HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-25-2008
St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes
1
2300 Virginia Avenue
2
Administration Building
3
Conference Room Number 3
4
April 25, 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 9:05 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 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida
25 Ed Lounds............................Commissioner Grande Appointee
26 Joseph G. Miller...................Commissioner Smith Appointee
27 Jim Russakis.........................Cattlemen’s Association
28 Chris Smith..........................Commissioner Craft Appointee
29 Pete Spyke............................Owner of less than 160 Acres
30 Matthew L. Wynne...............Owner of more than 160 Acres
31
Committee Members Absent:
32
33 Chuck Olson.........................Commissioner Coward Appointee
34 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member
35 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee
36
Staff Members Present
37
38 Peter Jones (9:20-9:50).........Planning Manager
39 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant
40
Others Present
41
42 Chris Craft (9:50-10:15).......Commissioner District 5
43
REVIEW OF REVISED MINUTES FROM MARCH 28, 2008
44
45
Page 1 of 8
Ms. Andrews
1 noted a correction of Commissioner Grande’s district in the attendance
Mr. Lounds Ms. Andrews
2 section.motioned for approval of the minutes as corrected.
3 seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4
REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 18, 2008
5
6
Mr. Corrick Mr. Ridgely
7 decreed removal and correction of several words; made a
Mr. Miller
8 motion to approve the minutes as revised; seconded and the motion carried
9 unanimously.
10
NEW BUSINESS
11
12
Mr. Ridgely
13 reported to the committee on the status of St. Lucie County’s EAR process.
14 He said Mr. Joneswould give him a copy of the report to share with the committee when
15 it becomes ready.
16
Mr. Ridgely
17 As Mr. Corrick stepped out to speak with Mr. Jones, asked the committee if
18 anyone had any indication when the Board would opine on the suggestions in the
Mr. Miller
19 committee’s preliminary report. He said he would like feedback on the report.
20 said the vote they got from the commission after reading the report spoke for itself. He
21 said the committee was lucky to get a 3-2 vote, it seems that the 2 aren’t happy with the
22 work the committee has done so far.
23
24 (Mr. Corrick stepped out of the meeting around 9:10)
25
Mr. Ridgely
26 suggested the committee request the Board respond to the preliminary
27 report. He said Resolution 08-137 that extends the life of the committee indefinitely
28 reiterates the committee has to give the Board the fiscal impacts of any proposed
29 recommendation which he doesn’t know that this committee is qualified to do, but he
30 thinks it should be addressed.
31
Mr. Russakis
32 mentioned the money Commissioner Coward asked be allocated for the
Mr.
33 TDR research and said he thought the money was already allocated for a consultant.
Ridgely
34 said the money was actually coming out of the TPO and not the county budget.
35
36 (Mr. Corrick returned with Mr. Jones around 9:15)
37
Mr. Jones
38 told the committee he had another meeting scheduled so he would need to
39 leave before 10:00.
40
Mr. Corrick
41 proposed the group give direction to staff to draft an ordinance rather than
42 have the group try to draft one, then staff can present back to the group. He also said staff
43 could answer each member’s questions rather than the committee discussed whether or
44 not they think it is a good idea.
45
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Ridgely Mr. Jones
1 asked if Mr. Jones had more information on the EAR report. said
2 it came in today, and is a 350 page draft report. He said the list of issues came from the
3 consultant to Growth Management, and they reviewed it and sent it to DCA. He said the
4 point is to make sure that all the issues and background information pertaining to
5 assessing the Comp Plan are taken into consideration. He told the committee that this is
6 the working book that will become the basis for changes that we will make to the Comp
7 Plan over the next year and a half; so some of the things the committee is talking about
8 regarding changes will be part of the next 18 month process.
9
Mr. Corrick
10 asked if this committee were to make recommendations that were found to
11 be inconsistent with the recommendations of the EAR report, would the recommendation
Mr. Jones
12 be rejected. said the EAR report is simply an assessment of how the Comp
13 Plan has worked for the last 7 years. He said he does not think what the committee is
14 doing is a little different than the EAR recommendations, but it is worth taking a look at
15 so the committee may see where the interface may or may not be.
16
Mr. Corrick
17 said he raised the idea of non-contiguous PUD’s at the last meeting. He said
18 in a PUD you’re transferring development rights from a piece of land that you perhaps
19 could not develop like wetlands to an upland portion, you’re moving the development
20 rights. He said if he could plat his acres in an area where density is appropriate, and take
21 Mr. Ridgely’s property which he doesn’t want to develop, if he plats Mr. Ridgely’s
22 property as a portion of his PUD, can he move the density rights off of Mr. Ridgely’s on
23 to his, and if so, how, and with what limitations. He said it would be something outside of
24 the domain of the county except that they would sign off on the plat. He said it would be
25 platting a PUD where some of those acres are not contiguous and not to be developed as
26 part of the development.He said it is like TDR light because TDR’s are complicated, but
27 if we have a completely market-driven thing where all the county has to do is record the
28 fact that those rights are no longer there, maybe that’s an incentive to come out of straight
29 platting into something else.
30
Mr. Jones
31 said the two issues he is sensing from the commission are open space
32 preservation and avoiding sprawl, sorting that out is critical.
33
Mr. Corrick
34 said what he is asking is can we plat non-contiguous PUD’s and if we can,
35 how, and if not, what needs to change to get there; then we can look at the open space
36 issue.
37
Mr. Wynne
38 said he thinks part two is we should be able to sell the open space.
39
Mr. Lounds
40 said he thinks what he hears from the commission is increased density
41 rights; transferring a density right from one piece and increasing that right to another
42 owner’s piece two-fold or five fold. He said he thinks the commission will accept one
43 right to one right better than increased density. He asked if you transfer open space
44 credits, it should be transferred for open space so open space does not become a
45 multiplier or a residential piece. He said it is still limiting development rights on the
46 sender and clusters those rights on the receiver.
Page 3 of 8
Mr. Corrick
1 said he wanted to use the tools we already have in a slightly different way
2 to make the new system work. He said he wanted to treat the two different parcels as
3 though they were one piece. He said he thinks there will have to be some sort of upward
4 limit, and he thinks step two would be finding thresholds. He said he would contemplate
5 the ag PUD ordinance would say something like “a property may have a non-contiguous
6 portion included in the PUD so that up to x- percent of the original entitlement is located
7 on that receiving portion of the PUD”.
8
Mr. Russakis Mr. Corrick
9 asked if a TDR program would suffice. said a TDR program
10 would involve defining new rights and new mechanisms for moving those rights, and he
11 wants to use what we have with no new rules or concepts. He said we would plat and
12 record an easement of some sort so that the county and everybody on the plat will have
13 the right to enforce that right. He said you can sell your 150 acres as a single home or two
14 homes or whatever is reserved with 150 acres behind it, but you can’t subdivide it
15 somewhere down the road.
16
Mr. Corrick
17 suggested everyone email their questions to Mr. Jones since he had to
18 leave.
19
Mr. Jones
20 said one of the issues he has heard in the last few weeks is the recognition of
21 clustering development throughout the western lands with the 80-20 isn’t necessarily the
22 best answer. He said platting subdivisions all throughout the western lands isn’t the right
23 answer either; somewhere out there, there is a better answer, and we have time and an
24 opportunity to find that. He said the trick is to come up with some valid, real, politically
25 acceptable and acceptable to the folks who are worried about the traffic and the other
26 things that will come along.
27
28 (Commissioner Craft arrived around 9:50)
29 (Mr. Jones left around 9:53)
30
Mr. Russakis
31 said we should look into transferring the density throughout the county
Mr. Ridgely
32 into the municipalities where it could be used rather than just the ag areas.
33 said inside the urban service boundary there is already land use they generally don’t need
34 density there.
35
Ms. Andrews
36 suggested asking Commissioner Craft about Mr. Corrick’s idea for a non-
Mr. Corrick
37 contiguous PUD. explained the concept as he did for Mr. Jones.
38
Commissioner Craft
39 said he doesn’t have an issue with it. He said he thinks we need to
40 be working toward a goal of sustainability. He said he had an issue with Mr. Lounds’
Mr. Lounds
41 statement of forcing the development rights into the urban service boundary.
42 clarified he wanted it to be an option, not forced. Commissioner Craft said he doesn’t
43 have an opinion one way or another right now, but one of the unintended consequences
44 we have to consider is would it be so stringent we would be forcing the development
45 community to seek annexation to get around the TDR program.
46
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Corrick
1 said if you want to build something with 150 units out in the western lands,
2 you will have to put roads, and deal with water, sewer and drainage issues; if you can
3 find a way to move those rights in where the services already are you have saved a lot of
4 money. He said if the road is there and there is 20 years of expanded density capacity to
5 be used on that road, that’s the incentive program.
6
Mr. Wynne
7 said if the lots are over ½ acre you will have well and septic which is
Mr. Corrick
8 cheaper than water and sewer. said that is one of the problems that got us
9 here because with the 80% open space, you could end up with a piece of land in the
10 western areas where you can’t build something large enough for septic. He said he wants
11 to see if with the tools we have if there is a lower tech, less complicated way to do some
12 of the things we’re trying to get done without TDR’s.
13
Mr. Wynne
14 said a TDR program won’t work in essence because people can annex into
15 each city.
16
Commissioner Craft
17 said to be careful of what you understand as the tool for
18 annexation; though Fort Pierce likes to use it, that is not their greatest leverage, their
19 greatest leverage is increasing density. He said utilities are irrelevant with annexation
20 unless it is an existing structure. He said he thinks we have to find a balance that will
21 require a relationship with each of the cities and a flexible enough program so that we
22 don’t send developers running to the cities for annexation.
23
24 (Commissioner Craft left around 10:15)
25
Mr. Russakis
26 said what Mr. Corrick is talking about is a [Rural Land Stewardship] less
Mr. Harrison
27 the multiplier. explained under Stewardship, you have to decide what
28 society really wants saved, and it is incentive based. He said the more Adams Ranch
29 strips down their layers to protect it forever and take on a huge financial obligation that
30 they or successive owners will protect it, they get more multipliers. He said if society
31 wants the conservation they have to reward the land owners to do that, and it is
32 complicated.
33
Mr. Corrick
34 said there is no legal prohibition for both a city and the county to sign a
35 plat; though it would be difficult for land in the county to be platted with land inside the
36 city.
37
Mr. Ridgely
38 said this is an academic exercise because the city doesn’t need density, and
39 they would let a parcel in that they have more control over. He said it would be more
40 likely to happen outside the USB. Hesaid we need to see if the mechanism works and it
41 is a baby step toward a TDR.
42
Mr. Corrick
43 said he thinks we talked about three tiers where you’ve got a right, then the
44 next tier up would have some incentive to make that less attractive. The third tier would
45 be TDR’s which is more complicated.
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Russakis
1 said we have to start with the premise of asking the county not to give
2 density away and make the density come from a land west of town they want to preserve.
3
4 The group continued to discuss the mechanics of Mr. Corrick’s suggestion.
5
Mr. Wynne
6 said instead of having an incentive for density, we could lift open space
7 requirements as an incentive, since increasing the size of the parcel doesn’t create any big
8 lots, and does not increase density.
9
Mr. Johnson
10 suggested the group change the code so that the open space requirements
11 change.
12
13 (Mr. Russakis left at around 10:38)
14
Mr. Ridgely
15 gave the group a summary of recommendations for discussion. He
16 suggested replacing the word “yard” with “lot” in discussions. He also suggested creating
17 a chart based Table 7-10 for application in the by-right. He said the group should create a
18 framework with clear rules so it will save time and money in negotiations between the
19 applicant and the county. He also suggested lots less than 5 acres have 85% counted
20 toward open space; lots 5 acres and over, 90%.
21
22 The committee discussed specifics of Mr. Ridgely’s suggestion.
23
Mr. Wynne
24 presented the group with an excerpt of the Land Development Code
25 referring to open space in a PUD in the AG 2.5 and AG 5 areas that he changed.
26
27 The group discussed the details of Mr. Wynne’s changes to the LDC, and modified it
28 slightly.
29
30 (Mr. Lounds left around 11:00)
31
Mr. Johnson Mr. Corrick
32 asked if the group were charged with AG 1, and read the
Mr.
33 passage of the LDC that says it refers to any agricultural future land use category.
Ridgely
34 suggested the chart he is proposing reference only 1 acre lots in AG 2.5 and AG
Mr. Corrick
35 5 PUD’s since the group is not charged with AG 1. added one acre lots in a
36 PUD have nothing to do with AG 1.
37
Mr. Ridgely
38 proposed he put a chart together for the next meeting. The group then
39 discussed the mathematics involved for the table to show buildable area and open space.
40
Mr. Wynne
41 asked if the definition of the lot to be counted as open space included
42 impervious areas. He suggested the numbers for buildable area should be made larger and
Mr. Corrick
43 call it impervious space. suggested saying no more than 10% may be
44 impervious, and all but 15% will be counted as open space. He said the criticism will be
45 that we have tremendously increased what you can have as impervious space, and
46 counted everything else as open space, and he believes what the committee is not trying
Page 6 of 8
1 to say we are increasing what you can build; we’re just trying to say a certain portion,
2 likely above what anybody would build, should be of-right counted as open space.
3
4 The group continued to discuss calculations in relation to the proposed table.
5
Mr. Ridgely
6 suggested an example as a compromise with the county: in a large lot (5
7 acres or greater) where there is 90% to count as open space, only 10% can be built on, up
8 to 5% of the 90% can be impervious surface like a driveway or pool; if you go above
9 that, you lose open space.
10
Mr. Miller
11 suggested saying 10% should be buildable area and 10% should be
12 impervious surface, and no one may have less than the 80% threshold of open space on
13 any lot size.
14
Mr. Corrick
15 suggested adding a restriction on the plat that ensures a portion stays as
16 open space.
17
Mr. Johnson
18 suggested including buildable area and impervious surfaces onto the chart
19 Mr. Ridgely will prepare.
20
Mr. Ridgely
21 said the group should sit down with a planner to see if the numbers make
22 sense. He suggested the group run it by Mr. Jones, and he said he would ask one or two
23 private planners he knows if they would help.
24
Mr. Johnson
25 asked if the 80% threshold is a combination between private and common
Mr. Ridgely
26 open space. clarified the math using 35% common, and 80% of the
27 remaining 65% (52%) ends up with a total open space of 87%.
28
Mr. Ridgely
29 said a sliding scale would probably work out better, because of the value of
30 lots with a mix of lot sizes within the PUD. He said a sliding scale will help the original
31 land owner maximize his value without having to bias it to a particular lot size.
32
Mr. Ridgely
33 said the chart will be a starting point, because the PUD is all negotiated.
34
Mr. Miller
35 said the committee should clarify some of the code language so there cannot
36 be more than one opinion of what it means.
37
38 The committee returned to discussion modifying Mr. Wynn’s LDC excerpt to refer to that
39 portion of the lots that will be counted as open space.
40
Mr. Ridgely
41 said you will create more value and flexibility for a land owner if you have
42 a sliding scale so you will have more percentages of open space and other things to work
Mr. Johnson
43 with when negotiating with the county to do a PUD. agreed.
44
45 The committee discussed presenting the 80% and sliding scale options to staff for input.
46
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Corrick
1 suggested adding something that says no less than the 80% may not be built
2 upon, and should be acknowledged as open space.
3
4 (Mr. Johnson left around 11:55)
5
6 The completed draft of the changes proposed by the committee is as follows:
7
8 St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 7.01.03.I
9
10 2. A Planned Unit Development that is proposed in any Agricultural Future Land Use
11 Category shall conform to the following open space standards:
12
13 a. For any Planned Unit Development, equal to or less than 160 acres in
14 gross area and involving eight (8) or less lots or parcels, a minimum of
15 50% of the gross land area to be committed to the planned unit
16 development must be for use as open space, of which 35% of the gross
17 land area is to be retained as common open space.
18
19 For any Planned Unit Development, greater than 160 acres in gross area
20 or eight (8) divisions, a minimum of 80% of the gross land area to be
21 committed to the planned unit development must be for use as open space,
22 of which a minimum of 35% of the gross land area is to be retained as
23 common open space.
24
25 Open space in an agricultural PUD, includes, but is not limited to,
26 residential lots (as limited herein below), parks, bicycle and pedestrian
27 paths and facilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common recreation
28 areas , common open space, common landscaping and planting areas,
29 pastures and productive agricultural areas which may be held in either
30 common interest, individual interest, or other areas of public purpose or
31 use other than street, road or drainage rights-of-way, common parking
32 areas and above ground utilities, excluding stormwater treatment
33 facilities. That portion of a residential lot which is restricted and may not
34 be built upon shall be counted as open space.
35
36 The committee confirmed the next meeting date and time: Friday, May 9, 2008 9:00 a.m.
37
The meeting was adjourned around 12:00 PM
38
Page 8 of 8