HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-29-2008
St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes
1
2300 Virginia Avenue
2
Administration Building
3
Conference Room Number 3
4
February 29, 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 9:15 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 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida
23 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member
24 Chuck Olson.........................Commissioner Coward Appointee
25 Jim Russakis.........................Cattlemen’s Association
26 Chris Smith..........................Commissioner Craft Appointee
27 Pete Spyke............................Owner of less than 160 Acres
28 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee
29
Committee Members Absent:
30
31 Mike Dahan..........................St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance
32 Peter Harrison.......................At Large Member
33 Ed Lounds............................Commissioner Grande Appointee
34 Joseph G. Miller...................Commissioner Smith Appointee
35 Matthew L. Wynne...............Owner of more than 160 Acres
36
Staff Members Present
37
38 Peter Jones ...........................Planning Manager
39 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant
40
Others Present
41
42 Charles Grande.....................Commissioner St. Lucie County District 4
43 Susan Caron.........................Chairman St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Board
44
45
46
Page 1 of 8
REVIEW OF REVISED MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2008
1
2
Mr. Corrick
3 stated the revised minutes were already approved at the February 15
4 Meeting.
5
REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2008
6
7
Mr. Corrick
8 questioned Mr. Jones comment as recorded on the minutes from February
9 15, 2008 (page 5, line 15) which led to a change of the word “standpoint” to “point”
10
Ms. AndrewsMr. Ridgely
11 motioned to approve the minutes as revised, seconded by , the
12 motion passed unanimously.
13
OLD BUSINESS
14
Issues Priorities Wrap Up
15
Mr. Roberts Dr. Olson
16 mentioned he had sent priorities in to Mr. Satterlee. said the
17 priorities were attached to the previous agenda from February 15, 2008.
18
Dr. OlsonMr. Corrick
19 requested Mr. Corrick read the directive of the committee. read
20 from Resolution 07-316 “To advise and make recommendations to the Board…”
21
Mr. Corrick
22 asked Mr. Jones if he had an idea of a mechanism for trying to facilitate
Mr. Jones
23 talking about all of these issues. suggested the committee consider the two
24 different types of issues for consideration: issues directly related to the charge from the
25 BOCC with the April 1 deadline; and related issues the committee wishes to bring to the
26 attention to the Board.
27
Mr. Corrick
28 agreed with Mr. Jones in terms of timeline the committee should make a
29 recommendation on open space.
30
Mr. Ridgley
31 The committee reviewed the list of priorities sent to Mark Satterlee.
32 commented on Ms. Andrews’s priority to review Ordinance No. 03-005 and her
33 statement that 2 of 5 Board members are still currently serving, 1 of which was for the
34 proposed changes, the other against the proposed changes of the ordinance. He also
35 mentioned speaking to the other 3 current Board members specifically regarding yards
36 counted as open space per the ordinance, and they all believe yards should be counted as
37 open space, though it was not one of those original discussions.
38
NEW BUSINESS
39
40
Mr. Jones
41 prepared a presentation including various counties’ definitions of open space
42 and an excerpt from the committee’s discussion regarding the calculation of yards in
43 open space.
44
Mr. Corrick
45 mentioned the discussion regarding Table 7-10 from the Land Development
46 Code. He said that gives guidance for minimum lot size and maximum buildable area but
Page 2 of 8
1 questioned if there should be anything linked to an open space standard or if those
2 requirements were sufficient for the open space requirements; rather than a minimum
3 open space, a maximum constructed space.
4
Mr. Russakis
5 recalled Mr. Miller’s suggestion from the previous meeting to reduce the
6 buildable area of AG-1 to 10% since an increase in density could theoretically change
Mr. Corrick
7 AG-2.5 or AG-5 to AG-1. suggested the committee only focus on the
8 baseline by-right for AG-2.5 or AG-5 since that is the committee’s immediate charge.
9
Ms. Caron
10 mentioned the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously asked to bring AG-1
Mr.
11 PUD requirements to the committee since the committee will be defining Ag PUD’s.
Corrick
12 said the committee is presently discussing baseline rights a land owner has
13 without any consult with the county; and be moved to the PUD process through
Comm. Grande
14 incentives, among which were discussed TDR’s in order to retain value.
15 suggested as a point of order the Planning and Zoning Board should present the request
16 for consideration of AG- 1 by the Ag Steering Committee to the Board of County
17 Commissioners since it would be expanding the charge of this committee.
18
Mr. Ridgely
19 said that AG- 1 is still an ag and rural land use designation so there is
20 commonality with AG- 5 & AG- 2.5 the density being the difference. He requested if the
21 committee is added the charge of AG-1 the Board give the committee extra time.
22
Mr. Corrick
23 said the April 1 charge is the committee’s position on how open space
24 should be calculated. He thinks the committee has come to a conclusion that it is
25 needlessly complicated to distinguish between open space and non-built space within
26 privately held land.
27
Mr. Russakis
28 suggested using Table 7-10 to determine how to designate the balance of
Mr. Ridgely
29 land after the maximum buildable area. requested clarification of structures
Mr. Jones
30 that are classified in “buildable area”. explained anything that covers the
31 ground in terms of structure and “roof”, driveways, pools, decks, and patios are not
32 included.
33
Mr. Russakis
34 reiterated his question of how the remainder of land after buildable area
Mr. Jones
35 should apply to open space. said the treatment of driveways, pools, and
Mr. Corrick
36 covered decks should be considered as part of that discussion. questioned
37 whether any other guidance beyond building percentage would be required to achieve a
Comm. Grande
38 workable concept of open space. suggested looking at the
39 Comprehensive Plan Future Land uses for agriculture designations. He said to keep in
40 mind DCA’s reaction to the Comp Plan amendments of 2002 are the reason this situation
41 began, and suggested discussing that with Commissioner Coward who was on the Board
42 at that time.
43
44 There was discussion about the 2004 Settlement Agreement between DCA and the
45 county that resulted from the 2002 amendments that were not in compliance. The
Page 3 of 8
1 committee requested staff provide them with copies of the Agreement and supporting
2 documentation.
3
Mr. Russakis
4 said he would like to see the most lenient and stringent counties by DCA’s
5 regulations within our demographic peer group to see what could be acceptable by DCA.
Mr. Jones
6 said DCA decided our original Comp Plan would be sprawl if the lands were
7 fully developed based on those guidelines.
8
Dr. Olson
9 pointed out that there is a new administration in Tallahassee so there may be a
10 different direction in DCA, so someone should “take the temperature” of the current
Mr. Corrick
11 administration. mentioned Bob Nix, the previous Director of Growth
12 Management, summarized the need for development in St. Lucie County using the units
13 available for The Rural Land Stewardship Program and the units available under the TVC
14 as what is preapproved for development in the western lands of St. Lucie County,
15 therefore there is no need for additional development outside of those areas; so saying
16 there was no need for any provision for development in the AG 2.5 and AG 5 areas
17 because the demand has been met, which Mr. Corrick believes is disingenuous because
18 development in Rural Land Stewardship is not yet approved, and the TVC has been
19 challenged, so no demands have been met yet.
20
Dr. OlsonMr. Corrick
21 asked if it was helpful for open space to be loosely defined.
22 responded that certainty absent a process with the county is what the committee is
23 requesting so anyone can look at the Code and know what they can do with respect to the
24 value of their land. If open space is a measure, it should be broadly defined.
25
Ms. AndrewsMr. Corrick
26 wondered what happened with Mr. Corrick’s trip to DCA.
27 responded without the Stipulated Settlement Agreement so there was nothing about
Mr. JonesMr.
28 which he could talk to DCA. said copies will be provided shortly.
Corrick
29 also asked Mr. Jones if the county could provide committee information online.
30
Ms. Caron
31 noted that there hasn’t been a clear baseline so land owners know where they
Mr. Corrick
32 stand without different interpretations. responded the definitional problems
33 are within the PUD after the low threshold of 8 units. He said the committee is trying to
34 strengthen and clarify the baseline and zoning, the next step will be talking about the
35 threshold and changing the PUD to make it more attractive so landowners have a reason
36 to leave the baseline and go to a PUD.
37
Mr. Russakis
38 asked if it was clear that with 160 acres and lower one can develop 8 units
39 or less and meet the building requirements on Table 7-10 to determine the value of your
Mr. Jones
40 land. said it is not quite accurate because in the straight subdivision
Mr. Russakis
41 development of the land as described, you would have to take out the
42 roadways and other improvements, then the net acreage left would have to meet the
43 minimum lot requirements.
44
Dr. Olson
45 said there is clarity with what you can do with the building [based on
46 percentages on Table 7-10], but what can be done with the remainder of the land is
Page 4 of 8
1 unclear. He added the definition of open space is poorly written and so broad that it has
2 no definition; for the development of additional value on open space, the definition
Mr. Corrick
3 becomes important. said we don’t need a definition of open space since the
Mr. Corrick
4 buildable area is clearly defined and open space would be the balance.
5 added the only time open space is looked at directly is when we look at the overall
6 measurement of a community. He said he doesn’t think the overall definition of open
7 space is enough to analyze 1000 acres; if you have 1000 acres you will build on the
8 portion of the land that is less valuable because there are no wetlands or conservation
9 areas.
10
Mr. Russakis
11 said we would be remiss to say that we agree with the 2004 text that says
Mr. Ridgely
12 anything less than 160 acres and 8 units is fine. agreed we would be remiss
13 to say that since from last week the committee discussed the baseline just as a baseline
Mr.
14 and if you have to go to PUD then there is an incentive, right now it is a requirement.
Corrick
15 explained further, land owners should be incentivized to start a PUD or
16 preserving that land based on the value to the community, without taking value away
17 from the land owners.
18
Mr. Corrick
19 asked if there was a formula or a way around the mathematical approach of
20 assuming a house will be on every acre of land within the terms of the Comprehensive
Mr. Jones
21 Plan to determine value. said there are a lot of detailed issues used for that
22 determination.
23
Mr. Ridgely
24 said he spoke briefly to Tom Pelham, Secretary of DCA. Mr. Pelham said
25 one of DCA’s issues right now is how to segregate rural and urban areas and how to plan
Mr.
26 for them when developers will go to rural areas because it is easier and cheaper.
Ridgely
27 said Mr. Pelham was completely opposed to the idea that rural areas should just
28 be sprawl. He said the baseline of rural ranchettes as far as the eye can see is a value
29 proposition because we would be relying on the market to make that happen.
30
Mr. Corrick
31 said the market may not bring a unit [in the western area of the county] but
32 that right may be of some greater value in an area where we have designated that credit to
Mr. Corrick
33 arrive. also mentioned an idea of incentivizing land owners to make a
34 commitment to delay development for 5 or 10 years.
35
Dr. Olson
36 shared a presentation about framework for marketing environmental values
37 that he gave in Tallahassee. He said the concept is to enhance rights of rural land owners
38 and create greater financial value, his interest being creating greater financial value for
39 the environmental assets on rural property. As growth arrives, value to develop these
40 lands overpowers stewardship ethic. He mentioned the development of wetland
41 mitigations that has created a financial value for the preservation, restoration and
42 management of wetlands. It has been successful financially and from a regulatory
43 standpoint because for the first time in 29 years, they found a way of successfully
44 restoring, preserving, and mitigating for impacts. Based on this success, the federal
45 government is now creating “conservation credits” for endangered species habitats. The
46 opportunity exists today at the state and federal level and can be enhanced dramatically at
Page 5 of 8
1 the local level to do the same with carbon sequestration, uplands, rare trees or plant
2 communities, ecosystem services, and native pollinators. He says we need a regulatory
3 framework that allows for procedure and certainty of use. It offers rural land owners an
4 opportunity to provide products and services that represent environmental assets in this
Dr. Olson
5 new free market which offers greater financial incentive than development.
6 concluded he thinks that if carbon sequestration becomes mandatory, as he predicts will
7 be in 10 years that will rewrite financial values for land.
8
Mr. Corrick
9 described the process, for clarification, as pushing development towards
10 low resource value land thus taking development off high resource value land to preserve
11 it.
12
Dr. Olson
13 During discussion about the details and benefits of the process, was explicit
14 that developers must mitigate the same thing they are impacting; you cannot “mix
15 currencies”.
16
Mr. Corrick
17 pointed out wetlands have almost no value because you are unable to build
18 on them, but Dr. Olson’s model puts value on it.
19
Mr. Corrick
20 returned the discussion to the committee’s current issues. He asked if there
21 was any way to get a representative from DCA involved in one of the next two meetings
Ms. Andrews
22 whether in person or by phone. asked if Mr. Satterlee was able to visit
23 DCA and Mr. Jones responded in the negative.
24
Dr. Olson
25 suggested we request a responsible DCA policy maker phone in for a
26 conference call for an hour between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM during the next meeting.
Mr. Jones
27 requested the committee members send questions to him so staff could
28 provide DCA something to prepare to discuss.
29
Mr. Russakis
30 asked if it would be unreasonable for staff to review the property in
31 January 2004 to determine how many buildable units it would be mathematically per
Mr.
32 existing PUD regulations with 160 acres and below and no more than 8 units.
Corrick
33 said the threshold should not be relevant based on the direction of the group
34 with baseline rights based on zoning and incentivizing land owners to plan PUD’s rather
35 than requiring PUD above 8 units. With incentives adding multipliers to PUD’s, there
36 may be more units added above standard density based on zoning.
37
Mr. Corrick
38 asked Mr. Jones if it is possible to shift a baseline from AG- 5 land deep in
39 rural areas in to AG- 5 land closer to the urban service area, so the more rural area
40 becomes 1-20 or 1-50 and the land closer to the urban service area becomes AG-2.5 or
Mr. Jones
41 AG-1 without really transferring development rights. said the issue is where
42 the density goes.
43
Mr. Spyke
44 (arrived at 11:00 AM) said DCA only rules on whether or not your plan
45 shows concurrency and if you have the same number of units allowed on a piece of land
46 DCA does not look at where the units are located on the land, they look at the impacts of
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Jones
1 having those units. said that was not quite right because it also has to do with
2 physical location of the units because DCA is also concerned with the amount of
Mr. Spyke
3 infrastructure it takes to get there. continued, saying DCA would ask for
4 concurrency if the units within the landscape increase, so that would return discussion to
5 TDR’s to transfer density from rural to urban areas in order to preserve the integrity of
6 the MPO plan.
7
Mr. Corrick
8 said if you want to build a 500 unit community on a road that’s at a “D”
9 level of service, the market regulations already tell you that you will pay $1.5 million a
10 mile to improve the infrastructure, whereas if you are closer to where the services are
11 already being provided, you save that money and there is already an incentive to build
12 closer to the urban service area.
13
Mr. Spyke
14 said the county’s Comp Plan has to specify how services are going to be
15 provided to the dwelling units that are authorized in the Comp Plan; in the case of the ag
16 the Comp Plan says the county will not provide services, but they still have to provide
17 roads as part of the MPO plan as soon as units occur there at all. If a unit is added in the
18 landscape the developer becomes responsible for service concurrency according to DCA
19 standards and it will require a Comp Plan amendment.
20
Mr. Spyke
21 also said the most potential for value environmentally is restoration of some
22 kind on land that currently does not have a high environmental value but may be located
23 in a strategic place to connect two places that are; restoration to create a greenway would
24 be another source of density bonus. The precedent is in the Rural Land Stewardship
25 where you can manufacture credits by restoring habitat. He thinks it would be simpler to
26 deal with things done on that piece of property in relation to the density bonus you have
27 than to try to connect the piece of property with another piece of property with a cash
28 transfer.
29
Dr. Olson
30 said there are 66,231 acres of wetlands in St. Lucie County non-government
31 owned and not in an existing development. The average is 50% of the wetlands will be
32 avoided, 50% will be impacted. Of the impacted wetlands, ½ will be mitigated on site
33 within a development; the rest will be mitigated off site. Since private land owners have
34 been allowed to do the mitigation banking, the acreage exported to these private
35 purveyors, they have made $50,000 an acre, and that is the smallest environmental
Mr. Spyke
36 market. said cash wise it would be funded by the sale of units to create the
37 demand.
38
Mr. Corrick
39 returned the discussion to giving staff direction in arranging a conference
40 call with DCA.
41
Mr. SpykeMr.
42 asked to clarify the motion passed pertaining to yards (January 4, 2008).
Corrick
43 said the uncertainty was whether the committee would distinguish lots and
Mr. Ridgley
44 yards. added the committee decided they would vote based on the current
45 yard definition. Mr. Jones said it is an interesting discussion because after the buildable
46 area there is additional land that is not “yard”.
Page 7 of 8
1
Mr. Spyke
2 wondered if it were possible to do a PUD and reduce the lot sizes from the
3 by-right dimensions to something smaller, the common open space could be open for
4 discussion; but within someone’s lot, they would be allowed to build within the land use
5 without any requirement that some of the land area should be treated differently than
Mr. Corrick
6 another part of that lot. said the way the PUD was designed so that a lot
7 would not be placed on something that doesn’t need to be protected.
8
Mr. Jones
9 suggested the discussion of what constitutes open space that is not “common”,
Mr.
10 and what can be done with that space should be part of the conversation with DCA.
Corrick
11 said the reason the committee is here is because the code is not clear about open
12 space in ag PUD’s so it has been up to interpretation.
13
Mr. Corrick
14 told Mr. Jones he would like to see a slide of the language in the ag PUD at
15 the next meeting.
16
The meeting was adjourned around 12:00 PM
17
Page 8 of 8