Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Minutes 10-17-2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING TVC ELEMENT Date: October 17, 2005 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Tape: 1-5 Adjourned: 12:50 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Frannie Hutchinson, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Joseph Smith, Chris Craft Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Mike Brillhart, Special Projects Manager, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 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, objective and policies of the Comprehensive Plan- The Planning and Zoning Commission 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. Mr. Mike Brillhart, Growth Management/Projects Manager made opening remarks and introduced Marcela Camblor , Regional Planning Council member who gave an overview of the proposed project and also a history of the Charrette. th Ms. Camblor stated Martin and St. Lucie County are ranked 7 in nation for overpriced housing. She stated the actual Town and Villages will be within a 28 square mile area with the special area plan consisting of 60 square miles. Ms. Camblor gave the basic concept on how the TVC would work in St. Lucie County. Mr. Bill Spykowski addressed the LDR’s transact. It was the opinion of the TCRPC that the transfer of development rights should be market driven. There were issues regarding the increased population for the area from 22,300 units to 37,500 units at build out. The 22,300 figure is what is permitted today per the Comp plan. Com. Coward requested more information on the economic side of the project. Mr. Leo Noble and Sid Workman stated there were two major sources of revenue considered for this project, impact fees and ad valorem taxes. Com. Coward stated the 37,500 unit build out would be an unlikely scenario due to the fact every land owner would not participate in the concept. Mr. Todd Zimmerman, Volk Associate, addressed the Market Analysis on the project and stated the Traditional Neighborhood Development or TNS’s as it is referred to, would consist of the following: Strong Market Price Premiums Neighborhood and Park Premium 1 Increased appreciation Development Advantage He sated the Strong Market showed 55% of the American people would prefer compact pedestrian oriented mixed use neighborhoods. Ms. Jean Scott, Technical Review Committee member commended the Board of County Commissioners and the Regional Planning Council for having the fore sight on such a well developed plan. Com. Smith expressed his concern regarding the comments made by the Fire District regarding the fire trucks being able to be mobile around such small streets. Mr. Mike Busha, Director RPC stated they needed to work with the Fire District on these concerns and the accessibility issues. Com. Craft questioned the jobs being provided in the area. It was noted that the mixture of housing would make the area unique and a large percent of those residents may be seasonal.. Com. Coward addressed the density issue being questioned by several property owners and area residents. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. David Weiss, area grove owner addressed the Board and made a power point presentation. He advised the Board the plan is not a new one as proposed. This plan was previously known as the Cities, Towns and Villages proposed and presented in 1998. He stated in his opinion the plan would not work. Mr. Dennis Mele, 200 E. Broward Blvd.,. Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., addressed the Board and alluded to the exemption on page 3-7 and page 3-43. He addressed the land use categories and the matrix concerning the maintaining of current development rights. He stated all property rights should remain for those who have under 500 acres. Ms. Abi Harbin, 493 SW Duval Avenue, a City of Port St. Lucie resident, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC concept. She addressed the cost of housing in the county . Mr. Dominick Scotto, 8600 Indrio Road, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC concept. Mr. Robert Bangert, 5608 Eagle Drive, Ft. Pierce Florida, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC concept. Mr. Jim Brindell, 777 So. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach and representing Rhodes Holdings, addressed the Board in support of the TVC concept. Mr. William Adams, 5601 Eagle Drive, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC concept. Ms. Patricia Boddy, 7101 Cabana Lane, addressed the Board and asked if the roads would be taken care of before developing. Mr. Noble stated all concurrency had to be met before the project could be started. Mr. Alex Brown, 13939 Indrio Road, addressed the Board and stated what appears to be a choice sometimes is a manipulation and how do you reconcile. He felt the people were not informed enough to make a right decision the plan today is different than the plan when the Charrette was organized. He questioned the marketing of the project. 2 Mr. Greg nelson, 1900 Old Dixie Highway and representing Shamrock Groves, addressed the Board and stated the imposition of density requirements takes away property rights. If the plan was made optional it may be acceptable. It should not be forced upon property owners. He suggested a workshop be scheduled to discuss these issues with the property owners and stated they could not accept the plan as presented today. Green space maintenance needs to be discussed. Mr. Tony Rubino, 4801 Eagle Drive, addressed the Board and stated since he was told many things were going to happen to the area when he first moved here, however, nothing has materialized and he felt he received only promises. He is in support of the Emerson Center which the Board voted down a few weeks ago. He also stated the county needed a water treatment plan in the area and proposed utilizing the airport area for such a project. Ms. Eileen Novak, 7301 Arthurs Road, Lakewood Park, addressed the Board and stated her opposition to the TVC concept due to the insufficient roads in the area to handle the traffic and residents. Mr. Vic Sammartano, 4802 Eagle Drive, also realtor, addressed the term “perpetuity” and stated this was not a guarantee. He addressed the TDR’s and stated these were a difficult financial concept to establish a dollar value. Mr. Ramon Trias, 703 Florida Avenue, addressed the Board in support of the TVC an stated it allows for good development to happen in the county. Mr. Carson McCurdy, 509 S. Indian River Drive addressed the Board and related his experience in living in a small town. He stated he had to move away from that area due to the lack of jobs. He stated his opposition to the TVC and felt the plan needed to be complete before transmittal and the infrastructure must be in place. Ms. Noreen Dreyer, 145 NW Bay Colony Drive, Stuart, Fla., addressed the Board and stated there are still issues of concern but there are good aspects to the plan. She submitted a letter for the record. Mr. John Martin, Johnston Road resident, addressed the Board and stated he felt it was premature to transmit to the DCA. He felt the LDR’s do not exist and would like to know the value of the TDR’s. He stated, “The plan is scary”. Ms. Dottie Green 5802 Deer Run Drive, addressed the Board in favor of the plan. Mr. Stanley Green, 5802 Deer Run Drive, addressed the Board in favor of the plan. Mr. Skeet Jernigan, Port. St. Lucie resident, addressed the Board and asked they make sure it is a plan that will work. He felt the county is not there yet and need to find a way to answer all the questions and resolve the unknowns in the plan. He felt all landowners should be treated equally and 60 to 70% of open space is unworkable. He also stated it was not good policy to leave some on septic while neighbors are on potable water. This lacks land development regulation and the data and analysis is not appropriate to support the population. He asked the Board try to find a common ground with those affected parties. He suggested the following: 1. treat all landowners equal 2. change the open space to 50-60 % 3. remove prohibition of water and server of those by passed Mr. Patrick Hodges, Suite C-204 4300 Lengendary Drive, Destin, Florida, representing Olson & Associates, addressed the Board and presented a letter for the record and stated they are in support however there were remaining issues such as the 60% open space requirement which he felt was too great. 3 Ms. Joan Miller, 3266 Lakehorse Drive, addressed the Board and stated the TDR’s proposed makes a statement that some landowners are more equal than others and this is unfair. Mr. William Metts, 302 Rio Mar Drive, addressed the Board and stated his concern with the airport property and the value not increasing in that area. Ms. Jeanne Hearn, 5051 Tozour Road, addressed the Board and stated she could not support the plan with the density increases as proposed. The county needs to catch up with schools before moving forward, she felt there were too many unknowns. Mr. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, addressed the Board and stated he concurred with Ms. Hearn’s comments. He stated the document was incomplete , however he does endorse a plan for north county. Mr. Vernon Smith, 2211 Okeechobee Road, addressed the Board and stated he wanted successful development for our county and quality environment. He asked the Board consider reducing the open space requirement to 50% retaining additional credits, larger lots sizes and the concept needs some flexibility. Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road resident, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC and asked the Board to move forward with the transmittal. Mr. Kieran Kilday, 1551 Forum place, # 100 A, representing Glassman Holdings Inc.., addressed the Board and presented a letter for the record. He stated his objection to the transmittal and does not support the plan. Mr. David Blanco, 18805 West Lake Drive, property owner addressed the Board in opposition to the density and the impact on traffic and schools the plan would have. He stated he felt it did not benefit the area and there was too much uncertainty. Mr. Walter Griffith, 4088 Johnston Road, property owner, stated he has approximately 17 acres where he has cattle and pigs and other small animals. He expressed his concern with the residents complaining about the smell of the animals and him being driven out. Mr. Jay Macomber, 8680 Indrio Road, addressed the Board in favor of the plan. Mr. Jim Midelis, 10623 Pine Needle Drive, addressed the Board and stated the plan needs work due to many unanswered questions. Mr. Charles Grande, Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board and stated a credit exchange needs to be established and the elimination of the matrix needs to be considered. This would eliminate the category differences. Ms. Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island, stated she believed all her concerns had been related to the Board by previous speakers. Ms. Susie Cassins 1876 Shinn Road addressed the Board in favor of the plan and her only concern was the large number of new residents for one area. Mr. Steve Cassins, 1876 Shinn Road, addressed the Board and stated he felt this was a good concept however he did have concerns about the open space and the amount of roof tops projected. He suggested the elimination of the incentive matrix. Mr. Michel Houston, Houston, Cuozzo, addressed the Board and stated 3.142 may tie the hands of this commission and future commissions to make decisions . The level of derail will hold the Board for review. He suggested a 5 year and a 10 year plan. Mr. Tom Mitchell, 1202 Ibis Avenue, addressed the Board and stated the same concerns Still exist as when first presented. There are concerns with the LDR’s and landowners have a problem with things not being put in writing. He suggested action be delayed . 4 Mr. Craig Mundt, North Hutchinson Island resident, addressed the Board in favor of the concept and urged the Board to move forward with the transmittal. Mr. Howard Searcy, water management consultant addressed the questions and suggested a comp plan amendment regarding the water availability issue. BOARD COMMENTS Com. Lewis stated after reviewing all that is before her she felt the plan was not ready for transmittal. There are too many questions and concerns unanswered. Com. Craft stated the LDR’s needed to be worked out and they also needed to receive more information back from the State, however he does support moving forward with the transmittal. Com. Hutchinson stated her concern after reviewing the information received and felt she did not have enough supporting documents to transmit to the State. She has not reviewed the flow way issue which she just received . She agrees with the concept however disagrees with the detailing and cannot move forward to transmit. Com. Smith stated he concurred with Com. Hutchinson comments, however this was a transmittal not an approval and by transmitting they would receive more information and input from the state. He supports moving forward with the transmittal. Com. Coward stated he also agreed with the concept and he has heard the many concerns but the transmittal he felt was part of the process and is in agreement that the TDR issue does need to be worked on. He supports moving forward with the transmittal. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Craft to approve staff recommendation to transmit to the DCA to include the five conditions and make sure they are dealing with the TDR aggressively through a workshop, the LDR ( there were some important points made) the multiplier issue to be looked at further and the open space issues, to include the affordable housing questions and issue of the fire district and transmit to the State Department of Community Affairs, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay’s Lewis and Hutchinson; Aye’s: Coward, craft, Smith, motion to submit carried by a vote of 3 to 2. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ________________________ Chairman ___________________________ Clerk of Circuit Court 5