HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-01-2008
St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes
1
2300 Virginia Avenue
2
Administration Building
3
Conference Room Number 3
4
February 1, 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 9:00 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 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member
23 Peter Harrison.......................At Large Member
24 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida
25 Ed Lounds............................Commissioner Grande Appointee
26 Joseph G. Miller...................Commissioner Smith Appointee
27 Jim Russakis.........................Cattlemen’s Association
28 Chris Smith..........................Commissioner Craft Appointee
29 Pete Spyke............................Owner of less than 160 Acres
30 Matthew L. Wynne...............Owner of more than 160 Acres
31 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee
32 Mike Dahan..........................St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance
33
Committee Members Absent:
34
35 Chuck Olson.........................Commissioner Coward Appointee
36
Staff Members Present
37
38 Mark Satterlee......................Growth Management Director
39 Beverlee Deans.....................Executive Assistant
40 Kara Wood...........................TVC Planning Manager
41 Peter Jones ...........................Planning Manager
42 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant
43
Others Present
44
45 Liz Martin............................Administrative Aide to Commissioner Charles Grande
46 Charline Burgess..................Administrative Aide to Commissioner Doug Coward
Page 1 of 4
1 Eva O’Donnell......................Administrative Aide to Commissioner Chris Craft
2
Mr. Dahan
3 The committee was introduced to the newest member representing the
4 Conservation Alliance.
5
REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 4, 2008
6
7
Ms. Andrews Mr. Russakis
8 motionedfor approval of the minutes, it was seconded by,
9 and the motion carried unanimously.
10
Issues Prioritization
11 Item 1:
12
Mr. Satterlee
13 stated he has now received five lists of priorities from committee members
14 that he will compile for the next meeting.
15
Discussion
16 Item 2:
17
Mr. Satterlee
18 prepared a PowerPoint presentation clarifying some of the language
19 discussed in previous meetings and mitigating strategies to bring to the Board for
20 including yards in open space.
21
Mr. Corrick
22 began discussion about reduction of infrastructure costs as an objective of
Mr. Spyke
23 the clustering concept. suggested removing “reduce development and
Mr. Satterlee’s
24 infrastructure” from definition of clustering. There was discussion about
Mr. Satterlee
25 using the clustering concept in agricultural areas. expressed definitions
Mr. Russakis
26 should not be considered rules but merely language used in rules.
27 suggested each individual in the committee provide their definition of clustering to create
Mr. Lounds
28 a definition of the concept. explained the apprehension with agreeing on a
29 definition past committees and boards have taken definitions to become rules, and the
30 committee should make sure the definition will not become a rule related to ag PUD’s.
Mr. Corrick Mr. Satterlee
31 offered the definition presented by as a starting point before
32 deciding how it will or will not apply to agricultural areas.
33
Mr. Russakis
34 There was discussion of alternate uses for agricultural lands. explained the
35 idea of agricultural lands used as recreation rather than commercial agriculture as more
Mr. Corrick
36 profitable for property owners. stated there may be a need for agriculture
37 production in the future and that should be considered for amendments to the Land
38 Development Code.
39
Mr. Spyke
40 advised the committee that normal growth will bring a million people into the
41 county, and although the objective is to preserve land, agricultural areas must prepare for
Mr. RussakisMr. Spyke
42 development with density increases. agreed with provided land
Mr. Wynne
43 owners could sell their density and retain their land. suggested the county
44 provide land owners with options depending on the market.
45
Page 2 of 4
Ms. Andrews
1 suggested the committee come up with concepts for Transfer of
Mr. Russakis
2 Development Rights. suggested the county charge a “density reduction
Mr. Spyke
3 impact fee” for those landowners who retain density. noted there should be a
4 density increase on a TDR to generate a monetary benefit with a larger number of units.
Mr. Satterlee
5 As the discussion of TDR’s continued, explained developing a TDR
6 process in the county will take time.
7
Mr. Miller
8 presented an idea of selling density, but not all at once. He suggested “10% at
9 a bargain basement price today to get the ball rolling” and the value would go up in the
10 future. A deal could be made with the county so the county can buy density from the land
Ms. Andrews
11 owners and sell density to developers who need it for their developments.
12 suggested the committee meet with Dr. Nicholas, a consultant for TDR’s.
13
Mr. Wynne
14 suggested selling development rights for commercial and residential density
Mr. Wynne
15 using multiplier effects. said the land owners could bid to the county, and
Mr. Ridgely
16 the county could sell to developers. said he does not think TDR’s will work
17 in this county.
18
Mr. Spyke
19 There was a discussion about the county giving density away to developers.
20 recommended the county give the density to land owners and developers should buy it
Mr. Ridgely Mr. Spyke
21 from them when they need a density increase. disagreed with
22 about developers buying density because the land value will go down when the developer
23 is over budget.
24
Mr. Spyke
25 offered the committee three possibilities to maximize economic value to land
26 owners: 1) Build ranchettes without clustering; 2) Cluster on the property to preserve
27 open space, where there should be a density increase; 3) Transfer development rights off-
Mr. WynneMr. Yee Mr. Spyke
28 site with rules and regulations. and agreed with .
29
Mr. Satterlee Mr. Corrick
30 told the committee he would meet with and discuss the
Mr. Wynne
31 concerns of the committee. suggested the county give density bonuses to
32 agricultural land owners that may only be used off-site. Then the committee discussed
Mr.
33 details of transferring density back to land if an owner wanted it back after selling it.
Harrison
34 stressed only selling development rights and density.
35
36 There was discussion about sending and receiving areas, and development formulas for
37 residential or commercial uses. There was further discussion regarding the county as a
38 “bank” for TDR’s.
39
Mr. Satterlee
40 The completed list requested by of the committee’s concerns is as follows:
41
42 I. TDR’s
43 1. No density given away – to developers
44 2. “sell” development rights on portions of land
45 3. Just development rights
46 4. Not just residential
Page 3 of 4
1 5. TDR Bank
2
3 II. 2004 – 35% common open space
4 1. Research DCA Stipulated Settlement Agreement
5
6
Mr. Ridgely
7 told the committee Palm Beach County tried to bank TDR’s and when Palm
8 Beach County had financial difficulties, the land owners ended up competing with Palm
Mr. Spyke
9 Beach County when trying to sell their TDR’s. reminded the committee there
10 would be a need to “sell” TDR’s to the general public with some benefit to them.
11
Mr. Corrick
12 reminded the committee April 1 would be the deadline to report analysis of
13 ag PUD regulations to The Board.
14
Mr. Spyke
15 clarified his statement of “selling” to the public by explaining how citrus
16 farmers can process wastewater to benefit the public. By creating operating revenue, the
17 land owners won’t have to sell the development rights at a high cost.
Mr. Harrison
18 expressed concern over compliance with DCA over the open space issue.
Mr. Satterlee told
19 the committee Growth Management has been doing research to
20 review the issues of non-compliance from 2003-2004.
21
The meeting was adjourned around 11:45AM
22
Page 4 of 4