HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-27-2009
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
1
SMART GROWTH ADVISORY AD HOC COMMITTEE
2
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
3
2300 Virginia Avenue
4
Growth Management
5
Conference Room One
6
March 27, 2009
7
10:00 A.M.
8
9
10
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along
11
with these minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written
12
summary minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control.
13
CALL TO ORDER
14
Chairman Trias called the meeting to order at 10:07 A.M.
15
16
ROLL CALL
17
Ramon Trias ................................. Chairman
18
Mary Chapman ............................. Vice-Chair
19
Sam Comer .................................. Committee Member
20
Rick Reikenis ............................... Committee Member
21
(Arrived 10:09 AM)
David Kelly ................................... Committee Member
22
Noreen S. Dreyer ......................... Committee Member
23
Patricia A. Ferrick ......................... Committee Member
24
Marty Sanders ............................. Committee Member
25
Michael Houston .......................... Committee Member
26
(Arrived 10:34 AM)
27
MEMBER ABSENT:
28
Marty Sanders .............................. Committee Member
29
Larry Storms ................................ Committee Member
30
31
STAFF PRESENT
32
Kara Wood…………………………Planning Manager, TVC
33
Britton Wilson ……………………. Senior Planner
34
Diana Waite .................................. Senior Planner
35
(Arrived 10:54 AM)
36
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
37
H.M. Ridgeley
38
39
ANNOUNCEMENTS
40
None
41
42
1.Review the minutes from the March 13, 2009 meeting for approval.
43
44
Mr. Trias called for discussion of the minutes from the March 13, 2009
45
meeting.
46
47
1 of 7
Ms. Ferrick asked that on page 6 of 7 line 1, the wording be changed from
1
required to encouraged.
2
3
Ms. Dreyer asked for corrections of typos on pages 3 of 7 and 4 of 7. She
4
also asked for changes to the wording of her comments on page 3 of 7 lines
5
32-35.
6
7
Mr. Trias called for any further comments.
8
9
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes with corrections.
10
11
The motion carried unanimously.
12
13
2.Staff Updates
14
15
Ms. Wood informed the Smart Growth Ccommittee (“the Committee”) of
16
conversations she has had with Administration regarding the Committee’s
17
current progress and position/function after making Smart Growth
18
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (“the Board”).
19
20
Mr. Trias stated that he thinks that the Committee will meet with the Board
21
starting in April, and after having one or two meetings with the Board the
22
Committee would sunset.
23
24
Ms. Ferrick asked about Mr. Kelly’s comments on the Land Development
25
Code (LDC).
26
27
Mr. Trias stated that he expected Mr. Kelly to be finished commenting on the
28
LDC by then.
29
30
Ms. Ferrick stated that making recommendations to the LDC is a lot of work.
31
32
Mr. Kelly clarified the intent and extent of the work he would be providing on
33
the LDC.
34
35
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if presenting a memorandum with direction for
36
corrections to LDC to the Board was within a realistic time frame.
37
38
Mr. Kelly stated that he thinks it is, but would like to wait until the committee
39
has had a chance to look at and discuss his recommendations.
40
41
Mr. Trias said that more time could be taken if necessary, but he wouldn’t
42
want to wait as late as December to get recommendations to the Board.
43
44
2 of 7
Committee members discussed with Ms. Wood the possibility of being on the
1
April’s Informal Meeting agenda as discussed during the previous Committee
2
meeting.
3
4
Ms. Wood stated that after having conversations with Administration it is not
5
100% confirmed that there is availability on the April’s Informal agenda, but
6
that it is a possibility, and she will follow up. She also recommended that the
7
Committee still prepare to be on the April agenda and that after she speaks
8
further with the Assistant County Administrator she will be able to discuss the
9
format of the meeting with the Committee.
10
11
Mr. Trias agreed that the Committee needed to be ready to propose
12
something concrete, specific recommendations to the Board.
13
14
3.Discussion items.
15
16
A. Review revised Smart Growth Draft Recommendations
17
18
Ms. Wood provided a memorandum to the Committee summarizing the
19
Committee’s wishes to include Ms. Ferrick’s comments and Ms. Dreyer’s
20
edits from the March 13, 2009 meeting, and a detailed edited list from the
21
draft recommendations from the previous months. Ms. Wood also included
22
on page 5 of the recommendations some possible implementation strategies
23
for Smart Growth. These strategies include:
24
25
?
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
26
practices as a recommendation
27
?
Smart Code or other fForm-based Code
28
?
Neighborhoods and Districts Elements
29
30
Ms. Wood explained, as a final draft document for recommendations to the
31
Board she has prepared the framework of the memo to provide a
32
methodological approach through the use of an eExecutive summary,
33
detailed list and possible implementation strategies as discussed by the
34
Committee. She also asked the Committee for objections and suggestions as
35
to the presentation and layout of these documents.
36
37
Ms. Ferrick expressed her concern about Mr. Storm’s suggestions regarding
38
recommending alternative ways to approach flood elevations not being in the
39
memo.
40
41
It was established that Mr. Storm’s recommendations had been included on
42
page 3 of 5 item 1e and page 4 of 5 item g; however, Ms. Ferrick was missing
43
a part of the memo prior to the meeting and was not able to look at the rest of
44
the document until the day of the meeting.
45
46
3 of 7
The Committee agreed that Mr. Storm’s Comments were adequately
1
projected in the memo.
2
3
Mr. Tirias called for any other comments.
4
5
Ms. Dreyer expressed concerns about requiring developers to perform a
6
nNeeds -Bbased analysis for all developments outside of the Urban Service
7
Boundary when certain Land Use designations were already on the property.
8
9
Ms. Wood said that the particular language in the document focuses on
10
someone who may want to perform a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but
11
could be reworded if the Committee chooses to. She also stated that in
12
theory, a needs- based analysis is a requirement for Future Land Use
13
changes and that staff are especially looking at these types of requirements in
14
the Western Lands Study.
15
16
Ms Dreyer stated that if it is already required then she didn’t see the need to
17
include it in the memo.
18
19
Ms. Wood referred to Ms. Wilson, the Comprehensive Senior Planner to help
20
answer Ms. Dreyer’s question.
21
22
Ms. Wilson explained that it wouldn’t hurt to have duplicate language that
23
backs up the intent and necessity of requiring a nNeeds -Bbased analysis for
24
Comprehensive Plan changes.
25
26
Ms. Wood stated that the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specify that a nNeeds-
27
Bbased analysis is required, and that most developers don’t expect that they
28
should be producing that type of analysis when submitting applications for
29
Comp Plan changes.
30
31
Ms. Ferrick and Ms. Dreyer clarified that in that section Future Land Use
32
Amendments should be added to the memo instead of developments.
33
34
Ms. Dreyer also expressed her concern about item 1c, “Develop land-use
35
analysis of redevelopment potential…”
36
37
In response to Ms. Dreyer’s concern, the following summarized points of
38
discussion ensued:
39
40
?
Ms. Dreyer raised concerns about problems that could be caused by
41
exposing the redevelopment potential for existing developments, which
42
could lead to lack of development capacity and non-useful costly
43
studies being done on properties that are already developed. Ms.
44
Dreyer also stated that focus needs to be on the infill potential of
45
4 of 7
undeveloped property rather than on property that is already
1
developed.
2
?
Ms. Chapman raised concerns about the language in item 1c creating
3
a possible loop hole, allowing developers to counter act the purpose
4
for which it was intended.
5
?
Mr. Trias suggested clarity of the language to ensure that these
6
concerns are addressed and that explicit language should be
7
constructed to convey the need of trained professionals in specific
8
disciplines such as engineering, architecture, drainage, etc. to make
9
interpretations of the language with in the code.
10
?
Mr. Comer raised the point that the development potential of all
11
development areas needs to be considered in order to recognize
12
properties that may be underdeveloped as well as undeveloped to
13
efficiently project proper growth potential.
14
?
Mr. Kelly suggested verifying the areas up front that need to be
15
studied.
16
?
Ms. Wood raised the point that the redevelopment potential for
17
developed and undeveloped property may not be that it is distinct from
18
each other, but the two may interact simultaneously with each other.
19
?
Mr. Reikenis commented that maybe the language in the memo just
20
comes off as a little vague, but he looks at visiting redevelopment
21
potential as a transition process to redevelop urban areas, etc.
22
?
Mr. Trias stated that Ms. Wood’s suggestions to add some language
23
and combine other language would be very helpful.
24
25
Mr. Trias ended the discussion and asked if there is a county- wide process
26
or strategy for dealing with TDR’s. He also suggested that recommendations
27
for developing a county wide TDR program be included in the Committee’s
28
recommendations.
29
30
The Committee agreed to the implementation of recommendations in the
31
memo.
32
33
Mr. Kelly asked that the revisions to the memo be made in sStrike through
34
and uUnderline format so that the committee could vote on it.
35
36
Mr. Trias also asked Ms. Wood to draft some language for the TDR program
37
as well.
38
39
Ms. Ferrick had a question about the recommendation to require smaller
40
right-of-ways and pavement widths. She stated that once right-of-way is lost
41
the County can not go back and get it.
42
43
Mr. Trias stated that the County’s right-of-way requirements are excessive
44
and do not need to be increased. In his opinion, increasing right-of-way does
45
not lead to a solution to the roadway issues. He also stated that instead of
46
5 of 7
focusing on arterial roads and requiring more right- of-way, focus needs to be
1
placed on better interconnectivity of the roadways. Furthermore, he does
2
recognize that there are some roadways that need to be widened, and feels
3
that the committee needs to leave the recommendation for the item under
4
discussion the way it is.
5
6
Mrs. Chapman suggested that the Committee recommend a future roadway
7
network to accommodate expected growth.
8
9
Mr. Comer also stated that acquiring wider roadways do not solve the
10
problem.
11
12
Mr. Reikenis stated that roadways with better networking and interconnectivity
13
would lead to improved roadway conditions.
14
15
Mr. Houston asked Ms. Wood about the roadway network for the TVC and if
16
there will be recommendations for a better roadway network for the County.
17
18
Ms. Wood stated that she has been in conversation with the County’s
19
Engineering department and the TPO (Transportation Planning Organization)
20
about how to factor in a roadway network study for better connectivity, but it
21
really doesn’t get to the level of Comprehensive Planning until you have
22
something mapped out, which is easier to do in the TVC where there wasn’t
23
development and harder to do where there is existing development.
24
25
Mr. Houston stated that he thinks it should be a part of the recommendation
26
to study where the road network should be.
27
28
Mr. Comer stated thate storm drainages, etc. should also be included.
29
30
Ms. Wood asked if the Committee wanted to revise the language to included
31
language for a tThoroughfare protection and long-range plan.
32
33
Mr. Trias suggested including additional language that talks about an overall
34
street network plan.
35
36
Mr. Houston aAgreed.
37
38
Mr. Trias called for further comments onf the discussion.
39
40
Ms. Dreyer clarified that the position on incorporating LEED and the Florida
41
Green Building Coalition in the Land Development Code was just to
42
encourage developers to use some of the standards instead of requiring them
43
to go out and get certified by private companies.
44
45
6 of 7
Mr. Trias answered in the affirmative; he stated that he would never support
1
the idea that developers would be mandated to get certified by private
2
companies, just that it gives developers a lot of good options for better
3
development.
4
5
Mr. Comer asked if there were any other good ideas within the TVC that
6
would be good to add to the recommendations.
7
8
Mr. Trias stated that except for the implementation of the use of TDR’s, the
9
recommendations look pretty thorough to him and that if anybody had
10
additional recommendations he is sure Ms. Wood would be available to take
11
them.
12
13
A discussion ensued about the use of TDR’s within the county.
14
15
After the discussion Mr. Trias called for further comments on the Memo.
16
17
B. Preparation for possible presentation at the April informal BOCC
18
19
A discussion ensued about the Committee’s up coming presentation and
20
request to go the April’s Informal meeting.
21
22
The Committee agreed to present three or four short and long term goals to
23
the Board in a twenty to thirty minute presentation.
24
25
4. Other Business
26
27
Mr. Kelly presented a draft document to identify and make suggestions for
28
revisions to the Land Development code. Thus far, the document included
29
suggestions for revisions to chapters 1-4 & 7-9.
30
31
After Mr. Kelly’s presentation members of the Committee made suggestions
32
of things they felt needed to be add to the recommended revisions and how
33
they would included them into the existing documents to be presented to the
34
Board.
35
36
The Committee concluded that they would only include general
37
recommendations that impeded Smart Growth in the existing documents and
38
all other recommendations would be given to County staff.
39
40
The Committee made final comments and decided that the implementation of
41
a time frame for the completion of the Committee’s recommendations will be
42
discussed in the next Smart Growth meeting.
43
44
This meeting adjourned at 11:35 AM
45
46
7 of 7