Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006MENTAL ADVISORY .. .. _ ENVIRON COMMITTEE ~~ ~~ NDUM MEMORA TO: Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director C FROM: Environmental Advisory Committee DATE: April 27, 200 RE: North St. Lucie County Charrette Towns, Villages and the Countryside The E~nbtrcn~nental Adviso Comer eviewed the draft Towns, Villages and the Countryside Land Development Regulations for a second time and has found that many of the concerns and questions we have put in writing at least twice have never been addressed nor have any explanations been given as to why they cannot be addressed. Our May 6, 2005 memo (attached) outlined our concerns with the Towns, Villages and the Countryside Draft Comp Plan Amendments and our January 25. 2006 (attached) memo outlined our concerns with the Towns, Villages and the Countryside Draft Land Development Regulations. The Environmental Advisory Committee continues to be concerned about the allowed uses that will count as countryside. Infrastructure, buildings, etc. should not be allowable countryside. Native habitat is included, but there is no requirement, and little to no incentive, for it to be used. The valuation of credits should be done in a way such that an appropriate balance of natural, agricultural, and urban/commercial land uses is reached. Transfer of Development Rights credits should be assigned based on the habitat value of the land to be preserved, not just based on the amount of housing density currently zoned for a parcel. There is still a concern with the preferred Transfer of Development Rights receiving site map (Figure 3-12) on page 3-27 of the Towns, Villages and the Countryside Element. Specifically, the concern is that properties identified as receiving sites west of U.S. 1 on Site D: should actually be sending areas based upon their environmental significance. As previously requested, please revise Figure 3-12 to change them to sending sites. The locations of new Towns and Villages should be planned so as to avoid fragmenting or developing the natural areas specifically pointed out by Environmental Advisory Committee and Environmental Resources Department. ~" -~--~_ ~, G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTENVIRONMENTAL FiEGULATIONS~EAC~NC~I.ETTER TO BRILLHART NC LOR'S 4- ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ i~ CO. ADMIN. OFFICE The Environmental Advisory Committee has repeatedly stated that the flowway details are completely lacking. Unless a comprehensive flowway plan is an integral part of the Towns, Villages and the Countryside element, Environmental Advisory Committee would not support the approval of this plan. As we have previously recommended, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and St. Lucie County staff need to commission a panel of qualified scientists to study the Towns, Villages and the Countryside overlay area and present their recommendations on how the flowway could be developed to provide a greater benefit to water quality rather than a sole focus on water quantity and storage. In order to make a plan work there should be some incentives for landowners such as Transfer of Development Rights. Would the Board of County Commissioners approaching a road network plan by allowing development to decide where and if roads will be constructed? The flowway should not be given any less consideration. The Environmental Advisory Committee supports Environmental Resources Department staff's recommendation to incorporating all of the recommendations found in Mark Hostetler's 3/15/2006 email (attached). Please either revise the draft Land Development Regulations to issues raised by the Environmental Advisory Committee or explain why they cannot be addressed. Thank you for continuing to give us the opportunity to review the materials regarding the Towns, Villages, and Countryside Plan. cc: SLC Board of County Commissioners Planning & Zoning Board Doug Anderson, SLC Administrator Faye Outlay, Asst. SLC Administrator Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Department Director [i ~ ~[?NMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONSIEP~C~TVC~LETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDR'S 4.27.OB.DOC '~,~'~, ,HIV ~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY .. .. COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM ******************************************************************************************************* TO: Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director FROM: Environmental Advisory Committee DATE: April 20, 2006 RE: North St. Lucie County Charrette Towns, Villages and the Countryside -Draft Land Development Regulations The Environmental Advisory Committee has reviewed the draft TVC Land Development Regulations and has the following questions and concerns. 1. The definition of Countryside seems reasonable, but EAC is concerned about the uses enumerated especially civic buildings, targeted industry, higher education, workforce housing and agriculture facilities. Native habitat is included, but there is no requirement that it be used. It seems possible that there might not be much real Open Space. EAC does not think that any infrastructure, buildings, etc. should be allowable countryside. If the county wants to give incentives for providing targeted industry etc. that is acceptable but not at the expense of countryside. Golf course should also be removed as a Countryside use, since it's by definition private, and pollutes a great deal. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address the concern of the Environmental Advisory Committee. All of the above uses are still either allowed to be credited towards the countryside requirement or are allowed in the countryside. 2. The concept of a flow way to regulate the water quantity and especially the quality is important to the effect of these projects on the surrounding areas and especially the Indian River Lagoon. Flowway details are completely lacking. Unless a comprehensive flowway plan is an integral part of the TVC element, EAC would not support the comprehensive plan. Getting some clarification regarding pollution is important, since the experts involved so far are drainage people. We recommend that the TCRPC and SLC staff commission a panel of qualified scientist to study the TVC overlay area and present their recommendations on how the flowway could be developed to provide a greater benefit to water quality rather than a sole focus on water quantity and storage. In order to make a plan work there should be some incentives for landowners such as G:~COMMON~ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONSIEAC~TVGLL.ETTER TO BRILLHARTTVC LDRS WRESPONSES420.DOC TDR's. The minimum volume of stormwater storage and recharge per each proposed future resident needs to be determined in order to design the flowway to adequately serve the proposed density of the TVC. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address the concerns of the Environmental Advisory Committee. Section 3.01.03.EE.2.p.ii (page 55) still states that "the regional flow way system will be created incrementally as new development is approved, gradually replacing the existing canal network in order to restore more natural discharge patterns." 3. The language regarding landscape buffering and protecting native habitat (within the country side) is weak and needs to be detailed. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. 4. Has there been any requirement that parking lots etc. been made of porous materials? 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. 5. How are "targeted" industries defined? 3/31/06 Draft LDR's provide a definition of targeted industries (Section 3.01.03.EE.2.r Page 60). 6. Stewardship is apparently going to be addressed in the January 23~ meeting but it is critical. We talked in the past about having an oversight by ERD; where has this concept gone? 7. We have been assured that we could work out the binding nature of keeping the Countryside areas in perpetuity, but we do need more information on exactly how that will be accomplished. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concept. Please identify when and how these concerns will be addressed. 8. A specific set of land uses needs to be developed limiting the uses allowed on a piece of property that has participated in the TVC by selling off 90% of their density. Under current code, AG-1 zoning allows airports, gasoline service stations, industrial wastewater disposal, and a number of other conditional uses that would not be consistent with the TVC countryside concept. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address the concerns of the Environmental Advisory Committee. Please either revise the draft LDR's to remove the allowable uses that are not consistent with the countryside concept or explain why this has not been done. G:\fAMMOMENVIRONMENTALBESOURCES OEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC\TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDRS W-RESPONSES420.DOC EAC also supports all of the following comments from the Environmental Resources Department and would like to see them addressed as well: i) Does the TVC area overlap any areas targeted for conservation (such as FL Forever lands, lands targeted for acquisition by the county, SFWMD, CERP, etc.) or greenways? If so, the locations of new Towns and Villages should be planned so as to avoid fragmenting or developing these natural areas. 2) The TDR should ensure that the countryside preserves not only agricultural lands, but also natural habitats. The valuation of credits should be done in a way such that an appropriate balance of natural, agricultural, and urban/commercial land uses is reached. TDR credits should be assigned based on the habitat value of the land to be preserved, not just based on the amount of housing density currently zoned for a parcel. Will this issue be addressed in a subsequent document, focused on the TDR? Not addressed in the Draft TDR Ordinance or in the Draft TVC LDR's. Will this issue be addressed and if not, please respond in writing with an explanation as to why. 3) St. Lucie County has a landscaping ordinance, which should be incorporated into the TVC LDC. At the meeting on January 13, 2006, it was agreed that the landscaping ordinance from the county LDC would be referenced in the TVC section, such that the TVC development would be required to abide by this same ordinance. Addressed. a) How will the TVC LDC deal with transfer of other development rights, aside from density? Right now, the plan seems to be worded such that landowners would still be able to carry out a variety of activities, including sand mining, industrial wastewater disposal, sewage disposal, manufacturing, and others, on lands set aside for the countryside. The plan should specify which land uses are and are not acceptable for the countryside, and should value credits according to the future land uses to be permitted within donor areas. Section 4.03.03 B.3 states that donor lands may retain 10% of their transferable density and subdivide the land into individual home sites using the remaining density. However, it was not specified clearly as to whether the remaining 10% of transferable density would be spread out over the entire donor parcel or would be limited to a parcel equal in size to 10% of the donor parcel. It was agreed in the meeting on January 13, 2006, that the latter was intended by the code. The TVC LDC wording should be revised to reflect this intention clearly. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please identify what land uses will be allowed in land set aside as countryside. If these uses will not be identified in the LDC, please respond in writing regarding the reasoning for the lack of identification. In addition, the language does not address the clustering of remaining densities on parcels that have transferred 90% of their density. Please address these concerns or indicate why they are not being addressed. 5) Section 4.03.04 D.1 does not make it clear that creation of any residential subdivisions outside of the Urban Service Boundary on land .designated TVC would require TDR. The section refers to Section 3.01.03.EE in general for explanation of zoning district allowances, but should also specifically state that G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONShEAC~TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDRS W-RESPONSES 420.DOC } TDR is required. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. s) In the TVC plan, agriculture is generally considered worthy of preservation in the countryside, and is to be used for TDR to create Towns and Villages. However, the habitat value and water quality effects of different agricultural uses can vary widely. Therefore, TDR credits should be assigned based on allowable potential agricultural uses within a particular agricultural parcel. If a landowner wishes to retain the right to convert ranchland to citrus on a parcel, for example, the credits generated by that parcel should be less than the credits generated by a parcel for which the landowner agrees to maintain the land in perpetuity at the same or better level of habitat value. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. ~) In Section 4.03.04 F, the TVC LDC provides some standards for all residential buildings, but these standards are limited to the locations and sizes of garages. Does the ERD have any green building standards that could be incorporated into the code here? For example, requiring a minimum length of eaves on buildings to provide shading and reduce energy consumption, requiring the use of window panes that provide improved insulation, etc. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. ERD staff recommends incorporating all of the recommendations found in Mark Hostetler's 3/15/2006 email (attached). If these recommendations will not be incorporated, please indicate the reasons why they will not be included. 8) The TVC plan allows for a maximum of one golf course per town or village, provided that the course re-uses wastewater. In addition to wastewater re-use • for irrigation, the golf course Best Management Practices (BMP) developed by FDEP include measures for: minimizing pesticide, fertilizer, and irrigation through the use of native vegetation and Integrated Pest Management; and the proper storage, use, and disposal of chemicals such as gasoline, oil, pesticides, fertilizers, and solvents and degreasers. The FDEP should be contacted to provide an updated golf course BMP for use in this code. Addressed. Latest. FDEP BMP for golf courses are referenced. s) In the definitions section, it was agreed at the January 13, 2006 meeting that developers would not be permitted to count 100% of the acreage of surface water bodies created for required stormwater retention on-site as Open Spaces. SLC staff should determine the appropriate percentage or zones of surface water bodies to count as Open Spaces. For example, perhaps only the area of the surface water body acting as a littoral zone, with appropriate established vegetation, should be counted toward the Open Space requirement. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. ~o) The definition of Open Space should clarify that parking areas should not be counted as Open Spaces. Addressed. ~~) Section 3.01.03 specifies minimum average densities required for towns and villages within and outside of the USB, but does not specify maximum average densities for individual towns and villages. A maximum average density is G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT~ENVIRONMENTAL REGUUITIONS~EAC~TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDRS WRESPONSES 620.DOC necessary to ensure that higher-density developments do not become too dense, such that all habitat value is eliminated and the water consumption, stormwater runoff, traffic, etc. do not become unsustainable. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. 12) Section 3.01.03.EE.2.c.(3) provides minimum and maximum proportions for each zone of a TVC. However, in some cases these proportions contradict the proportions listed in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b. For example, section c.(3) states that the maximum proportion of a TVC devoted to the general zone is 60%, while Section 2.b states that the minimum proportion devoted to countryside should be 40%. Given the minimum requirement for countryside of 40%, the true maximum for the general zone must necessarily be less than 60%, as otherwise there would be no land left for any other zones aside from countryside and general. It is important to correct these discrepancies to ensure that the countryside minimums and the requirement of gradations provided by different zones are not over-ridden by a contradicting allowance for larger developed zones. Please re-work the minimum and maximum allowances for the different zones such that contradictions are eliminated. 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. ~3) Section 3.01.03.EE.2.1 provides street cross-section diagrams, which include bicycle/pedestrian lanes for all roadways, with the exception of parkways, alleys, and lanes. While alleys and lanes should be relatively safe for bicyclists and pedestrians due to slower vehicle speeds and low traffic levels, parkways would not be safe for non-motorized travel without some kind of sidewalk or pedestrian/bicycle lane. In order to provide a truly multi-modal network, facilitating the use of non-motorized transportation for commuting and leisure, all major roadways should provide some accommodation for bicycles/pedestrians. 3/31/06-Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. ~a) The future flow-way to be described in Section 3.01.03.GG.2.1 has not yet been incorporated into the TVC LDC. Additional language has been added to the flow way section of the LDC's. However, qualified scientists, engineers, and environmental professionals have not been asked to evaluate the proposed language. In addition, please see the response to the EAC's comment number 2 above. 15) At the meeting on January 13, 2006, it was agreed that the Landscaping and Natural Features Section (3.01.03.GG.2.m) should refer back to existing SLC LDC codes as appropriate. Addressed. ~s) Section 7.04.02.C does not propose any changes to the open space standards in agricultural areas. Shouldn't there be some changes though for agricultural lands to be set aside for countryside? Or would existing open space standards still apply without change? 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. G:~COMMON~ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPAFiTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC\TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDRS W-RESPONSESh20.DOC ~~) Section 7.04.02.G states that open space requirements for PTV's will be set forth in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b and 2.0. However, these referenced sections only deal with open space set-asides in the countryside. Shouldn't we also require some minimum open space within the Towns and Villages themselves, for purposes of parks, natural areas, greenways, trails, etc.? 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. ~a) By making the changes proposed in Section 11.02.02.D, are we in any way changing the types of developments that would be considered as DRI's? If so, would we be therefore missing an important level of regional review? 3/31/06 Draft LDR's do not address this concern. Please address these concerns or identify why they are not being addressed. Additional comments based on the 3/31/06 draft ordinances: 1) Why were the open space requirements for Planned Countryside Subdivisions (PCS) changed from those requirements found in Section 7.01.03.1.2.a of the LDC (80% Open Space/ 35% Common Open Space) to those found in Section 7.04.02 B of the Land Development Code(35% Common Open Space)? This change seems inconsistent with the goals . 2) There is still a concern with the preferred TDR receiving site map (Figure 3- 12) on page 3-27 of the TVC Element. Specifically, the concern is that properties identified as receiving sites west of U.S. 1 on Site D: should actually be sending areas based upon their environmental significance. Please revise Figure 3-12 to remove these areas from the map or change them to sending sites. This request has been made several times by both the EAC and ERD staff. CC: SLC Board of County Commissioners Planning & Zoning Board Doug Anderson, SLC Administrator Faye Outlay, Asst. SLC Administrator Vanessa Bessey, ERD Director G:~COMMON~ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~ENC~TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDRS WRESPONSES420.DOC »> "Hostetler,Mark E" <hossmanCa~ufl.edu> 3/15/2006 3:43 PM »> my thoughts to the group about the NC -Overlay Zone in the county. (draft can be found at httn //www s~ikowski corn/StLucieCountvLandDeveloomentReoulations5ummarv odf) General thoughts: My read on the plan is that it is very heavy on design to promote a sense of community and walkable neighborhoods but very light on creating "truly" resource efficient communities (i.e., conserving natural resources). I am not knocking New Urbanist principles (as you heard from my talk) - creating a sense of place is important to developing a sustainabiliry community (preserving rural landscapes & open space is a part of this). I saw pages and pages about the aesthetics of buildings and where to position them on a property. However, as with many "New Urbanism" plans that I have seen -the environment is given token lip service and it is thought just by preserving open space, developing urban service boundaries, and creating a walkable community, this will help conserve natural resources. Usually, this is not the case. I list below some design and management practices that could (or should) be included in the plan. Most of the suggestions deal with the issues surrounding the conservation of water, energy, and wildlife habitat. Many of the suggestions could be mandatory but most rnuld be incentivized within policy (concerning the overlay zone). 1. Energy star homes -all homes in a NC should have an Energy star requirement -this is easy to do and makes economic sense for the builder and the homeowner (talk about affordable homes -what about affordable utilites?). 2. All landscaped areas should have appropriate micro-irrigation and soil sensors (e.g., see ~ '/o /irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu/). This could save a ton of water. In areas that are public (or even private yards) - a.landscaping management company copuld be contracted to manage landscape yards in an environmentally sensitive manner. 3. Incentives and or regulations should reduce the footprint of turf grass and increase the use of natives. 4. Conservation of open space should look beyond the boundaries of the development site. Think of regulations and incentives to promote connectivity of natural areas across the region (i.e., not just a scattering of postage-sized natural areas with no connections). 5. Even with the best transportation layout, environmental landscaping, energy-efficient homes, and preserved natural areas -things can fall apart if residents do not understand and want to manage their homes, yards, and neighborhoods in a sustainable manner. I think this is the most important point (sure good design or framework is important -but long-term management is the most important piece to help insure functionality; for example, overwatering or over fertilizing landscaped areas can consume a lot of resources and impact surrounding land). I would create some incentives or regulations where developers set up CCRs and an educational program (kiosks, web site, and brochure) that address local natural resource issues. (see attached brochure from UF). 6. Promote the use of swales (no curb & gutter) where appropriate. Portions of the land with very permeable soils could become a "natural" retention pond (serves a duable purpose of open space for tfie public and even wildlife and trapping stormwater). Even have incentives for rain gardens in each yard. Where stormwater ponds have to be created, make them as "natural" as possible (e.g., native plants -limited turf, littoral zones for wildlife, etc.). 7. Most important -have all design and build professionals trained on how to build sustaianble neighborhoods -both on the design phase and during the construction phase. For example, conserved trees throughout the property could easily be killed by heavy machinery that run over the roots. UFs Program For Resource Effident Communities have many training courses that can be taken by build/design professionals (see httQ•//www energv ufl edu) 8. What about using durable and recyded building materials? Can use incentives for this. 9. Green transporation system? Some of this is addressed in the document but should have the following: a. Streets that have minimal widths, are made up (in part) by recyded material, and have street calming devices such as speed humps, roundabouts, curved roads, and speed limit signs. b. Multiple exit/entry points into the neighborhood and local street connedions to nearby neighborhoods. This is so that cars do not have to empty out onto an arterial road from one location, which can cause traffic congestion. c. Trees that line the roads and in parking areas. This shades the asphalt and reduces the urban "heat island effect." Also, roads and parking areas are made of light-colored material to reduce absorption of heat from the sun. d. Walking trails and bike paths conneds local retail areas, schools, and recreational areas., 10. All conserved open spaces should have funds and a management team that could take care. of the long term fudionality. On suggestion is that for all open spaces, a CDD is created where a bond is floated to give the developer money up front to invest in infrastrud:ure and create a fund that will care for these open lands for years to come. The bond is paid by the residents over a 20 to 30 year period. 11. Alll of the above could have bare minimums (that have to be done) but why not create incentives for developers that want to go beyond these minimums (e.g., could have a home that is 30% more efficient -but why not 50% more effident!). I will stop here as there are many more things that could be talked about. Our group, Program For Resource Effldent Communities (http://www.energy.ufl.edu) would be happy to conduct a charette with various stakeholders. Feel free to contact me. Thanks! Mark Hostetler Assodate Professor, Extension Wildlife Specialist Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation IFAS, University of Florida 215 Newins-Ziegler Hall PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430 ph: 352-846-0568 fax:352-392-6984 email: hostetiermCalwec.ufl.edu Wildlife information: see htto://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/ Resource Efficient Communities: see htto•//www energv ufl edu/ Living Green TV: see h •//livinggreen ifas ufl edu VIII _ 'IAlI .. .. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM ** T0: Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director FROM: Environmental Advisory Committee DATE: January 25, 2006 RE: North St. Lucie County Charrette Towns, Villages and the Countryside -Draft Land Development Regulations ******************************************************************************************************* *** The Environmental Advisory Committee has reviewed the draft TVC Land Development Regulations and has the following questions and concerns. 1. The definition of Countryside seems reasonable, but EAC is concerned about the uses enumerated especially civic buildings, targeted industry, higher education, workforce housing and agriculture facilities. Native habitat is included, but there is no requirement that it be used. It seems possible that there might not be much real Open Space. EAC does not think that any infrastructure, buildings, etc. should be allowable countryside. If the county wants to give incentives for providing targeted industry etc. that is acceptable but not at the expense of countryside. Golf course should also be removed as a Countryside use, since it's by definition private, and pollutes a great deal. 2. The concept of a flow way to regulate the water quantity and especially the quality is important to the effect of these projects on the surrounding areas and especially the Indian River Lagoon. Flowway details are completely lacking. Unless a comprehensive flowway plan is an integral part of the TVC element, EAC would not support the comprehensive plan. Getting some clarification regarding pollution is important, since the experts involved so far are drainage people. We recommend that the TCRPC and SLC staff commission a panel of qualified scientist to study the TVC overlay area and present their recommendations on how the flowway could be developed to provide a greater benefit to water quality rather than a sole focus on water quantity and storage. In order to make a plan work there should be some incentives for landowners such as TDR's. The minimum volume of stormwater storage and recharge per each proposed G:~COMMON\ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC\TVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDR'S.DOC future resident needs to be determined in order to design the flowway to adequately serve the proposed density of the TVC. 3. The language regarding landscape buffering and protecting native habitat (within the country side) is weak and needs to be detailed. 4. Has there been any requirement that parking lots etc. been made of porous materials? 5. How are "targeted" industries defined? 6. Stewardship is apparently going to be addressed in the January 23`~ meeting but it is critical. We talked in the past about having an oversight by ERD; where has this concept gone? 7. We have been assured that we could work out the binding nature of keeping the Countryside areas in perpetuity, but we do need more information on exactly how that will be accomplished. 8. A specific set of land uses needs to be developed limiting the uses allowed on a piece of property that has participated in the TVC by selling off 90% of their density. Under current code, AG-1 zoning allows airports, gasoline service stations, industrial wastewater disposal, and a number of other conditional uses that would not be consistent with the TVC countryside concept. EAC also supports all of the following comments from the Environmental Resources Department and would like to see them addressed as well: 1) Does the TVC area overlap any areas targeted for conservation (such as FL Forever lands, lands targeted for acquisition by the county, SFWMD, CERP, etc.) or greenways? If so, the locations of new Towns and Villages should be planned so as to avoid fragmenting or developing these natural areas. 2) The TDR should ensure that the countryside preserves not only agricultural lands, but also natural habitats. The valuation of credits should be done in a way such that an appropriate balance of natural, agricultural, and urbaNcommercial land uses is reached. TDR credits should be assigned based on the habitat value of the land to be preserved, not just based on the amount of housing density currently zoned for a parcel. Will this issue be addressed in a subsequent document, focused on the TDR? 3) St. Lucie County has a landscaping ordinance, which should be incorporated into the TVC LDC. At the .meeting on January 13, 2006, it was agreed that the landscaping ordinance from the county LDC would be referenced in the TVC section, such that the TVC development would be required to abide by this same ordinance. a) How will the TVC LDC deal with transfer of other development rights, aside from density? Right now, the plan seems to be worded such that landowners would G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIOWS~EACITVCILETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDR'S.DOC still be able to carry out a variety of activities, including sand mining, industrial wastewater disposal, sewage disposal, manufacturing, and others, on lands set aside for the countryside. The plan should specify which land uses are and are not acceptable for the countryside, and should value credits according to the future land uses to be permitted within donor areas. Section 4.03.03 B.3 states that donor lands may retain 10% of their transferable density and subdivide the land into individual home sites using the remaining density. However, it was not specified clearly as to whether the remaining 10% of transferable density would be spread out over the entire donor parcel or would be limited to a parcel equal in size to 10% of the donor parcel. It was agreed in the meeting on January 13, 2006, that the latter was intended by the code. The TVC LDC wording should be revised to reflect this intention clearly. 5) Section 4.03.04 D.1 does not make it clear that creation of any residential subdivisions outside of the Urban Service Boundary on land designated TVC would require TDR. The section refers to Section 3.01.03.EE in general for explanation of zoning district allowances, but should also specifically state that TDR is required. s) In the TVC plan, agriculture is generally considered worthy of preservation in the countryside, and is to be used for TDR to create Towns and Villages. However, the habitat value and water quality effects of different agricultural uses can vary widely. Therefore, TDR credits should be assigned based on allowable potential agricultural uses within a particular agricultural parcel. If a landowner wishes to retain the right to convert ranchland to citrus on a parcel, for example, the credits generated by that parcel should be less than the credits generated by a parcel for which the landowner agrees to maintain the land in perpetuity at the same or better level of habitat value. ~) In Section 4.03.04 F, the TVC LDC provides some standards for all residential buildings, but these standards are limited to the locations and sizes of garages. Does the ERD have any green building standards that could be incorporated into the code here? For example, requiring a minimum length of eaves on buildings to provide shading and reduce energy consumption, requiring the use of window panes that provide improved insulation, etc. s) The TVC plan allows for a maximum of one golf course per town or village, provided that the course re-uses wastewater. In addition to wastewater re-use for irrigation, the golf course Best Management Practices (BMP) developed by FDEP include measures for: minimizing pesticide, fertilizer, and irrigation through the use of native vegetation and Integrated Pest Management; and the proper storage, use, and disposal of chemicals such as gasoline, oil, pesticides, fertilizers, and solvents and degreasers. The FDEP should be contacted to provide an updated golf course BMP for use in this code. s) In the definitions section, it was agreed at the January 13, 2006 meeting that developers would not be permitted to count 100% of the acreage of surface water bodies created for required stormwater retention on-site as Open Spaces. SLC staff should determine the appropriate percentage or zones of surface water bodies to count as Open Spaces. For example, perhaps only the area of G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT~ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC~TVCLLETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDR'S.DOC the surface water body acting as a littoral zone, with appropriate established vegetation, should be counted toward the Open Space requirement. ~ o) The definition of Open Space should clarify that parking areas should not be counted as Open Spaces. ~ ~) Section 3.01.03 specifies minimum average densities required for towns and villages within .and outside of the USB, but does not specify maximum average densities for individual towns and villages. A maximum average density is necessary to ensure that higher-density developments do not become too dense, such that all habitat value is eliminated and the water consumption, stormwater runoff, traffic, etc. do not become unsustainable. 12) Section 3.01.03.EE.2.c.(3) provides minimum and maximum proportions for each zone of a TVC. However, in some cases these proportions contradict the proportions listed in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b. For example, section c.(3) states that the maximum proportion of a TVC devoted to the general zone is 60%, while Section 2.b states that the minimum proportion devoted to countryside should be 40%. Given the minimum requirement for countryside of 40%, the true maximum for the general zone must necessarily be less than 60%, as otherwise there would be no land left for any other zones aside from countryside and general. It is important to correct these discrepancies to ensure that the countryside minimums and the requirement of gradations provided by different zones are not over-ridden by a contradicting allowance for larger developed zones. Please re-work the minimum and maximum allowances for the different zones such that contradictions are eliminated. ~3) Section 3.01.03.EE.2.1 provides street cross-section diagrams, which include bicycle/pedestrian lanes for all roadways, with the exception of parkways, alleys, and lanes. While alleys and lanes should be relatively safe for bicyclists and pedestrians due to slower vehicle speeds and low traffic levels, parkways would not be safe for non-motorized travel without some kind of sidewalk or pedestrian/bicycle lane. In order to provide a truly multi-modal network, facilitating the use of non-motorized transportation for commuting and leisure, all major roadways should provide some accommodation for bicycles/pedestrians. 1a) The future flow-way to be described in Section 3.01.03.GG.2.1 has not yet been incorporated into the TVC LDC. ~5) At the meeting on January 13, 2006, it was agreed that the Landscaping and Natural Features Section (3.01.03.GG.2.m) should refer back to existing SLC LDC codes as appropriate. ~s) Section 7.04.02.C does not propose any changes to the open space standards in agricultural areas. Shouldn't there be some changes though for agricultural lands to be set aside for countryside? Or would existing open space standards still apply without change? ~~) Section 7.04.02.G states that open space requirements for PTV's will be set forth in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b and 2.0. However, these referenced sections only deal with open space set-asides in the countryside. Shouldn't we also require some minimum open space within the Towns and Villages themselves, for purposes of parks, natural areas, greenways, trails, etc.? G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTiENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC~TVCLLEffER TO BRILLHART TVC lDR'S.DOC ~s) By making the changes proposed in Section 11.02.02.D, are we in any way changing the types of developments that would be considered as DRI's? If so, would we be therefore missing an important level of regional review? CC: SLC Board of County Commissioners Planning & Zoning Board Doug Anderson, SLC Administrator Faye Outlay, Asst. SLC Administrator Vanessa Bessey, ERD Director G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONSyEAC1TVC~LETTER TO BRILLHART TVC LDR'S.DOC ~i ~ , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • Environmental Resources Division MEMORANDUM ******************************************************************************************************* ** TO: Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director FROM: Environmental Advisory Committee DATE: May 6, 2005 RE: North St. Lucie County Charrette Towns, Villages and the Countryside -Draft Comp. Plan Amendments ******************************************************************************************************* *** The Environmental Advisory Committee has read the latest draft of the TVC document and would. like to compliment the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the St. Lucie County citizens who were involved with the development of this visioning plan. Particularly, we were very impressed with the greenway-flow way portion of the countryside. We do have many concerns about the arrangement of the towns, villages, and countryside's with regards to existing natural resources and how certain aspects of this plan will be developed and managed. As stewards of the land, we must preserve the natural areas and the biodiversity found within, and the quality of the waters of the County, the watersheds, the Indian River Lagoon and finally the Ocean. In retrospect, we can look back and see what a terrible job we have done so far. Please. respectfully consider the following questions and comments and inform us of how you plan to address our concerns. 1) The EAC's primary concern is that native habitats were not given any concern in developing this document, and there is not much left in the north part of the county. The TVC plan needs to place more emphasis on the preservation of existing native habitats and restoration of impacted sites. Somewhere in this document, perhaps 3.1.3.1 #9, reference needs to be made to coordinate the St. Lucie County Native habitat inventory and the Land Acquisition committee's ranking of environmentally significant lands. Any lands that have been identified as environmentally sensitive and have been ranked as A, B, or C sites by the St. Lucie County Native habitat inventory and/or the Land Acquisition committee as significant parcels shall not be considered as receiving sites for any TDR credits. Furthermore, land owners of any such sites should be encouraged (with potential incentives) to transfer these credits or consider selling the property outright to the G:~COMMON~ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT~ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC~TVC~LETTER TO BOCC TVC COMP PLAN AMENDS.DOC county or any other conservation aimed agency. This specifically would exclude the "IClatt property" from being a potential receiving site, as is currently shown in the TVC plan. The EAC would like be sure that the 9 sites, totaling 570.7 acres, identified in the SLC Native Habitat Inventory conducted in 2004, are considered as sending areas and not receiving areas as is currently shown. Please see the attached package including site descriptions and a map for site locations. 2) A clearer definition of who will be responsible for managing the "country-side" is needed. Is it the CSO or the CDD? The definitions use language such as "provide services, education, etc" but never addresses the actual management, such as exotic vegetation removal, nature trail design and maintenance, maintaining waterways, prescribed burning, habitat restoration, monitoring of resources, mowing, landscaping, etc. At what point in these processes will the specific land management activities be identified? Will the same organization be responsible for overseeing the parks and recreational facilities (i.e.; ball fields and golf courses) as well as managing the lands set aside for preservation? The land management staff needs to include qualified professionals (i.e.; environmental scientists) that are able to manage native habitats and wildlife populations, assess soil and hydrology issues, manage the passive recreation associated with those lands, etc. 3) The definitions of "countryside" and "open space" need a great deal of clarification. As defined ATV parks, golf courses, and ball fields could serve as countryside. Differentiation must be made between types of countryside. For example, Native Habitat Preservation (strictly for wildlife management or preservation of a rare species, not be open to public), Native Habitat Preservation with Low Impact Recreational Activities (open to public for hiking, birdwatching, etc...), Low Intensity Agricultural (low density cattle grazing), High Intensity Agricultural (dairy farm, citrus grove, etc), High Impact Recreational (baseball fields, ATV parks, golf courses, etc), etc. Policy 3.1.5.3 states that schools are considered as "public open space." Public open space is used interchangeably with countryside throughout this document. While the EAC agrees that the identification of school sites is extremely important, that entire site should not be qualified as countryside. 4) More incentive, in the way of providing higher TDR credits, needs to be given for the preservation of existing native habitats, specifically the sites ranked as A, B, or C by the SLC Native Habitat Inventory, and restoration of impacted sites to native habitats to qualify as open space than the credits to be given for the development of recreational facilities. This assessment is based on the fact that ball fields and golf courses can be built on any land but the location of the remaining intact native habitat is already determined, there is no flexibility in deciding whether to save G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC~TVCILETTER TO BOCC TVC COMP PLAN AMENDS.DOC native habitat in one location or another, only where it presently exists. 5) EAC is concerned about Policy 3.1.1.3, titled Conflicts, that states when a conflict arises between the TVC and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the TVC requirement shall prevail. Please clarify that environmental regulations, such as habitat preservation, tree preservation and mitigation, and wetland protection will not be overlooked. 6) Policy 3.1.1.4 states that "Family farms and other eligible sending sites outlined ... are also eligible to receive urban services." This encourages urban sprawl in the form of development patterns that the TVC concept wishes to eliminate. For example, (using the sizes allowed in Policy 3.1.1.7) a landowner has forty acres, zoned 1 d.u. per acre. There is currently with one house built on the property. He qualifies as a "Family Farm" and participates in the TDR program and transfers ten credits and receives urban services. He decides he does not want to farm any longer so he discontinues any agricultural uses on his property but he develops the remaining twenty-nine houses that he is entitled to, consequently there are now thirty houses on forty acres outside the urban service boundary, i.e. urban sprawl. Family farms or other potential small scale sending sites outside the USB should not be eligible for receiving urban services. 7) We recommend Policy 3.1.1.7 # 3 & #4 be revised to read "Maintain the property for habitat preservation or agriculture uses..." 8) EAC is concerned about Policy 3.1.1.1 #2 which states that "New developments located inside the USB within a Special Area Plan have a reduced requirement for Countryside/ Open Space and no minimum parcel size as outlined in Policies 3.1.4.4 and 3.1.4.5". Please clarify the definition of "Special Area Plan" and are we interpreting this correctly to say that PUD's may not be required to set aside 15% habitat as is required in the SLC Land Development Code, or any other similar habitat preservation requirements? 9) EAC recommends that Policy 3.1.4.1 be revised to read "Provide an interconnected system of Greenways. Habitat Preserves, Parks, and Open Space". 10) In Policy 3.1.4.2 #2 c, and Figure 3-4 #4, are habitat preserves able to qualify as the "Neighborhood Greens" identified within neighborhoods? 11) EAC recommends that Policy 3.1.4.2 #9 be revised to read "A significant amount of open space is designated for Countryside as an integral component of the settlement pattern to preserve native habitats, to support and enhance the rural character, to provide opportunities for sustained agriculture and to help mitigate the biological and ecological impacts of new development." G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONSIEACITVC~LETTER TO BOCC TVC COMP PLAN AMENDS.DOC 12) EAC recommends that Policy 3.1.4.3 #3 be revised to read "Open Space is necessary to preserve the natural and rural character desired by the citizens of St. Lucie County." 13)Please clarify the definitions of "town", "village", and "neighborhood" and be sure they are consistent throughout the document. Page 3-iv states that a village is one neighborhood in the countryside. On page 3-18 a village is defined as one or two distinct neighborhoods. Page 3-iv states that a town is two or more neighborhoods. So, if you have two neighborhoods is it a town or a village, or are these terms synonymous? In which case only one term should be used to lessen the confusion. Is the size of the neighborhood the measuring criteria? According to Table 3-1, there is no maximum parcel size for a town. Does this mean that a Port St. Lucie could be built as a town, with the necessary countryside somewhere outside the limits, not necessarily contiguous? If that is the case then the plan is inconsistent with its own purpose. There must be a limit to the size and a definite boundary, with its own USB. Is there a maximum density for a town? Again, this must be specified. 14)Please clarify the statement on page 3-12 #4 that developments are required to build schools. It needs to explain what the criteria will be to determine which development will be required to build schools. 15) It appears that there is more incentive to develop a town instead of a village. For a town, a minimum of eight units per acre (higher density) only 60% open space is required versus seven units per acre and 75% open space requirements for a village. The EAC is concerned with the notable lack of detailed research regarding the "flow way". EAC is of the opinion that the overall planning and operation of the flow way must be headed by environmental scientists, including staff from the South Florida Water Management District and the SLC Environmental Resources Division, not civil engineers. The flow way needs to be developed in a way that it is not just one large canal to replace the inadequate system of canals currently in place. It needs to be designed in such a way as to mimic the sheetflow, flow through marsh system that is historically natural to this area. Policy 3.1.6.2 should be revised from `The entity responsible for administration (of the flow way) shall be identified within two years of the adoption of the TVC." to `The entity responsible for administration (of the flow way) shall be identified within two years of the adoption of the TVC or prior to the completion of the first phase of the flow way, whichever comes first." Particular emphasis must be placed on water quality. Have the soils been tested for composition, or fertilizer and pesticide residue from its historic use as agriculture? G:~COMMONIENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC~TVC~L.ETTER TO BOCC TVC COMP PLAN AMENDS.DOC Much of the community vision was created around this flow way and if it is not feasible then the entire master plan is becomes impractical. Planners are advised to look at the events that occurred when Lake Apopka was restored and the harms that can be involved with "reflooding" old agriculture lands. Soils testing and all pertinent studies need to be performed early in the planning stages to ensure that the flow way location is appropriate. 16)Policy 3.1.5.2 states that new developments in North SLC are required to accommodate the volume of treated wastewater produced. While the reuse has been accepted as a panacea, it is important to remember that we are in effect spreading fertilizer on the land in question. As long as that fertilizer is used to grow something (i.e.; when that something is harvested the fertilizer is removed in another form) it is better than dumping the treated wastewater directly into the runoff facilities. In the recent past, it has become apparent that every rainy season fertilized runoff is eventually flushed into the Northfork of the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon and the effects have been very detrimental. These nitrates also concentrate in drinking water supplies that have become so limited. The organization that will be responsible for managing the flow way will need to routinely check the water quality. 17) Policy 3.1.5.4 needs to be revised to state that the countryside with its flow ways must be contiguous to the development or the overall plan becomes environmentally meaningless. 18)Policy 3.1.6.7 needs to include the preservation, restoration, or establishing of native habitats along the flow way. 19)The EAC is concerned that the Multiplier number will act as an incentive for land owners who originally had no intention of developing their property to the maximum extent to now take the opportunity to sell their credits resulting in more development than would have originally occurred. Has the multiplier been tested and will it result in too many rooftops if every single property develops or sells their properties to the maximum densities allowed? Are there any examples of this being implemented in other communities? The credit matrix appears to be about .5 too high, in the favor of development. Unless it is for a good reason like native habitat preservation, then it should be lowered. The EAC would like to see a hierarchy of credit added in where preserve habitat identified as Environmentally Significant Lands is given more credit than preservation of other fragmented or lower quality, but still intact, habitat which is then given more credit than agriculture that is restored into native habitat which is then given more credit than agriculture that is left fallow. 20)A definition needs to be included for "environmentally significant lands". G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES pEPARTMENT~ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONSIEAC~TVCILETTER TO BOCC TVC COMP PLAN AMENDS.DOC Environmentally Significant Lands -native upland and wetland habitats specifically identified by the St. Lucie County Land Acquisition Selection Committee and the most recent edition of St. Lucie County Native Habitat Inventory as the highest priority sites for preservation. cc: SLC Board of County Commissioners Planning & Zoning Board Doug Anderson, SLC Administrator Faye Outlay, Asst. SLC Administrator Don West, Public Works Director Vanessa Bessey, ERD Manager G:~COMMOMENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTIENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS~EAC1NC~l.ETTER TO BOCC NC COMP PUW AMENDS.DOC