Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Minutes 09-12-2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 12, 2006 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Adjourned: 1:10 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Doug Coward, Chris Craft, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, Joseph Smith Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk ________________________________________________________________________ 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS Consider Ordinance No. 06-031 adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to establish the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Zone- Consider staff recommendation to approve with conditions, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment through the adoption of Ordinance No.06-031. Mr. Brillhart made opening remarks. Mr. Brillhart addressed the recommendation made by MSCW (Consultants) and his memorandum dated September 6, 2006 to the Board of County Commissioners. These items are attached. Mr. Brillhart addressed two modifications made to policies 1.10 and 4.05.07. Policy 1.10 (page 5) of the GOPs shall be modified to include the following language: “The Sending Area Land Use Layer (RSLA Figure 4) represents potential uses allowed within a Stewardship Sending Area but does not represent or guarantee an entitlement to Specific uses. Specific uses of land are subject to review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners”. Policy 4.05.07 (7) (page 15) of the LDRs under the section entitled “Sending Area Land Use Layers to be Eliminated” shall be modified to include the following language: “ The Uses identified under RLSA Figure 4 represent potential allowable uses that must be agreed to by the Board of County Commissioners in the Stewardship Sending Area Application and/or the Stewardship Easement Agreement.” Com. Coward requested Mr. Brillhart highlight major issues raised in the three reviews by the DCA, The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, The Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Brillhart advised the Board of the 9 issues identified by the three offices: 1. Rural/Transportation Design- under the statute it requires a transportation system be put in place that can provide access, ingress/ egress to a rural land development, but it must be based upon a rural design. There were concerns about having what we are currently identifying as only two major access points into a town of this size. The applicant has gone back and revised the policy 4.12 on this one. 2. This issue was raised by all the entities that reviewed it and this was an issue called, Vision . The fact this was such a new pilot project that no one felt the Board of County Commissioners had the opportunity to look at rural development and how this particular project would impact the area west of the urban service boundary. The applicant went back and added in Policy 1.21 within the goals ,objectives and policies to talk about this specific issue. 1 Mr. Brillhart alluded to policy 1.20 where it stated the Rural Land Stewardship program shall be limited to no more than 3 SRA applications of any one type. He stated Policy 1.21 to be very adequate and that policy 1.21 be added showing the Board would be going through a Vision process after this particular pilot program, however, the issue is still raised , does the Board feel good in principal in having only 3 SRA applications in light of having the new policy 1.21 added to the goal 3. Size and sustainability. This issue was raised by the P & Z Commission concerned that any type of new development within a receiving area may additionally prone additional development in adjacent properties not yet in an application for stewardship receiving area or proposed to be in a stewardship receiving area but in rural lands. This particular issue was placed into a policy format and also in a table format. 4. Open space with the proposed receiving area. There was a concern about there not being sufficient amount of parks and recreation and or open space provided within the recommended stewardship receiving area. The applicant has gone back and taken some language existing within the County’s Land Development Code that specifies a minimum of 5 acres per 1,000 population. Com. Coward questioned the status of the open space/ Mr. Brillhart stated within the Land Development Code, the open space language is provided both under the design requirements for a town and or a village and this particular language was added under the design requirements. He believes it is 35%. 5. Utilities - DCA, County Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission raised this as an important issue. The applicant has modified the goals, objectives and policies to include modified language in policy 4.13 and this language was reviewed and agreed to by our County Utilities Department. 6. Housing affordability was another issue raised all the parties, staff recommended the applicant go back and add in a policy with some language within a policy regarding workforce affordable housing and policy 4.21 was revised to specify a minimum of 8% workforce affordable housing within a stewardship receiving area. 7. This concern was regarding staff review: They felt staff may have not had enough time to be effectively prepared to provide a staff report for the Board of County Commissioners consistent with a Planned Unit Development or other type of development application set by the Land Development Code. The applicant has modified in the red line version of the Land Development Code on page 34 to include language regarding the Land Development Code section 11.0601. Staff stated they would prefer to have the language reading, section 11 “as amended”. Com. Coward asked if staff’s position is they intend to have development will pay for the entire cost of the review. Mr. Brillhart stated, yes. 8. Green building technologies - there is a new policy 4.25 . The applicant will have to work with the County regarding the receiving area as the county adopts specific green building technologies language within our Land Development Code. 9. This issue is within the staff report it gives them environmental management both with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. They have identified 4 specific areas that staff determined needs better clarification and these are noted in the memorandum dated September 6, 2006 titled Environmental Management. 2 Mr. Brillhart advised the Board Mr. Richard Unger MSCW was available for any questions. Mr. Cox, applicant addressed the Board and stated 8 of the 9 items were addressed prior to the forecasted storm. They have currently worked through all nine issues. Mr. Cox reviewed RLSA Figure 4 Rural Land Steward ship Area Overlay(Sending Area Land Use Layer Matrix ) . These are the current allowed uses. He advised the Board they had agreed this morning with our Environmental Department that Aquaculture is a broad term and is not currently defined . For consideration tonight would be to take commercial aquaculture and move it to an Ag 1 use as opposed to an AG 2 . He would like to have more discussion today on the policy that is proposed tonight would say these are no longer allowed uses and permission would need to be granted to do what is already being done. They are talking about uses that are allowed today that the family would be removing to generate credits. Com. Coward stated, “ the concern Mr. Cox is talking about, removing the layers from left to right and if you had a fairly pristine area and you were granted credits based on that current value, and then you stripped away the first and second layer, so you are removing the residential land use and the conditional use and you are then rewarded for the current condition and the fact that you would not build houses there and then afterwards you still have the ability to go ahead and mine that property, he believes this is the concern the Environmental staff has identified. You are getting credits upfront but you are leaving a potential future use that could actually undermine the integrity of that resource.” Mr. Cox stated he understood the concern and this is not their intention, but felt there was a better way to address this issue when they get into this discussion. At this time the Clerk to the Board swore in all those on the applicants team and will individually swear in each public speaker. Mr. Ernie Bennett, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida addressed the Board in support of this issue. He stated with the Rural Land Stewardship program, they believe it provides creative ways to generate revenues and in return maintaining the eco-systems and provide open space. It also provides landowners to receive incentives. He believes this program with others will help them move forward with the Everglades restoration. Com. Coward thanked Mr. Bennett for his comments. He stated the only thing he is struggling with is how much do you need to give in order to get. They would all like to preserve the Adams Ranch however, there has not been a lot of focus as to the appropriate amount of incentives to give. Mr. Arthur Apissomian, 2142 S.E. Morningside Blvd., addressed the Board quoted a paragraph from the Cost of Community Services studies conducted after 20 years. He stated in the paragraph it states, “ Converting Agricultural Land to Residential Land Use cannot be deemed as a way to balance local budgets.” He asked the Board to devote more study time and get the specific economics of this issue before making a decision. Ms. Linda Cox, Chamber of Commerce read a letter in support of the issue. Ms.Carol Brick, 5203 NW Downy Court, addressed the density on the Cloud Grove property. It is proposed at a 465% increase the 3 to 1 multiplier may set a precedent. She asked the Board to take more time to review and set up an new committee with public in- put on this issue. 3 Mr. Bryce Babcock, 1522 N. Lawnwood Circle, Ft. Pierce, read a letter from Thomas A. Babcock, MRA Realty where he is urging the Commission to abandon its effort to impose the policies of the TVC on the RLS-LDR’s and concurrently amend the TVC LDR’s to more closely follow the objectives and policies of the RLS-LDR’s. Mr. Jim Russakis, 8801 Indrio Road, addressed the Board in support of this issue. Mr. Gregory Wilson, 1743 SW Import Drive, addressed the Board regarding the density issue and the fact that there would possibly be 6,000 + students in the community and he did not find any information on how they were going to nurture those 6,000 students to become good citizens. He also asked if an environmental reviewed had been completed . Mr. Leslie D. Alderman, Jr. 6118 Dear Run, representing Earthmark Family land abutting the property known as Cloud Groves, addressed the Board and stated he is not sure if this program is appropriate for his property but supports the concept. Ms. Stacy Ranieri, 2062 SW Racquet Club Drive, Palm City, Florida a member of Family Lands remembered, read a letter into the record. (This letter was not presented to the secretary to be included as part of the record.) The letter was in favor of the program. Mr. Jay Maycumber, Indrio Road resident, addressed the Board in support of the program, however he stated he did concur with Mr. Babcock’s assessments. He felt the new development should match the TVC not the other way around and also need to consider how many housing developments are being placed in the area and the density. He expressed great concerns with the infrastructure and the costs. Ms. Stacy Johnson, 8405 S. Indian River Drive, addressed the Board and expressed her concerns with the density and does not understand why this project is needed. She asked the Board to give it more thought. Mr. Pat Murphy, 411 N. U.S. # 1, addressed the Board in support of the project and stated it was important to preserve the pristine ranch. Mr. Charles Grande, Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board and stated in his opinion this would be precedent setting and should be reviewed on its own merit and we must weigh what we are giving up. Ms. Pam Hammer, The Reserve resident addressed the Board and recommended an outside consultant be appointed to review the application. She stated her objection to the 35% open space and felt it was not enough. She asked the Board to consider the fact this project would be creating a city with 30,000 residents. She reminded the Board there is presently a water issue with the TVC per the DCA and she recommended the Board hold off until the TVC issue is resolved. The applicant was given the opportunity to address the issues raised by the public. Mr. Cox stated he wished to correct one statement. The affordable housing percentage is 8% and this is a new policy added as per a request made previously. He stated, the other issue was a question as to what would be the value on the easement of the Adams Ranch if the county was prepared to pay for it. If you were to use the comparables such as the sand scrub the county purchased at $2million for 247 acres or $8,008 per acre. If you were to use these numbers, the Adams Ranch easement would cost around $96 million (the easement itself). This is not the issue tonight. What is before the Board tonight is whether to adopt an amendment to create a Rural Land Stewardship overlay, this does not by itself increasing any densities or intensities without SSA and SRA’s and a Land Development Code that would apply to implement that provision. The items that are still remaining will be discussed in the future processes to come. Mr. Cox stated he wished to discuss the changes to policy 1.10 . He stated the idea was to take away uses in return for credits. The uses you take away the more credits you 4 receive. The Board has the discretion of do they grant the credits for the uses being taken away, and do they suggest additional uses are to be taken away. Com. Craft stated why would they include in the matrix and give the applicant credit for not mining on every piece of property at the Adams Ranch. The likelihood is it is impossible to mine every square acre on the ranch, so why are they even rewarding the applicant for all of it? He does not mind giving them a little but every acre you are able to remove that layer and gain that credit? Mr. Cox stated yes, because this is forever, and it is saying that you will never be able to mine any acres that are in a SSA. Com. Craft asked the applicant how many units and credits would be potentially generated on 12, 000 acres of sending area from mining? Ms. Anita Jenkins, team member reviewed the matrix and the percentage value of each land use layer that is removed. Mr. Cox stated the 12,000 acres of the Adams Ranch could have 2400 homes on it through out the property. Com. Coward disagreed and stated clustered on 20% of the property. Mr. Cox stated, if they have 80% open space you could. Com. Coward stated, the current code requires clustering and preserve 80% open space and this is fact. Mr. Cox disagreed. Com. Craft stated he was suggesting, when you do your credit matrix that is for you to be able to score each piece of land and what he is suggesting is that no one use on the land whether it is residential or mining, agriculture, no one individual use should be greater than the 2400 units after it is calculated you may add them all together and gain more. Mr. Cox stated in answering Com. Craft’s question of “how many stewardship credits could be generated from the mining layer stated it would be 12,000 x .2 or 2400 credits. For example, in order to do the town on Cloud Groves, the 5,000 acre town, you need 35,000 credits. Com. Craft questioned Mr. Cox’s prior remarks where it was stated the maximum the 12,000 acre sending area would generate the maximum number of units that those credits after all the credit matrix are done, would generate a maximum number of 13,428 homes. Mr. Cox disagreed with this statement. He stated the total of Adams Ranch is 16, 466 acres could generate the 13,428 number of units, this is the limitation they were asked to place on the program. There is no limitation on the 12,000 it is total limitation on the 22,000 acre overlay. Because the 12,000 scores the highest in environmentally valuable land, it generates more credits per acre than the balance of the ranch. The maximum density of the town is 5,000 acres with 2.5 units per acre. The maximum that can go on Cloud Groves is 12,500. The plan is actually for 12,000. The remaining could go if it were put into a village of 500 acres. Mr. Cox stated if you have Cloud Grove at 5,000 acres and a village on Adams of 500 acres, you end up with 16,000 acres of Adams in an SSA this is the total maximum that can be done. The 12,000 that is going into the first sending area generates more credits per acre than the 4,000 acres that won’t be in that sending area. 5 Com. Coward stated the following, “ He does not believe Mr. Cox’s math is far off. The sending area is 12,000 acres and the entitlements on that property are 2400 with a land use of 1 to 5. You are essentially carving out 928 units that the Adams family will retain, so for the purpose of transferring it really gets taken out of the calculation. We are looking at how many units are being created from the sending site Cloud Grove which is the receiving site, we are talking about a maximum of 12,500 units on Cloud Grove, you have a 5,000 acre property with a land use of 1 to 5, so you currently have 1,000 units you could build today so, if you can now build 12,500 minus the 1,000 entitlements you are creating 11,500 new units, he takes that calculation and divide it by the original entitlements of 2400 to get essentially what the multiplier is and he knows Mr. Cox disagrees with this but this is how he looks at this, they are sending 2400 units off the Adams Ranch and are creating 11,500 new units on Cloud Grove and if you divide this out it is an increase in density of 479%. This is the concern he has been expressing throughout, how much is the county giving in order to get and an almost 500% increase in density is substantial. Com. Coward stated he knows the applicant utilizes the 3 to 1, but they apply this across the entire acreage, both sending and receiving sites, so they are actually giving credits for retaining units that are not even being sent off site which does not make any sense and they are also giving credit to Cloud Groves for the original 1,000 units they had on site for what purpose? Mr. Cox stated it comes down to a fundamental distinction that it is not a multiplier program. The request was what could you have done out there before? The density based system is not giving what they want and it is not working any where in the country. Mr. Cox commented on the policy 1.10. He stated if there is a desire to add the language, he suggested that wherever it talks about “uses”, that it be changed to “layers to be removed would be subject to review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners” instead of entitlements. It would read as follows: “ The Sending Area Land Use Layer represents uses currently allowed. During the Stewardship Sending Area application process, land uses in the SSA would be removed, subject to the approval by the Board of County Commissioners.” He suggested a similar change for 4.05.07. Com. Coward requested Board input. He felt this language may change staff’s intent. The County Attorney stated he assisted in drafting the new language staff presented. He believes the language provides the Board with the flexibility of determining whether to approve or remove particular uses. He believes it does address some of staff’s concerns but felt it does not address all of their concerns. The Environmental Resources Director stated her job is to help protect the natural resources of the community . In this process they are receiving credits for protecting listed species, enhanced credits for doing that, and staff feels that some of the uses that continue to be allowed under the Agricultural 2 square are prohibitive and they are not going to continue this. Staff has suggested instead calculating the credits on what is out there today, perhaps base the credit on what will be there in the future. Com. Hutchinson stated her dilemma was they are allowed to do these uses today. The Board has the ability to say what can or cannot come off with the application process. The Environmental Resources Director stated they have the ability to control which layer they go to, they do not have the ability to remove specific uses under that layer this is what she understood. The Environmental Resources Director stated she would like to go on record to say that if the language is approved the way it is today, that their recommendation would be that 6 virtually with the exception of some areas that are currently highly degraded, actively being used as agricultural areas, that the vast majority of the ranch be taken all the way to the restoration layer and she does not believe this is what the Adams are intending, they do not wish to go that far. She hopes they can find a middle ground. Com. coward expressed concern on what legal right they would have to say no if it meets our code and our code allows for mining in agricultural areas. Mr. Cox stated the program is voluntary. There is an incentive Adams receives by eliminating residential, general conditional and earth mining. He believes it would be a disaster for the environment if they took the property down to restoration and natural resources because it is the cattle ranching itself that results in the property being what it is. It is because of the way they manage it. He suggested removing riding stables and kennels from Ag 2 to AG 1 as a use a layer would be removed and if you took outdoor shooting ranges and aquaculture and also moved them from Ag 2 to Ag 1, those are then not allowed in an Ag 2 SSA. These are the uses the Environmental Department was objecting to in an Ag 2 area. Com. Lewis expressed her concern with the outdoor shooting range for example, if you put an outdoor shooting range in the pasture, what ever is living in that hammock is gone and they have already been given top value for that species being present. She liked the original language and is not clear what Mr. Cox has changed. Mr. Cox clarified his suggestion in the change . Com. Coward stated, as he understood it was the intention was not to be giving bonuses for protection that they have not actually received. If they are giving them bonuses to protect areas yet they are leaving layers still sitting out there that could detrimentally affect that resource, that does not give our staff or some of the Board a comfort level. Ms. Jenkins stated that by protecting the Adams Ranch the county is protecting Agriculture, protecting that resource for long term agricultural operations whatever those operations are in the future, they will be symbiotically related to the natural resources. Ms. Jenkins commented on balancing future growth and sustainability and asked how many units do you need for a sustainable community that is not going to cost the residents of this county to support it. If you do nothing tonight the county is supporting the continued function of urban sprawl. Com. Craft stated his question is not about the density but how it is being derived, how are they getting to that density. If they can get him to a comfort level he may be more supportive of this project. He agreed with Mr. Babcock’s comments that the TVC LDR and the RLS should be the same. He stated there is a reason for this and that is so that they know what they are getting in the future. It’s not a question of how much density is on there but where it is coming from. Mr. Cox stated it is a design requirement, they have put together the best package they could, they have listened have had public hearing and worked on the lists generated at these meetings. He believes they have a good program and they have a landowner who is prepared to go forward and a developer prepared to go forward and he believes as part of the analysis the Board should consider the landowner and the Adams and the four generations of that family who are willing to do this and asked for Board approval. Com. Coward stated he wanted to follow through with a discussion on the intent of the program being natural resource protection as well as agriculture and he believes all the Board members do understand it. Regarding the concerns of the Environmental Resource Department were the fact there were additional layers, mining, that could jeopardize both of those resources and if they were to go ahead and grant bonuses, additional development rights as an incentive to protect natural resources and agriculture yet there is an additional layer that remains out there, that could jeopardize that resource and this is the issue that is still unaddressed despite Mr. Cox’s insistence that it has. It remains out 7 there and this is the concern, we are granting the rewards without a comfort level that those resources are clearly protected. The one issue he did not hear the applicant mention was economic development and if it was required. He is not talking retail jobs he was talking targeted industry. Com. Coward asked the applicant, “are you required to create jobs other than service and retail in the new town? Mr. Cox stated there was not a requirement . He stated it was the same language as in the TVC. Com. Coward stated in this case you write the language as “encourage” and you get all the development rights. In the TVC it may be the same language, but it is incentive based and you have to earn it, it is not given to you up front. In the TVC the developers are donating land to the county which we can use for targeted industries with our incentives to make it happen. Once they do this, then they earn the right to have additional development. Mr. Cox stated the development rights in this program are created based upon the sending area. Com. Coward stated the point is they are not required to do quality economic development, you are encouraged to do so, but not required. Mr. Cox stated, he believes through the encouragement and the incentives that exist and the approaches they are taking, they are going to be able to do this and prove it will be fiscally sustainable. Com. Coward stated if it is required then it should state so, but it does not, it states encourage. Com. Craft stated if they could get a vision of what they are saying it is it could make it easier for the Board. If they could see the plan, they may get more comfortable with this. Mr. Cox stated they are working on a plan to be submitted and go through the entire DRI process that is going to lay this out. The difficulty they are looking at is they are not at that SRA review stage, but he believes the Board will be pleased with what they see. Com. Craft stated he would like to see what the 5,000 acres would consist of and asked if the developer has a conceptual drawing. Mr. Cox stated they have a conceptual drawing but it is not completed. Com. Lewis stated until we tell them exactly what they are allowed to do (unintelligible comment) she did not expect for them to give her roads, units and open spaces until she tells them what they are permitted to put out there. This document does not read like a design manual and she thinks it has a lot of good concepts. She thinks it is extremely premature to ask them to give a concept. She personally felt these documents were enough to go on tonight. Com. Craft stated they were not negotiating they have asked and they have been told no, so what he is asking for is to see what it will look like because then maybe he will understand what they are saying. They are working on the plan today based on these pages and numbers, he is not asking them to do anymore work, he would like to see what they are talking about, he may be comfortable with it, he does not know. Com. Hutchinson stated they needed to step back and look at the fact these are two different planning tools. 8 Com. Coward stated his biggest concern was that in this program they are creating 5 times the density that it out there today. They are creating so much new development through this that not only does it apply to this property but it could potentially apply to the entire agricultural area. St. Lucie County already has too many dwelling units on the books right now outside the urban service boundary probably in the neighborhood of 40,000. To think about a five fold increase in a number of units out there and this is the worse case scenario but this is the number they are using they are looking at a potential of 200,000 units and he regards that as insane. He wants to give units but he does not think that a 500% increase in density is the appropriate number and this is his major concern. Com. Hutchinson stated if you do not give the ability to do something today, you end up with revising less restrictive development plans in the future. She stated the numbers that are being thrown out are today’s numbers. Unintelligible comments. Com. Coward stated it was a great concept, however for them having to create a 500% increase in density to achieve it where he is having the problem. The original plan presented was to take all of the development rights off of this property in exchange for some additional development rights on Cloud Grove and now we are retaining 1,000 of 3400 keeping those on site and still creating 11,500 new development rights on a property that is in a remote area and the infrastructure that is going to be built there is going to have a major implications on surrounding development as well. He would like nothing better than to work this project out, find that balance Com. Craft is talking about and vote in favor of this. His gut is telling him 500% increase in density is too much. Com. Smith stated the difference for him is that there were over 700 landowners in the TVC. In this event you have essentially two. The issue is there is a lot of pristine land we have the opportunity of preserving a good portion of it and in doing so we will also be looking at land development that would occur at Cloud Grove, does this balance out, is it even? For him he stated it does. He stated this is a step in a process . Com. Coward requested consensus on policy 1.10 and asked the assistance of the County Attorney. The County Attorney stated the language as it been modified by the applicant has resolved one of the concerns, to provide the Board with flexibility during the sending area application process and the easement process so that the Board is not obligated to necessarily approve specific uses. It does seem to provide the Board with some flexibility to determine whether certain uses are removed or not. The landowner must agree to begin with, but the Board cannot force or remove if the landowner does not agree but is does provide the Board with the ability to say no if it does agree. He also believes the suggestion to move the riding stables, kennels and shooting ranges, also the commercial aquaculture from 2 to 1 is a positive step from a staff perspective. If t he Board agrees those changes should be made. The same language should be included in the land development code and placement can be dealt with later on. Com. Coward requested incorporating language to require a DRI process as a policy. Mr. David Powell, on behalf of STDG stated they did not have an objection to this type of a policy. It was suggested placing the DRI requirement language in policy 4.6. Com. Coward commented on adding language requiring land dedicated for economic development. The County Attorney suggested language such as “the developer shall maximize efforts to create jobs, and also provide language that would allow the County to provide additional incentives for donation of property to encourage things such as this. 9 Com. Coward stated he felt there should be language having a minimum standard, the term “maximize” does not mandate it. He would like to see a dedicated amount of square footage or acreage something to make sure the county ends up with something concrete as a part of this. The County Administrator stated the square footage is important and he would like at the minimum of 100,000 square feet and this is for one company. He could not elaborate further due to the confidentiality. Com. Lewis stated she felt we were getting something for this creation, environmentally sensitive land we cannot afford to purchase. Com. Craft suggested writing in a minimum of 2% would be dedicated for targeted industry and he would prefer it would come to the county because they would have more leverage. A team member stated this whole issue has gotten them by surprise and this is an issue that has never come up in the conversation, this is a policy requirement that is being thrown out at this time. Com Craft stated what he was suggesting is that the county is privy to conversations and negotiations with the companies that the developers are not. If they have the acreage to work with in the beginning it’s the county decision and it would benefit Cloud Grove. Com. Coward stated this is not been a conversation that has not been discussed previously. Since day one he has had conversation with the team about what the county is trying to achieve in the TVC and trying to work in partnership with the builders having land donated for the purpose, this is not a new issue. The County Attorney suggested the following language: “ The creation of targeted industries and businesses needed to create a sustainable community must be satisfactorily addressed in the development approval process.” Mr. Cox provided the following language to be inserted at the end of page 38 of the LDR “ The Cloud Grove Town SRA shall reserve to county sufficient land for 500,000 gross square feet and required parking, based upon the required or area ratio, for targeted industry as a part of the SRA, to be deeded to County upon binding commitment by the user. If the County does not obtain binding commitment for such uses within 5 years of SRA approval, any non-committed lands shall revert to developer. “ Com. Coward asked who was responsible for building the infrastructure that will service this targeted industry. The County Administrator stated he believed that the developer would bring the utilities and infrastructure to the site and the county would run it into the site. He stated each developer wants a different location they do not want to be in one complex so this could be in 4 or 5 different locations within Cloud Groves. Com. Coward stated it may need to be integrated into the design since it is in a remote location. A team member stated this is an issue that would need to be sorted out in the SRA approval process. Com. Coward stated he is very pleased with the language that has been brought forward and thanked the applicant, however he would like to see an additional sentence that talks about integrating these economic development opportunities into the town planning so that it does not end up as some remote isolated piece. Mr. Cox suggested adding after the word, targeted industry, add , “as an integrated part of.” 10 Com. Coward thanked Mr. Cox for that additional sentence. Com. Coward commented on the importance of this project being fiscally neutral to the taxpayers. He alluded to policy 4.16 page 19, and stated they addressed part of his past concern but not its entirety. The language the way it is written where it reads at the end of ten years it has to be fiscally neutral. He believes the statement should be is that it will be fiscally neutral or positive to St. Lucie including capital and operational cost. (delete after 10 years). Subsequent review shall occur on 10 year increments but the way it is written, it can be interpreted to mean that the fiscal neutrality does not have to occur for a ten year time frame and he believes it is the first 10 year time frame where the greatest likelihood of a taxpayer subsidy will occur because the tax base would not be coming in from the new town but the service demands will be great. He believes the way this is written does not reflect what they have been saying throughout this hearing. The County Administrator asked the applicant, “are we going to be fiscally neutral from day one? and requested an answer to this question. The applicant stated, he believes from day one you have to demonstrate that the project will be fiscally neutral by the time they finish. Com. Smith asked the question, “on day one of that project, and it is a yes or a no answer, will this project be fiscally neutral, will the taxpayers of St. Lucie County who do not live in the Cloud Grove area need to subsidize this project on day one, the first house built, the first road, the first light post? The applicant stated he did not think that they would because he thinks the policies includes enough mechanisms for financing the improvements that are needed for this project through CDD’s . Mr. Cox stated he believed it would be and to be specific he would add at end is that if you look at the end of the policy, 4.16 in the paragraph where it states “an enforceable developer agreement shall be required to make sure public facilities provided by the developer are completed in accordance to Florida law that the developer agreement may authorize the developer to assign any obligation for construction, operation or maintenance of the public facility to a community development district, independent special district or other unit of local government. Mr. Cox stated this becomes the binding commitment as part of the development approval to fund that infrastructure. Com. Coward the project idea from day one was sold from day one was that it would pay for itself and he does not understand why there is any hesitation whatsoever to have language that states this. He suggested taking the language Mr. Cox was referring to where it clearly delineates a) they must demonstrate fiscal neutrality at the time of development approval b) the monitoring occurs thereafter. Mr. Cox stated this is what he has done. After conferring with his staff Mr. Cox returned with the additional language. th Policy 4.16 4 line (and operational costs) insert the following : at the time of development approval within each SRA. (This takes the monitoring language from the other page and placing it into the fiscally neutral at the time. Mr. Cox stated at the last meeting they had covered as part of it, before anything is approved, they must demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that this SRA or any SRA is going to be fiscally neutral at the time the BCC approves it, it must be fiscally neutral at the end of the first ten years and every five years afterwards and at the horizon year. Mr. Cox used the example of putting in the plans to build a fire station, this would not be the first building built but the fire station will be built as they get into it. If in the first 11 year someone catches their kitchen on fire, the cost of the fire truck coming to put out this fire, the taxes from the already built 200 units may not cover the cost of the fire. The first ten years would give them the ability to have this all in, the fire station, the police station all built. This is what he thought they had at the last meeting. Com. Coward requested the Board design language they are comfortable with. He would like to have a simple statement that they will be fiscally neutral throughout the life of the project from beginning to end. The County Administrator stated this is where he thought they were. If there is a catastrophe or something they may need to bring in a fire truck or something this would be understandable, but on normal operating days, he thought they would be fiscally neutral beginning day one. Mr. Cox stated if they do not have that fire day one, they would be fiscally neutral day one, if they have a fire day one then they will need additional revenue to offset this day two and day three. The County Administrator stated he did not wish to have the Fire District hire more personnel or buy equipment to staff another station until they get it built there to cover their area. Mr. Cox stated he believed they would have the specific details as to when the infrastructure would come on line, when it would be built, how much it would be, what the first piece would be, what the second piece would be, would go into the DRI development order as a condition. Com. Coward reiterated his position that this project would not be fiscally neutral in the beginning as first thought. Com. Craft read a paragraph from the Fire District’s letter where it is recommending the language be tightened. Com. Coward once again reiterated his position and stated it was abundantly clear. He wished a period be placed after the word cost and this is the statement that it would be fiscally neutral with capital and operating period and the monitoring occurs as prescribed below, demonstrate at time of approval and then a 10 year increment and then 5 years there after. He asked if any of the Board members had an objection to this. No reply was given by the Board members. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson that the Board approve Ordinance No. 06-031 with the proposed policy changes on policy 4.6 to include the DRI language, figure 4 removing commercial aquaculture, riding stables and kennels, shooting ranges, from AG. 2 to 1, the revised language as proposed earlier on 1.10, the addition of fire protection, law enforcement and EMS on policy 4.13, Mr. Cox stated the language he read to policy 4.16 is acceptable to everyone on his side, the change recommended by the Board was to place the period instead of the language is NOT acceptable to the applicant. Com. Hutchinson continued with her motion; the revised language on policy 4.16 the wording the Board had discussed a period after the word, “cost’, seconded by Com. Craft Com. Hutchinson questioned how the Board would require the developer to pay the salaries. Com. Coward stated this would be done during the economic assessment until they generate a tax revenue out there to actually pay for it. 12 Com. Hutchinson stated this was not her intent when she added the language discussed by the Board in her motion. Com. Coward stated this was not the intent of the program when it was sold to the Board and they would then have to turn around and say the existing taxpayers will have to subsidize this development. Com. Hutchinson stated she does not see it this way because at this point they do not require this of anyone. Com. Craft stated she was correct, however, they did not have developments taking place 10 or 15 miles from the service providers, such as Fire EMS, Law Enforcement . This has to be dealt with completely isolated in the way they have dealt with any other project. They are talking about putting in a development so far west that there are no service providers even remotely close to them. The closest fire department is Lakewood Park. This motion was pulled off the table It was moved by Com. Smith, to approve Ordinance 06-031 with the following, 4.6 regarding DRI language, figure 4, commercial aquaculture, riding stables, kennels shooting ranges moved from AG2 to AG 1 layer, 1.10 with the revised language, 4.13 regarding law enforcement, fire protection and EMS and 4.16 regarding fiscal neutrality as stated and the board discussion as stated with the period after cost, seconded by Com. Craft, Ms. Anita Jenkins stated there was some confusion with the last hearing with her comments. The policy says and the intent has always been that towns and villages as a whole shall be fiscally neutral or positive. She stated they would see a fiscal model at the time of application to demonstrate what the program and the land plan illustrates to you. At the time of 10 years that land plan will have the ability to stabilize and that program will have the ability to stabilize and the county will monitor it then and measure it and look back at that fiscal neutrality and the positive situation that results from it. She stated if it was misinterpreted and if she said it was going to be fiscally neutral from day one that was not her intent. Fiscally neutral or positive a whole, this policy has not changed no program can be measured day to day and this is why they have increments in here to monitor and look back at it to insure it is fiscally neutral or positive. Com. Coward stated he did not wish to put words in her mouth but she is acknowledging there will be a period of time where the taxpayers will have to subsidize it where it would not be fiscally neutral. Ms. Jenkins stated she was not. Com. Coward asked why then they could not accept the language requested. Mr. Cox stated there may be a portion of the first ten years that would be positive or negative. Com. Craft stated until the station is built he believes what they are trying to say is that they will need to have staff to cover it. What the Board is saying is they have to find some way to fund this without Cloud Grove being a burden on the taxpayers of St. Lucie County. Mr. Cox stated he did not disagree. The DRI development order will lay out when each of these facilities are built, option A is you pay the impact fees and have the county build the facility, option B is they get funded through an independent special district or a CDD and there is impact fee credits based upon those amounts of money for each of the infrastructure requirement. Com. Hutchinson called the motion. 13 And upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay’s: Com. Lewis, Com. Hutchinson, Com. Coward, Aye’s, Com. Smith, Com. Craft Motion denied by a vote of 3 to 2. It was moved by Com. Lewis Ordinance No. 06-031 amending item 4.6 to include the DRI, removing the items as discussed from AG 2 to AG1, revised language on 1.10, add Fire, EMS and Law Enforcement to 4.13, 4.16 language as proposed by Mr. Cox, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay’s, Com. Smith, Com. Craft, Coward ; Aye’s; Com. Hutchinson, Com. Lewis, motion denied by a vote of 3 to 2. Com. Coward stated they need to resolve the fiscal neutrality issue or this will not pass. Mr. Cox addressed this issue once again regarding the DRI development order and the fact they need some time period within which they can average out the positives and the negatives. The County administrator asked if it was at the county’s discretion on how to settle up. Mr. Cox stated he believed it was placed in the development order in terms as to what are the specifics on this, there is no development approved before they have the mechanism for settling up it would b reflected in a DRI development order and in the SRA approval and the development agreement. As they come through this there is a final approval, there is a DRI, an SRA and a development agreement. In that they would have the minute details of how they settle up and this would be negotiated between now and that time. If they do not reach that negotiated agreement, they do not get the approval for the town, nothing will ever get built. At this point they do not have that model put together for he fiscal neutrality and they are not saying the taxpayers need to pay for this, we are saying we have that time to be able to do it and settle up. Com. Coward stated he believes they are saying this, that the first ten years it is not going to pay for itself and we will need to have taxpayers pay for it. He is really disappointed. Com. Coward requested a substitute motion. Com. Lewis asked if it was acceptable at a 5 year time frame as recommended by the applicant. Com. Coward stated this was not acceptable to him, his comments are clear he wishes for the development to pay for itself all along. Com. Smith stated 10 years was a long time and asked Mr. Cox if there was a way the county and the citizens of the community have an idea of how the money is being used , how it is going. Mr. Cox suggested leaving the language as he re- drafted but adding the monitoring, ( add in after cost, at the time of development approval within each SRA, at the end of the first ten years. This is what he would call the “bench marks” at which they would have to reconcile if not they would have to write a check, change the program, pay an impact fee, whatever that is. Com. Coward stated the first benchmark is 10 years. Com. Smith stated, positive or negative he would not want to make anyone wait ten years and he would not want to find himself in a position to bind another Board. He would rather have a shorter time horizon. 14 Com. Craft stated he had talked about having the developer post a bond and this way the money would be there and this is a way out possibly everyone can work with. He would be comfortable and be able to vote to support the project that way. He recommended leaving the language as the Board had changed it with the period in it and through the sending area application when they look at the applicant’s performa then they can get an idea and work it out then. Com. Coward stated he needed to know if there would be a period of time the taxpayers would be subsidizing this project. Com. Craft stated should not, there will be money in the bank waiting making sure that it does not so that the county is guaranteed the taxpayers will not have to subsidize this project in any way or form. Com. Coward stated the basic question is, does the Board want to provide the opportunity for the applicant to get a subsidy from local taxpayers and if so what time frame if any. Com. Smith stated based on Com. Craft comments and if they were to give the county a check to hold then he would see fiscal neutrality in that sense. Com. Coward stated he too would see this also and this is what he was looking for, however this is not what they wish. The County Attorney stated the difficulty seemed to be trying to identify security and issues that they probably do not know anything about. He suggested adding a sentence “ the final development orders shall provide for bi-annual monitoring and shall identify remedial measures including the posting of adequate security in the event fiscal neutrality is not achieved.” The County Administrator asked if this monitoring would occur at the end of the first 24 months and if the county would get reimbursed. The County Attorney stated that would be dealt with in the final development order. They would have to demonstrate it in the model at the beginning and monitor it every two years thereafter. Whatever the Board finds acceptable. Com. Coward stated he did not have a problem with the monitoring or the remedial measures, the questions was do you want to give them a break period of paying for themselves and it seems to him there are 3 Commissioners who do not wish to give them a grace period. The County Attorney stated in the way he has worded it, you could identify the remedial measures in advance and this could be the posting of a bond or a letter of credit right at the beginning not wait for the bi-annual monitoring. Com. Smith stated he liked the idea of a letter of credit or some type of bond along with the bi-annual monitoring, this way it allows them to still have the resources they need to do what is necessary and also provides the county with the ability to hold the fiscal neutrality. Com. Coward asked the time period for the fiscal neutrality from day one forward or is he suggesting an alternative. Com. Smith stated, he would be willing to provide at the first bi-annual (24 months) report they be able to show if not fiscal neutrality, the plans for fiscal neutrality. Com. Coward stated if you wait two years out they will have a lot of upfront costs that are going to have to be born by the local taxpayers and this is why he is concerned about pushing that time frame. 15 Com. Hutchinson questioned where’s the local cost since they will be required to start the infrastructure upfront. Com. Coward gave the example of Tradition’s the fire station has not been built as yet and the Fire District hired the staff (100 people) in advance and has had to train them, so the taxpayers are currently subsidizing that development and the exact same scenario will apply here but at a larger scale because this is a significantly larger project. Com. Hutchinson stated she understood what he was saying, however, the first two years are going to be constructing the infrastructure and she does not see why they would be hiring additional staff. Com. Coward stated they would need to train the staff in advance. Com. Smith asked if the applicant would be supportive and willing to provide a bond or a letter of credit on day one, so that on day one there is fiscal neutrality. Mr. Cox stated the question is what is day one? When the first two or three homes come in then something can be posted, but the amount would then vary. If the surety and he believes they mean some sort of assurance, if there was an assurance that could then be set forth in the development order based upon the model, they would then instead of sitting here today saying I don’t know when the specific first 500 homes come in, that could then be phased. The thought would be, put something in the Comp Plan that says part of the development order shall include the phasing plan and the mechanism for either funding or providing surety. He stated this concept may work, the question is at what th point do you pull the trigger, is it 5 years after the first home or 5 years after tat 500 home. He would expect this would be something that once they see the phase in they would tie it in and say “here’s when it matters.” Com. Craft advised Nr. Cox that if in fact what he is saying is true, they should not have an issue with the language proposed by Com. Hutchinson or Com. Smith. This should not be an issue and it can be worked out the details when the receiving area application is brought forward. So if they can just say they are going to be fiscally neutral from day one period, we can figure out how to secure this, whether it be through a letter of credit, a bond whatever. He staed, what he does not want to do is since it will two or three years before you see the first house or maybe even longer, he does not wish to be sitting here or the next Board be sitting here and attempting to explain to the citizens that we cannot cut your taxes this year because the previous Board approved a lot of development that really did not pay for itself and unfortunately this is where we are and we cannot afford to continue this route especially with a development this large. Mr. Cox stated he cannot agree to the change in the ten years and cannot agree to the monitoring and putting in to the SRA, the laying it all out and he would love to say yours is the specific language we can use, he believes it will work, he believes it will be in the SRA and the DRI approval laid out and clear, but from a policy perspective it would up to the Board to make another motion and see if it passes. Com. Hutchinson advised the Chairman the County Attorney may have some additional language the Board may consider. The County Attorney stated in terms of the firs sentence they can put in “ must demonstrate at the time of development approval that as a whole it will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County including capital operations in costs. The final development shall identify project and infrastructure phasing help provide for bi-annual monitoring and shall identify remedial measures including the posting of adequate security in the event fiscal neutrality is not achieved.” Com. Coward stated the term “as a whole “ is still in the sentence and asked if this meant the 10 year subsidy remains. The County Attorney stated, no, not the way he understood it. There would be monitoring every two years and at that point you would look and see if neutrality was 16 being achieved and the medial measures of posting the security would then kick in at that point. Com. Coward stated he still was not clear if they were still required to be fiscally neutral day one or not. The County Attorney stated at the time of the development order it would identify phasing schedules, provide for monitoring and it’s going to identify in the development order what remedial measures would be in place to make sure the county does not experience the fiscal event that would result in a negative payment by the county. This was his intent. Com. Coward stated the question is when, the term as a whole still remains. The question is do we want to provide any period of time where the taxpayer has to subsidize this project. Com. Smith stated if there is a bond, a letter of credit or some financial means we have in the beginning, the day you start turning dirt with a bulldozer and the county has some financial resource that we can rely on, depend on if and when you are not fiscally neutral, then the county is whole from day one, there is never a grace period should the project not be fiscally neutral then the county has the opportunity to make itself whole out of the alternative whatever that instrument may be. He stated if he understands the County Attorney during the development order time, they can work with the applicant to find out what that number would be and how that would be used. Com. Coward stated this is what he was trying to have the County Attorney clarify, the way the language is written with the term “as a whole” and they are talking about ten years and this is not what Com. Smith is saying he is saying from day one and that is what two other Board members want, so there is a clear consensus that this language needs to be modified. Com. Smith stated he did not see the term “as a whole “ having any value as part of the sentence. If they need to go back to the definition and describe the term “as a whole” so that this Board and future Boards understand what it means and this is something that can be discussed. Com. Coward stated he believed they did describe it and it was over the life of the project and they anticipating through their economic models to put the net revenue increase to taxpayers, but up front it will would not. Deleting “ as a whole” allows for them to incorporate that subsidy upfront and this is why he objected to that language. Com. Craft asked if there was additional piece in the document that could be changed that would make him happy so that they can move forward on the language suggested by Com. Smith. Com. Coward stated not to the satisfaction of the applicant, because he has several issues and the main one is dealing with the 500% increase in density. If this issue could be rectified he would support the project. The 500% density is an issue, the fiscal neutrality is an issue, open space down to 35% is another issue. Mr. Cox presented new language. He suggested instead of putting in at the end of the first 10 years, the end of 5 years, at the end of build out, you left that out and you said, “the final development order shall include phasing of the capital and operational cost a mechanism for monitoring and a mechanism for assuring fiscal neutrality.” What you are saying is, there is a requirement that for the SRA is an appropriate agreement that includes monitoring phasing, monitoring and reconciliation. Com. Coward asked if they were wishing to eliminate any reference to a time period. 17 Mr. Cox stated, the time period gets set in the development order and they have an opportunity to show the Board the model, talk about it and figure out something that will actually work as part of the development order. Instead of saying it will be every 2 years or there will be a bond posted, leaving open how it is done, but saying it has to be done. He stated, it is not saying they are changing the approach, it gives them the ability to actually use real data, real information to craft a real agreement, rather than agreeing or trying to negotiate some language sight un seen. It’ s following the, it’s got to be fiscally neutral from day one following the concept. There has to be an ability to sit with the County Administrator and say, “let’s understand what we are looking at.” Com. Coward stated this is a broader goal in the Comprehensive Plan, let’s just simply say it is going to be “fiscally neutral from day one” acknowledging that as we move forward with the development order, we are going to work out the details and if you are agreeing to that, then we do not have an issue. Mr. Cox stated, what he is saying is “place the period at the end of capital and operational costs”., and then they will work through the details. Com. Craft stated he believes this does make sure we keep this project fiscally neutral, it just allows it in a different part of the program. Com. Coward sated he did not care where it’s done, as long as it is clear tonight that it is going to be fiscally neutral from day one. The County Attorney address the first sentence and stated the Board may want to delete the words, “as a whole” place a period after the word, “cost” and the final development order will identify phasing, provide monitoring and identify measures to assure fiscal neutrality, then you can continue and strike “at the end of the first 10 years and every 5 years after at the horizon build out.” Then start the demonstration would be made and going on to the next section something with number 2 because they are the ones who suggested the 10 years and the 5 years and it should say, “ the monitoring of fiscal neutrality.” Com. Hutchinson questioned if this conflicted with the state requirements of Rural Land Stewardship with regards to monitoring. The County Attorney stated he is not aware of any requirements for monitoring. The County Attorney reiterated his recommended language to policy 4.16 the first line would remain the same, the second line would remain the same, the Board should consider whether to take out the words “as a whole”, stop the sentence after “cost”, strike the rest of the sentence, “ at the end of the first 10 years all the way through build out paren, insert a sentence after the word “cost” period, that says, “ the final development order shall identify phasing, provide for monitoring and shall identify measures to assure fiscal neutrality.” Continue with the word, “this demonstration shall be made ( and continue on), Com. Smith stated he was comfortable with this language as did Com. Hutchinson and Com. Lewis. The County Attorney continued. The next paragraph, sub-paragraph two, referencing 10 year and 5 year, he inserted, “ the monitoring of fiscal neutrality (period). The intent is to defer a negotiation of these issues on how to achieve fiscal neutrality to the front of the development order. Com. Coward stated, with the understanding they will be seeking it through out the project. The County Attorney stated in the affirmative. 18 Com. Craft asked Mr. Cox if he was okay with what was presented which is also practically verbatim what he has on the paper. Mr. Cox stated, he has some people who are not okay wit h it, but he is trying to help the Board come to some language that he will have to deal with them once they see what the Board has does. For the record, he stated he does not have unanimity on that language, but it seems that may be the way to help the Board get where ….. , he is not agreeing to it, he is trying to help facilitate. Com. Coward asked rather than going through the same item changes, they can take a focus on the revised language. The County Attorney stated, “ yes, they are looking at policy 1.10, policy 4.6 , policy 4.13, RSL Figure 4, and policy 4.16 as read. “ It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith to approve staff recommendation as stated by Counsel, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Aye’s: Hutchinson, Lewis, Smith, Craft; Nay, Coward, motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Com. Hutchinson stated, “ she hopes this would not be one of those “ would of, should of, could of that they will all look back on and regret. 2. GROWTH MANGEMENT/STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECT Continue second reading of Ordinance No.06-030 adopting land development regulations to apply to property generally located within the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Zone boundary - Consider staff recommendation to approve with conditions the proposed LDR’s through the adoption of Ordinance No. 06-030. The two earlier items dealing with the LDR’s was the language with Economic Development, and the second was 4.05.07. Com. Lewis pointed out that also # 4 matrix had to be revised. The County Attorney stated he would like to place the language for 4.05.07 in the purpose and intent portion and in 4.05.07 this is the language they spoke of and it mirrors what they just agreed to do in policy 1.10. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Ordinance No. 06- 030as amended, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Aye’s: Lewis, Hutchinson, Craft, Smith, Nay: Coward; motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. _______________ Chairman ________________ Clerk of Circuit Court 19 20 21 22