Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-14-2008 St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes 1 2300 Virginia Avenue 2 Administration Building 3 Conference Room Number 3 4 March 14, 2008 5 9:00AM 6 7 An audio recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with 8 these minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes 9 and the audio recording, the audio recording shall control. 10 11 CALL TO ORDER 12 13 Mr. Corrick called the meeting to order around 9:10 AM 14 15 Roll Call: 16 17 Agricultural Development Steering Committee Members 18 19 Dennis G. Corrick.................Chair, At Large Member 20 H. M. Ridgely III..................Vice - Chair, Indian River Citrus League 21 Diane Andrews.....................At Large Member 22 Mike Dahan..........................St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance 23 Peter Harrison.......................At Large Member 24 Ed Lounds............................Commissioner Grande Appointee 25 Joseph G. Miller...................Commissioner Smith Appointee 26 Chuck Olson.........................Commissioner Coward Appointee 27 Jim Russakis.........................Cattlemen’s Association 28 Pete Spyke............................Owner of less than 160 Acres 29 Matthew L. Wynne...............Owner of more than 160 Acres 30 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee 31 Committee Members Absent: 32 33 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida 34 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member 35 Chris Smith..........................Commissioner Craft Appointee 36 Staff Members Present 37 38 Mark Satterlee......................Growth Management Director 39 Peter Jones ...........................Planning Manager 40 Beverlee Deans.....................Executive Assistant 41 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant 42 Others Present 43 44 Charles Gauthier...................Director of Community Planning DCA 45 (via conference call) 46 Susan Caron.........................Chairman St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Board Page 1 of 8 Mr. Corrick 1 announced the conference call with Charles Gauthier of DCA at 10:00 a.m. 2 REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 29, 2008 3 4 Ms. Andrews 5 pointed out a grammatical error for correction. 6 Mr. Russakis Mr. Jones’ 7 asked for clarification of explanation of the buildable area as 8 opposed to the definition of open space. 9 Ms. AndrewsMr. Ridgely 10 motioned to approve the minutes as revised, seconded by , the 11 motion passed unanimously. 12 Mr. Russakis 13 asked if DCA had “peer” counties that we could compare ourselves with to Mr. Corrick 14 see where we stand. said Mr. Gauthier may mention some counties in 15 similar situations for us to see how it has been handled in those counties. 16 17 The committee reviewed the questions that Ms. Andrews, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Spyke 18 submitted for Mr. Gauthier. 19 20 There was some discussion about a PCS zoning which is only inside the TVC at this 21 time. 22 Ms. Andrews’ 23 question about density bonuses launched discussion of the ability of the 24 County Commission to give away density. The committee generally agreed the Board 25 should be able to exchange density for something of public benefit. 26 NEW BUSINESS 27 28 29 The committee reviewed the Draft Memorandum that will serve as the preliminary report 30 to be presented to the Board on April 1, 2008, and discussed how it should be presented Mr. Corrick 31 to the Board. suggested as many members of the committee attend to 32 support the unified opinion, and demonstrate the diversity of the committee. He also 33 suggested there be an exhibit on the memo explaining the diversity of the committee, and 34 their charge. 35 Mr. Russakis 36 The committee took a moment to review the body of the draft memo. 37 suggested showing the diagram Mr. Jones drew of a lot to demonstrate buildable areas for Ms. Caron 38 AG 5 and AG 2.5 using Table 7-10 to the Board along with the memo. Mr. Corrick 39 suggested the committee consider that, since the visual is helpful. said the 40 committee did not decide that the drawing represents open space. 41 Mr. Spyke 42 said he understood that the committee decided to recommend property would 43 be developed according to the by right zoning ratio based on Table 7-10; the other option 44 was a PUD with a common open space requirement, but no total open space requirement. Mr. 45 The amount of open space should be negotiable with the Board using density credits. Russakis Mr. Spyke 46 asked where the units would come from, to which responded it is Page 2 of 8 1 an internal TDR, a density bonus inside your own land. He said yards should not need to 2 be considered because the only open space for discussion is common open space. 3 Dr. Olson 4 asked who would be responsible for the maintenance or liability of the Mr. Corrick 5 common open space. responded the homeowners association should be 6 responsible, local government or the water management district could enforce certain 7 restrictions if necessary. 8 Mr. Jones 9 read the definitions for open space and common open space currently in use Mr. Corrick 10 by the county. interpreted Mr. Spyke’s comment by saying to remove the 11 concept of total open space, and common open space should be considered in PUD’s set Mr. Spyke 12 clearly in the Code, but perhaps negotiated during the process. added that 13 open space is produced by buildable area designation, so it need not be defined as such. 14 Mr. Satterlee called Mr. Gauthier at around 10:00 AM. 15 16 Mr. Gauthier 17 said the Settlement Agreement of 2004 laid a foundation for the Comp 18 Plan as it is now. He said the Settlement Agreement doesn’t carry regulatory weight; it 19 was an indication of the issues that the remedial amendments corrected. He said DCA 20 focuses on the Plan incorporating changes in Florida Statutes; and Plan amendments 21 conform to requirements of the Growth Management Law. DCA doesn’t get involved 22 with land development regulations. Local government has an obligation that land 23 development regulations shall be consistent with the Comp Plan. DCA would only get 24 involved if an affected party alleges that a county or city has adopted a regulation 25 inconsistent with the Comp Plan. He said the Comp Plan policy 1.1.2.3 seems to be the 26 center focus of this committee’s discussion. Protection and viability of agriculture should 27 be taken into consideration when discussing development of those lands. He repeated the 28 county does not need to involve DCA unless something is inconsistent with the Comp 29 Plan. 30 “ 31 In addressing Mr. Spyke’s question: Are there any issues if we allow people to develop 32 their property according to the original underlying land use designation (such as 1:5), ” Mr. 33 based on the negotiated settlement when the comp plan was originally approved? Gauthier 34 said the major issue DCA considers is sprawl. He also addressed Mr. Spyke’s 35 second question “What would be the issues if we allow a density increase if property Mr. Gauthier 36 owners choose to develop PUD's?” said there are different rural densities 37 throughout the state and there are counties in North Florida that go up to 1 unit per 40 38 acres in rural areas. St. Lucie, Collier, and Sarasota Counties are among the counties with 39 a density of 1 per 5. He said he has seen the county start having difficulty with provision 40 of services when the 1 per 5 is developed. He has seen Alachua County give density 41 bonuses commensurate with a commitment to cluster in a conservation subdivision 42 approach. Alachua ended up with size thresholds above which you shall cluster with a 43 density bonus. DCA considers land use allocation with a methodology of a planning time 44 frame and estimated growth and development potential. 45 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Corrick 1 asked if Hernando, Alachua, and Collier had targeted areas for density to Mr. Gauthier 2 land where infrastructure was in place. said their density bonuses were 3 more geared to smaller property owner utilization. In the Alachua approach, there was 4 geographic guidance, but it was fairly generous. DCA will consider sprawl and if there is 5 a demonstrated need were St. Lucie County to propose density bonuses. Mr. Corrick 6 asked if the mathematics of moving density west to east on land as an 7 incentive for conservation or some other reason to protect the value of the western land Mr. Gauthier 8 will be kicked out by DCA. said it would be a question of the magnitude 9 of the change. He said there is flexibility and every plan is different and different 10 strategies could be used. A key element is demonstrated need for land use. 11 Mr. Spyke 12 said the landscape carries a designated number of units regardless of need and 13 the committee is trying to deal with the open space preservation portion of the smaller 14 parcel development; the committee would like to introduce a density bonus to offset the 15 reduction in lot size that occurs when you preserve common open space. He asked Mr. 16 Gauthier what process would get triggered if units would be added without doing offsite Mr. Gauthier 17 TDR’s in the ag land out west. said he could not provide a conclusive 18 answer without a proposed plan amendment, but DCA would look at preservation, need 19 and other planning criteria; but there would be room to look at it. They would decide if 20 the proposed amendment would comply with the Comp Plan and the law. 21 Mr. Corrick 22 asked to what extent is clustering a requirement to survive DCA review. Mr. Gauthier 23 said DCA would consider what has changed since 1990, and what Mr. Corrick 24 circumstances exist in St. Lucie County’s Plan today. said there is a 25 quagmire in the land development regulations about open space, so there may not need to Mr. Gauthier 26 be a Comp Plan Amendment, the changes may need to be below that level. 27 reiterated it is the county’s duty to ensure regulations are consistent with the Comp Plan, 28 DCA would only be involved if St. Lucie County adopted amendments to the regulations 29 that some party alleged were inconsistent with the Comp Plan. 30 Mr. Ridgely 31 said the issue is a preservation of value issue, not a development issue. He 32 said there is no market right now for that many units on 5 acre lots. Landowners got 33 crosswise with the county when the 80% total open space meant that section of your land 34 was untouchable and you could only develop 20% of your land, which devalues the land. 35 Devaluing the land puts more pressure on the land owners to develop than land that is 36 more valuable. He asked if DCA has an issue with yards being included in the open space Mr. Gauthier 37 calculation, and if DCA views clustering as needing to be on the 20%. said 38 the indication of the purpose of the plan is clear, the larger preservation of agriculture, 39 but he cannot speak for the county. 40 41 In response to Mr. Harrison’s question: “If the St. Lucie Board of County Commission 42 rescinds the August 8, 2007 Memorandum (whereby yards are NOT to be counted toward 43 open space), would this cause St. Lucie County be out of concurrence or in default of any Mr. Gauthier 44 DCA settlement agreements or the Comp. Plan?” said the memorandum is 45 not the business of DCA. It is the duty of the county to make sure its code and how it is 46 applied is consistent with the Comp Plan. DCA does not review memorandums or land Page 4 of 8 1 development regulations. 2 3 In relation to Ms. Andrews’ question: “Can roads, transmission line easements, etc. be 4 counted as open space in an Ag area when these same areas are excluded as open space Mr. Corrick 5 from an urban PUD?” asked theoretically if the Comp Plan was where 6 certain types of rights of way and easements are treated differently inside the Urban 7 Service Area than outside, would that be a problem of internal inconsistency with DCA. Mr. Gauthier 8 said that would be an unusual level of detail for DCA to delve into. 9 Mr. Gauthier 10 said the answers to these questions aren’t always so clear; it is easy to get 11 lost in the details and miss the overall objective. Though DCA cannot give formal 12 answers, he is happy to help whenever he can. 13 With no further questions for Mr. Gauthier, the conference call ended at about 11:00 AM. 14 15 Mr. Corrick 16 said the consideration of yards should be in the memo, because at the Comp 17 Plan level, open space should include yard; therefore, anything that is not in common 18 ownership, can be in private ownership. 19 Mr. Spyke 20 presented the following language for the April 1 memo to the committee for 21 consideration: 22 Prelim Comm Recc 23 24 1. Establish clear, by right baseline development standards within the 25 Comp Plan and LDR’s to allow landowners to develop any property 26 with AG land use designations into non-clustered large lots. 27 a. There should be a maximum buildable area limitation (lot coverage) 28 of 10% for lots larger than or equal to 1:5 and 20% for smaller than 29 1:5. 30 b. The remainder would essentially be “private” open space without 31 distinction as to what would be the “yard”. 32 c. All other requirements for natural system preservation and other 33 requirements under platting would remain in effect. 34 35 2. Provide an incentive-driven option of developing AG PUD’s 36 a. A density bonus would be required to offset the loss of value caused 37 by the reduction of lot size3s. 38 b. AG PUD’s would require preservation of “common” open space 39 only, plus a limitation on buildable area within lots. 40 c. “Total” open space would not be addressed or included. 41 Incentives for higher percentage of preserved common open space, 42 or the quality values of the preserved common open space, should be 43 included, such as ag, natural systems, etc. 44 Mr. Corrick 45 said when preparing the draft memo, he thought the group decided we need 46 to just clarify the regulations that are there, and maybe there could be some other Mr. Spyke 47 restrictions, but Table 7-10 would be a good guideline for baseline rights. 48 said there should be a clear by-right baseline for large lots which cannot be done now Page 5 of 8 Mr. Corrick 1 without changing the threshold for PUD’s. said we if need to change the 2 threshold for PUD’s in the Comp Plan that would involve DCA, or change the ag PUD Mr. Ridgely Mr. Spyke Mr. 3 requirement. and said we need to change the Comp Plan. Ridgely 4 said DCA probably doesn’t care about the threshold, it was a way to achieve the Mr. Corrick 5 other things stated in the Comp Plan, such as open space and other policies. 6 said rather than establish something new, you remove a requirement; the open space 7 could be fulfilled using Table 7-10 and the ag PUD should be something land owners are Mr. Jones 8 incentivized to do. reiterated Mr. Gauthier’s implication of considering the 9 Comp Plan as a whole, there may be language in the Comp Plan that should be taken into 10 consideration. 11 Mr. Spyke 12 stated he does not think the concept of total open space should be anywhere; 13 you back into it by limiting the buildable area. 14 Mr. Jones 15 said the concern is the application of ranchettes development throughout the Mr. Ridgely 16 western lands. said there are wetlands and native habitat that would already 17 be protected by the Conservation Element, so there could be references to other rules that 18 are in place to which the ranchettes would remain subject. 19 Mr. Lounds 20 said in his opinion the committee should enhance the existing language 21 rather than attempting to change the Comp Plan. 22 23 The committee discussed the threshold that requires a land owner to request rezoning to Mr. Corrick 24 PUD above 8 units, and other policies affected by the possible changes. 25 stated open space requirements could be met by Table 7-10 and conservation 26 requirements are met in the platting process. 27 Ms. Caron 28 said preservation of ag lands seems to be diminished in this conversation in 29 her perception. Preservation of agriculture lands vs. ranchettes, which many planners 30 believe create urban sprawl, which is why the restrictions are put into place. She asked 31 how you preserve ag lands if personal backyards are open space, and the owners are not 32 doing anything in ag. 33 Mr. Spyke 34 responded in AG 5 nothing will be preserved. For example, he said 10 units 35 in 50 acres are over the threshold so the 10 units need to be put on smaller lots. The 36 problem with that is the value that the land owner can get by selling the smaller units is Mr. Corrick 37 lower than if they can create 5 acre lots.added devaluing the land is what Mr. Spyke 38 pushes land owners out of agriculture. continued we have to go back to where 39 the lots can be as large as possible to get maximum value on the land. If we want PUD, 40 we have to cluster, then in the PUD, a segment can be created for common open space 41 with interest in preserving agriculture. To make up a loss of value, we need to sell more 42 units. 43 Mr. Corrick 44 said the baseline rights don’t necessarily translate into development of 1 45 home every 5 acres, it allows the agricultural interest being able to remain in agriculture 46 by borrowing on the value of their land. Page 6 of 8 Mr. Russakis 1 referred to a site plan where 200 units were on 200 acres and the Mr. Ridgely 2 remainder of the land remained in agriculture. said having to cram 200 units Mr. Spyke 3 on 1 acre lots on 20% of the land is what we are trying to get away from. 4 suggested 25% with a density bonus. 5 Mr. Wynne 6 suggested returning to defining open space issue for the April 1 report. He Mr. 7 suggested ag PUD’s be treated the same as the urban area with 35% open space. Spyke Mr. Corrick 8 said if you do away with any open space over common open space. 9 said it needs to be clear that if there is a number beyond common open space it needs to 10 be clear that it is private space at the Comp Plan level. 11 Mr. Wynne 12 said the problem with Mr. Corrick’s definition in the draft memo to the 13 Board is that it looks like it is not talking about ag PUD’s. 14 Mr. Spyke 15 suggested limiting buildable area automatically meets open space 16 requirements, so the only thing left for discussion should be common open space. He 17 added he thinks TDR’s should be handled under special circumstances so he doesn’t 18 think you can write a TDR program into the ag PUD part of the Comp Plan or LDR’s. 19 Mr. Russakis 20 suggested the commission keep this committee as a tool to move forward. 21 Mr. Wynne 22 said using the same PUD criteria in ag as in the urban service area, it would 23 follow what Mr. Spyke is suggesting. 24 Mr. Satterlee 25 said he thinks the language in #1 and #2 of the draft memo prepared by Mr. Spyke 26 Mr. Corrick meets the charge of the committee for April 1. said he doesn’t 27 think we can define open space. 28 Mr. Corrick 29 felt the committee agreed on what we need to present to the Board on open 30 space, we just need to tweak it. He thought the consensus of the group was a threshold Mr. Ridgely 31 above 8 where we could know we could get 1 to 5 with straight platting. 32 concurred that we heard today it is not the consensus of the group, and suggested staying 33 away from it in this report. 34 Mr. Wynne 35 suggested including private open space so that yards will be included as Mr. Spyke 36 open space. suggested all space not occupied by buildings are open space. Mr. Satterlee 37 suggested bringing pictures to illustrate what the committee means by 38 buildable area. 39 Mr. Spyke 40 suggested modification of 3E on the memo to replace the word “land” with 41 “receiving area”. 42 Mr. Ridgely 43 suggested not defining where development should go in 4C of the memo. Mr. Wynne Mr. Ridgely 44 agreed. suggested not discussing TDR’s in the report other Mr. Satterlee 45 than referring to them as incentives down the road. suggested density Mr. Ridgely Mr. Corrick 46 bonuses to developers should stop. disagreed. said trading it Page 7 of 8 Mr. 1 for something else of benefit to the community is different than giving it away. Wynne 2 said the group agreed that with TDR’s, density would need to be purchased Mr. Ridgely 3 rather than given away. said he doesn’t think the flexibility of that should be 4 taken away from the Board. 5 Mr. Ridgely 6 asked Mr. Jones if the “non-buildable area of a lot” counts toward open Mr. Jones 7 space. said structures like pools, tennis courts, and open decks, are not defined 8 in the Land Development Code, they are not included as building coverage, but there is Mr. Satterlee 9 nothing that clearly says they are open space by default. added they are Mr. Jones 10 structures, and he said the definitions would need to be refined. added in other 11 jurisdictions, anything impervious did not count toward open space. 12 Mr. Corrick 13 said that is why Table 7-10 was more restrictive than open space Mr. Spyke 14 requirements. said that is exactly why there need not be total open space Mr. Corrick 15 requirement. said that would require changing the Comp Plan. 16 Mr. Harrison 17 suggested changing the phrase “needlessly complicated” in 1A of the draft 18 memo to something like “grievous to land owners” or “counterproductive to land owner Mr. Corrick 19 rights”. suggested just saying it “diminishes property values to have space 20 that is essentially open not counted towards the requirement”. 21 Mr. Spyke 22 suggested saying we recommend that the building restrictions set out in Table Mr. 23 7-10 should be deemed to meet the total open space requirements in the Comp Plan. Corrick Mr. Spyke 24 said Table 7-10 does not apply in PUD’s. suggested that in the 25 Comp Plan where there is a total open space requirement of 80% it should say if you 26 observe the limitations of the buildable area, you will have met the open space 27 requirement. 28 Mr. Jones 29 said lot coverage is the total horizontal lot coverage by all buildings or 30 structures on a lot not open to the sky; buildings are described as structures or enclosures 31 or roofs supported by walls; pools are inadequately defined. 32 33 The committee decided to meet the next Friday, March 21, 2008 to continue the 34 discussion and finalize the memo for the Board by April 1. 35 Mr. Corrick 36 asked if they had decided to changing or eliminating the threshold for Mr. Spyke 37 entering into a PUD. suggested mentioning the reduction of value when you 38 cluster without a density bonus, and tackling the definition of the yard. 39 Mr. Wynne 40 requested Mr. Jones’ drawings contain the maximum building area for each 41 size parcel. 42 The meeting was adjourned around 12:15 PM, with the next meeting scheduled for 9:00 43 AM March 21, 2008. 44 Page 8 of 8