HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-15-2008
St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes
1
2300 Virginia Avenue
2
Administration Building
3
Conference Room Number 3
4
February 15, 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 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
Committee Members Absent:
32
33 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida
34 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member
35 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee
36
Staff Members Present
37
38 Beverlee Deans.....................Executive Assistant
39 Peter Jones ...........................Planning Manager
40 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant
41
Others Present
42
43 Craig Linton.........................Member of the public
44
45
46
Page 1 of 6
REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2008
1
2
Mr. Corrick
3 wanted an addition to the minutes of February 1 of Mr. Lounds comment of
4 definitions becoming rules.
5
Mr. Ridgley
6 wanted clarification of Mr. Miller’s comment of a “low price” in his
Mr. Miller
7 explanation for the sale of density. clarified he meant a low price to stimulate
8 the beginning of the program.
9
Ms. Andrews
10 motioned for approval of the minutes as revised. The motion was seconded
Mr. Ridgley
11 by , and passed unanimously.
12
NEW BUSINESS
13
14
Issues Prioritization
15 Item 1:
16
Mr. Ridgley
17 The committee reviewed the list of priorities sent to Mark Satterlee.
18 commented on Ms. Andrews’s priority to review Ordinance No. 03-005 and her
19 statement that 2 of 5 Board members are still currently serving, 1 of which was for the
20 proposed changes, the other against the proposed changes of the ordinance. He also
21 mentioned speaking to the other 3 current Board members specifically regarding yards
22 counted as open space per the ordinance, and they all believe yards should be counted as
23 open space, though it was not one of those original discussions.
24
25
Discussion
26 Item 2:
27
Mr. Linton
28 spoke to the committee regarding the agricultural committee in 2002 or 2003
29 that was formed by Property Appraiser Jeff Furst. Citrus business was not doing well
30 land owners were looking for alternate uses of their land. There was a conflict between
31 Comp Plan and LDC as to the lot threshold when subdividing a property for when it
32 became a PUD. The committee at the time said they would not oppose the 35% common
33 open space requirement. Dennis Murphy, the then Community Development Director had
34 drawings in his presentations made to the committee and the BOCC of a sample site that
35 showed where the 45% of private open space would become the balance of the 80% total
Mr. Linton Mr.
36 open space requirement. suggested inviting Mr. Murphy to a meeting.
Russakis
37 suggested Gerald James who was the chair of that committee to attend as well.
38
Mr. Miller
39 suggested referring to table 7-10 in the Land Development Code that
40 represents dimensional requirements based on lot sizes in reference to yards and open
Mr. Miller
41 space. said he sent an e-mail to Mark Satterlee on January 22, 2008 referring
42 to this table suggesting changing the lot coverage of AG-1 to 20% and consider the entire
Mr. Jones
43 non-buildable area as yards. referred to his drawing from February 1, 2008 as
Mr. Jones
44 a graphic representation of what a yard is. also clarified the difference
45 between maximum building coverage and buildable area. Pools and driveways do not
Page 2 of 6
1 count as building coverage which is generally represented as something with a roof over
2 it.
3
Mr. Miller
4 clarified his suggestion of increasing AG-1 to 20% maximum lot coverage so
Mr.
5 those who wanted 6,000 sq. ft. homes could proceed without requesting variances.
CorrickMr. Russakis
6 asked if there were AG-1’s in the western lands. stated there were
7 some in the TVC.
8
Dr. Olson
9 suggested the committee’s transmission to BOCC should include in some
10 context, a statement of value of environmental and historical resources in the agricultural
11 region. A statement of value for restoration, mitigation, and preservation for historical,
12 archaeological, and environmental resources should be included so it is understood that
Dr. Olson
13 everything the committee does is not all about development. mentioned the
Dr. Olson
14 idea of government operating the “Density Bank” has plusses and minuses.
15 stated his belief there should be discussion of a private bank as well as a public bank
Mr. Corrick
16 should the committee endorse TDR’s. expressed concern over where
17 development credits go when they are taken off of rural lands. He wanted to make sure
18 the concept was clear of just transferring development rights and not becoming a
19 conservation easement.
20
Mr. Wynne
21 referred to the Sustainable Treasure Coast Final Report section IV:
22 Retaining Rural Lands page 16 as a representation of the committee’s goals.
23
Mr. Linton
24 said a TDR program as a solution in western lands is fraught with problems,
Mr. Linton
25 though it could be part of a “toolbox” of solutions. also pointed out
26 clustering can be accomplished regardless of lot size.
27
Mr. Spyke
28 said the only way to prevent urban sprawl, which he defines as “segregated
Mr. Spyke
29 land use” is to use a TDR program to transfer the vested use off of the land.
30 presented other uses for agricultural land to enhance the function and value of the land,
Mr. Spyke
31 including hunting leases, water recharge, timber, and agro-tourism. continued
32 to point out a role of rural lands is to mitigate the impact of urban areas, and act as a
33 buffer between urban and preserve areas to protect the preserve areas.
34
Dr. Olson
35 agreed with Mr. Spyke, and stated creating a better system that allows
36 environmental assets to have value creates an incentive for those types of things to occur.
37
Mr. Corrick
38 pointed out that mitigation banks are a form of TDR program that is
Dr. Olson
39 working well. mentioned mitigation banking is being expanded and called
Dr. Olson
40 conservation banking which are endangered species habitats. added applying a
41 free market approach to other environmental assets creates incentives making people
Mr. CorrickDr. Olson
42 want to participate. and discussed the benefits of the growing
43 market of carbon sequestration.
44
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Spyke
1 suggested settling the question of ag PUD’s before discussing TDR’s and
Mr. Wynne
2 alternative uses for ag lands. agreed with Mr. Spyke and proposed the
3 alternatives can be listed as options for the future.
4
Mr. Corrick
5 read the goals of the committee from Resolution No. 07-316, specifically
6 the report for April 1, 2008 which “shall include recommendations regarding how open
Mr. Russakis
7 space should be calculated.” suggested having a representative for the
8 committee meet with DCA to discuss the State’s position on clustering in addition to
9 county staff.
10
Mr. CorrickMr. Spyke
11 mentioned he would be in Tallahassee next week. made a
12 motion to request the county authorize Mr. Corrick to meet with DCA when he is in the
13 area, and staff communicates to Commissioner Smith the request of the committee for
Mr. Wynne
14 Mr. Corrick to meet with DCA. seconded the motion which passed
15 unanimously.
16
Mr. Ridgely
17 said the peril with discussing the Comp Plan with DCA is trying to get the
Mr. Spyke
18 current representatives to interpret DCA’s intent in 1990. commented DCA’s
19 role is to make sure changes to Comprehensive Land Use Plan meets concurrency; in the
20 western lands the land owners, The County, and DCA had an agreement to reduce the
21 density in order to prevent having to provide services to ranchettes 1 unit per acre, which
22 did not meet concurrency.
23
Mr. Ridgely
24 suggested the committee make a statement that devaluing the land will
25 hasten development since developers will want to buy the cheapest land. He agreed with
26 Mr. Spyke to find other uses for the land to add value and retain density.
27
Mr. Miller
28 referred back to Table 7-10 of the LDC and stated the crux of the issue that
29 the committee should present to the commission is a decision of what percentage should
30 be common open space and what should be private open space for the total open space
Mr. Ridgley
31 requirement. mentioned the PUD’s that have been approved having met and
32 exceeded the existing open space requirements.
33
Mr. Wynne
34 suggested the committee decide to make ag PUD’s use the same calculations
Mr. Miller
35 as PUD’s within the Urban Service Area, except the lower density. asked for
Mr. Corrick
36 a vote on that assumption, recommended the committee vote for staff to
37 prepare something in writing to reflect what the committee would like to say.
38
39 There was discussion of lot sizes with the maximum lot coverage and open space
40 requirements by Table 7-10.
41
Mr. Spyke
42 said there should be a place for 5 acre ranchettes without a PUD, but if there
43 are PUD’s there should be some type of density bonus, allowing more restrictive uses on
44 the undeveloped land. He mentioned for example protecting natural systems.
45
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Miller
1 stated the customer will set the precedents for development, and from his
2 experience, there are many customers who will prefer to have smaller parcels of land, so
3 there should be mixed lot sizes, and there maybe need to cluster to preserve hammocks,
4 wetlands, etc. He believes clustering should not be commanded by the county.
5
Mr. Jones
6 asked for a summary of what the committee wanted staff to prepare on paper
Mr. Corrick
7 for the Board. recapitulated Mr. Spyke’s proposal of baseline development
8 regulations that would automatically meet regulations, and if there is a need for a PUD,
Mr. Spyke
9 there would be density bonuses. noted private open space is more valuable
10 than common open space, so common open space will only be necessary in PUD’s.
11
12 There was discussion to clarify the difference between density and lot sizes based on
13 Table 7-10.
14
Mr. Jones
15 said Mr. Spyke’s idea for density bonuses allowing more restrictive uses on
16 undeveloped land may be a good negotiating point.
17
Mr. Corrick
18 pointed out landowners should have the ability to meet the various elements
19 of the market including those who want 5 acre ranchettes, and those who want the rural
20 feel on smaller lots, limiting land to one or the other loses marketability.
21
Mr. Spyke
22 pointed out the market demand for rural lands are ranchettes, ag PUD’s, and
23 mixed use communities created by TDR’s that will result in large undeveloped chunks of
24 land.
25
Mr. Linton
26 stated he thinks agriculture land owners should be incentivized with density
27 to grow native range to restore natural habitats. He said the density can be used on other
28 portions of land.
29
Mr. Corrick
30 said a problem would be waiting for returns, so there should be a short term
31 return option.
32
Dr. Olson
33 liked Mr. Linton’s idea but suggested an easement precluding the owners to
34 change their minds and allow for certainty of use. If a regulatory framework exists,
35 private markets can evolve from value placed on open space, less density, more
36 environmental resources, etc.
37
Mr. Spyke
38 said the by-right option should be to develop the land with the underlying
39 land use designation, but if a land owner chooses to do a PUD, there should be a density
40 bonus to incentivize that choice, and other bonuses associated with the different uses of
41 the open space within the PUD.
42
Mr. Corrick
43 suggested what should be said early in the committee’s report is when
44 things are done to devalue agricultural lands, the land is encouraged to come out of
45 agriculture and into development because it becomes less valuable.
46
Page 5 of 6
Mr. Spyke
1 mentioned that in the by-right option there could be no common open space,
2 but under the PUD option there could be common open space, but yards need not be
3 counted in open space requirement. He said the purpose of the ag PUD would be to create
4 common open space, therefore, there would need to be a density multiplier to match the
5 value of the land if it’s not a PUD.
6
Next Steps
7 Item 3:
8
Mr. Corrick
9 concluded with the committee directing staff to come back with general
Mr. Corrick
10 language to create a point to prepare for the Board. suggested Mr. Spyke be
Mr. Spyke
11 the point person to work on that language. asked Mr. Jones to draft something
12 and send it to Mr. Corrick, Mr. Ridgley and himself.
13
The meeting was adjourned around 11:56AM
14
Page 6 of 6