if you were P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 24 '-' ."J doing a village and have the other property owned somewhere else within the Charrette area. The problem where the inequity would come in and the economic inequity would be those people that have less than 125 acres, they're really left in a life raft, as time goes on, what can they do with their property. It has been mentioned in a lot of different ways. I heard conversation about Mike mentioned having a meeting with the property owners. I highly suggest that we do that and probably a couple of them and I highly suggest rather than just those people that have heard and whatever they make it their job to contact those people either under 500 acres or especially on 125 acres, because those are the ones that are going to have the real economic impact. I visited with Mike on a few issues and we never got back in touch with each other on the two for one for the TDRs. If you've got viable lands such as paved road frontage say for instance Indrio like Suzy Carin has then you might have some property on the dirt road such as I have in other areas and the, what I'm saying is, and then you have land that just has easements, you have different values of land. To give everybody two for one, that's an inequity, because you have valuable land now on paved road frontage, you've got less valuable land located in other areas and we have a lot of land out there that can't even be built on because of the way it was set up years ago. So what does this do, it raises the inexpensive land and lowers the expensive land and because the developers should, and if I'm a developer, I'd buy the least expensive TDRs I can get, so there's tons of economic inequities in this thing. An overlay would resolve that problem. Mr. Hearn I heard you mention that the practicality of this thing being built out to the extent that suggested probably may not happen; I heard Mr. Babcock speak in the same manner. So I think an overlay with incentives is what Mr. Babcock suggested I think would be a great idea, you give people incentives to do better things and you still don't take away people's rights from what they can do now. There in is going to be a lot of issues between property owners and staff. To try to get this to the DCA too quick, hurriedly, is going to be a grave mistake and an inequity again to us because we can bring our attorneys now to discuss it with yourselves and the County Commission right here; it goes to DCA what have we got to do then. You all probably won't even be able to continue, probably out of the loop, it would be between the County Commission and the attorneys we have fighting to preserve our rights and we don't want you all out of the loop. We love how you think. Having said that, again Mr. Babcock talked about roads, I agree, but what about water. We have not served the property yet that is inside the USB area and that was one of the concerns with moving it before. We haven't taken care of those that are inside of it and there was talk about moving it. I think the only reason we didn't want it moved probably is so that we could get services to those that didn't have it and then let's continue to move. Roads were a concern for some, I'm concerned about water and where is that going to come from? I heard the comment made, I want to reiterate let's make sure we all know what we're getting, because then we would know whether it would be happy or unhappy. At this point I do not know what we are getting, Patrick Hodges with Olson and Associates of Northwest Florida we are the owners of 780 acres of land that lies within the master plan area, it's at the southeast intersection of 1-95 and Indrio Road. We've been involved in the master planning process and the DRI process for many months. Our company was involved in the initial workshop that took place in January, 2004 and the follow-up meeting that occurred in February. We had a pre-application meeting before submitting our ADA, we were able to take the plan that was presented at that pre-app and submit it as it was, there were virtually no comments, negative, there were some positive comments made, so we submitted the ADA in August of last year. Our first comments came back a couple P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 25 '-' ...." months late due to Mother Nature's influence last fall on October 20. The second round was received in January, 2005. During all those receipts of comments, we had no significant opposition or what we thought substantive issues to deal with. In December we were invited to come down to meet with the TCRPC to discuss possible revisions to the plan based on the document you have before us tonight for consideration. We had a one hour meeting that was supposed to be followed up the next day with presentation of a revised plan, since that didn't occur due to cancellation on the part of the TCRPC, we came back in February of this year, met with them and we were presented with a revised plan that was prepared by the TCRPC with assistance from their consultants and of course, the in-house studio group there. We certainly were surprised by the changes, they were significant, the changes that were presented in the plan, the organization, the structure of the plan was entirely different, but we did not withstand all of the suggestions that were made and as a result of that meeting, we were able to arrange for a two- day workshop or Charrette if you prefer that term, where we met with the TCRPC staff and the consultants and spent a couple of days trying to resolve the disparate qualities of the two plans. I think that it is certainly fair to say that there was willingness on our part to make that plan better and to work towards the plan that had been given to us in February and we made a lot of progress. However, we still have many concerns and a great deal of work to do in order to resolve the differences between the plan that was presented to us, we left our meeting which took place on March 23 and 24 with an agreement that we would both go back and work further from the plan that we left the meeting with as a point of departure with an understanding that we would meet again to compare revisions or refinements of that plan that would be prepared independently and hopefully be able to mail those two plans into a hybrid. We've yet to do that, but we're still willing to follow that course of action and we made a commitment during that meeting to do the best we can to meet the stated objectives and goals of the TYC. We certainly think many of them are good objectives and represent good planning thought and principles. However, we do have a lot of concerns, not the least of which is the open space requirement. Our initial plan, although the requirement at the time was only 30% open space actually provided for 47% open space, which is a significant contribution on our part. We feel like there are many, many irritative steps to take in resolving the differences between the two plans that we had and the one that we are currently working on. We certainly want to support your suggestion of a continuance of this meeting. We would urge you to, because of the magnitude and the scope of this document, to consider a special hearing for this meeting only and not be arbitrarily constrained by a schedule which is, in my opinion, impossible to meet. That we all have time to further discuss and then hopefully resolve in a very positive way the differences that we all have now. Because there are many and there are many miles to go before we sleep. Ms. Hammer - Mr. Hodges, the two-day workshop was that just your corporation and the TCRPC or were other developers also? Mr. Hodges - We were the only landowners represented. Chair Grande - I would like to say that I have been very pleasantly surprised and grateful for the patience shown by so many members of the investment community and development community, not just yourself, but Mr. Kilday is sitting out here who has been trying to move forward and is in roughly the same position. The County as you can see trying to move as quickly as possible to come up with what their vision for the future for this area is and having P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 26 '-" ..,.j investors and developers that are willing to participate in that and come up with something that is good at the end of the day is probably the best thing that can happen for all of us. Mr. Hodges - Thank you very much. I do want to go ahead and reiterate the few of the concerns that are more specific than the generalities that I have eluded to. I think that we would support the suggestion of County staff that this TYC document be considered not as a component and actual part of the Comprehensive Plan, but more appropriately as a design guideline, we certainly want the open space issue to be given a great deal more consideration and discussion, both in public hearing and in smaller meetings between the TCRPC and the landowners, not only the large landowners, such as ourselves, but more the landowners like the ones I met with this afternoon who have smaller tracts, 40 acres, 75 acres in size, as well as some of the larger developers. We are concerned about the burden that the open space concept might place on the taxpayers and citizens of this community, because there really isn't a clear financial performer that demonstrates how that can actually be accomplished. It would be a tremendous cost in restoration of these agricultural lands to natural forested communities or plant communities or even recreational uses; not to mention the ongoing cost of management and maintenance which will be significant. We think that it's important that the plan for that and the densities and the concepts in the TYC clearly be demonstrated, we need a demonstration that's clear and easy for everyone to understand that shows how they work. What the physical fonn of the town or the village center will be and that the marketplace is willing to accept that. That it is financially feasible for people to develop these properties and that's really what the citizens of this community want. Thank you. Bobby Klein, law firm of Klein and Dobbins, I do want to say that I've been trying to review this in the midst of all the other things that I've been doing. Mike and I have traded some philosophical discussions about the concept in general. I have not had a chance to get with him specifically about this; I too would echo the opportunity not only for the landowners but to sit with some of the peers sooner rather than later to talk about these concepts. I was going to wait and try to meet with Mike because of the fact that we have had a long standing relationship, but I think given the forum here, I think it is better to get these out and some of these are more comments, some of them maybe questions, so I thought it was better to get it to help them do their remite. Echoing the last gentleman's comments and one in staffs, the detail concerns me. I was actually struck by essentially the duality of this document, if you will. Parts of it have been criticized because there is not enough detail, there is not enough infonnation, there is not enough what appears to be not enough data and analysis, yet it's going through with the expectation that that's enough to get it through. While at the same time the parts of this document has significant amount of detail that I believe are misplaced in a Comprehensive Plan. I would differ with staff though in the sense that I don't believe a design guideline is part of a Comprehensive Plan is the answer either. I would say this on behalf of someone who represents developers as well as someone who used to do what you do, sat on the Planning and Zoning Commission for six years and as a government reviewing it. If through the practice, if through the utilization of these rules, whatever is passed, there are problems, then it will take another Comprehensive Plan to change them and when you talk about the patience, I think that patience is not there to last another 18 to 24 months depending on what time you get in and how long it takes you to develop the changes and when it is processed through the DCA. I would think that as you know, you have seen many glitch Bills come through where staff as it implemented the P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 27 ~ 'WI Land Development Code (LDC) realizes that there are provisions that don't work; or there are internal inconsistencies, if that happens in this document, we're going to be right back with a Comprehensive Plan amendment waiting for the submittal period, and as you have been advised, you only get two a year and if you miss it, then you have to wait another six months or so to get there and then start the process, I believe the appropriate location for the details are the LOR which should come at the same time that we are discussing these Comprehensive Plans so that you and we can evaluate the broad policy which is all that should be in the Comprehensive Plan and the implementation which should be in the LOC. That way you will know and we will know what is expected. From a staff perspective, staff I do not believe could take this document and judge a development as to whether or not it complies with these rules. I understand that the LORs are coming, but I believe that should the LDRs in the process then detennine that there was a problem with the Comprehensive Plan, how do we go back and fix what we've already submitted? I think this has to be done as one package. Very similarly to what the County Commission recently implemented that now a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment change must come forward with at least a PUD master plan of some sort, so they can understand what the developer is intending to do. At least get an idea of how it is going to be implemented as broad land use change. As was mentioned earlier, I believe that the same rules that apply to the development community should apply to the government when they're implementing this document. I've got a couple of specific issues that I would like to bring up. I probably have several smaller ones which I can save until a later time. One of the things that's actually confused me and I've looked at this I don't know how many times and just can't get comfortable with it, is in Policy 3.1.1.1.2 that is the Reduced Requirements that is on Page 33 of the one that doesn't have the strike through and this is talking about development within the USB, because that is the one that confuses me. New development located within the USB within a special area plan have a reduced requirement for countryside open space and have no minimum parcel size as outlined in Policies listed. This is the sentence I'm trying to implement, development shall adhere to the settlement principles and TVC land development regulations, well of course, I just indicated we don't know what the LOR are, so I'm having a hard time looking at this and understanding what is expected of someone inside the USB. But when you go to the settlement principles in 3.1.4.2 and that starts on Page 36, this is the discussion of what properties inside the USB must do to develop. Let's take for example 40 acres somewhere inside the USB that is within this area, if you read that neighborhoods fonn the basic building block, that's something that we've heard, you look at, first of all it says "in general each neighborhood shall have a well defined edges and range from 80 to 150 acres in size, not including the land set aside for the countryside component ". First of all, I just told you that it doesn't seem to do that. If you look at paragraph 2 it says " a neighborhood shall contain a mix of uses including residential, retail, office, civic, and recreation spaces that support the daily needs ". Within the USB the open space requirement has been reduced to 40%; on a 40 acre site that's 16 acres, so we now have 24 acres of developable land, within that 24 acres I'm supposed to have residential, retail, office, civic, and recreation. Chair Grande - I hate to interrupt you, but I think you're going ahead with something that nobody ever conceived of and that is developing 40 acres as a 40 acre piece. The entire concept of the plan is to look at the neighborhood as a whole. Now the 40 acre piece may wind up as P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 200S Page 28 '-" .~ part of a neighborhood or it might wind up as being open space that provides credits for the neighborhood, but the 40 acre piece will never and I want to stress this and get a concurrence the TCRPC, the 40 acre parcel will never be a development itself as a stand alone development and that's the entire concept that's in front of us. Mr. Klein - I understand what you're saying, but I would admit it that I don't quite understand what I'm reading here, but this is inside the USB, I'm talking about a specific piece of property that right now has Residential, Medium land use on it, nine units to the acre, it has those entitlements now. I don't believe you're saying that that property owner does not have the right to the current land use and zoning within the USB where the County has demonstrated that they have to provide urban services and allow them to develop. Ms. Camplor - I think that Mr. Klein is right, inside the USB you do not have a minimum parcel requirement, therefore, you do not have to build a town or a village. You were right in that. Or x number of jobs with the idea that whether you're building outside or inside the USB we're still trying to create sustainable developments. That will be part of a bigger whole, but you were exactly right in your concept. Mr. Klein - I would beg to differ with Marcella, I just represent developers, I don't spend their money and I don't build the houses, but if you've got 24 acres that you're now putting your nine units per acre on and you've got to have drainage, parking, utilities, buffers, where are the mix of uses going to go? I'm having a hard time understanding that. If you look on 3-7 this is essentially the neighborhood diagram, this is the one that's got the nice town square and all the property going around it. Remember, this is property that's already in the USB, there is probably not that many pieces that have not been developed, but the ones that have been developed are surrounding it, I'm not saying that they don't have some good ideas in here, but this one size fits all really bothers me. I'm just not sure where we killed creativity, we killed flexibility. Mike and I have had a number of conversations and I would be the first to admit, he's right, the way they do it in Palm Beach, when you see some of the things there, that's not the way we want to do it. We can do better, we can do different. But I'm sorry, doing it just this way, everybody does the same thing, I don't think that's any better. I think there needs to be the ability for the creativity, that's how our system became what it was. Have the over-riding principles, have the rules, and have different ways to meet the concepts. To put one size fits all in the Comprehensive Plan is just asking for a world of trouble. The other really big concept that I want to get to is the discussion of the special area plan and this is 3.1.3.1, Page 3-5 Special Area Plan and it basically, it is 3.1.3.1 and it says "the special area plan shall" and then there are 13 items listed, all of which presumably or not presumably, actually this mandates that a special area plan must meet each of these requirements as they have created. Now I go to Policy 3.1.3.2 Item No.1, well sorry, let me go to the last sentence of 3.1.3.2, "special area plans that have been so approved include the following" and it says the North County Citizens Master Plan, which is where this all started, I'm fairly certain, but I've missed where it was approved. I don't know that there is any action taken by this board or the County Commission that has given fonnal status to that Master Plan. It was a concept, a bunch of people met over a weekend, the Design Studio met, drew some pictures, came back and we all talked about it and looked at it and this grew out of it. I'm not taking issue with the fact that this grew out of it, what I'm taking issue with the fact that this document seeks to go back and give P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 29 ~ .....,¡ status to that plan that doesn't exist. First of all, the County Commission never fonnally approved it, so it doesn't have any fonnal status of law. Second, when you read the description here it says "the ideals generated by the Charrette process are illustratively depicted and do not portray a property specific land development plan ". I'm confused now. How does staff look at something that pwports to come in with this special area plan, how is the developer suppose to develop something that they can then bring to staff and when they finally do that, how does staff review it and tell you whether or not it meets anything? Let me go one further. Look at Item No. lIon the list, "to be a special area plan" I believe that there are probably some of these items that they've met. I don't think there is any question, I also believe some probably have been met, but there is not the data and analysis that any of us have seen to be able to confinn that.· But I'm having a real hard time with No. 11. It doesn't say review, it says "establish a financial strategy for the operation and maintenance of infrastructure". Now you've heard that mentioned here a couple of times, but essentially, that is water, waste water, drainage, and roads. And you can probably add a few other things to that as well. This looks at an analysis of what's needed, but I'm not aware of any financial strategy that's been established. In fact, I see Mr. Bowers has left or hiding someplace. But I've been working with the Utility Department and I can tell you without a doubt, there is no strategy for extending utilities other than the developers have to pay for the capacity, not only do we have to pay for the capacity, it doesn't exist, they'll go create it, and we're being charged a reservation fee to reserve what doesn't exist, what they're going to create with our money. We're having those discussions now. There is no strategy and it certainly is not being implemented and I have a problem giving any special status to the Charrette as it exists. Now maybe that's not a big part of this, maybe the plan growing out the amendments that are here, maybe that's what comes naturally, but I don't think that you can tell me that this is an approved special plan. One other item that I really haven't looked at fully is this flow away concept. I understand the flow aways are nice, it certainly is a great place to walk and bike and enjoy yourself, but to mandate a flow away on every single development, to mandate that your flow away must connect to somebody else's flow away, I don't understand that. I'm not an engineer, but water does its thing, you can make it do certain things, but if you're going to have flow aways all connected to other flow aways, I'm not sure what that's going to bring. There are some places where retention ponds work just fine. Again, I think that there is a lot in here to be considered, I'm looking forward to participating to having some constructive conversations with the TCRPC and with you again. But those were the big issues that I wanted to hit. Thank you. Michael Busha - I actually agree with Bobby on two counts, one that the plan itself certainly hasn't been adopted. The draft is there to represent what's going to be adopted, hopefully in the future, that's why it's worded that way. The second thing I agree with Bobby on is that, no we shouldn't do this until the LDRs are finished. It was never our intent, never the Commission's intent to adopt a version until those LDRs were done, so people would understand that. One thing about the drainage, the flow aways and things I think that's a good concept; retention ponds work fine, but they all connect to something and represent part of a flow away too. I know Bobby and I need to have some more conversations about this. He's got some good points. Mr. McCurdy - Mike, when are the LDRs going to be done? P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 30 '" ...., Mr. Busha - Over the summer, before we adopt. The adoption hearing isn't schedule till September. That's the Commission schedule, they put us on that schedule. If they choose to change the schedule, that's their choice; we wouldn't recommend that, I think we can work hard and get this done. But we're willing to work on it. But that's the schedule we've been put on. Ms. Morgan - Just a comment, so this is a draft, but it was going to be presented to us tonight to possibly go to DCA with something in here that doesn't exist? Mr. Busha - As a draft. No, it exists. Ms. Morgan - It exists, but it has not been approved. Mr. Busha - Right. We can't adopt it until the Board finally adopts the whole thing. Ms. Morgan - But you have stuff in there that' s untrue. Mr. Busha - No, I don't think there's anything untrue in there. If you could be specific, I could.. . Chair Grande - This is part of the adoption process. What I think they're saying is this needs to go up to DCA for their comment and it would come back with quirks and at the same time you would be going through the LDR adoption process and in September this would be actually considered for approval. Caroline Bellanueva, a representative of Indrio Groves Land Trust on behalf of Lennar Homes. We have a property, 1,026 acres just east of Spanish Lakes Fairways, west of Cupleguard bound to the north by Indian River County and north of Indrio Road. We are following a similar path as Olson and Associate is and we certainly, I would like to take a moment and thank all the hard work that Michael and Marcella and Anthea and all the rest of the consultants have been doing in putting together this plan that's before yourself, us and the rest of us in the audience. Similar to you, there's a lot of areas that need to be dissected and questioned and improved upon, but that's an opportunity for the public and private to come together and get to a plan that everyone can live by, because we're all going to be citizens here. I know I would like to, I'm part of those people who came from Broward County, can't afford to live there, similar to Joe Smith, very much in that mind frame. We've been neighbors here since June of last year. I have done a lot of work in working with Spanish Lakes Fairways helping them with the hurricane, so I don't want to give you guys that this is an investment opportunity, because sometimes the word investor comes around, and I don't particularly care for, maybe it's a matter of diction, but that's not what we're here as. We're here to be neighbors, we've worked with you in other communities as will continue to do in the future. There are some areas that we're concerned in. Yes we had a similar experience that Olson and Associates did with this one hour meeting that we had in mid December with Marcella and some of the consultants to explain what we anticipated to be our development program, in addition to they asked questions and it was a constructive program, but we thought the next day as they had told us we were going to have a plan; that wasn't the case, we had one about six weeks later, it took quite a while, a few efforts. I had to actually drive to Orlando to get that meeting set up. When we did have that, we were presented with a counter-proposal, but I would like to remind you all that we haven't yet P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 31 - '-' ...., submitted an application. You haven't yet seen a site plan. We were given something that was true to what you all are seeing in this plan before you today. What we don't want to do is create a burden on the taxpayers. This 60/40 percentage similar to what some of the previous speakers have said we share in that concern as well. We don't want to create a taxpayer burden to other people, we understand, and we will be responsible for the people that we will be bringing to St. Lucie County. A master plan community that we would do due to the scale and size of our community, not simply because it's TVC, but because it's the right thing to do. It will include a school, it will have hopefully a hurricane shelter, if we can get something like that passed by you all. Something a community that won't be gated. So we are going to enact these principles, these inter-connectivity grid patterns. There are some fundamental principles that we can do as part of this, in the development community, in living here. But forcing people to do it, not giving them options, being held to a double standard, because like others have said here, we seem to be rushing this plan through. But if I were to give you something that was half way done, you would tell me to go back and work on it some more. Vice-Chair Hearn - You mentioned hurricane shelters and you mentioned that we need to do something now, what did you mean by that? Ms. Bellanueva - There is a particular question in the DRI application that's called Hurricane Preparedness and nonnally it requires applicants to address hurricane evacuation routes. What we would do, what would be our evacuation plan to address that? We're taking that one step further and doing something called "Disaster Prepared Community" and we will make our community a model for this. We've been approached by the APA where we can build to a better standard than what exists today, so our community recreation center can also double as a hurricane shelter, not just for our residents, but for other residents, like Spanish Lakes Fairways or Lakewood Park. Because this is a community effort. I was here the day after those hurricanes with those residents in Spanish Lakes Fairways. We were in Lincoln Park handing out those MREs and so I understand the realities of what we went through. Vice-Chair Hearn - So are you saying that you hope that the County... Ms. Bellanueva - No, that's just something we're doing upon our own initiative because it's the social responsible thing to do. Vice-Chair Hearn - I agree with you and I think it needs to be part of our future planning in any development that comes before us. Ms. Bellanueva - I just mentioned that to you all so that you understand that there are things that we're thinking about on this side that we are doing because we put thought, and we're thinking out of the box and not because we have to do it. But when you start imposing things, it's on the delivery, I think this is an opportunity for all of us to come together, but again it needs some more attention to the details. Vice-Chair Hearn - I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expound on what you had said about the hurricane shelters, and I'm glad you did. Thank you. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 32 "". '...I Noreen Dreyer with the Law Finn Ruden McClosky, I've been a landowner and taxpayer in St. Lucie County for 25 years. I care about this county as a citizen ofSt. Lucie County. As some of you know, I've been involved in this North Indrio process for a very long time starting with the USB discussions leading into the Charrette process and now into the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before you today. I also represent a number of clients who have property interests in the Indrio Road area and you have heard ITom quite a few of them already tonight and they provided you with some information regarding the details of this plan that concern them and I hope that you've gotten a flavor for some of the technical problems that really need to be looked at further before anything is transmitted to the DCA. I just want to hit on a couple of more global issues and leave the details to the experts who deal with the details, but first, I think a serious effort needs to be made to notify every landowner in this proposed TVC area. We have no problem notifying surrounding property owners for development applications that come before you and the County Commission; and when the county is proposing to significantly impact the development rights of property owners in this area, I don't think it is too much to ask that they get written notice. It may not be required by law, but I think it would be worth the County's while to make that extra effort and go that extra step. Some folks as you heard tonight were very surprised to hear about what was occurring and what might happen to their land until really a short time ago and I suspect that there are others out here who still don't know. I think that even the TCRPC would agree that certainly that at first property owners meeting and I'm not sure who was doing the notice, I don't want to suggest that anyone was at fault. But certainly the property owners, the landowners, many of them did not know about the landowners meeting and attendance at those meetings has not represented all of the landowners of the properties within that TVC area. Secondly, I am glad to hear that the LDRs are something that are proposed to be adopted at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. I think that was what we expected and what we were told and I'm really glad to hear it. But going along with that, I think part of the problem with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before you and this has been stated before, it's just extremely detailed, I would suggest that it ought to be more general in scope and let's put the details in the LDRs. If our own planning staff, if our professional planning consultant can't understand how it works, then obviously we need to do a lot more work with it. One thing that really concerns me is that in an amendment of this scope with all of the detail that's in it, we have never had the peer review meeting that we were suppose to have that should have been held before it ever came to the County for review, I think it's really critical that something of this nature be tested by others in the field who don't have any interest in this property or in this area who can look at it objectively, look at it ITom a ITesh perspective. Not necessarily that there are any problems here, but we all know when we review our own work, it's very difficult to really see how it works. Finally, I think the Planning Board members are absolutely correct in the first statements that they made tonight, you have no business transmitting anything that isn't in a final form that you're ready to adopt. Let's do something and do it right before we go ahead and send it off to DCA. Thank you. Suzy Carin, 8500 Indrio Road I wasn't sure that I was going to speak tonight, but obviously I have to. From what I've heard here tonight it appears that the consensus from the speakers which consist of mostly representatives developers and landowners, that we need to micromanage this plan before it is submitted. In reality, I have been involved from the start of this project, and let the truth be said, TCRPC has in no way suggested we hurry through this process, but in fact our own County Commissioners have asked for swift action due to the P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 33 ~ ....,J pressure from some of the developers wanting to build and build big now. I believe that if we do this right and all concerns are covered, we would have a near perfect plan. I suggest everyone agree to build nothing until we reach that point. If everyone is truly willing to do the right thing for everyone involved, and we take the greed, and the demands out of the equation we would be able to accomplish what the citizens of north county said they wanted. After all, we are the community and we said it loud and clear at the Charrette what we wanted to see in the north County. I would like to thank the TCRPC for all that they have done in such a very short amount oftime and hope that they will continue to work with our community. Patience is a virture and it is the key to this future plan. I believe that if you don't have a plan, we will be devastated in the North County, so I think that we should work very hard with TCRPC, they have more than shown that they're willing to work with us. I know for a fact that our staff has been in dire straits in the last few months so it's a lot of problems within our own and we have to accept that as well. As far as hurrying this through and we've heard a lot of people say why are you hurrying it, they're not hurrying it, our own Commission has asked, because they've been under tremendous pressure. But if we're all really willing to do the right thing, and I'm certain everyone is, then we will all be patient and will have a beautiful plan. It will put us on the map. Thank you. Vice-Chair Heam - I believe that we've made some horrible mistakes in the past and we've got some major bills to pay because of it. You and I and the rest of the taxpayers of this community and we do need to get it right. We do need to make sure that what we do is going to work for the benefit for the folks that live here along with the folks that are coming to our community expecting to have a quality of life that they are looking for. Ms. Carin - Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. If we have to bring up the big E, Emerson Estates, nobody even likes to go there. I hate it, without a plan, we're looking at PUDs all the way out to 1-95 and those with special interests and this and that, and I think I've said it many times before, I don't see one PUD painting in this room. PUDs originally were made so that you could have open space and what it became was a free for all to add density and it should have never happened. I'm not against PUDs done properly with existing density, but some people came in and started demanding more than they deserved and it's taken a lot for our Commission to stand up and say we will have no more of this, and I'm proud that we've gotten to that point. I really appreciate what you're saying. We live there, and I personally don't want to move. I've been told, well you're going to have to. Well, no actually, I'm not. I like it, I want to stay and I hope, we're neighbors, and I hope that that continues. Vice-Chair Hearn - Well I hope you will stay, and when you look for instance at the school situation when we're talking about double sessions now. Ms. Carin - Right, that's crazy. Vice-Chair Hearn - That is absolutely off the wall in my opinion and we've got to plan better. Ms. Carin - We need to plan better. I was instrumental in the road situation Tuesday night, well it's the second time it came about. The first time it got slipped through and the second time it got heard. The fact of the matter is I don't really think we have to use the big M moratorium P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 34 '" ..".¡ word, because there is no more room for anymore cars. So we're all going to be patient, aren't we, and I think that's perfect. You know it actually works. I think the pressure needs to be taken off TCRPC to hurry up and get; there's not a hurry because the corridor is full. We're full. Vice-Chair Hearn - We have a little calendar up here there is a quote on it by Albert Einstein, "the most important thing is to not stop questioning", boy does that fit this. Ms. Carin - Absolutely. I would certainly think that Marcella and Mike and their staff would like a vacation, so would I after two years of never missing the meetings, just in case. I thank you for all that you do and that you listen and that you care about our community. Thank you. Colin Jaymakember, 8680 Indrio Road, I live next to the old school house on Indrio Road. I've been really educated listening to all of this over the last couple of hours. Everytime I go to these meetings, I learn a little bit more about how the real world works. As an average Joe you don't think about land use, densities, and future land use maps and concurrency and all of this stuff All you know is that you've got your pretty little house, you mow your yard, you want to be able to go to the grocery store, you want to be able to get to work without sitting in a traffic jam. Minor things we don't realize what goes in to taking that. Over the last two years with the Emerson Estates stuff I learned an awful lot. I learned that attorneys and people in the development community can abuse regulations that we have put into place to try to save our community to make our community a nice place. I have watched people abuse those, it is unfortunate, but it happens. I have watched the road situation in our area get worse and worse and I've watched the use of concurrency be pushed aside for developments and I have watched other problems like that happen. It is really nice to see there is an open discussion about what the TCRPC is trying to put forward. I've been involved in this for over a year now, I was at the Charrette, I've been to a couple of the landowners steering committee meetings and I've been really excited to see this plan come from a few scribbled drawings by a few amateurs to the fruition where it is right now. I would hope that we could push this plan through to the point where we can at least get a good solid outside person's input, if we can get this submitted, we can get the State to give us comments on what needs to happen and what needs to change. That can happen concurrently with our own questions on how all of this is going to work. I've had some serious concerns about it, I still have a few concerns. But I also realize that if we do nothing, I'm going to end up driving down six lane highways with walls and gates from here to wherever, all you have to do is go down to Port St. Lucie or down to Palm Beach County to see the results of what is going to happen if we do nothing. I realize that you talk about well there may not be build out, I see all of this build out happening all the time. I see the manipulation of open space requirements, I've seen Emerson Estates that supposedly has 2.5 - 3 houses per acre, I look on 7 houses to the acre from the outside. This is a reality for the average Joe. We're the people that have been demanding and asking for you to take something about this and give us something that is concrete, that is going to give us a good quality of life. We all want a quality of life and I'm very much appreciative all of the efforts that you have been taking to try to get to that point. It is amazing, I wish more people would spend some time sitting here listening and learning, because there is so much more involved in that quality of life than most people realize. I'm excited with this new plan, because I see it as something that is going to give all of us that quality of life and let us be blissfully ignorant all of the details that have gone on behind the scenes. Thank you. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 35 - -- - - - -- - - ... ~ ....¡ Cbair Grande closed the public bearing. Mr. Busha - A similar announcement we've made for the last six or eight months to the folks who've come up and spoke about the proposed amendment. We have contacted numerous landowners, we don't know them all, and we certainly don't know all the consultants and the lawyers that they've hired to do whatever they need to do. But I'm asking again all the lawyers and consultants who are representing the property owners could you please email us the landowner's addresses because they're changing constantly in the area. We don't have a complete list could you please email us those so we can put them on the list, so they know when the new drafts are coming out. I'm happy everybody is paying attention. Chair Grande - Isn't that something that our County staff can provide you with as input to your process. Mr. Busha - As current as they have it. Mr. McCurdy- The tax assessor's office has them all. Mr. Busha - As current as they have it, it's not always up to date. Vice-Chair Hearn - Could you contact our local newspapers and get a good story on this project. I don't know that a lot of the public knows what's going on. For instance, tonight I don't think we have a news reporter here, there won't be anything in the paper tomorrow, there wasn't anything in the paper this morning saying this was going to happen tonight. I don't know if that's going beyond what you are called upon to do. Mr. Busha - We can certainly have a .... Vice-Chair Hearn - Hometown News, and the Tribune need to be aware of what.... Mr. Busha - We can have them down, we can have the editor, we can come up and visit with the editor, that's not a problem, Get them more involved. They have been following this, we have yet to see a great story done on it, but I guess they choose what to print. The landowners are the ones that we really need to roll up our sleeves and talk to them. Sometimes we get different perspectives from the landowners than we get from the representation. There's a lot of misunderstanding and one thing that I know, probably the most universally destructive force out there is gossip. When we talk about things without the facts, and we're hearing a lot of that. Vice-Chair Hearn - There is one suggestion I would make at the next meeting that we have one document to work with rather than this wasn't the underlined one, or this was the underlined one. I've had a heck of a time following folks tonight. Mr. Busha - I can't explain why that happened. Chair Grande - I think the deal that we're talking about is we're going to meet on the 19th some P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 36 '-' ....I time around the 11 th you'll have to us the version that we're going to consider moving forward with, I would suggest to you that sometime between now and then, in a very general sense I would say three things. One is I'd work real hard to meet with the small landowners, they're generally not well represented, the smaller ones and they've got a lot of questions coming from not being involved in the process. If you reach out and bring them in, they maybe a lot more supportive. The second one, I have a sense and I haven't heard anybody say anything differently, independent of who is driving this bus, we need to work at a pace that gets it done right rather than getting it done fast. I know those are not your specific instructions and I know we may wind up with a different chair for this board, if I say that publicly, but I really think this is probably as an important thing as I've seen going on since I've been here and we really need to get it right. Part of getting it right is getting the public to believe in it and support it so that it goes forward with support as opposed to an adversarial situation. I was incredibly pleased to heat all of the investors and developers who stood up this evening and talked from a perspective of trying to get it right and kind of making a tacit promise, I see Bobby shaking his head, they would hold back from coming forward with development plans that were inconsistent for long enough for us to get this right and I really appreciate that attitude. I think there is enough public support out there for that kind of thing. They're probably willing to wait for us to get it right, but they're going to have to believe in what we're doing, so you got to bring them aboard. The last thing, and that's a personal thing; no matter how you cut it, what you're saying is in this particular area you're looking at 16,000 residential units that wouldn't otherwise be there, somehow that needs to be justified. It may actually be justified in the TDR process, but ifit is, I got to tell you, nobody understands it. Ms. Hammer - When the new product comes out, will you be sure there is a date on it, if you drop all of these, you need to know which one you're working from. The one I have doesn't have a date, another one I have does, neither one of them. . . .. Chair Grande - We're going to get a new one so we're not going to.... Ms. Hammer - Please put the date on it. Ms. Morgan - Revise the page numbers, because either something happened or either I'm missing a lot of pages. Chair Grande - I think you're talking about the one we got from Michael Brillhart, which only included those pages where they were making suggestions. Mr. Busha - The only document we transmitted to you was dated April 8, should be a complete copy. Ms. Hammer moved that we accept the request to continue to May 19, 2005 at 6 p.m. Motion was seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll caJl vote the motion passed unanimously. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 37 '-' There was a 10 minute recess. "'-II P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 38 ~ 'WI AGENDA ITEM 3: MARGARET BENNETT - CU-05-003 Mr. Kelly introduced Linda Pendarvis, a long time County employee who worked previously in the Zoning Department and now in Planning. He also introduced Sheryl Stolzenberg who spoke briefly earlier. Ms. Hammer requested the resumes of new employees to be sent to the board members. Linda Pendarvis stated that this was the petition of Margaret Bennett who requested a Conditional Use pennit to allow a family residential within a radius of a 1,000 feet of another such residential home. The petitioner's request was located at 3004 Anderson Avenue, Paradise Park, Fort Pierce. The existing family residential home that was within 1,000 feet of the request was located at 3009 Anderson Avenue. The conditional use pennit approval would allow the applicant to apply for the required zoning compliance certificate in order to operate the subject property as a family residential home. Staff found that the petition met the standards of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land Development Code and was not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Vice-Chair Hearn - The stars that are on our map indicating, is there two within 1,000 feet that are already there? Vice-Chair Hearn - Okay, and another question that I have, the applicant is asking for three clients if you will for their conditional use, can that be made part of the condition on this? Ms. Pendarvis - Ms. Pendarvis - No, there's just the one on Anderson Drive, the other one never followed through with their license, so they never did actually receive a license. Yes it can. Vice-Chair Hearn - I would be anxious to see if the petitioner would be willing to do that. Also my final question at this time, is the property securely fenced to the extent that residents cannot wander into the canal area? Ms. Pendarvis - Yes it is securely fenced. We do have picture, I don't know if it will come up. But it does have a fence around the yard. Vice-Chair Hearn - I'm talking about around the back. Ms. Pendarvis - It is completely fenced. Vice-Chair Hearn - And there is only one building on the property? Ms. Pendarvis - Yes, and her request with the State for her license was for only three beds. Margaret Bennett - I already have foster license for children, I have two kids that practically grew up at my home, one was eight years old when I got him, and the other was 11, they're P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 39 '-' '....I developmentally challenged. Their parents' rights have been terminated and I would hate to see them uprooted and have to go to another residential, since I raised them in my home, they're like my own and one of them is now graduating from high school, but he has no place to go and the other one is the same. I would love to have them remain in my own, but they are adults now, so I need adult license. Vice-Chair Hearn - Are you okay having a condition on this for three additional? Ms. Bennett - That's okay. Thanks. Chair Grande opened the public hearing. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff comments and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 S1. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Margaret Bennett for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a family residential home within a 1,000 feet of another such family residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District because it makes sense with the condition. Motion was seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 40 \r' ....., AGENDA ITEM 4: KENNETH PALESTRANT. M.D. - RZ-05-00l Diana Waite with the Planning Division said this is the petition of Kenneth Palestrant for a change in zoning fÌ"om Agriculture, Residential which al10ws one dwelling unit per the acre to the Commercial, Office Zoning District. Mr. Palestrant's property is located on the northeast comer of Christensen Road and west Midway Road. This is about Y4 mile east of the intersection of 25th and Midway. The zoning districts surrounding the property are Commercial, Office on the east side, Institutional to the northeast and Agriculture, Residential on the west and directly north. Residential uses are located to the south, across Midway Road. The property is in a Residential, Suburban designated area which allows Commercial, Neighborhood and Commercial, Office uses. The applicant states that the purpose of the request is to al10w for the development of a medical clinic and professional offices. The applicant recently submitted a site plan, which is under review by staff Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the County's Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and finds it does meet the standards of review. Staff recommends that you forward this application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Vice-Chair Hearn - Under the comments section it says the applicant states the intended purpose for the requested rezoning is to development, I guess we said develop property for a medical clinic and other professional office uses. The applicant states that the applicant is aware of the County's preference for Planned Non-Residential Development (PNRD) application, but that they were contractual1y required to seek rezoning by a certain date. My understanding is Planned Non-Residential Development is a zoning change, and I think that would satisfy the requirements of any contract required that be done by a certain date, am I wrong with that or? Ms. Waite - Yes, I believe that what the situation was, they were under contract to seek the zoning by a certain date and that did not allow time to prepare the site plan and the details that would be needed for submittal of a Planned Unit Development application. Vice-Chair Hearn - But as I read this, it just states that they were required to seek the rezoning by a certain date, it doesn't say that it needed to be rezoned by a certain date. I'm not sure i[l'm reading that wrong, or I think, them applying for rezoning satisfies the requirement that they seek approval by a certain date. Ms. Waite - That's correct, that is my understanding. The applicant is here and can best address that question. Vice-Chair Hearn - My point is, and maybe I'm not making myself clear, if I'm reading this right, the applicant was required to seek a rezoning by a certain date. It doesn't say that the rezoning has to be approved by that date. Ms. Waite - That's correct. Vice-Chair Hearn - If they started the process, that to me satisfies the requirement that they do that. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21,2005 Page 41 '-' 'WI Chair Grande - Perhaps the applicant can address that. Richard Sneed, Attorney for Dr. Palestrant, that is my language and I hope it didn't lead to any confusion. As Ms. Waite mentioned the reason why we didn't file the PNRD was the lead time. We were contractually obligated to file a petition to rezone the property. As I nonnally do I met with staff before I do anything and filing and we decided to file the petition to rezone and put in our petition to rezone that we had every intention as soon as we could to file for site plan approval and we have done that. We did that within a 60 day window, we were contractually obligated to have the property rezone so we took the route of just filing the petition to rezone and within that window of 60 days as you can see, we have Ernesto Velazco of the Velcon Group with us, he has prepared for Dr. Palestrant a site plan that's technically and legally sufficient and a landscaping plan has been filed and an application has been filed to have that site plan certification approved. So we wanted to give you the impression that we're just not here to rezone a piece a property, we're here to have it approved and in fact, I even sent a copy to the chainnan of the site plan and I think staff even forwarded it on to you as well. So that you could see that this was a legitimate request of Dr. Palestrant to locate his Urgent Care facility at this location. Chair Grande - Contractually obligated to whom? Mr. Sneed - In our application we told you that we were buying the property contingent upon being able to put Dr. Palestrant's Urgent Care facility there, so under our contract, in fact the seller's representative Mr. Klein, we are the buyer of the property and under the contractual tenns of it we want to be able to do what we want to do when we buy the property and close on it and naturally that's a provision and Mr. Klein represents the seller. Vice-Chair Hearn - The way I read it was that all you had to do was show good faith that you were applying for a rezoning. Mr. Sneed - Right, the County would not accept a PNRD without a site plan, landscape plan, survey and they have a litany of things; so a PNRD is a package that goes in, what we did is in two steps and we hopefully tried to show good faith in doing it that way. That's what we were contractually in a bind to do. Vice-Chair Hearn - You're not saying to us tonight that this will become a PNRD? Mr. Sneed - We are saying we're seeking rezoning and we're seeking site plan approval in tandem and they're filed together. We filed both applications with the County. Vice-Chair Hearn - Where I'm uncomfortable with is and I want you to understand this, if I understand our codes correctly, if we rezone your property, you don't have to do exactly what you say you're going to do with your property. If you do a PNRD, you have to. Mr. Sneed - We understood that and that's why I went to great lengths to show in our initial application that we were not here just to rezone property, that we had a contractual bind, and that when I met with staff, and wrestled with our contractual problem that that's what we wanted to do. If there is any way of converting and saying that we can convert this we would be happy to P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 42 '-' ""'" do that as well. We're not here to say that we're not going to do what we're saying we're going to do and we have filed that application in good faith and got it before you and even tried to get it before you all which we accomplished and I suggested to my client that we really need to do this, that we would show good faith in filing a site plan and paying the money and going through the process. There is a lot of soft cost involved, we have the Vel con Group involved and we have pretty much spent all that money to do it and that's not something we would be doing if we're just sitting here to try to just rezone something. Vice-Chair Hearn - Diana, is the site plan something that you have to approve after the rezoning takes place, or is this something they're doing voluntarily, but there is no legal obligation to follow through on that? Ms. Waite - A site plan is a completely separate application and there would be no obligation for them to follow through with the site plan review. I don't believe that's his intent, but he could withdraw the site plan application. Vice-Chair Hearn - I don't either, and I hope Mr. Sneed and Dr. Palestrant understand that. Mr. Sneed - We don't take it that way and I fully appreciate what you're telling me and I put that in our application that I knew what your pleasure was, and we tried to meet that pleasure by doing it in two stages. If there is any way that we can contractually obligate ourselves not to do anything with the property without site plan approval, the doctor would consent to that or stipulate to that. Vice-Chair Hearn - I understand that, but our problem is that we can't put any conditions on a rezomng. Chair Grande - I guess the only that we can do really is, has the site plan application been filed? Ms. Waite - Yes it has, it was filed on April 8 and submitted to the other departments for review. I believe it will be another week or two before we have the first round of comments back. I didn't see any major issue; the only major issue we']] have to look at is Midway Road capacity, our Public Works Department will be looking at that. But otherwise it's a pretty straight forward, simple site plan. There is a buffer. I believe you have a copy of the site plan, so you can make suggestions. Any suggestions you have regarding the site plan, we can take those back and then continue to make those requests through the site plan process. Chair Grande - I was just concerned as to whether or not it had been filed, but it has and it's in the process. Ms. Hammer - The site plan that has been filed, if that's approved, can they come in and change it with a rezoning? They can change the site plan? P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 43 '-' -.I Ms. Waite - Yes. Ms. Hammer - I have a question. There are four buildings on 2.2 acres, what are your intentions for those buildings. Dr. Kenneth Palestrant - I am a local physician in the community, primarily down in Port St. Lucie and have been in the Emergency Department for many years locally and two years ago I opened up an Urgent Care Center down in Port St. Lucie. Urgent Care medicine is pretty much an alternative to people going to Emergency Department. It is an alternative to people who cannot get in to see their own primary doctor. We take care of pretty much all comers, everything from kids to adults, elderly, trauma, x-ray, very similar to almost a free standing emergency urgent care experience. I felt that there is a tremendous need up in this area. We do a fair amount of industrial medicine and workman's compensation. A lot of our clients actually come from north of this particular site, the Midway Road Distribution Center for Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart up in Okeechobee Road, several industries up in Fort Pierce and I felt that there was a need in this catchment area of Fort Pierce for an urgent care center. The emergency departments are over burdened. I felt that Midway Road was a very good corridor to be on. One of the things that you need for urgent care is a vibrant community. A lot of our business is walk-in so therefore a good site is important. This particular piece of property, I could not find the actual size that I particularly wanted, which was smaller than this. One of those buildings, one of those front 5,000 square foot buildings, is going to be my urgent care center. The remaining 5,000 square foot and two 3,000 square foot buildings in the back are going to be professional office space and the intention is for me primarily is to open up an urgent care center. That's my primary, obviously to plunk it down in the middle of two acres really wouldn't be best utilization of that particular property and I feel that in the future with that particular area, the growth that there is going to be a need for additional physician office spaces, professional office spaces and I feel that this would certainly be suitable. Ms. Hammer -I'm not sure who should answer this, but we have a letter from a resident that is just north of you about a conflict over surveys and I'm not sure on the site plan that I see, it looks like what you think is your property line runs straight through their driveway. Did you see a copy of the letter and questions from the resident? Dr. Palestrant - I have not seen a copy of the letter, there have been some issues with the survey and I'll defer that to Ernesto Velasco with Velcon Engineering who did the survey for myself. Ernesto Velasco with the Velcon Group and we are an engineering surveying firm. We are working with Dr. Palestrant on this project and there is indeed a conflict with the property to the north. I am not a surveyor, but we did take a look at this particular P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 44 '-' "wi conflict and my surveyor had met with the neighbor to the north's surveyor just recently, a day or two ago. They provided us a copy of their survey so that we can compare it to ours. The only thing I can tell you at this time since we have not gone and done anymore research on it, there is a discrepancy between the two legal descriptions, that I am sure of. There is apparently an 8 foot discrepancy between the neighbor to the north and Dr. Palestrant's property in terms again of legal descriptions. As far as I'm concerned, as far as Velcon Group is concerned, we are representing in our drawing what was issued to us as a Warranty Deed and the legal description in that Warranty Deed. As to the nature of the discrepancy or why the neighbor to the north has conflicting legal description, I don't know the answer to that. As far as Dr. Palestrant's property is concerned and the legal description found in that Warranty Deed that Dr. Palestrant has, they are corresponding and they are as far as my knowledge goes correct. Chair Grande opened the public hearing. John Fossati I live at 4940 Christensen Road. If the line is in the middle of my driveway, naturally I'm a little upset and my well would be in question. The problem I have is that mine is an acre zoning area. When I bought the property, they surveyed it, I have a warranted survey and in order to accomplish the acre, they had to go to 137 foot frontage and it comes out to 43,000 and change which gives me an acre. If you cut 7 feet off it, I have less than an acre. When I purchased the purchased the property they didn't ask for any rezoning or any change of acre zoning and this is where I'm bucking heads with them. I have less than an acre if their line stands. There is never a variance issued for less an acre. Chair Grande - I think this is something though that this board would not be concerned with. The question really is, Heather, I guess is, what would you recommend to this property owner at this point and time. Ms. Young - My first recommendation is that you probably need to consult with an attorney about the legal description on your Deed. I believe in the document, your letter you said it is the same seller that's selling the property to the doctor, so at least the seller is still around, but I would recommend that you consult with your attorney to see what the problems are with your deed and what you all can do to resolve it. You may want to speak to Mr. Sneed as well, ifhe is familiar with the property, before you all leave. Mr. Fossati - Can the County let it stand when it's a one acre zoning and there has not been a variance. Ms. Young - We may have to look at whether your lot isn't going to become a non- conforming use in the lot if it is less than the acre. As far as the petition before them tonight, I believe even if from what I've seen in the staff documents, even if there is a P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 200S Page 45 '-' ..." problem with that seven acres, or seven feet down the road, I believe there is still insufficient property to qualify for the CO zoning. Mr. Fossati - But they haven't changed their site plan and if their site plan stands, then they are going to infringe upon my property. Ms. Young - As far as the site plan goes, obviously those survey issues are going to have to be resolved before we can sign off on it at County level. Mr. Fossati - Then the County doesn't have any responsibility? Ms. Young - What they're doing tonight really doesn't deal with the site plan. They're just looking at the rezoning issue. So I think if they chose they could go ahead and act on that tonight, but we're going to obviously need to get the survey issues resolved before the site plan can be approved. Mr. Fossati - It can be resolved simply by the seller putting the line where it's supposed to be, which may infringe upon his zoning to get his four buildings in, having enough square footage, so we have to go to an attorney. Ms. Young - That's going to be something between you three parties to deal with. That would be my recommendation. Vice-Chair Hearn - Aside from your boundary dispute, do you have any problem with this rezoning. Mr. Fossati - No, the only problem I have, personally I move from county to county in this state, from New York and if you allow any more businesses without getting the road straightened out, you're going to be facing another $168M to build eight miles of road like you do in Port St. Lucie. They're taking 100 houses to build eight miles of road, if you don't get the road straightened out and you keep giving these variances, you're going to be at gridlock, you won't be able to drive over these roads. Chair Grande - Whatever happens in this one, we promise not to move the West Virginia Corridor past your house. Ms. Young - There is a plan that is moving ahead, as a matter of fact we had a meeting this week regarding Midway Road being addressed, the capacity being addressed. It is going to be looked at, it's actually going to start in June. Mr. Fossati - There's a lot of problems on Midway Road because of right- of-ways and what I understand is the right-of-way for the road changes from 65 feet to 45 feet at my property or near my property, so that's going to be another thing that's going to have to p & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 46 '-' """ be taken into consideration. May have to take more of this property to get your roadway In. Chair Grande - That will be part of the road project and they will work with all of the homeowners that have frontage that mayor may not become part of the right-of-way. Mr. Fossati - Who is going to pay the taxes for $168M for eight miles of road? Thanks. Mr. Sneed - From what I understand, I'm not handling the title on this transaction and between Mr. Klein and another lawyer in Stuart, they are. We will certainly cooperate with him and I think there is a common ownership that created his parcel that we're buying from so there's obviously going to be some solution to it and we certainly want to have a solution to it. We're fully cooperative in that area to resolve that matter, but we were not aware of it until the survey was perfonned. All of that was disclosed in the county, it is part of the survey, part of the site plan application, there's a survey as part of that application and you'll have that. We'll certainly work with this gentleman. Vice-Chair Hearn - Do you have any particular office hours or is it going to be pretty much 24 hour day, if necessary? Dr. Palestrant - No, not 24 hours, I did that when I was in the emergency room. No, basically it's going to be 7 days a week, probably not to start out at the very beginning. Just to give an example, my urgent care center down in Port St. Lucie, we're open Monday thru Saturday, we're going to Sunday hours. I was pretty badly damaged by the hurricane. I actually operate of a trailer and part of my office for unfortunately six months, so we're still not really completed with our construction. Once our construction is completed and I'm able to get the staff, we're going to go to Sunday hours. That's the whole concept behind urgent care, is that the emergency departments, unfortunately, are overburdened with patients who really don't necessarily need to be there. Chair Grande - What hours during the day? Dr. Palestrant - 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday thru Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and probably 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Sunday. But I would probably not just start right out with Sunday, unless there is a need for it. If! see that there is a volume of patients that are coming in, obviously we're going to do that. We may end up doing it anyway because we already have a fair amount of patients up in this area who are coming down from Fort Pierce and even as far as Okeechobee coming to our center. We provide good care, so that's part of it too. Vice-Chair Hearn - That's the beauty that we would, the comfort that we would have, if this was a PNRD, they would be your hours. The way it is now, those hours could P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 47 '-" ...J change to 24 hours a day, if you wanted them to with a straight rezoning. That's where I'm having a problem with this issue. Dr. Palestrant - A 24 hour day is just not feasible. Vice-Chair Hearn - I understand that, but I want you to understand that it could be if you changed your mind. With the PNRD you could not do that. Dr. Palestrant -I'm not really familiar with all the particular zoning, I'm a physician, not a real estate investor. But basically all I can say is I'm not going to keep a place open 24 hours, the overhead to staff it, first of all, you're not going to get a physician to cover that. They work in emergency department, they're highly compensated, I did that, you're not going to find me there at 3 o'clock in the morning certainly. The majority of urgent care centers do offer extended hours, that's what defines them as urgent care, extended hours beyond what a physician office, a normal physician office is able to offer. For example, some of my busiest time is from 5 to 6 p.m. You go to the doctor's office at 4:30 p.m., maybe even earlier than that, you'll get the answering machine. It's a need that's definitely is indicated. I can go on record that I'm not going to have an urgent care open 24 hours. Number one because there is not that significant of a need and Number two because it is not really financially feasible. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy - After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including stafrs comments and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Kenneth Palestrant, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-l (Agricultural Residential-l du/acre) Zoning District to CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District, because the Midway Road Corridor is destined to become a Commercial, Office Zoning District probably with retail, it makes sense. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote Vice-Chair Hearn voted no only because I don't like being put in the position to have to do a straight rezoning when I think a PNRD would have been much more appropriate and everybody would have assurances of what would have happened. Ms. Hammer voted no also for the reasons that Mr. Hearn stated, I would feel much better if we had a means to fall back on to protect the residents to the north. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 48 '-" ...., Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Grande voted yes. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 49 '-' -.I AGENDA ITEM : PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATRIONS - ORD-05-008 Ms. Outlaw - On behalf of Mike Bowers, he asked me to request the board withdraw consideration of this item for tonight and that it be heard on May 11. Chair Grande - You have our unanimous gratitude and blessings. Ms. Hammer made the motion to continue the item to May 11,2005 at 6 p.m. or as soon thereafter. Vice-Chair Hearn seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the item was carried unanimously. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page SO '-" ....I AGENDA ITEM 7: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PARK- ORD-05-113 Ms. Waite - Research and Education Park Overlay Zone is being proposed as a follow-up to the recent change in the area to an SD (Special District) Future Land Use Designation as part of our Comprehensive Future Land Use amendments a year or so ago. The Overlay Zoned is proposed to be added to Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code to guide development within the park. Currently there is a master plan being developed for the park, as a result there may be some changes to the draft Overlay Zone. The Park is intended to be developed consistent with the master plan and the overlay zone. The proposed uses are those expected to be utilized by the USDA, IF AS and 51. Lucie County as they are assisting to bring businesses into that area. Businesses within the park would be associated with research and education at some level. We have notified the property owners within 500 feet and have received two calls on the notice. Staff has determined the drafted Ordinance is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and would be placed in Chapter 4 of the County's Land Development Code. We recommend you forward the Draft Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Hensley - I don't have any questions, but as this is one of my pet projects, I would like to make a little bit of a statement on this. The reason I think this is something that has a level of urgency is that the park authority has been approved by the County Commission. They have then been approved by the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida; it will be presented to the Board of Governors in June and there is somewhat of a need of the County having a firm commitment in order for the Board of Governors to give their approval which we have to have according to statute in order for the authority to proceed. The authority wil1 be the governing body of this research park and wil1 be autonomous in nature, but this is a key component of that going forward. This with the master plan and the commitment of all the different landowners in that area to work together col1aboratively is essential for it to be successful. Chair Grande - I have a sense that you are preaching to the choir. Ms. Hensley - I hope so, but after the last few days, I'm never really sure. Vice-Chair Hearn - I have a question, on the Zoning Map there is a little piece of property that doesn't have the cross-hatches on it, right in the middle of it, what is that? Ms. Waite - That property is in private ownership. Vice-Chair Hearn - And they're not willing to be part of this? P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 51 ~ ..,¡ Ms. Waite - No, they're not. I understand that they are aware of the research park and I believe they're providing input to those preparing the master plan. Ms. Hensley - Correct, they're participating; they're very encouraging, they're very positive. It's just that the structures that exist do not actually fit with the confines and description of what a research park can be. They are going to be probably involved in many levels, but because they are existing structures, they do not meet the criteria. Vice-Chair Hearn - Are we going to meet concurrency on Kings Highway with this project? Ms. Waite - We are going to have to. Adoption of the overlay zone itself does not require us to meet concurrency. I was at the meeting today when there was talk about the master plan and part of that discussion was the four-Ianeing of Kings Highway. When we get to the site plan stage, we will have to address concurrency. We do know that Kings Highway needs to be widened. Ms. Hammer - On 4.03.03 Limitations on Land Use Applications and then down below there is a chart, not everyone that would be reading this would be familiar with all the initials that we use and that chart, would it be possible just in case when it is printed it carries on, instead of the PMUD and PNRD, could you just spell out what they are? Ms. Waite - Yes ma'am, that's a good suggestion. Vice-Chair Hearn - You don't know what a PMUD is? Ms. Hammer - I didn't until I went back and tried to find it in the document. Chair Grande opened the public hearing. Dennis Murphy - Earlier tonight a comment was made that the issue is coming before the board regarding North County Planning Charrette, we're going to have a long lasting, life changing effect on St. Lucie County. True, but this is going to have a bigger effect. The other components that go with it, this is going to having an effect that's going to change the whole future of this community as it goes forward. Vice-Chair Hearn - For good or bad? Mr. Murphy - Good, so long as it's done correctly, and everything falls in place correctly. In looking over this, real quickly, and I only got it a couple of days ago. I agree with the concepts that are in here. I understand the timeline that we're under and normally I maybe up here advocating that we would delay this and clean up some of the inconsistencies and some of the questions that exist at the moment with the master plan would have been done, but I'm not going to ask for that. What I am going to say is that in looking, at this document, please understand P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 52 \..; ..., that I think from, I'm speaking both as a resident of the county and as a representative for some adjoining properties on the east side of this project, that it needs a little bit of tweaking to happen, it needs a little bit of tweaking just to make sure everything is internally consistent with each other. Because in looking through it I found that there are some problems with it and if it is understood that any action of the County Commission tonight would hopefully accept still some further refinement ofthis to something that fits the whole program, I think is better for everyone. What we've got here, and Ms. Hammer you pointed out some of the comments in the land use options, yeah, besides identifying the PMUD and PNRD indications, there is something else in here; we're not going to talk about changing the land use in here. The land use is already changed, it is Special District. Ms. Waite - Some property within the park is not SD. Mr. Murphy - That's true. The ones that the county acquired are not, but the majority of it is, thanks Diana. But the one thing and Diana made a comment that this is the second step in the process. I don't think this is actually the second step; this is actually the third step. The second step is being worked on today and tomorrow over to the hurricane house and that is expected to be completed in the next three weeks, two weeks (Master Plan). Ms. Hensley - I personally don't think it's going to be completed. We're going to have a general understanding of the master plan. Mr. Murphy - Enough though for that when we come back to the big committee, what's the name, the Steering Committee, that there is a picture of idea for what's going to happen and this all needs to fit into it. I'm only here tonight to say that I have a client who has some property on the outside perimeter of this, we're not directly affected, we are indirectly affected. We have a keen interest in what's going on in the Research Park, we want to be a willing and cooperative neighbor and partner into this. Also as a resident of the County I will have an interest to see if this works and there is some additional work that has to be done, if they are here, I'll work with the staff to see that it gets done, I would encourage you to forward this to the Board as an expeditious action as possible. Chair Grande - That was a rather ambiguous presentation. Do you have specific recommendations that you would like to put forward? Mr. Murphy - I have a full green sheet markup in through here. A lot of it is editorial, I can tell you right now, I'll pick one thing real quick, just as an illustration of what I'm talking about. Go to Purpose and Intent Paragraph B and it is an unintended consequence of how this was structured. The first line across the board, "it is the intent of the section to provide for a district where established agriculture ......." Nowhere in here do we talk about encouraging new operations; and I think that's kind of one of the little things in here that we want to actually get out here and do. So it's the little nuances like that. There is another problem in here that relates to the identification of the uses. I have a concern that I think right now if you go and 4.03.05 and list it as it is today, we maybe pinning ourselves into a unintended box where we have to come back in and as someone put it earlier tonight do another glitch Bill to identify the listed uses. Be careful in here, we want to have maximum flexibility, we want to have maximum restriction into P & Z Regular Meeting April 21,2005 Page 53 '-' ...." it. We don't want to, if for some reason we find that we want to say somebody who wants to go out into the Research and Education Park wants to make something other than food and canned products or drugs, no can do. It's just the fine tuning of it that needs to be looked at as it goes forward. From other perspective, look carefully at the site design performance standards. I can't tell you what works and what doesn't work. Vice-Chair Hearn - What page are you on? Mr. Murphy - I'm back on 4.03.04, I don't have page numbers. Look carefully at the Performance Standards as they relate to physical development, because again, what we think is going to fit at this particularly second and time, I wil1 almost guarantee you there will be a business or an entity that needs to come in and for whatever their particular process is, that is not going to fit. Now part of that can get covered out through hopefully some of the work that EDSA is doing. This is not a commercial for ED SA or anything. It's a stretch of the imagination. But I have seen a lot of work that they've done and they do some pretty good master planning and some concept development and they'll do a good job. Look to them to give you some guidelines for the final performance standards that comes in here. And this mostly is probably, it needs to come out of this board tonight to get to the County Commission in time to get to the Steering Committee. And the comments that I'm making are perhaps more appropriate to be read as they wil1 be by the Board and keep this thing moving. We do want to see this thing go forward. I just think it's got a little bit of things to go in there further. Vice-Chair Hearn - Gazing into your crystal ball, if you wil1 for a moment, tell us what you think this wil1 do for our community. Mr. Murphy - It's a combination thing. Since I'm now on the dark side of civilization bringing, it becomes a marketing tool, a community status symbol, a point that we can look at both as people who live here and as people who have future development issues in the county to say hey look, this is here, this can expand our economic base. This is something that we're proud of, again it becomes a moniker type thing. Basically, we can go tell Palm Beach County to take Scripps and..... Vice-Chair Hearn - I just hope we can keep some of the higher paying people living in our community once they get here. That's the thing. Mr. Murphy - Well, that opens up a whole other discussion regarding housing opportunities and I wil1 not go into that one tonight. Vice-Chair Hearn - Ijust detest when high paying jobs live in Vero Beach, a lot of them. Mr. Murphy - I have a client, who you guys know about who has some property a little bit further south than this who has made a very strong investment towards a high quality residential community and we are hoping and we are going to actively market it towards those who would be working in the high paying jobs here to live in that high costing community. Ms. Hensley - There is a subcommittee for the Workforce Board and Economic Development Council working together with three counties and this is part of the central piece of discussion. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 54 ....... ....,¡ That this will be the economic engine to drive economic development that's appropriate, the type we want. There's been a lot of discussion, this has been discussed for approximately eight years before it got it to this point and there are rare opportunities, we have verbal agreement for University of Florida to do some expansion to fill some gaps in here. We have an agreement from Mr. Brogan from F AU to expand and fill some gaps in here and the president of Nova Southeastern is very excited about a potential of coming in and doing something that are not being done here. All this ties together with Harbor Branch, Smithsonian, USDA, it's quite a rare opportunity to have so much in this County that we can actually pull together collaboratively around the table. So it is extremely exciting, I think 20 year plan to actually bring high paying, high wage jobs, economic development, educational opportunities and experiences that probably will not be repeated, cannot be done anywhere else. Chair Grande - Big step on getting to be the research coast. Ms. Hensley - Big step. Caroline Bellanueva representative for Avalon St. Lucie Developers, we are 840 acre immediately south of that upside down "U". We are very excited about this opportunity and fully endorse what the County is trying to do here. We just want to compliment what you all are doing. This is just a great opportunity to work together in partnership to realize this. I attended briefly the workshop today, some members of the staff, and you all have the right people on board and with that frame of thinking, we decided to compliment what you all are doing, EDSA is going to be our guide too. We're looking forward to working with you all as we plan this community, it's going to be mixed use as well, residents, research and development component to compliment what you all have. There is as well some commercial, school, parks the whole mne. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Chair Grande - I have one question of staff, on 4.03.04 Perfonnance Standards, we have a 60 foot height limit, I was just wondering why we put it in here? Ms; Waite ~ Sixty feet was used because that is the height limit in the Commercial, General Zoning District, as well institutional facilities. Vice-Chair Hearn - Did you say that 60 foot height limit is allowed in Commercial, General, is that what you said? Ms. Waite - Yes. Vice-Chair Hearn - I didn't know we had that. Chair Grande - 1 don't care about 60 feet, or 50 feet or 70 feet. My question is, does it make sense to have height limit in this document or should we leave that to the specific planners of any advisory board. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 55 '-' .....,J Ms. Young - To answer the Commercial, General question, it is 60 feet. Mr. Kelly - I think we need to move something forward and we've got some standards in there and if EDSA were to recommend different through the process, I think we would be back to modify this. Where as Mr. Murphy said there are a few things we need to deal with, he didn't object to the concept, nobody has, we have a few little details and we'll work them out and if you'll let us do that, we'll have them when we get to the County Commission and I think the concept is what is important. Mr. Hearn made the motion to move for approval. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the item was approved unanimously. Chair Grande wanted the record to show that he recommend that the height limit be removed from this particular document. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 56 .... '..,¡J Other Business Ms. Hammer reminded the board about the workshop on May 4 and 5, and for members who hadn't signed up to do so as she felt it would be really worthwhile. Next scheduled meeting will be the Special Meeting on May 11,2005. P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 57 "-' ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hammer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 1 0: 1 0 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: ...,.¡ Faith Simpson, Secretary Charles Grande, Chainnan P & Z Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 Page 58 '-' ""'" STAFF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TVC ELEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (06/14/05) Comments from Growth Manaqement Department - Planninq 1. within the TVC boundaries, must a 500 acre parcel be developed as a Village? 2. does the TVC element need to be adopted as a land element rather than a design element within the LDC? 3. is this proposed plan economically feasible? 4. are the concurrency impacts of increasing the maximum build-able residential units from 23,000 to 37,500 to be fully analyzed from a financial perspective? 5. under proposed land use policy 3.1.4.8, must a proposed Special Area Plan (SAP) have to go through a rezoning? 6. can the TVC element override compo plan requirements? 7. without having limitations on the number of accessory units (residential), it is difficult to calculate reliable estimates for potable water, wastewater, school, public safety, roadway, and recreational needs? 8. the open space requirements for Villages (75%) and Towns (60%) may be too restrictive. Is their a potential to create a minimum and maximum range? 9. review policy 3.1.1.7 regarding farms less than 50 acres. 10. review policy 3.1.3.2 regarding Special Area Plans as a component to this proposed land use amendment? 11. review policy 3.1.7.6, regarding proposed greenway requirements along Indrio Road Comments from the Economic Development Division 12. define viable agriculture? Is citrus viable? 13. clarify the impacts upon property values with the TVC. 14. County shall have an expedited review process within 6 months of TVC adoption? Shouldn't this occur at time of plan amendment adoption? 15. under policy 3.1.1.1 (1), can you market and require affordable housing? 16. who owns the countryside and open space? 17. why reduce impact fees as a possible developers incentive? 18. the TVC proposal tends to be heavy on commercial/retail. 19. considering policy 3.1.4.1, ago related pay rates are low. 20 will proposed new jobs in Towns actually reduce auto trips? 21. working with the private sector on employment initiatives should be required. 22. does providing a variety in housing prices actually reflect current market conditions? '-' 'WI 23. how will the initial and long term costs of constructing and operating a flow way system be derived? 24. how do you make locational decisions regarding high quality employment opportunities? 25. the TVC Element identifies a commercialindustrial district. Where is the North County industrial district? Comments from Public Works Department - EnQineerinQ 26. how will the funding and the regulatory permitting for the flow way be administered? 27. implementation of Special Area Plans will take a considerable amount of time and money. 28. County staff requests the TCRPC to create a Plan of Implementation for this Policy Document. The Plan must be used to assist county staff in working with landowners in this complex process. 29. the process of having multiple landowners building a Village or Town is very complicated and it is anticipated to be difficult to implement. 30. Questions and concerns regarding the Plan of Implementation: - who will implement the various components of the TVC element? - who will implement the various infrastructure components such as roadways, drainage, utilities, parks, schools, etc...? - how will the TVC element be funded? - who will pay for the design, permitting, construction, and land acquisition of the infrastructure components? - will any of the infrastructure components be owned and maintained by the public? - what agency will take the implementation lead? - how will the State roadways (Indrio Rd. & Kings Hwy.) fit into the plan? - when will these roadways need to be widened to 4 lanes? - will the State roads be widened by private funds, the State, the County? - how will the drainage flow way be implemented? Who will own, operate, and maintain it? - both the flow way construction and improvements to the 2 State roadways could take 5-10 years to implement. Is this acceptable? - how will development proceed without the flow way in place? - can concurrency be met without the 2 State roadways being upgraded to 4 lanes? - the flow way needs to be permitted by both SFWMD and the FPFWCD through a conceptual master planned system. With the possibility of multiple landowners, it seems prevalent that a government entity should be responsible for ownership, operations, and maintenance. - where does the money come from for the purchase of underlying land (footprint) for the flow way? '-' ....., - how long will it take to get a master plan permit for the flow way? - who will initiate the flow way permitting process? Flow way - comments a. a conceptual master planned project would allow developers to pull construction permits for various phases of its build-out. b. how should county staff administer site plan/development review prior to the flow way being permitted. c. how will storage and water quality requirements be met before the flow way is built? Capital Financinq - comments a. county staff needs to negotiate with landowners and developers regarding roadway improvements. b. how will the fair share contribution for public infrastructure by the developer be determined? c. what financing mechanism will provide the funding for public-owned roads? On site improvements for a Town or Village should be funded by the Community Development District (COD), but what about off- site improvements? Comments from Road and Bridqe Division 31. the TVC plan proposes a tremendous amount of new facilities that will be dedicated to the public that require maintenance for roadways, drainage, street trees, sidewalks, lighting, and public squares. This will require a substantial increase in staffing and operational costs for the Road and Bridge Division. 32. it is not clear on who will have maintenance responsibilities for the flow way system. 33. based upon the traffic analysis undertaken for the TVC plan, it is not clear as to whether the proposed future roadway network is adequate to serve this settlement pattern during build-out. 34. the TVC envisions s future roadway network plan. This plan needs to be consistent with the Year 2030 MPO LRTP currently being updated. There must be consistency between the TVC and MPO networks for state and/or federal funding eligibility through the MPO process. 35. a detailed implementation plan needs to be devised that ties applications for development to the proposed expedited development review and approval process. 36. how will a COD be established, and how will this help pay for needed improvements? 37. how will the Community Stewardship Organization (CSO) function and what will it have control over? '-" 'WI 38. has Parks & Recreation reviewed the Plan for impacts upon their operating and capital budgets in consideration of public spaces and linear parks along the flow way? Comments from the Environmental Resources Division 39. land designated as environmentally sensitive should function as a sending area instead of a receiving area. 40. the process of ownership and management of land area designated as countryside and open space must be formalized. 41. the terms open space and countryside should not be used interchangeably. 42. recommend a hierarchy of TDR credit that reflects the following scenario: highest credit to environmentally significant habitat, followed by fragmented and lower quality habitat, followed byag restored to native habitat, followed by ag that is left fallow. 43. modify policy 3.1.1.7 (3) to read, "maintain the property for habitat preservation" . 44. revise policy 3.1.4.1 to include habitat preserves. 45. revise policy 3.1.4.2 (9) to read: "integral component of the settlement pattern to preserve native habitats". 46. revise policy 3,1,4,3 (3) to include natural & rural character. 47. the flow way should mimic the natural sheetflow. 48. revse policy 3.1.5.4 to state that the countryside and its flow ways must be contiguous. 49. the definitions for "countryside" and "open space" need to be clarified. 50. In the event of a conflict between the TVC and the existing comprehensive plan, environmental regulations will not be overlooked. 51. under policy 3,1.6.7, include "preservation, restoration or establishing of native habitats along the flow way". 52. need a definition for "environmentally significant lands" Comments from the Utilities Department 53. what is the recommendation for existing development within the TVC element area that does not meet Special Area Plan (SAP) requirements for eligibility of future connections to public water/sewer systems when available? 54. under policy 3.1.3.1, a financial strategy for infrastructure must be established. 55. the TVC element is requesting that a substantial portion of countryside and/or open space components be located adjacent to the Indrio Road right-of-way between Johnston Road and Emerson Avenue. Is that distance sufficient? 56. under policy 3.1.6.2, surface water system management should be staffed by the County. Why is there a "2 years to implement" recommendation? ~ 'WI 57. under policy 3.1.9.10, development standards for street trees need to be established that are workable for County maintenance. 58. master planning of the main lines will be along the major transportation corridors. 59. estimating an increase in residential customers of 20,000 within the next 10 years, the county will need the capacity to treat 10 mgd of water and wastewater. This translates into additional treatment facilities and capital improvement needs in excess of $160 million. 60. based upon the standard of 1 employee/5,OOO residential customers 6 new utility employees will be needed over the next 10 years. 61. adoption of the Public Utility Connection ordinance must be in place prior to final adoption and implementation of this plan amendment in order for the County to have control over future utility expansions. 62. an integral part of utility locations are transportation corridors, the flow way (discharge of reclaim), and the location of plant stations within each town and village. Comments from the Office of Manaqement & Budqet 63. in order to determine the fiscal impacts of this proposal, a detailed schedule for completion of development activities during 5 and 10 year increments must be presented. 64. estimated costs for the construction and implementation of capital infrastructure and ongoing maintenance including roads, water/sewer/wastewater, drainage systems, and public spaces must be identified. This information will be necessary in order to calculate the financial implications of the plan upon County resources during the annual budget cycle. Initial Discussion Comments by the State DCA 65. the TVC element must tie facility needs to a development schedule. Adjust the 5-year CIP based identified project needs within the TVC element. 66. with adoption of the proposed TVC element settlement pattern, there needs to be some consideration on making conventional land use amendments more difficult to achieve '-' ...., General Public Comments from the April 21st LPA Meeting Reeardine the Proposed North County Compo Plan Amendment 1. David Weiss - further analysis on the true valuation ofTDR's should be provided. 2. Kirian Kilday - outstanding concerns regarding density levels need to be formalized. The transportation system for the North County needs to be consistent with the MPO's long range plan. 3. Tom Babcock - there needs to be an assurance that infrastructure is in place prior to future development (concurrency). Development must pay its fair share. A transportation network must be adopted for the North County. Further analysis on the marketability of residential units must be undertaken. LDR's for the proposed amendments must be prepared sequentially with the amendments. There is a concern on how open space will be managed. The "opt out" option must be provided to landowners. 4 Tom Sullivan, P.A. (representing Royal Equestrian Farms) - is concerned that owners of parcels of less than 40 acres outside of the urban service area would not be allowed to utilize their family farm entitlements under the TVC scenario. The use or rights of properties adjacent to villages have not been fairly entitled within the Element. 5. Jim Russakis - there appears to be inequity for owners of property of less than 125 acres. Clarify the overlay of incentives pertaining to TDRs. 6. Patrick Hodges (Olsen Builders) - requested a special hearing review the North County amendments as a standalone item. Is wondering why a design guideline has not been prepared as part of the plan. 7. Bobby Klein - TCRPC staff should meet with peers and interested attorneys. Does not believe that a design guideline should be the central theme for the plan. Regarding the Settlement Principle, and specifically for parcels of 40 acres or less, a one size fits all scenario does not work. 8. Caroline Villanueva (Lennar) - open space requirements. 9. Noreen Dryer - the need to continue landowners meetings is imperative. A peer review meeting needs to take place. 10. Susie Caron- TCRPC has done a great job in preparing this Element. The amendment process should take as long as it needs to get it right. The transportation network, however, represents a major concern. 11. Jay Macomber - concurrency needs to be met with this plan. TCRPC has done a great job in preparing this strategy to preserve open space. '-' 'WI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJ ECTS MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Doug Anderson, County Administrator FROM: Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director DATE: July 18, 2005 RE: Proposed North County TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Technical Review Panel Forum On July 8th, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council sponsored a Technical Review Forum for the proposed North County Towns, Villages and the Countryside (TVC) comprehensive plan amendments. One of the purposes of the forum was to gather comments and recommendations from members of the Technical Review Committee as per their review of the proposed May 11 th TVC Element. This Review Committee consisted of individuals with professional backgrounds and experience in new urbanism, livable communities and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) planning practices. As part of this forum, the Regional Planning Council's consulting team members were in attendance to provide a summary of their work efforts and respond to questions regarding their roles in preparing the technical analysis for the housing, retail, land use, water management, land development regulations, and financial components of the TVC Element. In addition, a group of 4 citizen advisory members familiar with this ongoing process provided their comments on the TVC Element. Recommendations from the Technical Review Panel as well as comments from various presenters are attached for your review. As reflected, the outside Panel members are encouraged by the County's direction in pursuing a settlement pattern that encourages the preservation of open space and emphasizes more effective compact development in light of the tremendous development demands facing the North County. Cc: Ray Wanzy, Assistant County Administrator Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator David Kelly, Planning Manager Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Michael Busha, TCRPC Executive Director PROPOSED TOWNS, VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE ELEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Technical Review Panel Forum July 8, 2005 General Discussion and Overview from Technical Panel: - St. Lucie County offers a great social and environmental climate for the TVC settlement pattern. Take advantage of this unique opportunity. - There appears to be no other planning process of this magnitude in the U.S. that has open space and land preservation as a primary focus. - This area appears to be easily marketable for a variety of housing types. - Job growth is imperative to reduce daily traffic commutes from local residents within the Towns or Villages to outside employment. - The TDR concept must make sense to landowners (viability). - Innovation (change in thinking about development patterns) is critical to the success of the TVC concept. - Water quality and environmental protection issues must be addressed. - How do you make appropriate connections between natural habitat and open space/conservation areas (Greenbelt)? - The value of open space has not been adequately measured in the TDR matrix. - The development community must ensure that market analysis for housing demands are undertaken. The architectural style must be marketable and saleable. - The early development projects may need public assistance in regards to upgrading public owned infrastructure. Comments from TCRPC Consultim! Team Members: The TVC Element provides consistent housing types. There is flexibility of housing costs (no exclusions). The proposed 5,000,000 sq. ft. of commercial is being supported as: 2,500,000 sq. ft. office; 2,500,000 sq. ft. retail PROPOSED TOWNS, VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The Town Center (major regional shopping, hotel, office & warehouse uses) should be concentrated at 1-95 @ Indrio Village Center (neighborhood and localized retail uses) should be concentrated at Kings @ Indrio. The land development regulations are being prepared as a form based code. They will establish the standards for the built environment. The regulations for the TVC must be prepared prior to final adoption by the BOCC. Specific Topics & Related Discussion bv Technical Panel: 1. Technical Review of Element - a. there needs to be a connection between the proposed TownNillage transect and architectural design. b. the County should not let developers determine the architectural framework of the Towns and Villages. 2. Open Space Management & Connectivity - a. there must be flexibility in being able to use golf courses. b. focus on amenity issues as a priority as compared with agricultural production. c. open space must be equally available to the general public (countywide) d. open space maintenance/operating costs must be defined. e. there must be a hierarchy of open space uses. f. open space cannot be either totally public or private owned. 3. TDR- a. location of sending areas as well as receiving areas is critical. b. has there been a quantitative and/or qualitative analysis of these three options? 1. internal site transfer 2. internal (urban area) to internal (urban area) 3. external (rural area) to internal (urban area) c. can TDR's for a particular parcel(s) be purchased again after they have been sold initially? This option should be given some consideration. d. a County TDR bank is recommended. e. a appraisal of land in the North County needs to be undertaken in order to place values on development rights. 4. Infrastructure and Capital Financing - a. private development must find a way to pay for needed off-site public improvements. PROPOSED TOWNS, VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS b. find a way to return ad-valorem tax increases back to the CDD for ongoing internal infrastructure maintenance. c. homeowners cannot pay for the ongoing maintenance of open space. This is a public use and costs must be shared. d. identified revenue sources: gas tax, private funds, ad-valorem increment, special assessment districts, MSBU/MSTU, residential resale transfer fee and local option sales tax. 5. Implementation- a. future development will most likely occur through CDD's b. combined project needs may be implemented through 298 districts. c. land owners must work together collaboratively d. cost sharing as directed in SB 360. Summary of Public Comments: The TVC concept must be cost contained. Must find a way for the County to implement the plan. Must find an effective mix between employment and the TVC settlement pattern. Create provision for affordable housing. Inadequate commercial/retail sq. ft. Quality of life is a predominant factor. Employment considerations are crucial to success of the TVC. County should consider a "PDR" (purchase of development rights) option as a component in implementing a TDR program. Final Recommendations from the Technical Review Panel: 1. Seek out one developer to undertake one Town or Village development and work with them to "do it right" the first time. 2. Be willing to communicate and work with investment companies and bond counsel located in such cities as Boston, New York and Chicago that specialize in financing capital projects associated with new urbanism development. 3. Develop a more prominent "Vision" for the Indrio Road corridor. This will, in turn, lead to recommendations regarding consistent landscaping/street- scaping, ornamental detail, sidewalk and pavement and architectural detail. 4. Provide a more detailed resolution as to how public and private resources are going to be managed. PROPOSED TOWNS, VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 5. Quality of life should be a major component of this exercise. 6. The Proposed Element needs to be refined before transmittal to DCA. 7. General public needs to pay for open space (countywide use). 8. New development must pay its on way. 9. Architectural guidelines must be tied to the TVC Element (developers must be accountable). 10. The timing and phasing of each community is critical to success. 11. Engage outside resources before a specific issue reaches public hearing status. 12. A design/architectural review board for the TVC area should be considered. 13. Affordable housing and civic space should be given consideration as part of the required open space. 14. Larger fringe lots should be included as a portion of the open space req uiremen 1. 15. Minimum open space requirements (75% and 60%) are too high. 16. Require each development to provide opportunities for connectivity to surrounding developments. 17. County must be willing to negotiate with developers. 18. County must be willing to give incentives to developers to construct improvements that benefit the public. 19. The revised LDC should serve as a flexible yet detailed "cookbook" for North County development. 20. County must create a new division or department to undertake the day-to- day operations of TVC site plan review. ~ ...J Notes from the February 14th - 16th North County Charrette Consultants Meetin2 The following information was presented by Regional Planning Council staff and the various consultants enlisted to analyze the North County Charrette Planning Area. The information presented and the questions raised are part of the process used in the preparation and implementation of the North County Charrette Master Plan. Flow WavlWater Manae:ement - (Howard Searcy) · Is the flow way going to be funded by the County and/or other public entities or by developers on a piece meal project by project basis? · Some upfront financing could be absorbed by the Ft. Pierce Water Control District. · Design and hydrology modeling will proceed based upon comments from the meeting · Storm water drainage and attenuation levels should be 2" in 24 hours (minimum). · What are the recommended organization, ownership, and operations of the Flow way system???? Land Manae:ement - (Peter Spyke) · Reuse of wastewater (reclamation) for reuse on open space is recommended throughout the area. Use of nitrogen and phosphorous on citrus will promote environmental sustainability and ecosystem restoration. Charging homeowners for this service is recommended. Subsurface drip irrigation is a major component of this operation. · Interconnectivity to agriculture will help promote the ability of smaller farms to be successful. Renting farm land to small farmers may be one of the only methods in assisting small farms to survive. · Implementing a Community Stewardship Program (CSP) is perceived as a possible way to preserve land for agricultural, greenways, and conservation purposes. In this program, it is possible to create a "Special Assessment District" for residents of the Villages as a means of acquiring funds to implement the Stewardship program. · Smaller tracts of land (typically less than 100 acres) can be used for farmland. However, small farms cannot survive based upon an economic commodities basis. The ability of small farms to succeed within this region will require the growing and harvesting of non-citrus (probably organic) products. . The use of berms and buffers around Villages (+500 acres) should be minimized. Instead, natural habitats such as uplands, agriculture, equestrian or cattle, and passive recreation open space (meadows and savannahs) surrounding the Villages can provide an excellent ecological system mix for integration of various land uses. '-" ..., · A transitional process between private open space ownership and public ownership needs to be coordinated by the County. Transportation - (Wade Walker) · The future transportation network model used for analysis is based upon a Year 2030 horizon. TCRPC has requested the consultant to provide a Year 2050 horizon as well. The current analysis reflects a need for various transportation system improvements based upon projected growth. · New 2 lane collectors and upgraded 4 lane roadways are recommended as future improvements. 6 lane roadways are not recommended as part of this plan. · St. Lucie must work with Indian River County on the location and alignment for a new inter-county citrus based truck route west ofI-95. · With an estimated 29,500 new residential units to be constructed by Year 2030, forecast models are generating nearly 300,000 new daily vehicle trips on the roadway system. · A new truck route alignment using St. Lucie Boulevard has been formulated and analyzed. The initial alignment prepared by the consultant includes: St. Lucie Boulevard to Johnston Road; north to Indrio Road; and then west to 1-95. In addition, the overall trip generation associated with development through the Year 2030 warrants the construction of a new interchange along I-95. The recommended location for a new interchange is I-95 at St. Lucie Boulevard (roadway extension). · Future year traffic demand did not reflect a need for either a Johnston Road extension or an Emerson A venue extension south of Indrio. However, these extensions will enhance access management and improve traffic flow along Indrio Road. · Traffic mitigation efforts along major corridors will be needed. These could include: intersection improvements, on-street parking, and 2 lane roadways, interconnecting adjoining land uses. · Reid Ewing recommends using a 45% trip capture rate. This is higher than the rate used by the transportation consultants. However, using this rate could substantially reduce future year vehicle miles traveled forecasts (a major component for sustainable development). Housine: Analvsis - (Todd Zimmerman) · Inside the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary, residential housing is typically smaller, denser, and has a higher cost per square foot. · On a sample 125 acre residential tract within this region, there is a land efficiency ratio of 65%. Inside the USA will carry a density level of 8u/a (980 units); outside the USA will carry a 6u/a density (750 units). There is a higher transferability of use (sale or rental) per year inside the USA as compared to outside the USA. · 13% of the residential unit stock is for seasonal use. " '-' ...I · Estimated Housing Values (Price per area) for new construction (2005): Inside USA Outside USA Rental Units: $ 76,000 $ 71,500 Condos: 162,500 145,000 VillasfTown homes 207,500 195,000 Single Family Detached 374,600 343,000 · The success of residential unit sales in each of the villages is dependant upon project phasing, marketing, and the sequencing of retail. Additionally, the use of a TDR program will help land developers in project phasing.. · Sales price premiums for individual units are reached when a residence is located within 700 feet proximity to open space. · Resident and Tenant Characteristics: Inside USA: 41 % older single or couple, 34% younger single or couple, 25% families. Outside USA: 50% families, statistics for the remaining 50% are not yet verified. Land Development Reeulations (LDR's) within the I. Development Code- (Victor Dover & Bill Spikowski) · The County must establish "Regulatory" Plan language in the Development Code that identifies the Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) design process. This language will allow land owners to construct a new Village instead of using the current density entitlement. · The initial recommendation by the LDR Consultants was to craft language within the LDR that allows landowners the option of participating in the TVC program or continuing under the existing entitlements. Currently, the proposed 1,027 acre Indrio Grove DRI) would be allowed to construct approximately 1,000 units as compared to possibly 7 U/C under the TVC scenarIO. · The "Hamlet" feature has been discontinued from further consideration due to difficulties within the planning profession in establishing an appropriate and universally accepted definition for a Hamlet. However, its initial concept will most probably continue under the "neighborhood" scenario. · Acceptable density thresholds and Floor Area Rations (FAR) pertinent to the North County area have not yet been defmed by the LDR Consultant. · A TDR program based upon incentives must be established in order to maximize the 60% open space/40% built environment density requirement that is being recommended for the TVC concept. · A conservation or agricultural easement to incorporate greenways and public open spaces will be needed. · The consultants are recommending that minimum density levels be agreed upon and adopted by the County Board in order for the Village concept to operate effectively. · The Land Development Code needs to be form based. By this, site plans would be reviewed against such possible considerations as street types, lot '-" ...., types, and/or building types (see Attachment 1) as a basis for regulating development use activities. A "lot" compatibility matrix must be prepared. · Based upon studies at the national level, a Village would need to have a minimum density level of 21 units per acre in order to effectively support transit service or meet the demand for an above surface parking garage. · The County's Land Development Code must have a master regulating plan However, in using the TVC option, it is possible for each specific development to have its own individual regulating plan. This option must be specified within the LDC. · A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program will assist in making it possible for developers to accwnulate the land necessary to develop and construct specific Villages in the North County. Retail Market Analvsis - (Bob Gibbs) · 1-95 @ Indrio Road is one of the last major interchanges in the region not yet developed. It has an extremely high development and market potential. · As per discussion with developers, land tracts are being purchased as surplus for up to a 25 year development horizon. · It is anticipated that Walmart is looking to construct a new retail facility on Indrio Road just west of and adjacent to 1-95. · National grocery store chains are wi1ling to construct 2-3 years prior to market demand in order to gain a competitive market edge. · The most intense retail development is looking to construct facilities along major intersections. The Kings Highway @ InOOo Road intersection is a high priority for developers. · In examining a Year 2030 development build-out horizon, it is estimated that the North County could support approximately 1, 560,000 sq. ft. of retail and 29,500 new residential units. · A breakdown of the calculated retail demand analysis within the North County study area through the Year 2030 includes: 16 comer stores 8 convenience centers 4 neighborhood centers 1 regional village center These nwnbers are anticipated to decrease slightly as the housing analysis is being modified. · The Village Center is recommended to occur at the Kings Highway/lnOOo Road intersection and can serve a regional market. · A convenient center at U.S. 1 and InOOo Road is recommended. This would include 30,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail including a small market, bank, local retail, and small professional office. . The study area could possibly support 32 new neighborhoods. '-' '-' TCRPC Comments - (Michael Busha & Marcela Camblor) · A Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) concept is being prepared as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. The TVC will function as an element of the LDR and not as a zoning overlay. · The Council is recommending a 60% open space/40% built environment for a Village. · A Village should consist of a minimum 500 acres. · Recommending that a Village have a minimum built environment density of 7u/a. · A prototypical neighborhood can be constructed on 125 acres with a minimum density of 6 u/a (750 units). · After looking at existing and committed development, there is approximately 12,000 acres available within the study area. The majority (8,700 acres) are outside of the Urban Service Area boundary. · Density bonuses need to be established through a TDR credit program. The initial recommendation is to base credits on units instead of acreage. As an example, if a landowner has 20 acres in a zoned 1 u/a tract, the owner could use the 20 units as credits. In this example, 20 units would equate to 2 credits. · There may be a need to have an independent Indrio Road corridor study. On-street parking along Indrio Road was an initial consideration by various consulting teams. · Request the various consultants to expand their future year study time ftame to the Year 2050. Outstandine Issues - (Entire Team) · Minimum parcel size, minimum density and/or density thresholds. · TDR bonuses and credits should reward developers who provide larger amounts of open space/preservation habitat. · The long term use, ownership, maintenance, and funding for the open space and natural habitats surrounding Villages must be defined. ~ ..." ATTACHMENT 1 Building Types PaUette Civic Perimeter - block apartment Multi-story Office Workplace Courtyard apartment Large- footprint structure (exceptions) Mixed-use shop front (Main Street) One-story shop front Live/work row house Comer store Row house Attached courtyard house Park under row house Full-size rear patio type Linear bui1ding row house Mansion apartment Double house Detached cottage Side yard house Detached house Estate house Fannhouse Accessory structures (outbui1dings) H:\Notes ¡¡-om the NCC consultant meeting.doc '-" "" Residential Unit Calculation for Parcels Within the North County TVC Area (Based Upon Existing Land Development Code Regulations) Total Acreage by Zoning Classification for Parcels That Allow Residential Unit Development: Zoning: Acres: Unitsl Acre: Total Units AG-1 12,509 1 12,509 AR-1 259 1 259 PUD 481 5 2,409 RS-2 38 2 76 Total 15,253 Total Acreage by Zoning Classification for Undeveloped Parcels That Allow Residential Unit Development: Zoning: Acres: Unitsl Acre: Total Units: AG-1 12,161 1 12,161 AR-1 198 1 198 PUD 30 1 30 RS-2 38 2 76 Total 12,541 · ~ GENERAL PUBUC COMM.ENT5 "-" I Ruden .j McClosky 145 NW CENTRAL PARK PLAZA Suite 200 Port 51 Lucie, FLORIDA 34986 (772) 873-5910 FAX; (772) 873-3110 NOREEN,DREYER@RUDEN,COM October 6, 2005 Hon. Charles Grande, Chainnan And Members, Local Planning Agency St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Towns, Villages and the Countryside ("TVC"), September 22, 2005 Draft Dear Chainnan Grande and Members of the Local Planning Agency: We appreciate the effort made in the September 22nd draft of the proposed TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment to clarify the effect of the LDRs on development under 500 acres in size outside the Urban Service Boundary, and that some of the applicability language has been re-written. We believe, however, that the substance of the comments contained in our August 16th letter (copy attached) remain valid. We offer the following additional comments: 1. CountyWide Applicability The revised language still leaves considerable confusion with regard to the applicability of the TVC element. · The existing Land Use Element (Chapter 1) has been amended to add new Paragraph O. Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC), to the list of land use categories which are included in the Comprehensive Plan. The problem is that the described purpose of this land use is to "... accommodate future growth in the existing, undeveloped rural areas..." · Existing Objective 1.1.2 adds language that ". ..allows new development only in accordance with the Towns, Villages and Countryside Goals, Obiectives and Policies for settlement outside the urban services boundary." · Existing Policy 1.1.4.1 is being amended to "Discourage the conversion of property in the suburban areas to high intensity urban uses except where such conversions confonn to the Settlement Principles outlined in Policy 3.1.4.2. Prohibit the conversion of property in the agricultural areas to high intensity urban uses except as specifically pennitted or required in the Towns, Villages and Countrvside Element." · Existing Policy 1.1.4.3 is being amended to provide that the County's Land Development Regulations shall include ". ..development consistent with the PSL:17968:1 CARACAS· FT. tAUDERDALE . MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO' PORT Sf. LUCIE . SARASOTA' ST. PETERSBURG' TALLAHASSEE' TAMPA' WEST PALM BEACH RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. '-" Mr. Charles Grande, Chair And Members, Local Planning Agency October 6, 2005 Page 2 ....¡ Towns, Villages and Countryside Element and the Transfer of Development Rights Program outlined under objective 3.1.7." · Existing Policy 1.1.5.1 is being amended to restrict urban development activities to the PI armed Urban Service Area "or to special area plans adopted within the Town, Villages and Countrvside Element." · New Policy 3.1.1.1 in the proposed TVC Element that provides that "Special Area Plans fonn the basis for amending the Future Land Use Map in existing undeveloped areas.." and then itemizes the fourteen items that must be included in a Special Area Plan." Collectively, these changes clearly establish a basis to require a Special Area Plan confonning to the TVC element when land use changes are proposed in most areas of the County. 2. Utility Service We would request that you revisit the absolute prohibition regarding the provision of utility service to property that does not mcct the requirements of the TVC Element under Policy 3.1.2.3. A landowner who only wants to develop under the existing densities of the Transferable Density Value Map (Fig. 3-3) without following all the TVC policies ought to be pennitted to connect to water and sewer services at his own expense. This would allow clustered development of that property in a marmer more consistent with the TVC policies, pennit additional open space and protect the environment. The standard concern that provision of utility services will lead to urban sprawl does not logically follow with the proposed TVC land use. Without utility service, all lots must be at least one-half acre, resulting in a sacrifice of open space. 3. Countryside/Open Space Calculations Please explron why paved parking facilities are excluded from Countryside calculations for Civic Uses, Community Buildings, Targeted Industry and Higher Education. Parking is a mandatory requirement for such facilities. 4. Credit Matrix We object to the further decreases of the multipliers in the credit matrix, which make achieving the minimum density requirements for a Town or Village even more difficult. Thank you for allowing this additional opportunity to comment. W c continue to offer our assistance toward developing a viable plan for the area. Sincerely, If I I "l./ I ;. / Q1;- . -----.., __.,'if........... ~; Noreen S. Dreyer PSL~ 17968: 1 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. CARACAS· FT.lAUDERDAlE . MIAMI· NAPLES· ORLANDO· PORT ST. LUCIE· SARASOTA. ST. PETERSBURG I TALLAHASSEE. TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH ~ . Mr. Charles Grande, ChaIr And Members, Local Planning Agency October 6, 2005 Page 3 "" NSD/pw Attachment cc: Board of County Commissioners Doug Anderson, County Administrator Daniel S. McIntyre, Esq. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator Michael J. Busha, TCRPC PSL:17968:1 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. CARACAS· FT. LAUDERDALE· MIAMI· NAPLES· ORlANDO· PORT Sf. LUCIE . SARASOTA. ST. PETERSBURG. lAllAHASSEE . TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH .-t "" .~ Ruden .~IIMcClosky 145 NW CENTRAL PARK PLAZA Suite 200 Port SI. Lucie, FLORIDA 34986 (772) 873-5910 FAX: (772)873-3110 NOREEN,DREYER@RUDEN.COM August 16, 2005 Hon. Charles Grande, Chairman And Members, Local Planning Agency St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Towns, Villages and the Countryside (HTVC"), July 26th draft Dear Chairman Grande and Members ofthe Local Planning Agency: We have received and reviewed the most recent (July 26) draft of the proposed TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment. While some items ITom our detailed June 13th letter to Mr Busha were addressed, many were not. We will not repeat all those comments, but will instead summarize some major issues that we believe must be addressed before the TVC moves forward: 1. Existing Rights Contrary to what has been stated, the TVC does not preserve existing property rights. The TVC Element applies to property within the TVC land use, and the proposed amendment adopts the TVC land use designation for that area shown on Figure 3-2. [Policy 3.1.2.2 and Policy 3.1.1.2 1) b)] The only reference to the preservation of any rights under the existing future land use is the statement that the TVC shall not limit the underlying densities and intensities as established by the pre-existing Future Land Use Element. Existing density and intensity does not equal preservation of existing rights. For example, the development of 50 large lot single family homes can be substantially more valuable than development of 50 attached townhouse units. Some more specific examples follow: · Parcels less than 500 acres lying outside the Urban Service Boundary may develop individual home sites equal to or less than the number of units permitted by the Transferable Density, but it is impossible to determine what standards apply. We only know that they must be compatible in scale and character with existing adjacent development, and must follow the TVC Land Development Regulations which are as yet not written. [Policy 3.1.2.6.6] Will a large lot subdivision be permitted next to multi-family or non-residential development on adjacent property? What open space requirements apply, those existing under current regulations or the TVC requirements for Countryside? Will these parcels PSL:16801:1 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. CARACAS' FT. LAUDERDAL£ . MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO' PORT ST. LUCIE' SARASOTA' ST. PETERSBURG' TALLAHASSEE' TAMPA' WEST PALM BEACH Mr. Charles Gr~, Chair And Members, Local Planning Agency August 16, 2005 Page 2 ...,¡ be required to dedicate property for the flow way and new roads? The unknown answers to these questions can severely impact the number and type of units which may be developed. Since these areas will not be permitted water and sewer, the lots must be large enough to permit wells and septic tanks, thereby further limiting strategies to achieve the underlying density if property must be set aside to meet the TVC criteria. · Only the TVC, U, and I zoning districts are available for properties within the TVC land use. [Proposed Land Use Categories matrix, page 1 of amendment to the Future Land Use Element] This renders the existing zoning categories inconsistent with the proposed TVC future land use. Under the existing regulations a property owner has the right to request a rezoning to any of the categories listed in the matrix. Except for U and I, these categories are no longer available. · All new development inside the Urban Service Boundary, regardless of size, and all new non-residential development must follow the TVC Land Development Regulations and must be compatible with existing adjacent development. [Policy 3.1.3.1.2 and 3.1.2.5] , · Parcels of 500 acres or more can only be developed under the TVC policies, and may not be developed under existing regulations. If the rights enjoyed by properties under the current Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations are truly to be preserved, then there must be a clear statement that the TVC land use is an optional overlay district, and that it does not replace the existing land uses on the property. This must be added to the text of the TVC Element and appropriate revisions made to the Future Land Use Element Land Use Category matrix shown on page 1 of the proposed Future Land Use Element amendment. Suggested language for the matrix revision is attached. The following provisions should be added to Policy 3.1.2.2: Policy 3.1.2.2: Application. The TVC element shall apply is applicable to those portions of the County where the TVC land use designation has been adopted; however all other policies of the 8t. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan apply, except where specifically addressed by the TVC. The TVC Land Use is an overlay category that does not re lace the Land Use in existence on the date of the ado tion of the TVC Land Use for an iven area the ''Underl'n Land Use". The ro ert owner ma choose to develo and use ro ert in a manner consistent with the Underl 'n Land Use and the sta...'1dard land development regulations generally applicable to all areas of the County or. alternatively, in accordance with the applicable regulations of the TVC Element and the TVC Land Development Regulations. All zoning districts that are compatible with the PSL:16801:1 CARACAS' FT. LAUDERDALE' MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO' PORT Sf. LUCIE . SARASOTA' Sf. PETERSBURG' TALLAHASSEE' TAMPA' WEST PALM BEACH RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSEll, P.A. - V Mr. Charles Grande, Chair And Members, Local Planning Agency August 16, 2005 Page 3 -..I Underlying Land Use shall remam compatible for propertv with a TYC Land Use category. 2. Countryside/Open Space The amount of Countryside/Open Space required is excessive; and was even a subject of concern to the peer review group. The 75% and 60% requirements for villages and towns are approximately double maximum open space requirement of 35% (for a planned development) currently required of other development in the County under the existing land uses established for the TYC area. Combined with the required Minimum Average Density, the result is an over abundance of multifamily or attached units, and very few traditional large lots. This can significantly affect the economic viability of these projects, as the strong market demand for large single family lots helps to defray the cost of meeting the regulatory requirements. 3. Transfer of Densitv (TDR) Program The TYC amendment will survive or fail based on the viability of the proposed TDR policy; however the proposed policy is untested. Even Dr. Nicholas, the economic consultant for the TYC, could not provide. any assurance that it would work. In fact, he reported that most TDR programs have failed. Although the TDR policy has been referred to as a voluntary policy, the development of a Town under the TYC will almost certainly require that TDR credits be purchased. This is illustrated by Example C in Table 3-7, which identifies a need for 540 additional TDR credits to meet the minimum number of required units for a 1000 acre parcel, after applying the available credits for required Countryside and Workforce Housing. Likewise, the development of a Town outside the Urban Service Boundary meeting only the minimum acreage requirements results in a need for 337 additional umts. It is uncertain whether there will be sufficient credits available to meet the minimum density requirements for development under the TYC, and there is no way to detennine the value of such TDR credits. While designating receiving areas outside the TYC may help the marketability of TDR credits for those wishing to sell, those who need to develop under the TYC criteria may not be able to acquire sufficient credits. More opportunities need to be provided to achieve the minimum density requirements to develop under the TVC, without resorting to purchase of credits that mayor may not be available. 4. Countywide applicability The July 26th draft of the TYC now makes the TYC applicable countv wide and not only to the North County Charrette area. The changes to Policy 3.1.1.1 and the addition of new Policy 1.1.1.2 now provide that no amendment to the Future Land Use Map in "existing agricultural areas" may occur except through the adoption of a Special Area Plan. There is no definition of "existing agricultural area", but since there is no Agricultural land use (AG-5 and AG-2.5) in the North County Charrette area, we can only assume that it means any property currently being used for any agricultural purposes. This is a very significant change from previous drafts and from all discussions PSL:16801:1 CARACAS· FT. LAUDERDALE . MIAMI· NAPLES· ORLANDO· PORT ST. LUCIE· SARASOTA· 51. PETERSBURG. lALLAHASSEf . TAMPA. WEST PAlM BEACH RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. ..... ~ - ..... "'" Mr. Charles Grande, Chair And Members, Local Planning Agency August 16, 2005 Page 4 ...., regarding the TVC concept, and will certainly come as a big surprise to a vast number of property owners in the county. Although there have been discussions that the TVC might become the model for the rest of the County if it works in its application to the North County Charrette area, the TVC has not yet been adopted, let alone tested. We thank you for taking these comments into consideration in making your recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the proposed TVC Amendment. We have provided a suggested solution to the first comment and believe that there are solutions to the remaining comments that will pennit a viable TVC amendment to move forward. We also believe that even those landowners in the TVC area who do not wish to develop under the TVC amendment are willing to participate in assuring an adequate transportation network, connecting to the flow way, complying with certain architectural standards and meeting other similar criteria that will help to create a vital, functional community. We continue to offer our assistance toward developing a viable plan for the area. Sincerely, /) (!úzA4' '-'40- . ,'"-~VO- Noreen S. Dreyer NSD/pw cc: Board of County Commissioners Doug Anderson, County Administrator Daniel S. McIntyre, Esq. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator Michael J. Busha, TCRPC PSL:16801 :1 CARACAS· FT. LAUDERDALE· MIAMI· NAPLES· ORLANDO· PORT Sf. LUCIE . SARASOTA. ST. PETERSBURG. TALlAHASSEE. TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, PA - -- -..r ""'" Proposed Amendments to St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element St. Lucie County Land Use Categories '" '" ... ... ... ... '" '" ... '" r ABLE 1-.1 LAND USE DESIGN'" nCNlZONING caMPA fifJIUTY MA miX -- ,-:'T¡~" I LA.'JO USE DIS T!l!CrS -I M,; I ~"·zs I ,'E I n3 I RU I ~~ I ,~H 1""0 IC,,,bGCMIIIU I e'f I 'AID I ';0 I H 1M ;'~.1.! X " X X ., X X !'¡j.:¡ S X x " x X .",",-1 X X X X X i'VC X X . X " X X ,2,~·1 X X X X X i-le~, " x )( x X ~E·2 " x X . X r;~·2 . X " x X RS·' " X . . RS-. . X )( )( R..... X J( )( X RMH·S )( J( )( )( HM·T J( JI X A"U X X )( F'I~1t )( X RM-IS ¡( X eN· )( x x )( x x )( x )( co x x )( x ) )( x )( ) GG " X X I~ X )( ¡H x )( IX " X c c c ç c e c x x x X )( u X X X X X X X )( X X X X X " )( .!. 1 X )( X X X J( X x x X x X x ( x .x.. RF ( )( ( )( x. x )( ( x x x X ?!.ID )( )( )( )( )( x x J( x )C )( x rNflO )( x )( )( II x X x )( x )( x x " r~.1U() x x )( x x x x x x x x x x X HIRO X X X X )( . x x x x X R'IP X X - 'O!!.ò. '" .x.. x· imi,":,.1tes ¡~...tilJld:.u,d ';~;'1ilvr:.M9 <~hon C . ~.-:ìn3Il't1 ""<Cf.i¡'~ lot· C<:.'t\dr.Ib\;tI!JJI;II to inliUre r.r#Yìf';\!;Mty * The TVC Land Use is an overlay cate~oQl that does not replace the Land Use in existence on the date of (he adoption of the TVC Land Use for any !riven area (the "Underlying Land Use"). The property owner may choose to develop and lIse property in a manner consistent with the Underlying Land Use or, alternatively. in accordance with the applicable regulations of the TVC Element. All z(min~ districts that are compatible with the Underlying Land Use shall remain compatible for property \Yith a TVC Land Use category, [Proposed changes are indicated by stri!¡etllfellgh for deleted text and underline for added text.] I ~ ... , , i~.' ~i''(4' ~ .'." - - ';." ....; .. - '.;,.....,Þ. "-, ",. :.....,..-....:" ~ :~~~).... -".. .. .., .. ,- " 8751 West Brow",,, Bou1evar\o.."" Suite 209 . Plantation, Florida~24 Tel: 954.472.4000 Fax: 954.370.3911 fR?[~~~~~~[þ) oc;', ~c. Co, ~&m. ~~'\.~. ~2~ \C.RPG.\~ June 15, 2005 Chairperson Frannie Hutchinson St. Lucie County Commission 2300 Virginia Ave Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Subject: Proposed North County TVC plan Dear Chairperson Hutchinson: I would personally like to applaud your efforts to hear and incorporate all of the citizens' comments in the Commission's initial review of the proposed Town, Village & Countryside plan for the North County. I would also like to apologize to you and any other of the commissioners who may have taken offense to my comments concerning the citizens residing in the area who believe we have been treated as "second class" by the County. I can personally attest to the fact that each time I have dealt with you and several of the other Commissioners, I have been dealt with in an entirely professional and completely courteous manner. It is in that spirit that I direct this letter to you and the other commissioners. I would also suggest that the following comments mirror the sentiments of a vast majority of small parcel owners, like myself, who live, reside and/or own property in the TVC area. To understand my comment concerning the label, "second class", one needs to consider that, at all times, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council ("TCRPC") has, on its own volition, labeled its own proposal one that belongs to the "Citizens" or the "Community." Commissioner Coward, over and over, takes the time to remind us that "300 citizens" attended the first Charette leading to the present TVC. What he may not know is the appalling fact that most of those who attended the first Charette didn't even own land in the proposed TVC area and a vast majority of those who did attend had no financial stake in the TVC while those that do (own land, reside and/or live in the proposed TVC area) feel as though we were systematically excluded from attending the first Charette. Like it or not, in the world that we live in, perception is often reality. Moreover, I would posit that if a poll were taken of the famous "300" in attendance at the first Charette I would wager that 298 of them would not even approve of the present TVC proposal if '-' '-.I all of the nuances and defective features of the present proposal was clearly presented to them along with the real perception that this proposal threatens to extinguish property rights of their neighbors who actually live, reside and/or own property in the proposed TVC area. A vast majority of us who do live, reside and/or own property in the proposed TVC area first learned of the proposal in March or April of this year over a year and one-half after the first Charette was held and long after the TVC new urban community proposal was hatched and authored. We learned that our property rights were being threatened with extinction when the matter first came before the LP AlPlanning and Zoning Board in April, which acted prudently in tabling the matter at that time. Clearly, mailing lists with all of our names were given by the Property Appraiser's office to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council back in 2004, but the lists never used bv TCRPC. Clearly, at every public meeting since that time, the vast majority of people in attendance and speaking have been adamantly opposed to the TVC as presently written. Indeed, if the meeting this week is evidence of the pulse of the community, there was only one resident present - after a front page article in the Ft. Pierce Journal invited residents concerned about "growth density" to come to the meeting - who spoke in favor of the proposal comparing the plight of the TVC landowner in the context of a sexual act which was both truly offensive to me personally and must be quite frightening to the proponents of this defective plan to realize their only advocate is one who confuses property rights issues with criminal sexual acts. Perhaps most importantly, is the oft-cited statement that 'this plan is good because it avoids development like South Florida.' I would invite any of the commissioners to take me up on the following offer. I would gladly charter a bus to transport a group of interested commissioners through several South Florida cities wherein the goals of the TVC have been readily achieved without taking property rights, impinging on owner's rights and while fostering smart development goals. In fact, in one City, where my family was first involved in agriculture and second has been principally involved in the development, I would invite any of the commissioners to meet with the Mayor and myself and take a tour of the city to review several new urban like areas which were achieved through developer incentive plans, overlays and the like but without impinging on anyone's property rights. In this City, the residents enjoy the benefits of new urban-like successful walk-in communities where they are happy, where parks exist aplenty, and where property tax rolls are burgeoning (yes, it has been profitable for both the private and public sector alike). I would be pleased to arrange meetings with Broward County officials who can report on the success of a recent Bond issue which has successfully created park land areas for local residents to walk to, or to discuss the County flo-way project which, upon completion, will create a walk/bike path flo-way around the entire county area. What I suggest is an end to the idle statement that "we don't want development like South Florida" when, in fact, there are several very successfully cities and communities in Broward County (e.g., Parkland, West Plantation, East Delray Beach, East Boca Raton, East Pompano Beach, Davie, Weston) where development has co-existed with municipal concerns over unfettered growth. Again, I am most sincere in my constructive offer to arrange such a tour as soon as it can be cleared with each Commissioner's schedule. Judging from all of the meetings I have attended, along with consultation with truly independent experts in the field, if we continue to proceed along the proposed TVC plan we seem to be wed · ' " '-" ...J to, what will result is a plan that won't work, that will result in many unintended consequences and, perhaps most important, will surely involve the County in absorbing unanticipated expenditures that, in comparison, will render the initial $1,000,000.00 cost outlay quite insignificant in size. The reasonable approach I would advance is to view other counties and cities where similar objectives have been obtained and where the planning and development consequences are fully known and quite successful. V ery t~ly yours, ¡h'd~ .,b.¿ Weiss Bluewater Groves Koblegard Road (inside the proposed rvc area) 81. Lucie County, Florida cc: North County Property Owners Group ~ ~~:~[Q) William King 2573 Keen Road Fort Pierce, FL 34946 June 19, 2005 c::...C '.~Cc... Co. t:\~ Co- f>,~. Subject; Purposed Changes To Accommodate TVC G~~\J:' \CR..~ c.. Currently, I am a property owner in St. Lucie Co. My property is located inside the ryC boundary and within the Urban Services boundary. On June 13, I attended the meeting on the issues concerning the area. Unfortunately, I was late because I was not notified of the meeting. This does not surprise me because I was only informed of two previous meetings, and one of them had been canceled. This raises an issue that I find very troubling, which is why are the residents of St. Lucie Co. not being notified of these meetings concerning TVC? The residents ofSt. Lucie Co. that I talk to say they have no rights and that they are being dictated to and not considered in as part of an inclusive plan. Personally, I fully understand that the current plan being presented is one that would increase density, and I do think that density, of this capacity, is good for the residents of this community, no matter how the units are arranged. When it came time for me to buy my home, I explored the area and found that it was zoned for 1 house per acre. Living in an area that was zoned for one house per acre would increase my ability to live in an area that was not overly populated. This was important to me because I wanted to stay in the same geographical area as my parents, who are in the TVC area, and someday raise my own family in St Lucie Co. To me, the culture of the Co. has an appeal that will be destroyed by the density factor. Some might say it would only be compromised, but with the kind of increase that is proposed by TVC, the North end of St. Lucie Co. would be raped of all its natural beauty and peaceful appeal. Someone publicly stated in the newspaper that to rent a small apartment in stLucie Co. the person would have to make $13.19 an hour, and that is rent, not ownership. Additionally, I must travel to Martin Co. every day to work because I cannot make a decent income in St. Lucie Co. I work a second job, which is necessary because I am hoping to start my own business here in St. Lucie Co. someday. However, due to the rising cost of land for a shop that hope is starting to seem farther out of reach, One of my biggest concerns is where are all these people going to find employment that will meet their basic needs. In the future, I can picture this Co. being over congested with bumper-to-bumper traffic where commuters are traveling long hours just so they can make enough money to pay the house payment. Managing this kind of traffic in an area that is already stressed at peak hours will place an extra burden on St. Lucie Co. residents, roadways, and traffic enforcement. I know this first hand. When I bought my home, I worked at Piper Aircraft. Most know that Piper has not been stable for quite some time. I quickly found out that there was a definite lack of jobs in St. Lucie Co. that would afford me the opportunity to maintain my homeowner status. So, now I drive to 45 miles each way to work every day. I am not an isolated case. In the shop were I work, three (3) of the six (6) workers there are homeowners in north west St. Lucie Co. The average employee in my shop makes $20.00 an hour. For my line of work this wage would be impossible to find in St. Lucie Co. If good jobs can be found in Martin Co. can you all guarantee that good jobs will be found in the North part ofSt. Lucie Co.? I am not naive; I do know that some development will eventually take place in the co. But as a resident, I do hope that the individuals who bave the power to make decisions are capable of making decisions that will not destroy this area. Additionally, I would like to see this be considered as a receiving area. The Northern part of St. Lucie Co. is a beautiful place with abundant wild life and native vegetation. I do believe that county officials, because of the tax revenues that would be generated from such a venture, are embracing this plan. It is a disgrace that tax revenues out way the importance of preservation. I truly hope that those who have the power to make irreversible decisions takes the time to explore every avenue before making a mistake that changes the culture and existence of one of the most beautiful parts of St. Lucie Co. Sincerely William King ~ St. Lucie County Fire District Fire Marshal's Office {p \ \s\t6 c.0-\~c.C- ~~~, \,<\\c~~ Memo To: Chief Sizemore From: Batt, Chief Emerson Date: June 9, 2005 Re: SLC Towns, Villages, and Countryside Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments ~·"""'~r (~ t; ~.J I have completed my review of the proposed changes to St. Lucie County's Comprehensive Plan that would allow the lYC concept to proceed in 28 square miles of northern St. Lucie County, The plan was analyzed to determine potential impacts on our ability to provide adequate fire and emergency medical services to the designated area. The following comments reflect the strategies and planning elements that should be clarified and incorporated in the plan: 1, Fire Stations - As you know, the current methodology used to determine future fire station locations is development driven, Our strategic planning process evaluates the potential for growth outside of the established urban service boundaries, within the recently annexed areas of both Cities, and within the existing platted areas of the entire county (in fill). The lYC concept would alter this process. Instead of speculating on where growth may occur, the lYC concept attempts to control how and where growth will occur, With respect to planning future fire stations, however, the proposed lYC Comp Plan changes do not specifically address where to put them, when they are to be built, or how many stations would be required. Though the plan broadly suggests civic uses like fire and police stations as appropriate within Neighborhood Centers, the strategic placement of fire stations has more to do with response times to the community as a whole, rather than fitting into a particular type of planning unit (neighborhood center, town center, etc.). When coupled with the practice of strategically locating fire stations, certain principles of the lYC concept (clustered density bordered by less dense areas bordered by open space) work in favor of response time issues because of the reduction of urban sprawl, but those issues are not completely eliminated. Recommendation: The lYC plan should include an element that identifies the number of potential fire stations based on the Maximum Allowable Development Program as outlined in Table 3-1 of the proposed plan and potential station locations that are consistent with our response goals. 2, Emergency Response Routes - Another critical factor in evaluating the impacts of new development on our ability to provide adequate Fire and Emergency Medical Services is the road network. We have a problem in northem St. Lucie County in that the existing arterial roads (our emergency response routes) are limited, narrow, and often congested (particularly Kings Highway south of Indrio Road and all of Indrio Road), Additional developments along these corridors without existing roadway improvements and new roadways offering alternate traffic flow patterns will not only lengthen response times, they will also increase hospital transport times. Fortuna_ the proposed TVC Comp Plan Amendments address these proble":r:! Table 3-9 outlines a number of improvements including making Kings Highway and parts of Indrio and Johnston Roads 4 lane roadways. Unfortunately, those improvements may not occur for a considerable number of years, 3. Water Supply for Fire Protection - Water supply, in general, is perhaps the most vague element of the TVC concept plan, Though the areas eligible and ineligible to receive "urban services" are clearly defined, how those services would be provided (and who would provide them) is unclear. It is assumed that water main installations and fire hydrant locations would still follow the existing County Ordinance (#00-17) and Fire District Resolution (#406~03) goveming those installations. There may, however, be some ISO and/or legal repercussions from water mains bypassing PUDs, existing commercial and residential projects, or existing single family homes without at least providing fire hydrants and water for firefighting purposes. Recommendation: The TVC plan should clarify the water supply issue. 4_ Traditional Neighborhood Design and New Urbanism Concepts - Traditional town or neighborhood planning principles (also called New Urbanism) pose a number of challenges for the Fire District, including: a. The use of narrower streets (20 feet in most cases) is a common practice. For this reason our Code prohibits 20 ft, roadways for buildings three or more stories in height. b. Tight street corner radii are often used. Because these types of corners pose problems for emergency response and apparatus access, we carefully scrutinized them during the initial planning stage of any project. c, Buildings are often placed close to the street. Depending on the type of occupancy, some buildings may require fire lanes. Some on street parking may have to be eliminated in favor of the required fire lanes, d, Building setbacks are often narrow, Again, depending on the occupancy and construction type, certain minimal setbacks may be prohibited by our Resolution and the Florida Building Code. e, In this type of design, utilities (water mains) are usually located in alleyways. Water main locations and fire hydrant spacings are also carefully scrutinized during the initial planning stages, f, In this type of design, surface parking aisle widths often don't meet the minimum requirements for maneuvering emergency apparatus, Additionally, access to the surface parking areas (at the rear or sides of buildings) is often through narrow alleys (20 feet), The majority of the above concerns (a. - f,) could be eliminated if all buildings (regardless of size and occupancy classification) were equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. This would provide a greater degree of life safety and property protection for compact mixed-use developments promoting "new urbanism," Recommendation: The TVC plan should incorporate the extensive use of fire sprinklers as an alternative to the current prescriptive Code requirements. . Page 2 1····-··--· - ... ''-I~ 'w '..I From: To: Date: Subject: Karen Butcher Michael Brillhart 6/13/20053:37:43 PM TVC Element Michael: I was reviewing the TVC element and noticed that in text it's very bike/ ped friendly however, on page 3-40 (Street Network Transition Area) of the Charrette Report it shows a typical section and states that in Zone 1 and Zone 2 there will be brick pavers at the edge of pavement as it announces the transition to the village. I have concems with the lack of bike lanes and the use of brick pavers in the shoulder area (edge of pavement) which may be utilized as a bike lane. Brick pavers are not conducive to cycling. In addition there appears to be no sidewalk planned in these areas, only in the area identified as Zone 3 at the Village entrance. Is this because of a lowered density in the areas identified as Zone 1 and Zone 2? I'd like to get clarification from the Planning Council on these issues as we move forward. Thanks, Karen '-' ...,.¡ Hopping Green & Sams Attorneys and Counselors Writer's Direct Dial No. (850) 425-2222 Writer's E-Mail: dpowellCâ>.haslaw.com Tuesday, July 12, 2005 lR?~~~{Q) c"c:. Co. ~~. Co.~ ~v~ BV OverniQht Courier Hon. Frannie Hutchinson, Chair And Members, Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Re: Towns, Villages and Countryside Plan for St. Lucie County Dear Chair Hutchinson and Commissioners: On behalf of the Indrio Groves Land Trust, which owns approximately 1,025 acres in northern St. Lucie County, we are writing to address the Towns, Villages and Countryside Plan ("TVC Plan") now being prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council ("TCRPC") for St. Lucie County ("County"). At the outset, we want to express our client's support for the County's initiative to prepare a thoughtful and far-sighted plan for northern St. Lucie County, reflecting current planning principles. Your willingness to undertake this planning effort - and to properly fund it - is indeed praiseworthy. Our experience is that the most successful plans are those grounded in a collaboration of public and private interests in a spirit of give-and-take. Our client wishes to work with the County, TCRPC and others in this spirit. We have reviewed the May 11, 2005. draft of the TVC Plan. While we know that it will undergo revisiDns in the near future, we want to offer a few key comments and suggestions. We do so in the hope that they will contribute to a final plan that is both effective and workable for those in the private sector whose work ultimately will determine whether the plan can be successfully implemented. We agree with the emphasis placed on achieving mixed-use development in this area because such a pattern will help to avoid some of the unfortunate consequences of historic development patterns. Further, we agree with the goal of providing workforce housing in this area in order to achieve diverse housing choices for a growing population. We commend the TCRPC for proposing urban design standards which are intended to foster harmonious urban development based on such considerations as scale and mass. And we support creation of a Flow-Way System that can serve as a regional linear park. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) 850,222.7500 850.224,8551 fax www,hgslaw,com Letter to Hon~nniL ,utchinson, Chair And Member oard of County Commissioners Tuesday, July 12,2005 Page 2 of 3 ...",¡ While there are many suggestions we could make, we will focus on three items of special significance to our client and, we believe, others. ~ Hold-Harmless. First, it has been represented to us that the TVC Plan will impose an overlay of land use controls that are intended to result in a new development pattern in the area, without adversely affecting the land uses and densities and intensities of use currently enjoyed by all landowners. The TVC Plan, on page 3-ii, states that it will "preserve existing private property rights[.]" TVC Policy 3.1.1.6 appears to include such a hold-harmless provision. However, TVC Policies 3.1.1.7(6) and 3.1.1.7 appear to limit that hold- harmless provision to properties of less than 500 acres, when located outside the Urban Service Boundary ("USB"). This interpretation is buttressed by the fact that TVC Policy 3.1.1.7(6) - addressing lands outside the USB - does not have a provision equivalent to the statement in TVC Policy 3.1.2.1 (4) that "properties located inside the USB shall not have the underlying potential densities or intensities, as established by that pre-existing Future Land Use Element, limited by the TVC Element." (e.a.) If the TVC Plan does not have a hold-harmless which applies equally to all landowners, then landowners such as our client are not protected. If all are protected equally, then these provisions are confusing and create a potential ambiguity in the TVC Plan that should be remedied. ~ Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Second, the TOR program is integral to the success of the TVC Plan since the plan purports to establish, in TVC Policy 3.1.3.2 and Table 3-1, the maximum allowed development in northern St. Lucie County. Further, in TVC Policy 3.1.4.3, the TVC Plan prohibits any up-zonings outside the USB. Assuming the county commissioners wish to surrender their discretion to make such land use decisions in the future, we must raise questions about the utility of the TOR provisions- on which the TVC Plan would rely. The TVC Plan does not establish the mechanisms to ensure initial creation and on-going functioning of a TOR program. Moreover, it is not apparent that any research has been done into the effects which these restrictions on residential development would have on the local housing market. In Florida, the experience is that TOR programs are difficult to establish and maintain, so we suggest this component of the TVC strategy needs re- thinking. Among other things, we believe the TDR program should provide additional flexibility for the County allowing additional density credits for "public benefits" such as environmental restoration. Hopping Green & Sams Attorneys and Counselors -.; Letter to Hon.r lnnié ' .utchinson, Chair And Members~ard of County Commissioners Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Page 3 of 3 'WI ~ Open Space. Third, TVC Policy 3.1.4.4 and Table 3-2 would mandate 60 percent open space for a development on more than 625 acres, when located outside the USB. On a 1 ,025-acre parcel like our client's property, this requirement would leave 615 acres undeveloped and limit urban development to only 410 acres. In our experience, a 60 percent open space requirement is significantly beyond the open space requirements of other jurisdictions in Florida and elsewhere. In our judgment it is economically unrealistic because it leaves so much land in an undeveloped state and thus not contributing to underwriting infrastructure costs. In addition, TVC Policy 3.1.5.3 of the TVC Plan provides that schools can be considered open space, and further prohibits open space for private use from counting toward the open space requirement. However, section 2.00.00 of the County's land development regulations defines "open space" as land or water "set aside, open and unobstructed to the sky, and designated or reserved for public or Drivate use or enjoyment." (e.a.) In order to prevent an unintentional conflict we suggest that the proposed open space requirements be reduced to a more reasonable level, such as 35 to 40 percent, and that the TVC Plan's definition of open space be revised to conform to the County's generally applicable open space definition. In conclusion, our Glient appreciates your willingness to take these cDmments into consideration and looks forward to working with you, the County and TCRPC staffs and other interested parties in the months ahead. Please let us know if you have any comments or questions. f):;/~- David L. Powell Gary K. Hunter, Jr. Cc: Doug Anderson, County Administrator Michael J. Busha, TCRPC David Kelly, Planning Manager Daniel Mcintyre, Esq. 225965 Hopping Green & Sams Attorneys and Counselors ",., ......... ....-.....-...... ......' -........ --, '-..,' .....-- '-" ..,., G GunsterYoakley A1'1'.DANrU 4: ¡,·....w Ft. Lauderdale, Miami. Palm Beach. Stuart. Vera Bench. West Palm Beach FAX COVER SHEE1r Phillips Point, Suite 500 East Tower Phone: 777 South Flagler Drive Fax: West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Website DATE: April 25, 2005 561-655-1980 561-655-5677 www.Qunster.com TO: Dan Mcintyre County Attomey FIRM: St. Lucie County, FL FAX NO: 77;~-462-1440 PHONE NO: 7n-462-1441 FROM: James R. Brindell, Esquire E-MAIL: jbrindell@gunster.com Original to Follow: No PHONE NO: 561-650-0511 ~: PAGES INCLUDING COVER MESSAGE: Per our discussion of last week, attached is same draft lang:.Jage which addresses the effects of the proposed TVC element on existing densities/intensities inside the USB. WPB 824338.1 APR 28 2005 ~v AP' ~~~ ~~ ~ . ~~.~~ ~. C'Alnfidcnl;alitv Notice: The infomwtion contain.d in this transmission is l~sally privileged and confidenliJI, inlended only lOr 1bç use of the individulll or entity namcd above. If the leader or this mcsS88c is nol rhc intended recipient. you .ro h""'oy nntitled ÚUIt lIl1y di,,,,,mio¡¡tion, diSlribulion, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you recçívc this comml'llieøtÎOII in error, please notify UI immcðiorely oy Iclcphont (elllocl) and leturn tbe original messa'f\~. ~ 1bç above li,1td address via the U,S. Postal Service, w~ will rcimbUf1. you for postage audio! çl~p¡'one expenses ;O\·ol..:tI, \ 0lJr 1""'Ir.......-t:....J-~~~J ".1'-+O-J"J LlUI'l-J~ .-- ,""U.L U-,....,....,,-, 1 I loUoI:.. - . ¥ ...",/ 412?L0£ Proposed Lanauaae for Towns. Villages and Countryside Element (1) Amend at page 3-1 of the TVC draft at Policy 3.1.1,4 !Jrban Services to read: Policv 3.1.1.4: Urban Services. Proposals to build in accordance with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the TVC Element and the intent of the approved Special Area Plan shall be eligible to recl~ive urban services even if such developments are located outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB), Providing urban services to such development does not trigger an expansion of the USB. Development-º!!!~ciêJheU~ that does not meet the requirements of the TVC Element are not eligible to receive urban services, even if such development is proposed in proximity to a serviCE! extension that has been provided for another development approved undel' the TVC. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are not exempt from this policy. Family Farms and other eligible Sending Sites outlined in Policy 3.1.7.3 tl1at participate in the TDR Program are also eligible to receive urban services, (2) Amend at pages 3-1 and 3-2 Df the TVC draft at Policv 3.1.1.6 Transferable Development Value (TDV) Map read as follows: Policy 3.1.1.6: Transferable Development Value (TDV) Map. The TDV Map (Figure 3w1) establishes the existing potential use~; and pre-existing potential densities for properties in the TVC area. For development that conforms to the TVC, any excess density value remaining on the sitE' after the application of the Land Development Regulations may be transferred under the TDR Policy outlined under Objective 3.1.7. A Pr9Q,ê£ty_,W-ithin t!'1e usa ª_hall,n.ot_have the uns~~rlyina DotentiªJ__.d~~ities or intensitlês.,.~ª~ allowed QY. the,ßxistina ftE!sj,gnation(s) on thé!LPr..DDertv bv the Futl,Jre_l,gru:! Use Element.._[edl)~ç,~ limited bv this ryc§,kimfmL (3) Amend at pages 3-4 of the TVC draft Policy 3.1.1.1 Incentives for Development inside the USB by addina a new subsection "4" to read as follows: ~ Existina Land...U.se Densities and.Jnte,JlSj!ies A ProDertv withiJJjþ.e lLS.6J>haU Dot have the unJ:ledY.lga Dotential Q-ªnsitieSQr intensities aß_allº~~~ ~JÇ¡átir:l!Ldesianation(~~:OIL that DroDertv b.tjb~Euture Land _Use)~J~ment I~.cÜJçed or limited by tb.l~ TVC element. (4) Amend Existing Policy 1.1.4.1 Goals, Objectives. & Policies by adding a new sentence at the end to read as follows: ð Pl-ºI2,~V within the W~B..~.tlall not hav~tb,E!)wJ1e.rlvina Doter"!!!élLger\?ities or lDl~nslties as allowed -þyJhe existina designatiQ!:ili,) on that ~D[,.~ertv bv the EüJurë-Land Use EJeJJJj¡!1t reduced º.rIJ.lTliledbv this TYC e.l.eJ]J~nt WPB M·;)9?OI8239.fg~.? TOTRL P. 02 -, ST. LUCIE .".. COUNTY t CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Chern"". or Com me..,. / PO" 51, Lucie \626 S,E. r"" St Luç;.8vd Por. S.. lucIe, FL 1'110"" 77U9S, 1460 Fax 772,)))4446 C.!'''l,b~r or ç~)"'n~t'(;e I FQn. l'icl\,;( 2¡00 Vi..lni. Av.nu. fort I"~c~. fL Phon. 771>95.99'19 F,x 772,461.9084 Se....c" C~bl-:I House Vis\lor C~"I~f' 482 N. Indi,. River )II'" Fvrt. '¡cree. FL Phn.e 772.4~B,9152 Fox 772.461,9826 M,di~ Add,en: 2100 VWBlt'I~to A'vtr'luc Fort Pi.,<c, Fl 34912 ...,.."W. stl",c;'ecn,~btr. orø c - . July 11,2005 (Rí~~~ ce,..~ ~(p.~. Co. MJl. Cb~~.(~~ ~~~e.. 0 - ...,. ~.. Frannie Hutchinson, Chairwoman 8t, Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Re; Towns, Villages and Countryside Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Chairman Hutchinson: The Chamber and many of its members have been fonowing with interest the development of the proposed Towns, Villages and Countryside Comprehensive Plan Amendment ("TVC Amendment"). We applaud your goal of providing for the orderly development of the northwest portion of the County and appreciate that a great deaJ of work has gone into tbis process. However. we have several concerns regarding the TVC Amendment wlúch we would like to bring to your attention: 1. We believe that the TVC Amendment is too detailed. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide a broad ftamework for development The details of that ftamework are provided by the land development regulations ("LDR's"). If the TVC Amendment does not work as anticipated, you will have to make further amendßJeD1s to the Comprehensive Plan. It typically takes a year or more to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The LDR's, on the other hand, can be amended much more quickly and easily. You will have more flexibility and will be better able to make adjustments to your regulations if the Comprehensive Plan simply provides a broad ftamework and the details are in the LDR's. 2, Until the LDR's implementing the TVC Amendment have been drafted, it is impossible to tell how the TVC Amendment will work. Landowncn and other interested par1ies cannot determine how the TVC Amendment will affect them. unless they are allowed an opportunity to review the TVC Amendment and the LDR's implementing it, together, We ask that the TVC Amendment not be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs until the LOR's implementing it can be reviewed by all affected parties, 3. The TVC Amendment should be drafted and implemented in a manner that preseJVes the rights of existing landowners. The TVC Amendment gives affected landowners the right to keep their current zoning; however, it is our understanding that the Amendment may take away their rights to their existing land use In other words, if their current land use allows for a more intensive zoning, tbe TVC Amendment may take away their right to that more intensive zoning. The TVC Amendment should prcscJVe the affected landowners' rights not only to their current zoning, but also to tbe.ir current land use designation. We believe the '-" 'wi Franoie Hutchinson, Chairwoman July 11, 2005 Page 2 existing landowner's rights as addressed in the current drift must be clarified and presClVed, There is a growing national perception that local. SOvemments are able to intrude on the rights of existing landowners to tbeir detriment. Since the success of this amendmeDt depends 00 loc:aI support, we feel stronøly that addressing this issue now will facilitate your abiJity to move forward with the broad based support all of us desire. 4. The TVC Ameodment purports to fòster economic development by giving bonuses for targeted industries, but there appears to be inadequate accommodation for where these industties can go. The TVC Amendment provides for non-residential development only in the fonn of retail development, II does not provide for development tbat creates jobs mo", in 1ine with the lon8- term Boals of our area, such as professional, technical/scientific, manu1àcturing, or indushial development. Retail d~opm.ent alone does not provide the high payiog jobs that St. Lucie County needs to support the inftastNc:ture required by the rapidly growing population. In order to provide for future business growth in St. Lucie County and provide for high paying jobs, it is critical that space be provided. 5. Data should be provided on the anticipated cost to develop property within the TVC Amendment area. We are concerned that the cost to develop residenúa1 units pursuant to the TVC Amendment (purchase deveIopmeot «edits, build roads, extend utilities, provide drainage) will rn.ake it too expemive for people who work. in St. Lucie County to be able to afford these homes. We must provide housing for our existing and future workforce. 6, The TVC Amendment should aDow for a variety of residential types and different price levels. Not everyone wants to live in a community desisned using "new urbanism" concepts. The TVC Amendment and its implementing LDll's should allow for ßexibility, 50 that developers can provide different types of residences at different priœ levels, as market conditions demand. We hope you wiD give serious consideration to our c:omments. The TVC Amendment witt have consequences that wiJ) affect St. Lucie County for ßWty years to come. Therefore, we believe that it is more important to take the time to make sure the Amendment adequately addresses the concerns of tbe county business community, than it is to get it done quickly. Tbank. you in advance for your careful consideration of our perspective. Best Regards, -Yn~~ Michelle Miller Vice President of Governmental Affiúrs St, Lucie County Chamber of Commerce ~ L"9f\ 'WI I Ruden ~~ McClosky 145 NW CENTRAL PARK PLAZA SUITE 200 PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA 34966 (772) 873-5910 FAX: (772) 87:¡.;J110 NOREEN.DREYER@RUDEN,COM June 13,2005 Mr. Michael J. Busha, Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 300 Stuart, FL 34994 SENT VIA FAX AND US MAIL Re: Towns, Villages and Countryside Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Lucie County Dear Michael: As you know, I have been involved with the North County Charrette process since its inception. I have closely followed the evolution of that process and the resulting proposed Towns, Villages and Countryside Comprehensive Plan Amendment ("TVC Amendment"), and know how much work has gone into this endeavor by everyone involved. As a resident of St. Lucie County, I applaud the County on its efforts to plan for the future. In addition to my interest in this Amendment as a St. Lucie County resident, my finn represents a number of clients with property interests within the proposed TVC area. These clients have a variety of interests and concerns regarding the TVC Amendment. Many of us have offered verbal comments on many official and unofficial occasions. I would now like to offer written comments on the May 11th draft of the TVC Amendment. The intent of these conunents is to assist in creating a workable product that addresses the main concerns of the community and the County with regard to future planning, that reduces the County's possible liability for impairing existing property rights, and that the County can efficiently administer with available resources. More general conunents precede the more specific comments. 1. There is far too much detail in the comprehensive plan amendment. Most of the content of the TVC Amendment belongs in the County's Land Development Regulations ("LDR's"), not in the Comprehensive Plan. Only the most basic concepts belong in the Comprehensive Plan, similar to the other land use categories in the County Comprehensive Plan. There are two major reasons for this: a) Given the novelty and complexity of this new amendment, there will likely be a number of problems that PSL:15964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSElL, P.A. CARACAS" FT. LALJDERD"'LE .. MIAMI" NAPLES" ORLANDO" POU ST. LUCIE .. SARASOTA" ST. PflERSBURC .. TALLAHASSEE .. TAMPA" WEST rALM BI:4.CH ~ -...I Page 2 manifest themselves once the amendment is actually implemented. Because of the statutory limitations on Comprehensive Plan amendments and the lengthy required amendment process, it will take approximately a year to fix any of those problems. In contrast, it only takes a few months to correct a problem in the LDR's. b) Data and analysis is required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, data and analysis is lacking for much of the draft TVC Amendment. 2. The LDR's that implement the TVC Amendment should be drafted, developed and reviewed concurrently with the TVC amendment, and ready for adoption immediately after the TVC Amendment. This is particularly true in this instance, because the TVC Amendment specifically references the TVC LDR's. Until the TVC LDR's are written, it is impossible to agree with the many policies that require the LDR's to be followed, and it is impossible for our clients and other landowners in the TVC area to understand the full extent of their rights and obligations under the TVC Amendment. By drafting, developing and reviewing the TVC LDR's concurrently with the TVC Amendment, the community can review the entire proposal as a package, and make infonned decisions; the TVC land use will be immediately available for use, since all required components will have been completed; and a better "fit" can be achieved between the land use and the LDR's. The following are specific comments on provisions of the draft amendment. Although it is our belief that most of these detailed provisions belong in the LDR's and not the Comprehensive Plan, many of these comments would still apply if the provisions were included in the LDR's. The references are to the specific page and section of the May 11th redline draft of the TVC Amendment. 3. p. 3-iii, Definitions. Countryside. Use the definition set forth in Section 380.04 Florida Statutes. 4. p. 3-iv, Definitions. Fanner's Market. Capitalize "fann store" if this reference is intended to refer to the previously defined tenn "Fann Store". 5. p. 3-iv, Definitions. "Family Fanns" should be "Family Fann". More importantly, this concept is impractical. How will the County detennine whether the homes belong to the "operator's family?" Who constitutes family? What will happen to the homes once the "operator's family" has moved away or become smaller? Must they be tom down? Can they be sold? 6. p. 3-iv, Definitions. Local Store. The defined tenn is "Local Store" but the definition refers to "Comer Store". 7. p. 3-iv, Definitions. Neighborhood. Y. mile for "walkability" seems to be very limited. One mile would be more realistic, particularly when taking into account other PSL:15964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSEll, P.A. CARACAS' FT.lAUDERDAU . MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO' PORT ST. LUCIE . SARASOTA' ST. PETERSBURG' TAllAHASSEE' TAMP" . WEST PAlM BEACH '-' ...,J Page 3 forms of mobility such as bicycles, segways, scooters, etc. With the strong emphasis on bike paths, mass transit, etc., gearing everything to a Y. mile walk does not seem to be consistent. 8. p. 3-iv, Definitions. Open Space. We have been repeatedly told that civic and religious buildings count as "open space", but this is not reflected in the definition. Further, this definition is inconsistent with the description of open space in Policy 3.1.5.3 of the TVC Amendment. 9. p. 3-iv, Definitions. Targeted Industries. This definition is too vague. We suggest specifying certain industries. If this provision is included in the LDR's, then the CO\lßty can easily amend it to add new industries that may be desired in the future. In addition, in meetings with the TCRPC, it was suggested that certain targeted industries could be placed in the countryside, which would allow for a greater multiplier. 10. p. 3-v, Definitions. TDR Credits. The definition appears to use Transferable Density Value as a defmed term, in which case it should be capitalized. 11. p. 3-v, Definitions. Town Center. The term "open-air" could be better defined. It is assumed that the point is to differentiate this concept from an enclosed shopping mall, but it sounds more like street vendors than permanent buildings. 12. p. 3-vi, North St. Lucie County Special Area Plan - General Location Map. The area identified on the map as the SAP is greater than the original Charrette area and is not consistent with the other maps. What is the purpose of including this map because it does not appear to be referenced in the text ofthe TVC Amendment? 13. p. 3-1, Policy 3.1.1.1 and subsequent policies refer to the TVC "Element", however, the TVC is not an element of the comprehensive plan but instead is a future land use map designation contained in the Future Land Use Element. This comment is applicable throughout the document and will not be repeated each time. 14. p. 3-1, Policy 3.1.1.3. Revise the policy to state as foHows: ".. .however, all other policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan apply except where specifically addressed by the TVC in conflict with the TVC. 15. p. 3-1, Policy 3.1.1.4. From an environmental, health and safety perspective it is bad public policy to deny public water and wastewater services to those developments that exist in proximity to utility service lines provided that such developments are willing to pay their fair share of the cost and all applicable fees. The alternative to a public wastewater system is to use individual septic tanks for sewage disposal, which contributes to pollution of our waterways and ground water supply. This is contrary to PSL:15964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, PA CARACAS. FT. lAUDERDALf . MIAMI. NAPLES· ORLANDO. PORT 501. LUCIE· SARASOTA' ST. PETERSBURG' TAllAHASSEE' TAMPA' WEST PAlM BEAC.H '-" .'WJ Page 4 what St. Lucie County has been working toward. As written, the provision is purely punitive. 16. p. 3-2. Policy 3.1.1.6. The first and second sentences of this policy should be reworded as follows: "The TVC Map (Figure 3-1) establishes the potential uses, aBà densities and intensities for properties in the TVC area, as established iR the pre e¡¡isting Fatl:lfe Land Use Element as sf [date ef aèøptisR sf TVC l~eftåmoot consistent with those uses. densities, and intensities existing on the Droperties as of r date of adoption of TVC Amendmentl. PreflaFties shall Ret all-va the Uflderlymg potemial daRsities or iHteRSities, as 6stRbliIJRed BY that fife e¡cistiag Faå.li"e land \:Ise ElemeRt, limited by the TVC Element. Nothing in the TVC land use is intended to limit or reduce those potential uses. densities or intensities of proDerties within the TVC land use that were in existence on rdate of adoption ofTVC Amendment.] 17. p. 3.2 and 3.3, Policy 3.1.1.6. and Figure 3-1. The referenced policy and Figure purport to state that all land uses, densities and intensities for properties within the TVC area are the same as are in existence today, but neither the policy nor the figure reflect the non-residential allocations for those properties currently lying within the Mixed Use Activity area at the intersection of 1-95 and Indrio Road. 18. p, 3.2, Policy 3.1.1.7.5. Please refer to comment regarding the definition of "Family Farms" the same comment applies here, as well as to the tenn "Family Homes." 19. p. 3-2, Policy 3.1.1.7.6. This policy unfairly penalizes the small landowners, those with less than 500 contiguous acres, as they may not obtain urban services and therefore may not cluster to take advantage of the economies offered by such clustering. They may not receive utilities even if those utilities are adjacent. From an environmental perspective, this does not appear to be a good idea, and may run afoul of environmental regulations. I believe you will find that many of the smaller landowners who otherwise might be inclined to accept their current densities and work with TVC Amendment, will find this totally unacceptable. Further, the last sentence of the policy requires development to be compatible in scale and character with existing adjacent development and to follow the TVC Land Development Regulations. This requirement could prove to be impossible to follow, depending on how adjacent property is developed, and is inconsistent with statements that these landowners are in the same position under the TVC Amendment that they are in today. The LDR's that are to be followed are not yet drafted. The acceptability of this cannot be commented on until the LDR's are drafted. In addition, this language may give the impression that the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the LDR's, when the law requires that the LDR's be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. These comments regarding the reference to the LDR's apply throughout the document. PSL: 15964;4 CAIACAS· Fl. LAUDERDALE· MIAMI· fo.iAPlfS . ORLANDO· PORT ST. LUCIE . SARASOTA. §T. PETERSBURG. TAllAHASSEE. IAMPAt. . WEST PALM BE,o\CH RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, PA '-' ..,¡ Page 5 20. p. 3-4, Policy 3.1.2.1.4. Revise the first sentence to read as follows: "Nothing in the TVC land use is intended to limit or reduce those potential uses, densities or intensities of properties within the TVC land use that were in existence on [date of adoption ofTVC Amendment.]" Again, the LDRs have not been drafted and therefore cannot be agreed to. 21. p. 3-5, Policy 3.1.3.1. 7. Retail growth should also be planned based on the existing and projected population. 22. p. 3-5., Policy 3.1.3.2 1) and Figure 3-2. We understand that Figure 3-2 is to be deleted from the draft and agree that this must be done. Regardless of statements otherwise, this conceptual drawing is reviewed as being a specific plan, which was never its intent. 23. p. 3-6., Policy 3.1.3.2. 1) a) and Table 3-1. This table clearly does not include the maximum non-residential allocations under the current land use. Where are the 464 acres of industrial use to be located? How will the amounts of each use be allocated? What happens when the allocation cap is reached? Is the last landowner to develop potentially left with no use? 24. p. 3-6., Policy 3.1.3.2. 1) a) and Table 3-1. Although the table includes maximum allocations for residential, commercial and industrial uses, there is no policy in the TVC Amendment that specifically states what uses are pennitted in the TVC land use. 25. p. 3-8, Policy 3.1.4.1. The word "Parks" is capitalized but does not appear to be a defined term. 26. p. 3-8, Policy 3.1.4.2.1. Again, why is v.. mile chosen? See previous comment regarding the definition of "Neighborhood." 27. p. 3-9, Policy 3.1.4.2.4. It is unclear why a school could not be permitted in an off-site location if the School Board agrees with the off-site location. 28. p, 3-15, Policy 3.1.4.3. This policy acknowledges that additional density might have to be purchased in order to meet minimum density requirements to develop property. The policy also prohibits rezoning of property to achieve additional density. These statements significantly impact existing property rights of the landowners. It forces them to purchase density credits regardless of availability or price of those credits. Further, to prohibit rezoning of property within the limits of the existing land use clearly removes an existing right. PSL:15964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P,A. CARACAS· fT. LAUDERDALE· MIAMI· N"PLES . ORlANDO· rORT !iT. LUCIE· SARASOTA· ST. PETERSBURG· TAllAHASSEE· TAMPA· WEST PALM BEACH '-" ..I Page 6 29. p. 3-15 and 3-18, Policies 3.1.4.4 and 3.1.4.5. See previous comment regarding minimwl1 density. The open space requirements are too great and need to be scaled back to provide a marketable and workable product. This may be further exacerbated depending on what may be included as open space. (See comment 31, below.) The open space requirement, the minimum density requirement and the required compactness of the development will result in tall buildings, a large proportion of multifamily or attached development with single family consisting of tiny lots. This may not be what the citizens envisioned when they participated in the charrette, and may not be marketable. 30. p. 3-20, Policy 3.1.5.2. There is no data and analysis to back up the requirement to use the treated wastewater only in the Countryside. Utilizing the reuse water to inigate residential lots would reduce the need for such large open space requirements. 31. p. 3-20, Policy 5.1.5.3. We have been told by TCRPC staff that buildings such as fire stations, houses of worship and community centers also count as required open space, but these types of civic and religious uses are not reflected by the policy. The County staff has questioned whether buildings should count as open space. The large amount of open space cannot be practically achieved without counting uses that are traditionally not included as open space. 32. p, 3-20, Policy 3.1.5.5. This policy is unclear as to what is required. 33.p. 3-21, Policy 3.1.5.6.1. This policy should be revised to read: "New developments located outside the Urban Service Boundary directly north and south of Indrio Road.. ," 34. p. 3-23, Policy 3.1.5.7. This is one of many examples of a policy that belongs in the LDR and not in the Comprehensive Plan. 35. p. 3-23, Policy 3.1.5.8. While a CDD may be a good vehicle to use, it is inappropriate to mandate the creation of a COD, since a CDD can be fonned only through a legislative act of the County or by petition to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (the Governor and Cabinet), depending on the amount of acreage involved. This policy, which belongs in the LDR's and not the comprehensive plan, should be more general in scope, as there are a number of possible vehicles by which the open space could be administered. These include such entities, for example, as a property owners association, a special taxing district, a COD, or a state or county agency. The policy also needs to be more clear as to what must be administered and managed. For example, it would not be appropriate for a CDD or property owner's association to maintain a school, fire station or house of worship, all of which could be counted as open space PSl:15964:4 CARACAS' fT. tAUDERDALE . MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO' PORT Sf. LUCIE . ~RASOTA . ST. P£TERSBURG . TALLAHASSfE -lAMP" . 'NEST PALM BEACH RUDEN, McClOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. Y' '-' Page 7 36. p. 23, Policy 3.1.5.9. The reference to CDD's should be eliminated. 37. p. 3.23, Objective 3.1.6. This objective needs to be thought through more completely, including the means by which the system will be financed and managed and how the system will relate to the existing drainage districts and the requirements of the SFWMD. Until the details of this system are detennined, and all pennitting agencies are in agreement, development of all property within the TVC will be affected. Traditional drainage and retention mechanisms may need to be used in the interim, thereby impairing the benefits of the Flow-Way System and requiring unnecessary use of property that could be better utilized. 38. p. 3-24,25; Objective 3.1.7. The details of the TDR program need to be thought through more completely and some analysis of the value of a TDR credit performed. There needs to be a demonstrated balance between the demand for credits and the number of credits available in order to ensure that sufficient credits are available to meet minimum density requirements and that the smaller landowners who cannot develop have value for their property. This analysis is also necessary to insure that credits sent to areas outside the TVC land use (see Policy 3.1.7.5.1) are not needed to meet minimum requirements inside the TVC. 39. p. 3-25, Policy 3.1.7.5.1. If it was intended that receiving areas must be either in the TVC or at the alternative areas shown on Fig. 3-11, the last sentence of the subparagraph should be rewritten to state "areas east of the USB that either do not have a TVC Future Land Use designation or that are not indicated on the map are not eligible receiving sites under the TDR program." 40. p. 3-25, Policy 3.1. 7.6. The intent ofthe word "separate" must be clarified. 41. p. 3-27. Table 3-4. We object to the reduction of the multipliers. The specified multipliers coupled with the limit on multipliers mandated by Policy 3.1.7.8, do not provide sufficient incentive to develop under the restrictions and burdens of the TVC land use. More definition of what qualifies for a multiplier needs to be included, e.g. what constitutes "higher education facility", "facilities provided in connection with Research and Development Park," etc. 42. p. 3-23, Policy 3.1. 7.8. This policy needs to be clarified to state that more than one multiplier can be applied to a project, but not to the same acreage within the project. This policy takes into consideration only residential density and does not include any factor for non-residential entitlements when calculating TDR credits. The Mixed Use Activity Area at the I-95/Indrio Road Interchange presently includes a substantial amount of non-residential development that is not being adequately accounted for in the TVC policies. PSL: 15964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. CARACAS. n. LAUOfROAlf . MIAMI· NA.PLES . ORLANDO· PORT S1.LUCIE . SARASOTA· ST. PETERSBURC . JALlAHASSH . TAMPA· WEST PA.lM BEACH - - - '- ....I Page 8 43. p. 3-28, Example A does not reflect the current multiplier. 44. p. 3-30, Policy 3.1.7.10. The 20 year period during which TDR credits are viable is too short. 45. p. 3-30, Policy 3.1.7.13. The transfer procedure needs to be adopted in the LDR's at the same time as the Land Use Amendment is adopted. 46. p. 3-30, Policy 3.1.7.14. Provision should be made to allow one benefit to be substituted for another in appropriate situations, to accommodate the changing needs of the community over time. For large projects such as DRI's, mitigation measures are based on units; if the number of units on which the mitigation measures are based is reduced, then the mitigation measures should be reduced correspondingly. - 47. p. 3-31-33, Policy 3.1.8.2 and Figure 3-12 indicate the location for new retail establishments based on the approved master plan. There appears to be no flexibility in where retail development can be located within the TVC area. 48. p. 3-31, Policy 3.1.8.2.1 a. The referenced Table number is not correct. 49. p. 3-33, Fig. 3-12. What is the basis for the 'I. mile limitation in the note? Please refer to comment regarding definition of "neighborhood". 50. p.3-34, Policy 3.1.9.3.1. The referenced Table number is not correct. Clarification of Figure 3-14 is required in that it is our understanding that the proposed roads are merely general corridors that are not specifically located. 51. p. 3-36, 3-37, Fig. 3-14 and Table 3-9. InOOo Road is shown as a proposed 4 lane road west of Emerson on Fig. 3-14 but is identified as 2 lanes east of Johnston in Table 3-9. How will 2 lanes on Indrio east of Johnston correct the current concurrency deficit on Indrio Road? Further, with InOOo Road being the only direct connection between 1-95 and US I in the north county area, it seems unlikely that InOOo Road can remain at two lanes through the year 2030. 52. p. 3-43, Figure 3-17. There appears to be no reference to this Figure in the text. Again, what is the significance of the Y. mile radius? 53. p. 1. Land Use Category Matrix. Zoning is a permitted district in every land use category except TVC. To be consistent, utilities should also be a permitted zoning category in TVC. Furthermore, all other Land Use categories include a variety of zoning districts. Only the TVC Land Use limits the property owners to only one zoning district; and there is nothing in the TVC Amendment that clearly states what the pelmitted uses are. Arguable, all uses are permitted. PSl:'S964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A_ CARACAS' FT. LAUDERDALE. MIAMI' NAPLES' ORLANDO· PORT §T. LUCŒ . SARASOTA' ST. PETERSBURG· TALLAHASSEE' TAMPA' WEST PALM BEACH \r 'WI Page 9 54. p. 3, Policy 1.1.2 The added language which requires all land outside the urban service boundary conflicts with the language of the TVC Amendment policies. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. S~~ely, r /1 ~¿¿¿t.<...J Noreen S. Dreyer NSD/pw cc: Board of County Commissioners Local Planning Agency PSL:1S964:4 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSEll, P.A. CARACAS· FT. LAUDERDALE . MIAMI· NAPLES· ORlANDO· PORT 5T. WClE . SARASOTA· 51. PETERSBURG . TAllAHASSEE· TAMPA· WEST PAlM 8fACH ~ ""'" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM FROM: Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Project Manager Diana Waite, Planner III CÞJ TO: DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: TVC Element This to provide formal comments on the proposed TVC Element that we have discussed over the last several months and others we may not have discussed. Some of the issues noted below may have already been addressed, if so, please disregard. 1. Transportation Element Objective 2.1.3 and subsequent polices address the County's thoroughfare right-of-way protection plan and map consisting of existing and proposed roadways, Of particular concern is the TVC Elements elimination of the north/south link between Indrio Road and Angle Road on the west side of 1-95. This roadway is proposed as part of a two-lane road between SR70 and Indrio Road. A new roadway that will connect Angle Road to Orange Avenue, via FFA, is currently being proposed as part of a development project under review. The next segment required is the FFA to Indrio which has been eliminated in the TVC Element. I strongly recommend that this roadway be maintained in the TVC documents. The proposed roadway would provide an alterative north/south collector road and an alterative route for trucks to reach the industrial areas along Kings Highway without entering the heart of the TVC area. 2. The TVC roadway network should be incorporated into the County's Thoroughfare Network Plan in the Transportation Element or a policy should be provided that requires development along the TVC roadway network to comply with Objective 2.1.3 and subsequent polices. This would also trigger compliance with LDC Section 7.05.03 Rights-of-way Determinations and Dedications, Improvements that provides for right-of-way dedication and timely development of transportation corridors within the TVC area. 3. A home listed on the national historic register is located at 8431 Immolakee Road along a TVC proposed 4 lane roadway and in close proximity to the new East-West Rd. connector to 1-95. If the 4 lane roadway is maintain, consideration should be given to widening Immolakee Road on the north side to avoid impacts to this historic property. The new connector road to 1-95 should be located further to the south to avoid any negative impacts to this historic property. The "Immokalee House", a 1929 Mediterranean Revival home is on the national historic register and significant at the local level. This is one of the oldest and best June 20, 200'-' Page 4 Subject.JC Element preserved historic properties in the unincorporated County. The home was built by Dorothy Binney Putnam, heiress to the Crayola Crayon fortune and is maintained as a residence of the family today. 4. TVC Strategy: Reduce the number of undeveloped large lots in the Countryside Currently, a substantial number of undeveloped lots are scattered throughout western 5t. Lucie County. In order to achieve the goal of maintaining environmentally sensitive lands and agricultural character of the County, the number of existing, scattered, undeveloped lots located in the agricultural and resource conservation areas must be reduced. The County will pursue methods for landowners to transfer density from these lands to TVC development sites. To accomplish the above, the County would need to revise Land Development Code Section 11.03.01 (3) that allows for the subdivision of lots greater than 20 acres without county review (LDC Section 11,03.01 (3)). A policy requiring all subdivisions (3 lots or more) to receive County site plan approval prior to subdividing should be considered for placement in the Future Land Use element and the above LDC language excluding those lots greater than 20 acres from the County's platting requirement should be removed from the land development code. According to the appraiser's office estimates that one property owner created over 300 20+acre lots in 2003. At least some of these lots were created on lands previously determined to be environmentally sensitive and contain historic or archaeological sites. This policy exempts from County review, an archeological survey, tree survey and possibility other documents, including those related to water management, that are typically required at the time of subdivision. 5. Recognize and protect environmentally sensitive land (including the North Savannas, Atlantic Coastal Ridge scrub and the Indian River Lagoon). These areas should be designated as "sending" zones; they should not be receiving areas. Consider giving the greatest priority to TOR credits for native habitat and consider allowing the transfer of credits TOR from the urban area to outside the urban area when preserving native habitat. Remove the receiving sites along the sensitive lands along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and the Indian River Lagoon, except for the existing MXD - Treasure Coast Industrial Park Activity Area. 6. Consider a policy that requires the open space requirement first be utilized to preserve native habitat. At least 50% of the open space requirement shall be met through the preservation of native habitats if that habitat exists on the site. These areas should be labeled as Preserves or Conservation Areas on future plats. The native habitat portion of the open space requirement shall be contiguous land areas, where such native habitat is available. 7. Create standards that prohibit Large Retail Establishments (BIG BOXES) in the town and village centers. 8. Consider specifying a minimum greenbelt perimeter around the developed area. Sarasota requires 500 feet around the perimeter of the developed area. A greenbelt would not be required along 1-95 or within the USA. June 20, 2005'-' Page 4 9. Objective 3.1.5.1: Healthy ecosystems - list the uses considered as "Countyside:" Golf courses should be eliminated form this list. Subject: .....J:- Element 10. Indrio Road - consider specifying the width of the countyside/open space that is to be provided along Indrio Road. 11. Consider requiring the stormwater management systems be incorporated into the open space designs along roadways, when the developments stormwater system cannot otherwise be connected to the regional system. 12. Policy 3.1.7.14: To ensure the affordable housing and targeted industry's are created once TDR's for these public benefits are obtained by the developer, each portion of development undertaken shall result in an equal portion of affordable housing units or targeted industry area. Or require the affordable housing units or development of the targeted industry in the first or 2nd phase of development. 13. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection should continue to be effective within the TVC. 14. If St. Lucie County acquires land within a sending zone, the development rights assigned to these lands may be made available for sale and the proceeds of any sale shall be used to purchase environmentally sensitive lands. The proposed TVC Element is an incentive based land use that will result in providing additional housing units along with required industries and retail establishments to meet the needs of future residents in the area while preserving native habitats and aggregating open space areas to provide benefits to the public. Since 1991 the County has maintained the ability for land owners in agriculture areas to develop their property with 50-80% of the property required to be maintained as open space. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan required developments in excess of 20 units to retain a minimum of 80% of the project site as open space, from 4-20 units were required to maintain 50% of the project site as open space. All development was required to be processed through the PUD process and to cluster developments. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan provided no provision to increase densities or services outside the urban service area. In 2004, the Future Land Use Element was amendment to allow developments in the AG-2.5 and AG-5 area to apply for subdivision approval through the site plan process, rather than the PUD process, if 8 units or less and 160 acres or less. Projects meeting these criteria are required to maintain 50% of the property as open space; however that land can be in private ownership. Those developments with more than 8 units and greater than 160 acres were required to maintain a minimum of 80% as open space, however only 35% were required to be in common open space. In the agriculture areas, the proposed TVC element will allow higher densities in agriculture areas while slightly decreasing the open space requirements in agriculture areas. The proposed TVC not only awards the developer for meeting the open space requirements, but provides opportunities to gain urban services, such as water and sewer service, commercial, office and light industrial uses. In exchange for the June 20, 20CJ\." Page 4 opportunity to obtain higher densities and other benefits the developer is required to provide a development scenario using certain settlement principles that are intended to result in a sustainable development pattern. Subjec~C Element Sarasota embarked on a similar path several years ago and encountered various concerns that ultimately resulted in suits being filed by the regions strongest environmental group as well as numerous local developers. Sarasota "Resource Management Area" system was found in compliance by DCA and the implementation plan, or land development was adopted in 2003. Today. although no external purchase of development rights has occurred to date, one settlement within the urban service area has been approved and a 3,000 acre Village development is being reviewed through the DRI process. St. Lucie County's TDR program is more generous than Sarasota's which should result in more demand for the transfer of credits. Sarasota's RMA program awards the highest TDR ratios for the preservation of native habitat, with values increases as to the rarity of that habitat. Preserving natural resources provides multiple benefits to the community which cannot be replaced once lost. Habitat preservation should be considered as a high priority when developing the programs TDR ratios. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cc: Faye Outlaw, Assistant Count Administrator David Kelly, Planning Manager Sheryl Stolzenberg, Planner III - '-' JUN 23 2005 \~~" <J)JLG . GoJh Múru~e.mw cThn MCÍAt~U- ~ð~rd~ Honorable Members of the S1. Lucie County Commission 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982 Re: Proposed Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Master Plan as Recommended by the Study from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council - Dear Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to provide some input on the proposed Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments that you as commissioners will be considering for adoption this summer. Let me first begin by stating that as a property owner in this community, I am fully aware of the issues and concerns regarding the challenges you face meeting the increasing and inevitable demands of growth in S1. Lucie County. Property owners as well as residents of this county have a deep interest in preserving as much of the rural character of North St. Lucie County as possible. Indeed it is this unique characteristic that makes this community attractive to current and potential new residents. Accordingly, it is important that the amendments to be adopted serve as a guide in ensuring a good quality of life for all members of the community as long as said amendments do so without infringing on the legal rights of residents and property owners alike. It is with this in mind that I would like to share with you the following comments for the record with respect to the Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC) conceptual growth plan as developed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. T.V.C.: The plan, although very interesting in concept, is full of questionable and impractical ideas that would create financial hardships to current and future land owners. The recommendations in the plan are riddled with serious flaws that stand to adversely affect not only property owners, but future residents of the county. If adopted as is, this plan not only would result in potential economic loss, but also seems to be in clear violation of existing property rights that are currently protected under the Harris Act. Approval of the TVC amendments as proposed, will eventually result in unnecessary legal challenges, on the impingement of property rights, that may prolong the implementation of the elements within the TVC designation until said challenges are decided in the courts. Accordingly, I urge this commission to consider the following points/comments before a vote for approval ofTVC: ,.,.__._--_._..~._-_._.- o,_····_··_n__ '-' ...,J ISSUES: The TVC plan requires mixed zoning from single family to multifamily and commercial all in one sector surrounded by green rural open space areas as countrysides. There are several underlying problems with this approach as follows: A) Land owners must have a minimum of 500 acres in order to develop property under the TVC designation. This element creates a prejudicial policy towards small land owners. Furthermore; Landowners are prevented from subdividing their property creating another infringement on one's property rights. B) In order to compensate smaller land owners, the plan introduces the Transfer Development Rights (TDR) another controversial program. TDR may increase property density for example, from one unit per acre to two units per acre in which the land owner may sell to a potential developer but is prohibited from ever developing this property under the purposed plan. In addition, there is no clear indication as to what dictates the sale value of the TDR property and how will it be evaluated in the market? The T.C.R.P.C purposes for the county to investigate the creation of a fair market value PDR program to supplement and complement the county's TDR Program? This sounds very unrealistic that a government body would or will be setting market conditions on value! Clearly a responsibility that would be challenged in courts. C) TVC excludes other future developments that may already be in existence from connecting to new utilities when they become available in the area. Residents of those developments are being denied the right and opportunity to ever be served by the new utility service as taxpayers of the County. D) The plan also requires a large water flow system be in place. How is this element going to impact residents and their property? E) The proposed TVC amendments will actually increase the present day Land Use Density from the present 22,000 to 37,500 contradicting the initial intensions of the plan. This concentrates density in a smaller area while the present and current Future Land Use Map controls density at 22,000. F) The new Land Development Regulations -LDR policies are unrealistic to expect Landowners to agree with a Compo Plan when the LDR policies are unwritten . The concentration of all development into a smaller area will impact infrastructure needs of smaller communities. And minimizing its rural character by concentrating development into just one area, as oppose to spreading the rural character throughout the area. Furthermore, there has been no answer as to how these green areas will be maintained and if so, the tax payers will have to assume the cost. At what cost? G) There have been numerous studies completed with regard to the proposal but not one of these studies has been made available to the public. Are the conclusions negative aspects being repressed? The public has the right to know after all was it not public dollars that has paid for such studies? '-" """" H) Notices regarding the meeting on these issues can be best described as poor. Some notices are received and some are not. There needs to be a better effort in notifying the public regarding these meeting days and time. In conclusion, I urge the Board of County Commissioners to analyze the pros and cons of the TVC proposal not only with respect on how it will impact the future of the county and its residents, but also on whether parts of this plan unfairly and unjustly encroaches on the legal rights of property owners. Local government is charged with the responsibility of making new laws that will serve to benefit all members of the community. But Government also has the obligation to secure and protect the rights of all its citizens, residents and property owners alike. I hope that the Board will consider the observations expressed in this letter before final approval of the TVC amendments. Sincerely, ST. LUCIE...,.. COUNTY I CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Ul\~1.!ð c..c.:.. '....Jx::c.. ~,p.~. Co.~. , <1'f\~ Cb~~.(r~~ "\CÆLÇ>Q.. 0 . Chamber of Commerce I Port 51 LucIe 626 5.E. Port 51 LuCIe Blvd. Port 51. Lucie, FL Phone 772,398, 460 Fax 772,335.4446 Chamber of Commerce / Fort Pierce 2200 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL Phone 772.595.9999 Fax 772.461.9084 Seven Gables House Visitor Center 482 N. Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, FL Phone 772.468.9152 Fax 772.468.9826 Mailing Address· 2200 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 www.stluciecha m ber. 0 rg [J ;;f!.~~~: ..,. -.-' July 11, 2005 Frannie Hutchinson, Chairwoman St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Re: Towns, Villages and Countryside Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Chairman Hutchinson: The Chamber and many of its members have been following with interest the development of the proposed Towns, Villages and Countryside Comprehensive Plan Amendment ("TVC Amendmynt"), We applaud your goal of providing for the orderly development of the northwest portion of the County and appreciate that a great deal of work has gone into this process. However, we have several concerns regarding the TVC Amendment which we would like to bring to your attention: 1. We believe that the TVC Amendment is too detailed. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide a broad rramework for development. The details of that rramework are provided by the land development regulations ("LDR's"). If the TVC Amendment does not work as anticipated, you will have to make further amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. It typically takes a year or more to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The LDR's, on the other hand, can be amended much more quickly and easily. You will have more flexibility and will be better able to make adjustments to your regulations if the Comprehensive Plan simply provides a broad rramework and the details are in the LDR's. 2. Until the LDR's implementing the TVC Amendment have been drafted, it is impossible to tell how the TVC Amendment will work. Landowners and other interested parties cannot determine how the TVC Amendment will affect them, unless they are allowed an opportunity to review the TVC Amendment and the LDR's implementing it, together. We ask that the TVC Amendment not be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs until the LDR's implementing it can be reviewed by all affected parties. 3. The TVC Amendment should be drafted and implemented in a manner that preserves the rights of existing landowners. The rvc Amendment gives affected landowners the right to keep their current zoning; however, it is our understanding that the Amendment may take away their rights to their existing land use, In other words, if their current land use allows for a more intensive zoning, the rvc Amendment may take away their right to that more intensive zoning. The rve Amendment should preserve the affected landowners' rights not only to their current zoning, but also to their current land use designation. We believe the JUL 14 2005 - "Page? '-'existing landowner's rights as addressed in the current dr~ust be clarified and preserved. There is a growing national perception that local governments are able to intrude on the rights of existing landowners to their detriment. Since the success of this amendment depends on local support, we feel strongly that addressing this issue now will facilitate your !Ù>ility to move forward with the broad based support all of us desire. 4. The TVC Amendment purports to foster economic development by giving bonuses for targeted industries, but there appears to be inadequate accommodation for where these industries can go. The TVC Amendment provides for non-residential development only in the fonn of retail development. It does not provide for development that creates jobs more in line with the long- tenn goals of our area, such as professional, technical/scientific, manufacturing, or industrial development. Retail development alone does not provide the high paying jobs that St. Lucie County needs to support the infi-astructure required by the rapidly growing population. In order to provide for future business growth in St. Lucie County and provide for high paying jobs, it is critical that space be provided. 5. Data should be provided on the anticipated cost to develop property within the TVC Amendment area. We are concerned that the cost to develop residential units pursuant to the TVC Amendment (purchase development credits, build roads, extend utilities, provide drainage) will make it too expensive for people who work in St. Lucie County to be able to afford these homes. We must provide housing for our existing and future workforce. 6. The TVC Amendment sholÙd allow for a variety of residential types and different price levels. Not everyone wants to live in a community designed using "new urbanism" concepts. The TVC Amendment and its implementing LDR's should allow for flexibility, so that developers can provide different types of residences at different price levels, as market conditions demand. We hope you will give serious consideration to our comments. The TVC Amendment will have consequences that will affect St. Lucie County for many years to come. Therefore, we believe that it is more important to take the time to make sure the Amendment adequately addresses the concerns of the county business community, than it is to get it done quickly. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of our perspective. Best Regards, . ÌÎ1~~ Michelle Miller Vice President of Governmental Affairs St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce .... .... .... -- \r ...." Zoning totals for undeveloped parcels in the North County Charette TVC Area Zoning Acreage AG-1 12162.86 AR-1 198.83 CG 76.11 CN 15.55 IL 188.93 PUD 243.88 RS-2 38.89 .s'enJ -t é'acA P f I {omlYl[ßV[17 Vdle #'(~1 - OY) 1nC711? note: DOR codes from the Property Appraiser data was used to obtain undeveloped parcels ...... -' May 25, 2005 /}G -1 /2)reL f. I <:::. 1¿1(~2- lfi-'f rf s f4.(L-1 iq~ y. I - fer B lH1; t.J' - puO - :)5 ~ ( - 30 G 11; f-/' ~£-1- 38 x 2.. ~ 7~ lfl1 iff' 12, L{~Cp 75' ~ fl(IÇL(1 (J.i ï~ (~ (ca M kt ~q (k~ c~ Q~~ V~{J fM.4f2l ~ tt N('luc(h cJv..., C6 ¿~ &.,U '-" .., Total acreage by zoning classification for the North Charette TVC area Acreage Zoning 12509.66 AG-1 259.72 AR-1 90.68 CC ·-lh26---GN--- -~ -244.50 It: .- 481.98 PUD ,-4.-.96 nF 38.89 RS-2 . 19.53 U 12 I SìJq ,6~"¡: I c /2( 5Ö9 2.. SC¡ ,77... '/' I ~ 259 L/ f!jS '6 ..¡: § - .., r, Ih, C 0/ 2- )'b-CJ(r- ~ Lf If ð 9 77 /t;;/L s-r¡ o fHff P~/ (V C !;'f..-cfJ ú'-u2", ~r: fJZ {£Æ/~ c."j (kr1l1J;tJ !kFè,'£ß) {¡ (71/, (' ç A I) '7 /"'Il ,;/" i )\Ah?*,Ü/sl1k-L, ! "1 Ä9t¡{Ö U.I<ÐL~ : I Michael Brillhart - re: Lak!"~ood Par~_ ",-," Pag~ ...J From: To: Date: SUbject: Liz Martin Pattybcxl@aol.com 6/30/20059:54:13 AM re: Lakewood Park Dear Ms. Boddy, I did receive your e-mail and I will copy it to our Growth Management Department and also the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please be assured that we have not voted on anything yet. Frannie >>> <Pattybod@aol.com> 06/26/05 8:43 PM >>> Dear Commissioner, The powers that be just don't seem to get the fact that we can't support a high density development up here in the north county. Once again, we don't have the water, schools, roads, etc. to handle it. Not to mention the drainage problems. If Lakewood Park is considered a Urban Sprawl, we will take it over developments like pt. St. Lucie, St. Lucie West and Portofino Shores. Visitors coming into the area remark on how great an area we live in, We've had the Charrette, we've been told that this is what would be the future for us. Now I read you're still discussing what to do up here,This TVC is just what we don't need up here! In Mr. Westbury's column Sunday, he quotes Einstein as saying" insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to change," Just look at the mistakes that have been made to the south of us and learn what "Not" to do. Remember, Bigger isn't always Better. Thank you for you attention. Sincerely, Patricia Boddy 7101 Cabana Lane. Lakewood Park cc: Brillhart, Michael; mbusha@tcrpc.org; Outlaw, Faye I~I ~~ru~lf2m~;nd \21~TPr~~~'~C ..,,¿ MEMO HAND DELIVERY: Public Meeting, April 21, 2005 To: From: Subject: St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission ~~ Mark R. Montgomery, North County Property Owner and Realtor ~ North County Citizen's Master Plan Many of us within the North County are concerned that we will have our land values reduced to zero if our properties are designated "park, lake, or countryside" by this plan. My understanding of the plan is that it does not directly compensate land owners for the loss of zoning and usage, allowing only transfer of development rights to other land owners who have the preferred zoning. This appears to be an extreme violation of our private property rights. No matter how well intended the plan may be, it seems too inequitable to be passed into law as designed. It is my hope that the Commission will recognize the flawed utopian ideals in this plan and the far reaching effects of the "condemnation without compensation" measures inherent in it, and deny its approval. As a lifelong resident ofSt. Lucie County, I agree that we citizens certainly should have input into land use decisions, but not by condoning a reversal oflong standing land use laws and a wholesale denial of private property rights by any group or authority. APR 21 2005 805 VIRGINIA AVENUE, SUITE 12 . P. 0, Box 1299 . FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 34954 . OffiCE (772) 461-7990 . FAX (772) 461·2246 [B REALTOR' Hpr ~~ U~ Ul:U~p ~M~T ~U~~~I~ ~~Tn~U Lu~r 11r£:: ...0.,. CO"O p.c: ~~ ~mr~ Landscape CenlfDCIUr Bnr1:ialttar. rrof_øuI N U R S E R Y AND LAN D seA P E OFFICE: 772:-460-1539' FAX: 771-464-2696 MAIUNG ADDRESS: 437 Rouse Road, Ft. Pierce, fL 34946 . NURSERY ADDRESS: 4200 Johnston Ro.d, Ft. Pierce., FL 34951 Dear PNZ member; My name is Gary Roberts and I, along with others who represented a cross section of interests, was appointed by the SLC County Commission to be a member of the original North County Charette Steering Committee. We were told from the beginning to be committed to the process from "inception through completion. II We agreed. Somehow this steering committee was disbanded and a new Landowners committee has taken it's place. I have spoken to every single County Commissioner and they do not know why the committee they appointed was disbanded. Also, from the very beginning the steering committee was told by county staff and TCRPC that this project would be an "opt in" program. That landowners would have the option of selling development rights and keeping their land or they could ALWAYS do what they can now under the current zoning regulations, if the program was not an incentive to buy into for them. The committee members embraced this, as well as the spirit of a master plan to control growth, and began the process of working on this process with good intentions and a positive trusting attitude. Now things have changed. The current plan does no~ include the original promise of an "opt in" scenario, creating new mistrust and red flags. In addition, after the original steering committee waS quietly disbanded, the Landowner's Committee had two meetings. I did not make the first. But I did make the second after another concerned original member called me to rally in the wake of what was happening. During the second meeting we brought up many concerns and were promised another meeting prior to TCRPC giving their report to the Commission, and we would be notified of the Commission meeting time and date as well. Needless to say, the Landowners never had the promised follow up meeting, nor were we given the Commission meeting schedule. This after they passed a sign-in sheet around and had evèryone's contact information. In addition to this, I told Marsala after the meeting that I still had concerns. She said to fax her. I did and did not get a reply either. With all this said, and in addition the major issues explained above, the following are more, but not all, of the red flags I am so concerned about: n~1 ~y V~ u~.u~~ UIII"IIo I "UU,,"-" t _ 11_...' ,_ '-__. '- "wi _ This is a 28,000 acre prototype with human error that will have many unforeseen issues come up that will make it impossible to make everything come out perfect when adopted. Without the back up option of being allowed to use one's property as it is currently zoned, some people may lose all they have worked for. Remember the smaller pieces that can not develop into a village are most often owned by local people who have been here for years and often this is the only land they own. The larger pieces of over-the-size- to-make-a-village are often owned by large companies who own many pieces of land. So the small landowner may very well lose everything with this program and the developer risks very little in comparison. _ Open space of 60% that was, to my knowledge, never agreed on by either advisory committees. 60% does not match the current zoning. So to reach 60% TCRPC would have to change the current zoning or eliminate the opt-in clause and rewrite the whole issue in this new plan. It seems like they chose to eliminate the opt-in promise. _ There is no definition of "Family" in the family farm clause. This is a huge can of worms. The whole Family Farm section scares me when there is so much verbiage to mandate uninsurable laws. What if one of my kids builds on my land and someday needs to sellout and there are no other blood relatives to sell it to? Do step children count? Do cousins count? How about second cousins? What about second wive's parents? Adopted children? I could go on. This is way to complicated. _ What "if", and "if" anything is possible that could happen... "then" I have a concern about it! And there are so many what if's. Here's another one. What if someone's piece of land is between two large land owners and the only way a flow way will work, is if it has to go through that piece. Can it be taken? I am told, "it is unlikely". That is not good enough for me. "Is it possible?" "If" it is possible, "then" I have a big concern. If my land is taken: What is the formula to take the land? Can the appraiser value it much less because I could not build a village on it? Would it be valued for the current use or the unforeseen market value of development rights and land combined? Will I be in court trying to fight for the appropriate value? Will they pay for all the improvements on the land? Will they pay for all the inventory on the land? Will they pay for the loss of income that was currently being generated off the land? Will they pay for the loss of the ability to continue the career made possible by the land? As you can see there are many questions. And many more no one has even thought of yet. _ TCRPC says they will give us 2 for 1 units per acre to sell for development rights. _ Well what is the value going to be? No one knows. I'd rather have 1 unit of stock worth $100.00 each, than 2 units of stock for $5.00 each. The 2 for 1 is erroneous. n~1 ~g V~ u¿.~~~ UIII"\ I 1...._&.1......... I..., I....,.....A.Ø ___. '-' ...I - What will the value of my property he worth after I sell my developments rights? No one knows. Will the value of the selling of the rights and the value of the land be equal or greater than what the value is now. Only the market will tell. - Will developers be able to buy development rights outside of the 28,000 acres, thus diluting the price and demand? If the answer is no, can that be guaranteed forever? Or can some future group of politicians be lobbied to change it? - Will the developers even need to buy development rights from landowners if the TCRPC give them incentives for: flow ways, hospitals, fire stations, high schools, etc..? - Will the math work out just perfectly for the last development needing to buy the last development rights within the 28,000 acre are? If not someone will end up very hurt. In closing, these are concerns I have just off the top of my head. I have heard many more by other people. And there will be many more that are unforeseen. There is no way that something this big, done for the first time, and created by humans, will be without flaws. And "if" any of those flaws can occur, "then" I am concerned and opposed to this program as it is currently written (which does not include the opt-in clause we were all promised from the beginning). If TCRPC, and anyone else, believes in this incentive program so much, what do they have to be afraid of with the opt-in clause? If the opt-in clause is "left-in", then I could handle the "devil is in the details" approach to tweaking it as it goes. But without the opt-in clause I for one cannot trust in an entity that has already broken the earliest and foundational of promises that we all were to build from. Keep it simple. Eliminate the concerns. Do as promised. If they really believe in the incentive component of this plan... LEAVE IN THE OPT IN! if questions cc: Bob Bangert .-. ...J LOWNDES DROSDICK DOSTER KANTOR & REED, P.A. 215 NORTH EOLA DRIVE ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 450 SOUTH ORANGE A VENUE, SUITE 800 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 POST OFFICE BOX 2809, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802-2809 TEL.: 407-843-4600 I FAX: 407-843-4444 www.lowndes-law.com Attorneys at Law THOMAS R. SULLIVAN N.rtb Eel. DrIv. Office Direct Dill: (407)411Hi6l0 E-tn.íI: tbomls.'DUlVlD@Iowndes-bw.com May 9, 2005 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Michael Busha Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 300 Stuart, Florida 34994 Marcela Camblor Urban Design Coordinator Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 300 Stuart, Florida 34994 Re: Royale Equestrian Facilities, LLClProposed St. Lucie County Towns. Villages and Countryside Comprehensive Plan Amendments dated April 8, 2005 (the "TVC Amendments") Dear Mr. Busha and Ms. Camblor: This law finn represents Royale Equestrian Facilities, LLC ("Royale") in connec1ion with the matters discussed herein. Royale is a family owned and operated equestrian facility located in North St. Lucie County, West of Interstate 95. Royale owns property consisting of approximately seventy-five (75) acres of land located witlùn the area subject to the TVC Amendments (the "Property"). The Property is located outside of the proposed Urban Service Boundary ("USB"). As I expressed at the April 21, 2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency meeting (the "Planning and Zoning Meeting''), Royale has concerns regarding the TVC Amendments, as presently drafted. First, Royale believes that the TVC Amendments should clarify that existing and new agricultural operations are penl1itted. Second, Royale believes that the TVC Amendments should be revised to provide bona fide development lights for additional residential units on the Property. 0099998/01090 /840848/2 A founding memberofCommcrciol Law Afûliates. a worldwide network ofindepcndent law firms, ---.-._-~ _.._~---.. 'eI V'..-V' ~ ...., Michael Busha Marcela Camblor May 9, 2005 Page 2 1. New A2rieultural Development As discussed at the Planning and Zoning Meeting, the intent of the TVC Amendments is to support continued agricultural uses, however, Royale believes that certain provisions require revision to protect new development of an agricultural character. "Agriculture" is defined by the TVC Amendments as "[t]he science, art, and business of cultivating soil, producing crops, and raising livestock; farming." Policy 3.1.1.7 titled "Options for Development under the Towns, Villages and Countryside Element (TVC)" provides that "[p ]roperties located outside of the USB have several options for development in the TVC area." Subsection 3 provides "Maintain the property for agricu1tural uses." Royale's recommendation is to rewrite subsection 3, and the corresponding portion of subsection 4, to read: "Maintain the property for existinl! and new agricultural uses consistent with adopted agricultural zonin!!: desimations." Policy 3.1.4.3 titled "Development in the Fonn of new Towns and VilJages" begins "New development shall be in the Conn of Towns and Villages. . .." Policy 3.1.4.3 appears in conflict with Policy 3.1.1.1 because it ignores the other options for development set forth in Policy 3.1.1.7. The fust two options for development under Policy 3.1.1.7 are to develop as a "Town or Village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC." The three remaining options relate to development other than as a Town or Village. None of the listed options address development of new agricultural uses. Accordingly, Policy 3.1.4.3 should be revised to begin: "Except as othelWise orovided in this Towns. ViIlaJ.!es and Countryside Element. new development shall be in the fonn of Towns and Villages. . . " Furthennore, Policy 3.1 04.8 tilled "Approval of Towns and Villages" provides that: "Landowners wishing to develop in accordance with the TVC Element must have plans approved through the County's rezoning process. The Land Development Code will be amended within six months of the adoption of the TVC Element to establish an appropriate zoning district, application requirements and approval process to implement the TVC Element." Landowners desiring new development of an agricultural character consistent with present day agricultural zoning designations and uses should !!2! be required to go through the County's rezoning process. Therefore, Royale's recommendation is to revise Policy 3.1.4.8 to read: 0099998/0 I 090 1/84Œ4812 '-' 'WI Michael Busha Marcela Camblor May 9, 2005 Page 3 "Landowners wishing to develop in accordance with the TVC Element must have plans approved through the County's rezoning process, exceot for those landowners seekin¡¡: new develooment of an alU'icultural character that is consistent with the applicable agricultural zoning designations existing Drior to the adO'Ption ofthe TVC Element." 2. Residential Development Outside The Urban Service Boundary In its entirety Policy 3.1.1.7, as presently drafted, provides the following options for development for properties located outside the USB: 1. "Develop a Town or Village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC; or 2. Submit a joint application with adjoining property owners to develop a Town or Village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC; or 3. Maintain the property for agricultural uses; or 4. Maintain the property for agricultural uses and utilize the TDR Program ouUined under Objective 3.1.7 for the sale and transfer of the unused development density value (as set forth in Figure 3-1, the TDV Map) for use on another site within the TVC area; or 5. Subdivide the property into homesteads or family fanns no less than 40 acres in size. Such homesteads and family fanns are eligible for urban services. Any remaining density value (pursuant to Figure 3-1, the TDV Map) may be eligible for incentives for participation in the TDR Program." The minimum parcel size for a "Town" located outside the USB is 625 acres. The minimum parcel size for a "Village" located outside the USB is 500 acres. As discussed above, the Property is approximately 75 acres. Accordingly, as presently drafted, Royale could not develop the Property for residential purposes, other than a family farm, unless it partnered with adjoining property owners to develop as a Town or Village. By contrast, the Property's present day future land use designation would aIlow development at one dwelling unit per acre without having to obtain the consent of any adjoining property owners. Royale's position is that it should not be required to obtain pennission from the adjoining landowners to include the Property in a proposed Town or Village. Royale believes that decision most appropriately rests with the S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. Orange County, Florida recently chose to utilize a Village Land Use Classification in connection with its long range planning vision for West Orange County in the Future Land Use Element of its 0099998/0 I 090 J /840848/2 \..of "" Michael Busha Marcela Camblor May 9, 2005 Page 4 Comprehensive Policy Plan. I enclose, for your review, a copy of Policy 6.1.6 of the Future Land Use Element of Orange County titled "Initiation of a Village Specific Area Plan." Policy 6.1.6 provides that: "Detailed village boundaries must be established through the adoption of an SAP. No development shall be permitted. . . until a SAP for the entire village has been approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. The preliminary boundaries for a SAP must be approved by Orange County before proceeding with design of any Village." Similarly, Royale believes that the TVC Amendments should be revised to clearly state that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners shall determine the boundary lines of any Town or Village, at a properly noticed public hearing, as the initial step in the approval of any SAP. We greatly appreciate your consideration of the suggested changes to the TVC Amendments set forth herein and look forward to hearing from you regarding the same at the earliest opportunity. Please contact the undersigned with any questions or comments you might have regarding the matters discussed herein. Thank you. '!.~r¡ tru1.,,W~. ... o~s,....----. / ?",.7,:ý /?~ .. .,_~c.......,...,.¿::.., A· '~',/......,:'" ,<"j... ....-~' ,,-.' ,- ..r ,"J"'- '. ~' '" /'/ '/ ""' ,I ~/. f,?-':1"',.. Th~;;;' {Sullivan TRS/njs Enclosure c: Brenda Hogue (with enclosure) Sheryl Stolzenberg, St. Lucie County Planning Division (with enclosure) Miranda F. Fitzgerald, Esquire (without enclosure) Norma Stanley, Esquire (without enclosure) 0099'198/0 1 090 1/84084812 '-' 6.1.6 (Added 6/95, Ord.#95-13 Amend. 3/99, Ord,#99-04 Amend. 5/01, Ord.#OI-ll) ....¡ approved by Orange County. School sites shall not be included in the computation for maximum size of the Village Center. INITIATION OF A VILLAGE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN The addition of the Village Land Use Classification to the Future Land Use Map FLUM shall not in any way alter the Conservation Areas as they currently appear on the FLUM. The ViUage Land Use Classification shall be subject to the policies of the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan Conservation Element. When a Specific Area Plan (SAP) is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the net developable land area allocated for urban development by the SAP shall be counted against the amount of additional land identified by FLUE Policy 1.1.2. Detailed village boundaries must be established through the adoption of a SAP. No development shan be pennitted within a Neighborhood, Neighborhood Center or Village Center until a SAP for the entire village has been approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. A SAP must be developed in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of 1he interrelationslúp of its parts and establish consistency with Policies (6.1.1-6.1.12) in this section. The SAP must include at a minimmn 1he following infonnation: 1. Identification of Preliminary SAP Boundaries The preliminary boundaries for a SAP must be approved by Orange County before proceeding with design of any Village. Preliminary boundaries will be based on the criteria contained in Policies 6.1.1 through 6.1.13 ofthe Vil1age Land Use Classification, as wen as other applicable provisions of the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan. II. Site Analysis I. Identification of extent and location of natural features in tlle SAP area. The preparation of any SAP shall utilize, but not be limited to, the baseline environmental mapping prepared for the Horizon West Study Report. 2. Identification of the environmental opportunities and constraints to development within the area. 3. Identification of the net usable land area. -95· Future Land Use . '-' """ 4. Identification of the preliminary area suitable to address stormwater management requirements. 5. . Identification of public facilities and services available to the area; capacity available; and, any deficiencies. 6. Preparation of specific goals and objectives for staff and community review which will guide the planning process. 7. Conduct a public design workshop to generate design ideas and gather additional infonnation. m. Master Plan 1. Prepare up to three (3) rough sketch plans for staff and community review. The sketch plans should include: a. The location of each neighborhood, neighborhood center and village center in conjunction with the requirements of the provisions of the Village Land Use Classification. For the neighborhoods, a computation of the net density should be provided along with the pennitted uses and proposed lot sizes. For neighborhood and village center, a computation of net density should be provided, as well as the area and percentage of land use mix in conjunction with the categories found in Policy 6_1.5. b. Circulation routes for auto, transit, pedestrian, bicycles and pedestrians, including consideration for connection with the s\ßTounding area. For each facility to be included in the SAP, design criteria should be included addressing: ... Right-of-way width ... On street parking (if applicable) ... Landscape and streetscape requirements ... Design cross section ... Streetscape c. The proposed location, size or capacity of major inftastrocture components including wastewater, water, stonnwater and solid waste. -96- Future Land Use .. '-" ....; d. Preliminary design criteria proposed for each land use category proposed fOT the SAP including, but not limited to: * Minimwn lot size * Setbacks * Height * Density * Floor Area Raûo (commercial) * Signage e. Illustrate how existing development, if any, is to be integrated within the plan. f. Hold inf01Tl1at1onal workshop open to the public to present the alternative master plans for the Village and how each relates to the goals and objectives established at the Site Analysis Workshop. Each property owner in the SAP and each property owner within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the SAP must be notified of the workshop as wen as special interest groups identified by the Orange County Planning Department, and it must also be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. Substantial compliance with the provisions of this policy regarding the various methods for providing notice shall be sufficient to constitute notice to all affected parties. Comments from the public must be documented and included in a report to the Orange County Planning Department along with the consensus recommendation for the preferred plan alternative. IV. Recommended Plan Based on the results oftbe infonnational workshop described in flU, prepare the preliminary Village Master Plan including the fonowing elements: 1. Statement of the community goals and objectives to be accomplished by the Village SAP. 2. Preparation ofthe SAP exhibits: a. Detailed land use plan indicating the location of neighborhoods, the neighborhood center, and village -97- Future Land Use & "'-' .'Wi center induding the proposed locations for transportation facilities (auto, transit, bike, pedestrian), major conunw1ity services (water and wastewater plants, solid waste transfer stations, rue and police substations, govenunent buildings), neighborhood school(s), parks, greenbelt and any conservation areas. b. A Village Transportation Plan. This plan should incJude the location of all arterial and collector roadways necessary to serve the VilJage, their right-of-way width, and design cross section. It should also address the proposed location of transit routes and the manner in which they can be integrated into the regional transportation system. The location of all bikeways and pedestrian paths should be provided demonstrating the ability to access all schools, commercial and civic areas from any point in the Village. The transportation plan should be açcompanied by an analysis report demonstrating the impact on transportation facilities and documenting the timing and estimated cost for transportation improvements required by development of the Village. Prior to initiation of any transportation plan, the County shall consult with the Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding the methodology for transportation analysis in regards to impacts to the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIBS). Each SAP shall analyze the cumulative traffic impact of all previously approved SAPs on the area road network, including the FIBS. Prior to approval of any SAP, the OOCEA and Florida DOT shall have the opportunity to comment on the traffic analysis in regards to impacts to any State roads. c. Location and size of the water and wastewater systems necessary to serve the Village. Incluòes an analysis of demand, the location and size of plants, major distribution and collection systems. d. The design performance standards that will be utilized in the review and approval of all development plans processed for different land use categories in the ViUage. ·98- Future Land Use .. . ~ "'" 3. Preparation of a Public hnprovements Plan which identifies the ínfrastructure necessary to support development of the SAP, the proposed source offunding, and the approximate timing for construction. 4. Hold an infonnatíonal workshop as per the requirements of III. f. V. Final Master Plan and Report 1. Make any refinements to the preliminary master plan documents based on the infonnational workshop described ín N.4 and submit the resulting final master plan to the Orange County Planning Department for review and approval by the Local Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. 2. The SAP may be prepared by Orange County or under the direction of Orange County by individual property owner(s) or some other cooperative venture. The SAP win not be effective until approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. VI. Changes to an Existing SAP Any addition or deletion of property or changes to the neighborhood boundaries in an approved SAP shan be processed as an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and shall include an evaluation and analysis of the impacts to the approved or planned land uses, overall densities, adequate public facilities, transfer of development rights, green belts, schools and other general village principles and the ability to meet the size and density requirements of Policy 6.1.3. Such additions or deletions shall not be designed to create remnant areas or fragmented Villages. Subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the uses within any particular village planned development (P-D) may vary in arrangement from the adopted SAP, provided that the overall density for the village P-D is not changed. Any such variation may not alter a land use type within one block width (not less than 240 feet) of an adjacent property boundary, except when the change is a reduction in the density, or where the change is to the same density of an adjacent property. Approval of such changes shall be based on consistency with the village -99- Future Land Use . . ~ 6.1.6.1 (Added 3/99, Ord.#99-04 Amend. 5/01, Ord.#01-11) 6.1.6.2 (Added 3/99, Ord.#99-04) 6.1.7 (Added 6/95, Ord.#95-13; Amend. 5/97, Ord.# 97-07; Amend. 3/99, Ord.#99-04 Amend. 5/011, Ord.#Ol-ll) - ...¡ principles outlined in Policy 6.1.1. Specifically, such changes shall consider the impact on the overall village in terms of the central focus of the land uses in the village, with 1ùgher density in general proximity to the Village and Neighborhood Centers. Until and lUlless an SAP is approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the property in the Village Land Use Classification shall maintain the future land use designation existing prior to the Village Land Use Classification Amendment (e.g. Rural/Agricultural: 1 D.UJIO acres, Conservation, Rural Settlement), except for those projects that are vested. All applications for development approvals (i.e. lot splits, special exceptions, variances, etc.) on any property within the Village Land Use Classification shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for the effects of such development approval on adopted or future SAPs. Once a SAP is adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, all applications for development approval (i,e. lot splits. special exceptions, variances) lUlder the existing zoning shall be evaluated for compatibility willi the adopted SAP. This policy shall not be construed to affect the allocation for urban developmen1 (FLU.E. 1.1.2) as required in Policy 6.1.6. SAPs or Villages subsequent to the first two adopted SAPs shall evaluate and submit an analysis of the location and the viability of the remaining villages and the Town Center, The timing of these future SAPs shall be evaluated based on the provision of adequate services and infi'astructure, particularly, transportation, central water and sewer, the status of the lìmited access expressway, and the location of activity-based community parks and high schools within the Horizon West area. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Orange COlUlty shall utilize an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) as a growth management tool for directing the timing and location of future development within the Horizon West Village Classification. Prior to commencing development within any Village, the following adequate public facilities shall be determined to meet the standards as established by the APFO: * Distance to Work Place * Regional Roadway Network * Road R1ghts-of-Way -100- Future Land Use .. "WI ...,., Agenda Reguest Item No. 1 Meeting Date: October 1 7, 2005 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [X] Consent [ ] TO: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Board of County Commissioners Presented By Growth Management Michael Brillhart Strategy & Special Projects SUBJECT: Application of St. Lucie County to amend its adopted Comprehensive Plan to establish Chapter 3: /IT owns, Villages and the Countryside" (TVC) Element; amend the future land use designation for certain parcels of land In unincorporated St. Lucie County; and amend certain other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: Please see attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission (LPA) and staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve, with conditions, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and transmit to the State Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSION ACTION: [~ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Approved 3-2 To transmit listing 5 conditions and other concerns. Comm. Hutchinson No Comm. Lewis No. County Attorney: %.. Originating Dept: \_ ~I'\ Environ.Resources\}', 'N' ) Purchasing: Public Works: =::iSt~ , Other: c=J - ....; . . " ' .. ........ ~ .-.."",¡ """" COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners '~Â7 1/vl If; p ) FROM: Michael Brill~2? Strategy & Special Projects Director October 14, 2005 DATE: RE: Proposed TVC Element - Additional Information & LPA Meeting Minutes The data & analysis information for the 5th Revised - TVC Element has been updated with additional technical information relating to the proposed North County comprehensive plan amendment. It includes data and technical analysis used by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and their consulting team staff. This new information is shown on the attached memorandum from TCRPC and can be reviewed on their website at www.tcrpc.orQ . Information within the Data and Analysis was used in supporting the proposed TVC Element recommendations and will be transmitted to DCA along with the comprehensive plan amendment application package. The minutes from the October 6, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting have just recently been completed and are attached for your review as well. Cc: Doug Anderson, County Administrator Ray Wanzy, Assistant County Administrator Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator " . '-' 'w!I \.I "'-I MEMORANDUM TO: Faye Outlaw FROM: Marcela Camblor DATE: October 13, 2005 R.E.: Additions to the Data & Analysis supporting the TVC The following infonnation has been added to the Data & Analysis to be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in conjunction with the Towns Villages and Countryside (TVC) new element of the S1. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. All this infonnation is currently available on-line. 1. Comparative analysis related to the County's Level of Service (LOS) and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) 2. Capital Cost analysis and Revenue Generation analysis and comparison 3. Options for Implementation of the TVC 4. Peer Review and Developers' Forum summary of findings 5. Technical memorandum # 1: Rational for the Proposed Pattern of Development and Open Space Requirements 6. Technical memorandum # 2: Septic Tank use in Rural Areas 7. Comparative analysis of densities and intensities - Abacoa case study . . \..f '-' '-'" 'wi St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Pamela Hammer, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Craig Mundt, and Kathryn Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephanie Morgan, John Knapp, and Carson McCurdy with notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael Brilhart, Strategy and Special Project Director; Ms. Karen Butcher, BikelPedestrian Coordinator; and Ms. Talea Owens, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Grande gave a brief presentation of the procedures as of what to expect for today's meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 1 ~ '-' '-' '...,1-.....1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold today. The meeting will progress in the following manner: · The Chairman will call each item. · Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. · The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. · Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. · The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. · The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. · The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next Month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing, you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 2 . . '-' \.f"-'" ..1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. The roll call was made and Chairman Grande asked if there were any other announcements to be made. A few ofthe P&Z Commission members stated they have spoken with a number of members from the public and attorneys regarding these petitions. Mr. Michael Brilhart, Special Projects and Strategy Director stated this is the continuation of a transmittal public hearing for an amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the adoption of this includes Comprehensive Plan establishing its Chapter Three, entitled the Towns Villages and Countryside Element and it amends the future land use designation to create a TVC land use designation. He stated this is the continuation of the Local Planning Agency's transmittal public hearing for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Marcella Camblor stated this is the continuation of the presentation that was presented by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on Aug 18, 2005 for the Towns Villages and Countryside Element (TVC Element) of the Comprehensive Plan for north St. Lucie County. She stated based on the input that they received on August 18th that they have made changes to the draft (draft # 4) that they presented before. She stated the draft that they are now presenting is draft # 5. She stated the changes were made based on the input that they received from the Local Planning Agency and the public on the previous meeting. Ms. Camblor stated she will address the new changes of the TVC' plan, as well as some of the questions and concerns that were raised during the last meeting. She stated they will address a lot of traditional planning principles that are embedded in the north St. Lucie County's TVC Element. She stated the principles that she will discuss are not new principles, but are principles that have been around for thousands of years. She stated communities throughout Florida and throughout the country are practicing and embedding these principles into their communities. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is unique because of the way its principles are combined into the TVe. She stated these principles are not just to ensure great developed areas or a great urban environment, but to ensure that as development occurs, meaningful public open-space is created and there is a link between the developments that occurs in the county and the meaningful public open-space that is created. She added open-space was the key concern that residents had when they first began the TVC process back in February of2004. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 3 " ~ '-' ....." 'wi St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is trying to achieve the balance between the development and the local ecology and agricultural character that the citizens want to preserve. She stated they have gone through several months of public meetings and of planning with the community and the public. She stated they feel very comfortable with the new revised TVC document and with the document begin transmitted and sent to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to DCA. She stated the board can send their recommendation, along with their comments. She stated she will refer to the Special Area Plan throughout her presentation of the TVC Element. This area is bordered on the east by the intra-coastal waterway, by the canal to the south, and just a little west ofI-95 to the west and by the County line to the north. She stated within that Special Area Plan is what they refer to as the TVC area. Ms. Camblor stated the Special Area Plan is close to 60 square miles in the north County area. She stated she will go over the first and major changes between draft # 4 and draft # 5. She stated she will categorize the major changes into four points. · The first major point is the applicability of the TVC Element and where it applies within St. Lucie County. · She stated they made a number oflanguage changes such as definitions, typos and grammar errors. She added that they have re-organized some of the language. She stated she will go into detail with the language changes as it is necessary. · She stated Mr. Knapp brought up a very important point with the 10% rule, and she will also address that issue. · Ms. Camblor stated there has been one more reduction in the multiplier and she will address that as well. She stated they will address only the minor language changes that the Planning and Zoning Commission request. The most important thing is the issue of applicability of the TVe. She stated last August they made the mistake of adding some text into this element that seemed that the TVC Element would be projected or would be applied in other areas of the County, other than the Special Area Plan. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 4 '-' '-' '-' 'wi St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. She stated that should not be the case. She stated it is not the intention of the TVC to be used beyond the SAP (Special Area Plan). She stated on the first page of the TVC document beginning at the introduction, they have added a sentence that says that the TVC Element applies only to the Special Area Plan for north St. Lucie County. She stated some of they made some ofthe changes after version # 5 was received and they have added those pages. She stated all ofthe changes that they have made point to the same exact issue which is guaranteeing to those people that were concerned about the applicability of the TVC that it is meant to be only on the SAP (Special Area Plan). The second change that they made is a paragraph that they had to add in the current Comprehensive Plan on the first chapter of St. Lucie County's current Comprehensive Plan of page 2 of those amendments in their document. She stated this paragraph had to be added in order to allow the TVC to happen within north St. Lucie County. She stated they added one more sentence to this paragraph that stresses that the purpose of the TVC land use designation is to accommodate future growth within the special area plan for north St. Lucie County. On page # 2 of the TVC document, there is a change on Policy 3.1.1.1. and it talks about Special Area Plans. She stated it used to say, "Special Area Plans forms the basis for amending the future land use map in existing undeveloped areas." She stated they have changed that to say, "The Special Area Plans forms ª basis for amending the future land use map in existing undeveloped areas," meaning it is not the only one, but a way of doing this. She stated Policy.l.l.l.2. has caused all of or most of the concern and confusion back in August and is the policy that refers to Special Area Plans forming a basis for amending the future land use map in existing agricultural areas. She added that Policy 1.1.1.2., has been completely eliminated and it does not exist anymore. They have amended the objective that follows that policy, which is Objective 1.1.2. She stated in the last sentence which states, "and allow new development only in accordance with the Towns Villages and Countryside Element's goals, that they have crossed out the word "only", to signify that this is not the only way to do this and they continue to add more language to that sentence that says, "for settlement outside of the Urban Service Boundary" which applies to the Special Area Plan in St. Lucie County. Ms. Camblor stated to reassure that the TVC plan only applies in north St. Lucie County Special Area Plan, the last sentence of the Policy 1.1.4.1 of the County's current Comprehensive Plan states that it "prohibit the conversion of property in the agricultural Towns Villages and Countryside Element 5 '-' '-' '-'....., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. areas to high intensity urban uses etc. is specifically pennitted or required in the Towns Villages and Countryside Element or other programs designed to preserve a good cultural lands as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Camblor stated all of these are issues that refer specifically to the same issue. The second change is the issue that Mr. Knapp brought up back in August. Policy 3.1.2.6 of the TVC Element addresses the options that land owners have for development inside of the TVC that are outside of the Urban Service Boundary. This addresses every land owners, regardless ofthe size of property that you have. There was an issue with point # 5 of this policy, which is the 10% rule. The 10% rule talks about the fact that a property owner is entitled to maintain 10% of his transferable density. She stated initial1y it was written that a property owner has to sel1 90% of his remaining transferable density, which he could apply a multiplier to, in order to participate on TVC and then develop that 10% that he kept. With the 10% that the land owner kept, he was entitled to services. Ms. Camblor stated Mr. Knapp brought up the idea of what if the land owner could not sell them and if so, was there a way for the land owner to pennanently deed that 90%, if he does not find a buyer immediately and is he sti1l entitled to develop that 10%. Ms. Camblor stated they took Mr. Knapp's concerns back to the team and found out that it is possible to do that. It is possible to find a way that 90% density gets transferred, deeded or set aside pennanently and the 10% can be developed with out the need to sel1 anything yet. She read a statement which stated: "For parcels less than 500 acres in size, utilize the TDR program to transfer a minimum of 90% of the Transferable Density to an eligible receiving site within the approved Special Area Plan. The property may be subdivided into individual home sites up to 10% ofthe Transferable Density. These home sites are eligible to receive Urban Services of the property owner's expense after 90% of the transferable density has been pennanently set aside for future transfer." She stated it does not need to be sold, but it needs to have been set aside for future transfer. She stated they have gotten several caBs and heard several people talking about being concerned about the preservation of the property's existing rights and if it refers to the property's density and intensity. She stated these questions may be related to some fear of what's going to be included in the Land Development Regulations. She stated the red changes that are listed in Policy 3.1.2.6.6. address that issue. She added that is another way to ensure that al1 of the Land Development Regulations wi1l be aiming for Towns Vil1ages and Countryside Element 6 ~ '-" v """" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. connectivity and compatibility with the existing adjacent development, without affecting the property's existing density and intensity. She stated these are some of the major changes that they have made. She addressed the reduction on the transfer of development rights multiplier. This is the DB34 that shows the Credit Matrix and the multipliers that a land owner can apply as he is participating in the TVC (whether building a town or village or just transferring the rights off of his property). If you look at lines three and four, it shows that transfers rrom the Countryside of a town located on a contiguous property, both inside and out side of the Urban Service Boundary to its net developable area was reduced from the multiplier of 2 to a multiplier of 1.75. In line number four, from Countryside located inside of the Urban Service Boundary to an eligible receiving site located inside of the Urban Service Boundary, that multiplier was also reduced from 2 to 1.75. To keep this progression, reward with a higher multiplier for those objectives that are higher on the list ofTVC and the residents and reduce those that are lower in this scale. This still maintains that important proportion that we need to keep between supply and demand within the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. Ms. Camblor addressed questions and concerns raised back in August of2005. She stated they can categorize those into five major points. She stated she would like to comment on: · Open-space requirements · TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System · The increase in the population that the TVC is bringing · Marketability issues · The Land Development Regulations. As far as the open-space requirements, the objection that they are hearing from some people in the community is that there is a 60% open-space requirement for a town and a 75% open-space requirement for a village. She stated outside of the Urban Service Boundary only, is too large. The first clarification that they want to make is that these requirements are only for towns and villages outside of the Urban Service Boundary, not inside of the Urban Service Boundary. She stated there is a reduced requirement inside of the Urban Service Boundary. She added that it is only for those people developing towns and villages. This is not for the smaller land owners or anyone not building a town or a village. Someone that has a 40 acre site will not be required, if they are not a part of a town or a village to leave 60% or 75% open-space. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 7 ~. '-' '..I '-II St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. The second thing that they would like to clarify is that within this open-space, whether you are in a town or a village, there are a lot of things that can be counted towards that requirement. This includes schools, civic buildings, parks, targeted industry, workforce housing in excess, and the large edge lots that were recommended by the peer review etc. She added that all of these things count toward that open-space and reduce that percentage. Therefore the 60% to 75% of open-space requirement will be substantial smaller once you subtract all of those things that are now being counted, which are in the current plan and are not allowed to be counted towards the open-space requirements. A lot of their consultants have talked about the importance of this open-space to accommodate the increased drainage requirements that will be in this area, due to the development that is coming in and the need to treat some of the reused water on site. She stated they have had there engineers complete the modeling for this area. She stated one of the interesting conclusions that he shared with them is that because of the open- space and this system, one of the great things that they wi11 be achieving is a 50% increase in water quality treatment volumes in the area. She added that this win be a much needed break, given what is going on with the County's Lagoon today. She stated the 60% to 75% of open-space requirements is being largely reduced by all of the things that you can count towards it and was the commitment that they made to the community when they first started the Charrette. She stated it is the commitment to accept development in these agricultural areas outside of the Urban Service Boundary in exchange for meaningful public open-space at the end of the day. She addressed TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. She stated they have heard that there was some concern with the fact that there is a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System associated to the TVe. She stated the objections that they heard were: 1. It was not possible to transmit this document until the TDR Ordinance was completed. 2. There needed to be a guaranteed price for purchase or sell of the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System before the TVC Plan was adopted. 3. There needed to be a guarantee that there would be a market for TDRs. In regards to completing the TDR Ordinance prior to transmittal, most Comprehensive Plans denote the intention that there will be a TDR Program period. She stated their commitment to the Local Planning Agency, the Board of County Commissioners and the residents has been from day one, that the TDR Ordinance wi11 be developed by their team, with public participation, just as much as they have had throughout the entire TVC plan. She added it will be completed prior to the adoption, not the transmittal. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 8 ~ '-' V...,,¡ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. She reiterated that prior to the adoption; everyone will have a chance to feel comfortable with the TDR Ordinance prior to this document getting adopted, Regarding value, there were many people asking them to commit a value or a number to a purchase or sell price ofthe TDRs. They were also asked whether if there were going to be a market driven TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. She stated that they know and their research and their consultants have infonned them that successful TDRs allow value to be market driven. In market driven scenarios, there are at least two ways that you can estimate the value. The first one is related to the price of rural land. The price of the development credits will be a factor ofthe ultimate sale price of the house or the unit that is being built through the purchase of that credit. That credit is anywhere between 8% and 35% ofthe ultimate sale value of the house that was built with that credit. This is as much as they will commit with the price. The second way, by which you can define this, is estimate it to the value of a conservation easement. It is very comparable to the value of a conservation easement. If you are going to purchase a conservation easement, it is a very comparable to what the value of a conservation easement is. Ms. Camblor addressed the issue of a guaranteed market for the TDR credits. Ms. Camblor stated they feel comfortable enough because the Comprehensive Plan has enough detail in it that will assure consistency in the decision making process. She stated it has been repeatedly stated that the minute you give density away, you kill the plan and the minute you give density away you throw everything out of the window. She stated the Credit Matrix is embedded and there is enough instructions in there that it is not just as easy to give this density away, guaranteeing a stronger TDR Program in the County. At the same time there is enough flexibility built into this document by adding Policy 3.1.7.1.4., which encourages the County to investigate the possibility of a PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) Program. Should it be necessary and or should the County need to intervene and step in to actually purchase, sell or do something with those credits such as to enlighten the market a little, they have the opportunity to do it. It is detailed enough to guarantee that it will be strict and it is flexible enough to allow the County to step in should it be necessary, without having to go into a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ms. Camblor stated there is the objection that the TVC will increase population. She stated they have bee in creditably honest with the Local Planning Agency, the Board of County Commissioners and with the residents. She stated they have done the math and they have stated that with this multiplier the overall number of units will increase, but it Towns Villages and Countryside Element 9 '-" ~ '-I""" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. is defined. They have given infonnation stating what that multiplier is. She stated they have also stated that that 22, 300 units that is present today is a base and not a cap. The TVC brings a cap in the number of units. Currently they have two applications for DRls (Developments of Regional Impacts) in their office as it sits today, within the TVC area. As these applications were presented to them, they were both asking for increases in their density. If these application were to be approved as presented, approving these two DRIs (Developments of Regional Impacts) would mean a 20% increase on that base of22,300. Ms. Camblor stated she has not seen a DRI that has come into their office and not request an increase density as of yet. Mr. Trias stated Mr. Mike Busha gave them a number of the amount of units that are currently being reviewed for DR!. He asked if Ms. Camblor remember that roughly, so that they can compare that. Mr. Mike Busha stated in the County, it was about 71, 000 units in the County currently in office for review. Mr. Hearn stated he is still having a problem with the future land use density being used. He stated if they are going to be completely honest, they need to say that they are going from 12,541 units that are pennitted in that area that have not been built, to 37, 500. Ms. Camblor stated the 12,000 units are referring to the zoning. She stated the truth is that percentage; if they were looking at zoning would not be 20% but more like 130%. Mr. Hearn stated from 12,500 to 37,000 is 3000% increase from the zoning as a guarantee and everything else has to be approved. Ms. Camblor stated the issue with the 37,500, TVC and the way it is structured is that this is the cap and a worse case scenario, assuming every single square inch of land gets developed as a town or a village and applies the highest possible multiplier. The fourth point is market ability. She stated they have heard concerns as to whether the traditional principles and neighborhood designed applied will be marketable. She stated they have heard percentages that say that only 305 or 35% of the people want to buy this. She stated there is a strong market, which 55% of Americans go for a compact pedestrian oriented mix use neighborhoods. There is a price premium that goes from 4% to 25% for the TVC or the traditional neighborhood development. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 10 '-' '-" '-" 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. There is a park premium and they insist the importance of the smaller parks very much in the development of their towns. There is a 22.3% premium for every unit that is within 100 feet of neighborhood parks. There is a premium for the smallest lots of 197% over the premium of the largest lots. There is a higher appreciation of Traditional Neighborhood Development. This comes as a 2.5% higher appreciation of an analysis of houses done in Traditional Neighborhood Developments that compared Traditional Neighborhood Developments to Conventional Subdivisions in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida, done by Morris and Homes in 2001. She stated the element of the Countryside in the TVC Element is the key to all of these premiums. There is a 19% to 35% premium in the sale of homes of every lot that is bordering preserved areas. It is on those lots that border preserved areas that are not developable in the future. There is a negative percent for homes that face developable private open-space. This points to the fact that there has been a lot of questioning as to whether the open-space should be broken up into private lots or not. There also is a 2% increase for private protected land, and .5% for protected public open- space. All of the analysis that addresses the marketability was done by Todd Zimmennan from Zimmennan V olk and Associates who will also be giving a presentation when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. He is top in the nation at doing this type of analysis for the private sector and not for the government. There have been concerns about the height and compaction everything into villages and towns creating a multi-family development with tall buildings. She stated they have included this transact/diagram into the Comprehensive Plan specifically to show and commit that height ofthe maximum of 4-stories only to the core of every neighborhood or village or town and then the height immediately tapers down as you go into the center and the edge of the community. She stated they know that within a block to two blocks, the height immediately tapers down. Mr. Bill Spickowski stated he is with the consultant team and they are working on the regulations. He stated noting within the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will change the Urban Service Boundary, although the boundary can change, they are not proposing to change it. Land within the Urban Service Boundary is treated differently than the land outside to the boundary and the regulations have to take that into account. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 11 \wi '" "wi "wi St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. The existing zoning also does not change. It has been in effect for a long time and the Comprehensive Plan change will not change the zoning, but the zoning will stay the same until the land owners ask for it to be changed. The zoning has been in placed for a long time and within the TVC, it is mostly AG-, which are one acre home sites and there are also PUD and business zoning but mostly AG-l. The Urban Service Boundary will stay the same and the zoning will stay the same. However, the future land use map is up for change. Within the TVC it is mostly RE and some MXD and a couple of other categories. This amendment will out the TVC future land use map designations and change them to the TVC. They will have the new future land use map category and the TVC plan will explain what that means. The underline zoning is still there and is still in force, as well as the Urban Service Boundary For the landowners who just want to keep doing what they are already doing, there is no change. However, for land owners who want to change what they're doing with their land and may want to get out of agriculture or develop vacant land, all of the different types of changes allowed are grouped into two categories. For example, some ofthe changes will not require rezoning and the approval will be done by the St. Lucie County staff under administrative level. On the other hand there are the changes that would require rezoning. He gave examples of some changes that would not require rezoning: I. Those that have been growing grapefruits and want to convert to a tree farm, they do not have to rezone because their zone already allows agriculture. 2. Those that have attractive land and want to build a house on it, the zoning already allows that. 3. Those that choose to participate in the TDR Credit Program, does not require rezoning and land owners must follow the rules to do this. 4. The ten percent rule is something that they would like to be doe administratively to increase certainty for those who choose to participate in that particular program. 5. If someone chooses to subdivide un-subdivided land into full one acre lots, which is allowed by the current AG-I zoning, they can go ahead and do this. Mr. Spickowski stated these are the things that do not require rezoning and they are basically like what the rules are today. These are the things that do require rezoning: Towns Villages and Countryside Element 12 '-" '-' \wi "wi St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. 1. If a land owner wants to build stores or apartments within the Urban Service Boundary it requires rezoning. The Zoning District that they would create for that would also provide for the regional business district where 1-95 and the Turnpike converge and also in the transitional areas where light industry is allowed under Kings Highway and St. Lucie Boulevard. He stated that will require rezoning just the same was it would require rezoning without the TVC. 2. To subdivide a tract into smaller lots at the previous density levels that you have under the prior plan requires rezoning. 3. To create a new town or village is not allowed in the AG-I Zoning District and . . reqUires rezonmg. Basically, three new zoning districts that will accommodate those three types of changes and a TVC overlay would accommodate those kinds of developments that do not require rezonmg. They would like to hold a Land Development Regulation workshop in December, before which they would release a very complete draft of how they think this should work. This is not a public hearing and will not be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. There will be at least three public hearings required. There will be a Planning and Zoning Meeting and at least two hearings before the County Commission before they adopt it. They have committed to have the first of those two on the same night as the County Commission is scheduled to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Trias asked what is going to be on the regulations. Mr. Spickowski stated for someone who wants to build a town or a village, there will be a clear description of how they would go about doing that. In someway, it will resemble the PUD process and the way the hearings work. Particularly in that complete site plan would have to be brought forward and it will be in the form of a regulating plan that shows those transects zones and the developed portion of the property. It will also show which transect zones that the developer chooses and where he put them on his property. He added that it will show the entire countryside portion and it will include all of the standards in the TVC Element. In addition, it will include more detailed standards where the Element says that it needs to comply with the regulations. Mr. Spickowski stated the overlay district that would apply to someone who does not need to rezone will be a standard overlay. He stated this is a layer of regulations that modify all of the existing zoning that falls within the overlay area. Mr. Trias thanked Mr. Spickowski. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 13 '-' '-' """ "wII St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated they have staffs recommendation and fully agree with staff's recommendations for transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners with the conditions that they have put in the packets. Ms. Camblor stated the park in the center would also count toward the fulfillment of the requirements ofthe Countryside. Ms. Camblor stated the affordable housing is not to be counted toward the 8% of the total requirement of open-space. However, if a developer wishes to build an addition ofthat 8%, the difference or the footprint that that would have been occupied by that building can be counted toward the open-space requirement. She stated their estimate is that it may come down to 50% for a town and about 60% for a village. Mr. Hearn thanked Ms. Camblor. Mr. Busha stated the buildings, in relation to the workforce housing are not to be located in the countryside. Chairman Grande asked difthere were further questions. Mr. Lounds asked if the countryside was contained in the property that is being developed Ms. Camblor stated yes. She stated the countryside is contained within the same parcel where the development occurs. It is important to identify that they are not suggesting that the countryside happens in neighboring properties. The countryside and the flow-way happen on the property that is being developed. Ms. Camblor stated the purpose of the Land Development Regulations will be to ensure that if you own a property, that will not happen to you and there will be compatibility with what is around it. Mr. Lounds asked if the utilities come pass a land owner's property that he is living on, can he hook up to the city to that water and sewer. Ms. Camblor stated there is an option that allows a land owner at his own expense to hook up to that ifhe decides to participate in Policy 3.1.2.6 Option # 5. In this particular policy and option, the land owner will guarantee to transfer 90% of his density and with the 10% that remain; he can hook up to that utility at his own expense. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 14 > \.of "" ......,..., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. It is an incentive to try to clear up the countryside of units. You will not be able to subdivide into 41 acre lots and not develop a town, but continue business as usual and render services out every single home. However, to 10% of those, if a land owner commits to transfer the 90% remaining, then at their expense they could hook up. Mr. Hearn asked if the property will have every right that they have today, including applying for PUD, when the rvc plan is adopted. Mr. Spickowski replied no. He stated the land owners can not chose to ignore the rvc Element. He stated outside of the rvc area, the rules would be the same as they are today because the rules are being restricted only to this rvc area, unless the County chooses to expand it to other areas in the future. Mr. Hearn asked if the land owners will have all of their same rights as they have now, including applying for a PUD after the rvc Element is adopted for the area outside of the 28 square mile area. Mr. Spickowski stated yes. He stated outside ofthe 28 square miles, it stays the same but inside of the 28 square miles, the rights and rules are restricted. Ms. Camblor stated Mr. Hearn pointed out that there was an area that had some potentially environmentally valuable lands. She stated it was their intention to include this when they did this land. She stated that they corrected this and would like for this to be added into the motion as well as the amending of the document. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Lounds asked if they were going to contain the reused water on the towns and villages. Ms. Camblor replied yes. Mr. Busha stated the idea behind all of this is to contain the impact of that development within that property boundary. He stated over time, a lot of development has occurred that has relied on other people's property for open-space or other sources to take care of their impacts. He stated the notion here is to try and have as many impacts as possible to mitigate those impacts within the boundaries of the Towns Villages and Countryside Element. Mr. Spike stated as of right now, there are three primary users of water, which are the environmental, agriculture and urban. He stated there is not enough good or cheap water Towns Villages and Countryside Element 15 > \wo' '-" ""...., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. to go around for all three of them, so they have meetings to figure out who will get the water that is there. He stated this allows all three segments to use the water. Mr. Spike stated contaminates in the Indian River, Nitrogen and Phosphorus are an assets to an agricultural operation and agriculture can be used to extract those tings out ofthe water, so that when the water reach the environmental areas, it will of sufficient quality to meet the standards. Mr. Spike stated they are injecting reused water out of site, where no one will be able to use it again. He stated this is a way of stretching the water supplies that they have and making sure that everyone has enough water of the right quality to meet their needs. Mr. Lounds asked what they do with the water on a day when it rains. Mr. Spike stated the calculations you do not design a system so tight that you have to use that water everyday but you need to have enough land available to where you can still apply it on a day where it is raining, without causing run-off. Chainnan Grande stated the title, Towns, Villages, and countryside appears to be based upon the TVC Element as a whole which is the entirety of the 28 square miles. As you get into the document, the countryside that is referred to in the document is not the space between the towns and villages but is the open-space within the towns and villages. The tenn countryside does not apply to those areas outside of the towns and villages that are between the towns and villages. He stated it only applies, in document, to the space within the borders of the towns and villages, which you would think of as common open- space if you were looking at a planned unit development, instead of a town. Chainnan Grande asked ifthere were any other questions of staff. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Rotirbough asked where will the money be derived from in the increase in schools. Mr. Rotirbough wanted to know why is the TVC Element here. Ms. Camblor stated they have a team that has been doing a financial analysis and development pays for itself. Chainnan Grande stated they are an advisory board to the County Commissioners to come forward with their recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Rotirbough stated it is tripled what the pennitted area was. He stated the amount of money that will go into the school system because of this development is tremendous. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 16 w '-' \wi..." St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hensley stated they use a calculation of .4 kids per households to determine how many kids are generated in the school district. Mr. Rotirbough stated most households that he knows of have a couple of kid and a couple of cars. He stated there could be approximately 7500 cars coming into the area. He also spoke about the impacts that the traffic will have in the area. Mr. Rotirbough asked if the developer will pay for the roads that will be required because ofthe development. Ms. Camblor stated they will pay for the roads Mr. Alex Brown stated he agrees with the Mr. Rotirbough. He introduced the next speaker, Mr. Thomas Pelham. He stated Mr. Pelham is a land use attorney from Tallahassee. Mr. Pelham is highly educated and experienced in the areas of growth management and planning. Mr. Pelham is a land use and growth management law attorney with Faler White. Mr. Pelham practices statewide in both the public and private sector and he has been a consultant to many local governments throughout the state. Mr. Pelham received his Bachelor's Degree in government from Florida State University and graduated with high honors. He also received his JD Degree there with high honors. He has a Master's Degree from Duke University in Political Science and a Master's of Law Degree from Harvard University, specializing in land use law, government law and property law. Mr. Pelham is the former secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, from 1987 to 1991 and he was originally responsible for supervising the Florida Growth Management Act. Mr. Pelham is a former member of the Capital Area Planning Commission in Tal1ahassee in Leon County's Planning Commission. He was also the former president with the Florida Planning Association and a current member of the Chapter's Legislative Policy Committee, and has held a number of other honorable offices. Mr. Pelham stated Mr. Brown's introduction of him is to indicate that he has some familiarity with the Comprehensive planning process. Mr. Thomas Pelham stated he was asked to appear before the board on the behalf of some of the residents. He stated he was speaking on the behalf of Brown Ranch Inc., the Edgar Brown family, the Bernard Egan family, the Dan Scott family, the Nick Stuart family and the Vernon Smith family. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 17 · """'" '-" ""wI ~ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the TVC element is a bad idea in terms of putting it into the County's local Comprehensive Plan. He stated the TVC plan belongs in the County's Land Development Code, not the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the TVC plan is should be an overlay that is optional for people who want to use it. He stated this large scale area will be developed over a long period of time and there is a need for flexibility. When the TVC plan is logged into the County's Comprehensive Plan, the flexibility will be taken away because amending the Comprehensive Plan is a time consuming and expensive process. Mr. Pelham stated it is premature to be considering transmitting this package to the department because the plan is incomplete. He stated there is data missing from the packet. He stated every Plan Amendment package that is transmitted to the department is required to be supported by data and analysis, which the TVC plan does not include. He stated there is no data and analysis regarding adequate public facilities and not plan to show that this plan will be financially feasible. He stated the Regional Planning Council's staff member stated the consultants are still working on it. However, it should be here now and a part of this package. Mr. Pelham stated the plan may look grand but it may not be realistic. There is no information in the TVC plan stating that the plan is realistic or financial feasible, which is required by state laws. He stated there is no data and analysis to support the need for the huge increase in densities and intensities that are being proposed in this Plan Amendment. He stated state laws require data and analysis and this is missing from this package. He stated there are not corresponding amendments to other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated in order for this to pass they need more than just amendments to the future land use element, particularly amendments to the capital improvements element and a long term capital improvements plan for providing the services that are needed and this plan is required to be financial feasible. He stated there are no amendments to the transportation element, or the other facilities' elements, which are required by law. He stated the Department of Community Affairs recently found a Plan Amendment for the scribe's project, not in compliance because it did not have the capital improvement element. He stated neither this board nor the Board of County Commissioners should be considering transmittal of this single piece of the puzzle to DCA (Department of Community Affairs) until it has all ofthe missing components. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 18 '-' ."", \wi...., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He concluded stating what is being proposed here, in his view is radical. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has presented a visionary plan. He stated he respectful suggest that the County closely evaluate that vision and determine whether it is realistic, grounded in reality, is it financially feasible, is it lawful and does it treat land owners in a reasonable and fair manner. He stated the minimum open-space requirement is 60% which includes the minimum density requirement and the TDR requirement. He stated the County will be telling a significant number of land owners that they can not develop their property, unless they develop it to a much higher density than they are currently allowed to by law and in order to get that density, you have to go buy it trom someone else. He stated the cornerstone of this plan is the TDR Program. He stated Dr. Nicholas has made it very clear that TDR Programs do not work in this state. Mr. Pelham stated there is no infrastructure to support this project for 28 square miles. He asked how the development will be paid for. He stated the developers will not pay for this development. Mr. Hearn asked if Mr. Pelham was stating that they should not transmit the TVC Element for review until all of the other things are in place. Mr. Pelham stated he was saying is that the plan needs to be entire and complete before it is transmitted so that everyone will have a clear understanding of how the Plan works. Mr. Camblor stated she agrees with Mr. Pelham because data and analysis is necessary and all of the points that he mentioned. She stated the information that Mr. Pelham is speaking about can be picked up trom their office and is on the web. Mr. Pelham stated it was very clear to him trom Marcella that the consultants are still working on parts of this plan. He stated he was interested to hear the County's planning staff had issue written comments and they have raised many ofthe points in their own comments that he is raising. Mr. Trias stated when projects go to DCA for review, DCA decides ifthe developer needs to make changes and what those changes are. Mr. Pelham stated it is not the norm to knowingly send incomplete Plan Amendment packages to DCA. He stated it is contrary to the law to knowingly send a substantial amendment to the future land use element without the corresponding amendments to the capital improvements element, the transportation element and with the supporting data Towns Villages and Countryside Element 19 '-" '-' "-' ~ St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. and analysis. He stated that is not the norm and is not fair to the citizens and not fair to the department. Mr. Tom Babcock stated he agrees with Mr. Pelham and this plan's data and analysis is incomplete. He stated no respect or consideration is being given to the existing land owners. He stated some of the land owners have land that has been in their families for long periods oftime and have been in this County for a long time. Mr. Rusty Akins stated he feels that there is a large concern about the feasibility. He stated there have been more failures in TDR Programs than successes. He stated the board is faced with decisions that are not thoroughly examined. Mr. Akins stated to look at the Stop Gap ordinance for example; no one knows how to apply for the stop gap let alone how it is to work. He stated he has talked to staff members and legal staff members and no one can give him any answers concerning the matter of the TVC plan. He stated the concept of what it being proposed in St. Lucie County is good because they are trying to do what is best for the County in the future. However he has concerns about the density increase. Mr. Akins stated no one has addressed the Adams Ranch Project, wherein 15,000 development credits are being freed. He asked where these credits are going. He asked if those credits will be available to add onto the 35, 000 that they are talking about now. He asked if the 50, 000 units in the TVC area will be available to the community. Chainnan Grande stated the Adams Ranch is a different subject and they need to stay on this subject. Mr. Akins stated he have concerns about the actual perpetuity ofthe TVC. He predicts the votes to pass by three and he stated if it takes only three votes to create the TVC Element, then it only takes three votes to increase the density in the TVC. Mr. Mundt stated he raised the perpetuity question with staff as well and the answer that he got is that their County Attorney is working on it. Mr. Mike Busha stated if there is going to be additional density applied to this area and any changes; it would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would go through the same process of public debate. Ms. Heather Young stated what Mr. Busha indicated is correct. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 20 '-' '-' \wi 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Spike stated he has infonnation on the Transfer of Development Right Program fonn Collier County. He stated in this plan, when a property owner transfers their development rights to a receiving area; the property that is transferred from has an easement placed on it. He stated the easement is held jointly by the County and the state agency; so that the County alone can not break the easement and allow more developed land that have the development rights sold. In other words, there are ways to build that perpetuity business into it. The next public speaker Mr. Rawlins Brown yielded his time to Mr. Cox. Mr. David Weiss stated this is the wrong method for this plan and this plan is incorrect. He stated a hometown democracy is around the comer. The idea that ifhometown democracy passes, land use plan amendments and changes to the amendments will not only be before the County Commission, but will be a referendum of the entire County. He stated within an amendment, there will always be changes. Mr. Weiss asked why there is a rush to get the TVC plan up to Tallahassee. He stated the expert that has previously spoken said the plan is not complete, so why no wait and get the plan done right. The TDR Program will fail. There is no evidence that a free market TDR Program has worked in the entire country. He stated Dr. Nicholas could not provide evidence of a TDR Program working. Mr. Weiss stated the TVC plan is improper. He stated the LDR expert stated they will have LDRs in December, but he gave no reason why the LDR's can not be given up now and his answer was not conditioned on any sort of DCA approval. Mr. Weiss stated the TDR program will be held unconstitutional. He stated the TDR program is not proper. Ms. Camblor stated they have a presentation showing that all of the TDRs work both in Florida and in the Country; however they will not be presenting this tonight. She added that they will be happy to present this at any time. Mr. Mundt asked about the issue of unconstitutionality. Mr. Weiss stated the idea that no one can clarify the value of the TDR before they propose to sell them is unconstitutional. He stated the free market system of a TDR Program has not worked here, according to Dr. Nicholas. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 21 · \.f '-' 'wi 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! LocaJ Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd FJoor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Noreen Dryer stated she has raised the issue ofthe provision of utility services. She stated they would ask that the County revisit a prohibition against the provision of utility service in this area. She stated water and sewer require at least half acre lots. She stated they are punishing those that do not follow the TVC plan by not giving them the benefits of the TVC such as increased density. However there is not option as to choose to be a part ofthe TVC or not to be a part of the TVC plan. Mr. Dan Karri stated the big picture is to encourage open space. He stated the people in that area currently do not access to water and sewer and there is nothing wrong under state law or environmentally with well and septic on large lots which is the land owners' right today and will be in the future. He stated the point is not to create incentives that encourage the patterns or development that are not what the citizens are looking for. Therefore, if landowners transfer their development rights, then they will have access to that. He stated they are not trying to create incentives to create sprawl. Ms. Dryer stated upon creating the TVC element it also creates a big problem. She added that the plan is incomplete and there are a lot of things that need to be considered before the plan is adopted. Mr. Ken Tuma stated in policy 3.1.1. it says that in the undeveloped areas, the land use plan will require high degree of citizen participation and shall be submitted as part to the data and analysis required to amend a future land use map. He stated according to the way that he read it, that the SAP plan (Subject Area Plan) are required if someone wants to change a 10 or 11 acre site. He stated he feels that the developers are working towards the answers to some ofthe questions but they are not quite complete. Mr. Mike Busha stated the reason they changed from "the basis" to "a basis" because it does not mean that it needs to be used all over the County. Mr. Skeet Jernigan stated he wanted to address the concerns about the county's applicability. Mr. Jernigan stated the open space requirement is too large. He agreed with the other speakers that said the TDR Programs do not work. He stated the consultants are still working on the marketability of the project. He echoed the comments of the other speakers that agreed that questions are not being answered about landowner's rights and the in competency of the TVC plan. He mentioned the difference between landowners with property over 500 acres and landowners with property under 500 acres. He stated the differences are not fair. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 22 · '-' '-' ...., ..." St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Anthia Genotas stated they have reviewed this process recently and found out that in spite of the required change in pattern, they will not be taking the rights away from the landowners and there is still reasonable use of the land. Mr. Hearn stated if property owners with property over 500 acres lose their right to apply for a PUD and do that type of development in the TVC area. Mr. Mike Busha they are losing the right to develop a PUD in that area. Mr. Jernigan asked 500 acre parcels being treated different than 490 acre parcels. Mr. Mike Busha stated because they were the ones that were given the new rights to develop more density that what is allowed today. Mr. Skeet Jernigan stated then it should be an option. Chainnan Grande stated this can be recommended. Mr. Paul Schall stated he is against the Tye Element and is in agreement with all of the comments and statements that were raised that were against the Tye element. Mr. Schall stated the developers could not have an idea as to what the impact will be for the surrounding residents because they are from the northern area, where as the subject area is in the southern area. Mr. Schall stated there is a traffic increase and the plan will back fire. Ms. Camblor stated the industrial parcel will not lose its value and the exact same amount of acres that industrial will remain industrial. Mr. Schall concluded stating the plan does not address infrastructure and is incomplete, Mr. Jack Schwey stated he agrees with Mr. Pelham and Mr. Weiss in the area that this plan is incomplete and needs further plarming before it is submitted to DCA. Mr. Stan Green stated he would like to thank the Planning and Zoning board for their effort. He stated this plan is probably the last opportunity for the county to benefit and he is in favor of the plan. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 23 · '-" '-' 'wi ..., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Wendell Cox stated he is speaking at the request of some of the land owners. He has been donated speaking time by Tom Mitchell and Wellman Brown. He stated the board should consider the role that homeownership has displayed in the development of this country, According to International Economic data, the average income in this country wasn't much above the present poverty threshold. Since that time, we have had rampant suburbanization. He stated as cheap land has been developed in the suburbs, this has made it possible for homeownership rates to substantially increase. Mr. Cox stated homeownership is a very important factors in the economic development our nation and other nations as well. He stated 42% of the household equity in the United States is in homeownership. Therefore this is a very important issue in tenns of developing and maintaining the wealth and affluence of the nation. He stated his basic concern is to notify some of the difficulties that we face with respect to problems of declining homeownership which are particularly bad in this area. He stated where you find significant land use regulation; you will find that prices have gone through the roof. When you limit the amount of land for development, you drive prices up. He stated we need to be completely aware of the choices that we make because the choices that we make are to drive some people out ofthe homeownership market. Mr. Hearn stated Mr. Cox's infonnation is based on infonnation calculated from Port St. Lucie, the Fort Pierce area and Martin County and it is unfair to group Martin County's housing cost with St. Lucie County's. He stated Martin County's housing costs are higher than St. Lucie County's. Mr. Cox stated his point is that we should be concerned about housing affordability. Mr. Cox stated the problem with the workforce housing is about 60% of the households in this County are below the 120% level. Workforce housing is useful when it is used properly. Susan Caron stated she is in favor of the project because the County is growing and needs to grow responsibly and maintain our quality oflife. Mr. John Holt stated he was all for the TVC plan up until he found out they were changing densities. He stated he is against the project. He argued that the water dumps in the Indian River Lagoon. He stated no one has shown any concerns for the water management systems. He added water runs down hill. He stated human waste can be Towns Villages and Countryside Element 24 · '-' '-' .....".."., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. traced and found in the water because nutrients do not disappear but have to be used and harvested out of the system. He added no one is currently harvesting the nutrients out of the system. He concluded stating he his against the TVC plan until further information is provided as to how the water management system will operate. Mr. Collin Jay Macomber stated he is for the project. He stated there is no additional density at all being added to the area because of the development. He stated we need affordable housing. He stated schools need to be integrated and mixed so that the children will not be held on buses for long periods of time as the buses are traveling across the County picking up kids and trying to integrate the buses. Mr. John Martin stated he is for Ms. Caron's plan. He stated if they can leave things as they are, for one unit per acre, then everything would be fine. He stated he never expected to ask for any density increase on his property. He stated he commends the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for addressing the issues that needed to be addressed. He asked what the average price of a unit will be, since Ms. Camblor stated the value ofa TDR will fall between 8% and 35% of the sales price of a unit. Ms. Camblor stated they gave a general calculation of the value of the TDRs so that the homeowners to come up with their own percentages. Mr. Busha stated the percentage of the TDR values is based on what the developers say they might be able to payor absorb to get an extra unit on the land that they have. He stated the market will establish the value of the TDR Program. Mr. Martin stated in the 10% rule it talks about preserving or ensuring connectivity of roadways and flow ways. He stated he has concerns about this. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias stated they have been reviewing the TVC Element for quite sometime and every time they review it, they learn something new. He stated the consultants have provided good advice for the construction of the TVC Element. He stated the TVC Element plan is not perfect, but it is pretty good and he is comfortable with it and supports it. Mr. Lounds asked the developers if there are provisions in County or state statues that will allow changes to be done to this plan in the future for what ever reasons that the county or state may require. Mr. Busha replied yes. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 25 · '-" ~ '-' ...., St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds stated the plan is not totally rigid and is still somewhat flexible. Mr. Lounds asked if the value of a TDR depend on the value of an acre of land. Mr. Busha stated if in fact a land owner transfer his development right and place an easement over their land that all rights are stripped off and they weren't allowed to do anything, then there is residual value left. He stated a lot of conservation easements that are granted do not allow landowners to do anything with their land. He stated this Transfer of Development Right Program will allow some residual value to continue farming, and keep 10% of their future land use density that landowners have before they sell their rights. Ms. Camblor stated for the record, landowners will not be able to transfer a unit from other Cities. Ms. Camblor stated in order for a TDR program to work, there have to be very clearly defined sending and receiving sites and there have to be a calculation of how many units will be generated as well as the supply and the demand that you're going to have. Mr. Lounds asked if there was still language in this provision about it not being specifically enough to keep it out of the rest ofthe County. He stated the fact that the plan will hold specifically true to the TVC area should be added to the text so that landowners will not feel that the development outside of the Urban Service Area other than the TVC, will have the same criteria as the TVC Element. Mr. Busha stated as part of the recommendation, regardless of which, Mr. Lounds' recommendation will be, Mr. Lounds' point which says that the applicability of the TVC only applies to the Special Area plan area, can be added into the text. Mr. Lounds stated he is not comfortable with the fact ofthe utilities driving development. He stated if pipelines are located in front oflandowners' property, they should have the right to hook up, to save potable drinking water. Mr. Lounds stated staff has put a lot of time into the TVC plan and their issues need to be addressed. Mr. Hearn stated as a crisis in our school system, we are at the bottom ofthe school rankings as well as national rankings. He stated they are hoping to attract quality people who want a good education for their kids. He stated more growth will not solve their cnsls. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 26 · '-" ~ \",¡II 'WI St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission! Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hearn stated the accessory units such as cottages and such have yous that will not counted as density concerns him. He added that he is concerned about the value of the TDRs. Mr. Hearn stated he is concerned about how they are using the countryside in this project because it seems to be disappearing. Ms. Hensley asked if Col1ier County was an overlay district. Ms. Camblor stated it is an over lay. Ms. Hensley stated Senate Bill 360, the new Growth Management Bill, addresses the currency issue but that does not come until the end to 2008. She pointed out that this will address the future needs. She stated if the plan is done correctly, it provides the infrastructure needs, within proximity to the users. Having a variety of housing types within close proximity creates higher density, but also a better use ofthe infrastructure. She stated a school in an area with the appropriate demographic make up would imply little transportation needs. She stated this is a true bonus to the community as we11 as to the tax payers. Ms. Hensley stated there are many things that need to be addressed. She stated DCA intends to be partners with community developments and help shaper their design and give guidance. Mr. Mundt stated he has not seen a development being developed that does not ask for greater density. He stated the development should include incentives and benefactors. He stated he wi11 support this. Ms. Hammer stated she agrees with Mr. Mundt. She stated she loves the open-space requirement in this plan. She stated compromising is needed and used in this plan to try to find a plan that works for the community. She stated she feels that this plan is a starting place. Chairman Grande passed the gravel to Vice-Chairman Mr. Hearn, and stated he will read a motion that has prepared, based on the time that he has spent looking over the plan, working with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel and listening to all of the sketches of the plan, of the last month. Mr. Grande stated he moves that they forward a modified version of the 9/22 TVC Elements to the County Commissions with a recommendation of approval with the following changes: Towns Vi11ages and Countryside Element 27 . . '-" ~ '."",tI"'" S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. 1. I would adopt the recommendation made by the staff in the staff report. 2. I would Mr. Lounds suggestion of including the latest sufficient by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel 3. I would use the tenn and Countryside to mean the space between the Towns and Villages and not the space inside. 4. 1'd use the age old tenn of common open-space to mean undeveloped areas within the towns and villages. 5. I would define that development credit exchange go active a bank or a market banker to provide an orderly market for TDRs as recommended by Dr. Nicholas. 6. I would eliminate the matrix per density bonuses. TDRs are one-to-one bankers, which they identify the visual credits for the workforce housing. 7. I would eliminate the guarantee of Urban Services in the Rural area, outside of towns and villages and I'd eliminate the differences in rights for parcels over and under 500 acres. This will eliminate 3.1.2.6. (#5 and #6 would apply to both large and small parcels) 8. I would eliminate the Urban Service boundary's consideration s in the TVC area. It is just an added complexity, as far as exchanging density. The Urban Service Boundary would stay where it is and all ofthe existing divisions will stay as they are. Services will be provided within towns and villages, not provided in the Countryside. Existing Boundaries would remain for parcels one developing according to the TVC. 9. I would reduce open-space requirement to 40% or 50% and I would make it the same for towns and villages. 10. I would eliminate any minimum density requirement greater than 5 per acre. As designed in the market, it dictates what lines up at and developer will not develop those densities that are impractically low. 11. I would eliminate counting brick and water as open-space for the countryside. That would include buildings and parking lots. 12. I would also eliminate the large lots or off-site locations counting towards the Countryside. All these things I believe will probably simplify this plan by half, and make it much easier to understand and I would authorize the Chair to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel to develop the updated version with the indicated changes that will be presented to the County Commission and the version recommended for approval. Vice-Chainnan Bill Hearn asked if the maker of the motion will include the additional sending area plan amendment. Mr. Grande said yes. Vice-Chainnan Hearn announced that there is a motion. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 28 . . '-"' \w' ¥...." St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds stated he would second the motion, but he has few concerns about some of the criteria that are placed with the motion, such as the Urban Service Utility questions and getting the Chairman to work with the Regional Planning Counsel. He stated he feels when they pass the item up, they are done with it. Vice-Chairman Hearn passed the gavel back to Mr. Grande for the purposes of seconding the motion. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there was a motion and a second and asked if there were further discussion. Mr. Lounds stated he will not vote for the motion ifthe motioner will continue to have the Urban Services taken out of it because of his feelings about potable water. He also stated he feels that once the Planning and Zoning Commission turns the item over to the Board of County Commissioners, then it is out of their reach and they have done their job. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that they all each, as individuals had the opportunity to come before the County Commission on their own feelings about the item when it is over and done. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that he understands the transfers of density properly well enough to know that the market place will set the value and the developer will tell the land owner what he feels that value is worth. Chairman Grande stated he would have no problems eliminating the Urban Service Boundary consideration and the last part that Mr. Lounds mentioned with the Planning and Zoning Commission being finished with the item at this point and time, if it is agreeable for the seconder. Mr. Hearn stated that is okay with him. Mr. Mundt stated he has a problem with eliminating the matrix and density. He stated he feels that that is one of the points of getting the developers to work with the program and he feels that ifthat is taken away and put it strictly out, then it would create a one for one bases. He stated he feels that that should remain. He asked Chairman Grande to explain the part about the development credit exchange. Chairman Grande stated developers will be lining up to develop according to the TVC rules once everyone agrees that this is exactly what they want. He stated he believes that without the bonuses they will maintain a much higher price for credits. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 29 .. ... '-" '-" -."",;...." St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Chamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated he believes that the bonuses are the only threat that exists to the value of a TDR. If they double the numbers, the only thing that will happen is have the number that people will take. Mr. Mundt stated the reduction of open-space requirement for 40% to 50% is too low and he would like to see something higher. Mr. Lounds stated he agrees. Mr. Hearn stated if he understands, the Chairman motion's states by reducing it to 40% 50%, they are not including what they are including now, so they are not really reducing it that that far. Countryside is going to be Countryside and it will not be Countryside/schools or targeted industries or what have you, but it will be truly Countryside. Mr. Trias stated he would feel much more comfortable with a more simple motion. He stated he feels that the TVC document has been revised and worked on and that adding so many criterions for changes will create more problems. Ms. Hammer stated she would be more comfortable voting in favor of a motion that would ask the County Commissioners to look at the issues that Mr. Grande raised. She stated Mr. Hearn stated they are only an advisory board and they should start out with a 1.1 density and if the Board of County Commissioners feels meet to change the density, and then let them change it. The Roll was called: Ms. Hammer voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds voted against the motion. Mr. Trias voted against the motion. Mr. Mundt voted against the motion. Mr. Hearn voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated the motion failed by count. Chainnan Grande asked if there was another motion. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 30 '} .,... ~ \wf ,,-,,""" St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Continuation of tbe TVC Element Special Meeting Commission Cbamber, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Trias stated he would like to make a motion that they forward this document to the Board of County Commissioners with staff's comments. He recommends approval. Chairman Grande stated would they like to add on to that, the latest memo from the Treasure Coast that that would be seconded by Mr. Lounds. Mr. Lounds stated yes. Ms. Hammer asked if the motioner and the seconder could also be willing to perform the other Mr. Trias stated he thinks Chairman Grande stated that would be part of the motion. Chairman Grande asked if there were any discussion on the motion. The roll call was made: Ms. Hammer voted for the motion. Mr. Mundt voted for the motion. Mr- Ml1nrl1..-vøteå fv. nit:: motlO&.---> Mr. Hearn voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds voted for the motion. Mr. Trias voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted against the motion. Chairman Grande stated this motion passed and will be forwarded with a recommendation of approval. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 31