HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-08-2009
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 27May 8, 2009, 10:00 A.M.
7
8
9
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these minutes as
10
part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written summary minutes and the compact disc, the
11
compact disc shall prevailcontrol.
12
13
CALL TO ORDER
14
Chairman Trias called the meeting to order at 10:067 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 (arrived 10:09 AM)
21
David Kelly........................................ Committee Member
22
Marty SandersNoreen S. Dreyer ....... Committee Member
23
Patricia A. Ferrick ............................. Committee Member
24
Marty Sanders ................................. Committee Member
25
(Arrived 10:34 AM)
Michael Houston ............................... Committee Member
26
27
MEMBER ABSENT:
28
Noreen S. DreyerMarty Sanders ....... Committee Member
29
Larry Storms ..................................... Committee Member
30
Michael Houston ............................... Committee Member
31
32
33
34
STAFF PRESENT
35
Kara Wood........................................ Planning Manager
36
Britton Wilson ……………………. Senior Planner
37
(Arrived 10:54 AM)
Diana Waite ...................................... Senior Planner
38
39
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
40
H.M. Ridgely
41
42
ANNOUNCEMENTS
43
44
Ms. Wood informed the Committee that staff did a presentation at the last informal BOCC
45
meeting on the proposed frame work for a Wwestern Llands Planning sStudy where
46
different options were presented to the Board to select a lead consultant to do the study.
47
She also informed them that the presentation was posted on the Growth Management’s
48
website with a link for any comments if they were interested.
49
None
50
51
1.Review and approve minutes of March 27, 2009 meeting.
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 1 of 9
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 3"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 3",
Left,Leader: + Not at 3.5"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Bold,
Not All caps
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Bold
1
Review and approve summary of April 10, 2009 meeting.
2
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Bold
3
Review the minutes from the May 8March 13, 2009 meeting for approval.
4
5
Mr. Trias called for discussion of the minutes from the March 27 and April 1013, 2009
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Bold
6
meetings.
7
8
9
MMs. Ferrick asked that on page 6 of 7 line 1, the wording be changed from required to
10
encouraged. wanted to make note that the minutes from the April 10, 2009 meeting seemed
11
to be inclusive and that she understood it was due to equipment failure; however she did
12
want the minutes to reflect the changes that were discussed.
13
14
Mr. Trias recommend that the issues be readdressed and noted in this meeting’s minutes.
15
16
The committee agreed and the minutes were approved unanimously.
17
18
2.
19
20
Ms. Dreyer asked for corrections of typos on pages 3 of 7 and 4 of 7. She also asked
21
for changes to the wording of her comments on page 3 of 7 lines 32-35.
22
23
Mr. Trias called for any further comments.
24
25
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes with corrections.
26
27
The motion carried unanimously.
28
29
2. Staff Updates
30
31
32
A complete version of the LDC will be available through Munic-Code in June.
33
34
Ms. Wood informed the Smart Growth Committee (“the Committee”) of conversations she
35
has had with Administration regarding the Committee’s current progress and
36
position/function after making Smart Growth recommendations to the Board of County
37
Commissioners (“the Board”).
38
39
Mr. Trias stated that he thinks that the Committee will meet with the Board starting in April,
40
and after having one or two meetings with the Board the Committee would sunset.
41
42
Ms. Ferrick asked about Mr. Kelly’s comments on the Land Development Code (LDC).
43
44
Mr. Trias stated that he expected Mr. Kelly to be finished commenting on the LDC by then.
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
45
46
Ms. Ferrick stated that making recommendations to the LDC is a lot of work.
47
48
Mr. Kelly clarified the intent and extent of the work he would be providing on the LDC.
49
50
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if presenting a memorandum with direction for corrections to LDC
51
to the Board was within a realistic time frame.
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 2 of 9
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
1
2
Mr. Kelly stated that he thinks it is, but would like to wait until the committee has had a
3
chance to look at and discuss his recommendations.
4
5
Mr. Trias said that more time could be taken if necessary, but he wouldn’t want to wait as
6
late as December to get recommendations to the Board.
7
8
Committee members discussed with Ms. Wood the possibility of being on the April’s Informal
9
Meeting agenda as discussed during the previous Committee meeting.
10
11
Ms. Wood stated that after having conversations with Administration it is not 100%
12
confirmed that there is availability on the April’s Informal agenda, but that it is a possibility,
13
and she will follow up. She also recommended that the Committee still prepare to be on the
14
April agenda and that after she speaks further with the Assistant County Administrator she
15
will be able to discuss the format of the meeting with the Committee.
16
17
Mr. Trias agreed that the Committee needed to be ready to propose something concrete,
18
specific recommendations to the Board.
19
20
33.Discussion items.
21
22
A. Review, amend if necessary and approve revised revised Smart Growth Draft
23
Recommendations
24
25
Mr. Trias called for the discussion of any outstanding issues in the draft recommendations
th
26
that needed to be finalized before presenting them to the Board at the May 26 informal
27
BOCC meeting.
28
29
Mr. Sanders presented the following items for consideration.
30
?
31
Page 3 (17) - recommended including the word “only” to clarify that fill may be
32
needed
?
33
Page 4 (h) - recommended including the word “transportation” to clarify that this
34
statement is directed toward transportation concurrency
?
35
Page 4 (i) - consider and develop location based transportation impact fees…
?
36
Page 4 (2)(h) - under Density and Urban Form- Identify areas or locations for
37
transit hubs…
?
38
Page 5 (2)(a)(b) and (c) - under Density and Urban Form- creating overlay for
39
mass transit, establish public policy to do parking garages, transit facilities, and
40
funding thru impact fees, special assessment programs or CRA type programs
?
41
Page 6 (e) - require sidewalks within all new residential and commercial
42
development outside of the Urban Service Area
?
43
Page 6 (i) - update ROW protection map to address local street network
44
connectivity.
45
46
From the above comments a discussion about Sidewalk / Pedestrian paths ensued
47
and the following comments were made:
48
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 3 of 9
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Superscript
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.13", Tab
stops: 0.63", List tab + Not at 0.75"
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
1
Committee members questioned whether sidewalks should be required with in all
2
new residential and commercial developments and noted that they were already required
3
inside the Urban Service Boundary but not in rural areas.
4
5
The Committee made the following determination: Sidewalks / Pedestrian paths
6
need to be development appropriate; therefore, the committee’s recommendation should be
7
to “require sidewalks/pedestrian paths within all new residential and commercial
8
development as appropriate to the existing transect zone.”
9
10
Other concerns mentioned include:
11
12
I. There are too many areas in the LDC that use the Standard Industrial Classification
13
(SIC) Code item numbers rather than implementing the exact uses allowed in a
14
particular zoning district.
15
II. Page 3 (9) and Page 5 (4)(d) - The definition for Open Space needs to be
16
strengthened and possibly redefined.
17
III. Page 3 (1)(b) – The zoning and land usage being underutilized or inappropriately
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
18
utilized based on the LDC, Future Land Use, and surrounding density.
19
20
The committee’s determinations regarding these issues are as follows:
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
21
22
The Committee determined that the SIC Code has become obsolete as there are newer
23
codes in place and the County is looking to move away from the use of that Code.
24
Furthermore, to implement all possible uses rather than using the SIC codes would result in
25
an overbearing LDC.
26
27
The Committee determined that the word “require” should be changed to “encourage” in
28
item 9 on page 3. Item 4d on page 5 should be clarified and the recommendation should
29
include language like “develop a definition of open space where public parks and private
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
30
spaces are clearly distinguished and defined.”
31
Numbering Style: I, II, III, + Start at: 1 +
32
The Committee determined that item 1b on page 3 was clarified thru items 1 on page 3, 2 on
33
page 4 and 3 on pages 4 and 5 as the issue of infill development needed to be looked at as
Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.38" + Tab
34
a whole included with “Direction of Growth,” “Density and Urban Form” and Land Use.
35
after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"
?
36
37
Ms. Wood provided a memorandum to the Committee summarizing the Committee’s wishes
38
to include Ms. Ferrick’s comments and Ms. Dreyer’s edits from the March 13, 2009 meeting,
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
39
and a detailed edited list from the draft recommendations from the previous months. Ms.
40
Wood also included on page 5 of the recommendations some possible implementation
41
strategies for Smart Growth. These strategies include:
42
?
43
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) practices as a
44
recommendation
?
45
Smart Code or other form-based Code
?
46
Neighborhoods and Districts Element
47
48
Ms. Wood explained, as a final draft document for recommendations to the Board she has
49
prepared the framework of the memo to provide a methodological approach through the use
50
of an executive summary, detailed list and possible implementation strategies as discussed
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 4 of 9
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
1
by the Committee. She also asked the Committee for objections and suggestions as to the
2
presentation and layout of these documents.
3
4
Ms. Ferrick expressed her concern about Mr. Storm’s suggestions regarding recommending
5
alternative ways to approach flood elevations not being in the memo.
6
7
It was established that Mr. Storm’s recommendations had been included on page 3 of 5 item
8
1e and page 4 of 5 item g; however, Ms. Ferrick was missing a part of the memo prior to the
9
meeting and was not able to look at the rest of the document until the day of the meeting.
10
11
The Committee agreed that Mr. Storm’s Comments were adequately projected in the memo.
12
13
Mr. Trias called for any other comments.
14
15
Ms. Dreyer expressed concerns about requiring developers to perform a needs-based
16
analysis for all developments outside of the Urban Service Boundary when certain Land Use
17
designations were already on the property.
18
19
Ms. Wood said that the particular language in the document focuses on someone who may
20
want to perform a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but could be reworded if the
21
Committee chooses to. She also stated that in theory, a needs-based analysis is a
22
requirement for Future Land Use changes and that staff are especially looking at these
23
types of requirements in the Western Lands Study.
24
25
Ms Dreyer stated that if it is already required then she didn’t see the need to include it in the
26
memo.
27
28
Ms. Wood referred to Ms. Wilson, the Comprehensive Senior Planner to help answer Ms.
29
Dreyer’s question.
30
31
Ms. Wilson explained that it wouldn’t hurt to have duplicate language that backs up the
32
intent and necessity of requiring a needs-based analysis for Comprehensive Plan changes.
33
34
Ms. Wood stated that the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specify that a needs-based analysis
35
is required, and that most developers don’t expect that they should be producing that type of
36
analysis when submitting applications for Comp Plan changes.
37
38
Ms. Ferrick and Ms. Dreyer clarified that in that section Future Land Use Amendments
39
should be added to the memo instead of developments.
40
41
Ms. Dreyer also expressed her concern about item 1c, “Develop land-use analysis of
42
redevelopment potential…”
43
44
In response to Ms. Dreyer’s concern, the following summarized points of discussion ensued:
45
?
46
Ms. Dreyer raised concerns about problems that could be caused by exposing the
47
redevelopment potential for existing developments, which could lead to lack of
48
development capacity and non-useful costly studies being done on properties that
49
are already developed. Ms. Dreyer also stated that focus needs to be on the infill
50
potential of undeveloped property rather than on property that is already developed.
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 5 of 9
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
?
1
Ms. Chapman raised concerns about the language in item 1c creating a possible loop
2
hole, allowing developers to counteract the purpose for which it was intended.
?
3
Mr. Trias suggested clarity of the language to ensure that these concerns are
4
addressed and that explicit language should be constructed to convey the need of
5
trained professionals in specific disciplines such as engineering, architecture,
6
drainage, etc. to make interpretations of the language with in the code.
?
7
Mr. Comer raised the point that the development potential of all development areas
8
needs to be considered in order to recognize properties that may be underdeveloped
9
as well as undeveloped to efficiently project proper growth potential.
?
10
Mr. Kelly suggested verifying the areas up front that need to be studied.
?
11
Ms. Wood raised the point that the redevelopment potential for developed and
12
undeveloped property may not be that it is distinct from each other, but the two may
13
interact simultaneously with each other.
?
14
Mr. Reikenis commented that maybe the language in the memo just comes off as a little
15
vague, but he looks at visiting redevelopment potential as a transition process to
16
redevelop urban areas, etc.
?
17
Mr. Trias stated that Ms. Wood’s suggestions to add some language and combine other
18
language would be very helpful.
19
20
Mr. Trias ended the discussion and asked if there is a county-wide process or strategy for
21
dealing with TDR’s. He also suggested that recommendations for developing a county wide
22
TDR program be included in the Committee’s recommendations.
23
24
The Committee agreed to the implementation of recommendations in the memo.
25
26
Mr. Kelly asked that the revisions to the memo be made in strikethrough and underline
27
format so that the committee could vote on it.
28
29
Mr. Trias also asked Ms. Wood to draft some language for the TDR program as well.
30
31
Ms. Ferrick had a question about the recommendation to require smaller right-of-ways and
32
pavement widths. She stated that once right-of-way is lost the County cannot go back and
33
get it.
34
35
Mr. Trias stated that the County’s right-of-way requirements are excessive and do not need
36
to be increased. In his opinion, increasing right-of-way does not lead to a solution to the
37
roadway issues. He also stated that instead of focusing on arterial roads and requiring more
38
right- of-way, focus needs to be placed on better interconnectivity of the roadways.
39
Furthermore, he does recognize that there are some roadways that need to be widened,
40
and feels that the committee needs to leave the recommendation for the item under
41
discussion the way it is.
42
43
Mrs. Chapman suggested that the Committee recommend a future roadway network to
44
accommodate expected growth.
45
46
Mr. Comer also stated that acquiring wider roadways do not solve the problem.
47
48
Mr. Reikenis stated that roadways with better networking and interconnectivity would lead to
49
improved roadway conditions.
50
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 6 of 9
1
Mr. Houston asked Ms. Wood about the roadway network for the TVC and if there will be
2
recommendations for a better roadway network for the County.
3
4
Ms. Wood stated that she has been in conversation with the County’s Engineering
5
department and the TPO (Transportation Planning Organization) about how to factor in a
6
roadway network study for better connectivity, but it really doesn’t get to the level of
7
Comprehensive Planning until you have something mapped out, which is easier to do in the
8
TVC where there wasn’t development and harder to do where there is existing development.
9
10
Mr. Houston stated that he thinks it should be a part of the recommendation to study where
11
the road network should be.
12
13
Mr. Comer stated that storm drainage, etc. should also be included.
14
15
Ms. Wood asked if the Committee wanted to revise the language to include language for a
16
thoroughfare protection and long-range plan.
17
18
Mr. Trias suggested including additional language that talks about an overall street network
19
plan.
20
21
Mr. Houston agreed.
22
23
Mr. Trias called for further comments on the discussion.
24
25
Ms. Dreyer clarified that the position on incorporating LEED and the Florida Green Building
26
Coalition in the Land Development Code was just to encourage developers to use some of
27
the standards instead of requiring them to go out and get certified by private companies.
28
29
Mr. Trias answered in the affirmative; he stated that he would never support the idea that
30
developers would be mandated to get certified by private companies, just that it gives
31
developers a lot of good options for better development.
32
33
Mr. Comer asked if there were any other good ideas within the TVC that would be good to
34
add to the recommendations.
35
36
Mr. Trias stated that except for the implementation of the use of TDR’s, the
37
recommendations look pretty thorough to him and that if anybody had additional
38
recommendations he is sure Ms. Wood would be available to take them.
39
40
A discussion ensued about the use of TDR’s within the county.
41
42
After the discussion Mr. Trias called for further comments on the Memo.
43
th
44
B. Preparation for possible presentation at the May 26 AprilInformal BOCC
45
Meeting
46
47
The Smart Growth Committee agreed to present three or four short and long term goals to
48
the Board in a twenty to thirty-minute presentation to include the Power Point presentations
49
(as a visual aid) presented by Ms. Wood and Mr. Trias during the February 12, 2009 Smart
50
Growth meeting and Mr. Sanders comments addressed before the Committee today. The
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 7 of 9
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Superscript
1
Committee further decided that the recommendations will be presented in its current format,
2
as a draft, minus the strikethrough and underline formatting.
3
4
A discussion ensued about the Committee’s upcoming presentation and request to go the
5
April Informal meeting. Mr. Trias confirmed with Ms. Wood that the Committee was still
6
scheduled to present their draft recommendations to the BOCC at the informal meeting on
,
7
May 262009, which he encouraged everyone to attend. He also informed the Committee
8
that this meeting would be the last Smart Growth Committee meeting (before the BOCC
9
informal meeting) to discuss the draft recommendations that will be presented to the Board.
10
11
Mr. Trias mentioned the May 12, 2009, 3:00 PM meeting scheduled with Administration to
12
discuss the Smart Growth Committee. He also notified the Committee that the May 22, 2009
13
meeting has been canceled and the next Smart Growth Committee meeting will be on June
14
12, 2009.
15
16
Mr. Trias stated that he thinks that there is going to be a lot of work that can be done by the
17
Smart Growth Committee but that some of it should be done by staff and consultants
18
because this is going to require a serious commitment of time and effort.
19
20
Ms. Wood commented that staff’s understanding, from the Committee’s desires, was that
21
the goal was to go to the Informal meeting and get some initial feedback on the general
22
direction of the recommendations presented by the Committee, clean it up by revising and
23
add any additional recommendations, go back to the Commission at a regular meeting and
24
have them officially accept the document. At that point the Committee would sunset and
25
revive in some other form to be advisory to whatever actions ensued from the committee’s
26
recommendations.
27
28
Mrs. Ferrick commented that she doesn’t think that the original obligation of the Smart
29
Growth (SG) Committee has been fulfilled, which was to look at and review the Land
30
Development Code and make changes to it.
31
32
Mr. Kelly commented that it’s not realistic for the SG Committee to go through the LDC line
33
by line and make changes to it. What is realistic is to identify areas of the code that need to
34
be changed and let the staff and consultants make those changes, while the SG Committee
35
offers support towards those efforts.
36
37
Before the conclusion of the meeting the Committee agreed that at the next meeting
38
following the informal BOCC meeting they would discuss the outcome of the informal BOCC
39
meeting rather than continue with making further SG Committee recommendations.
40
41
42
The Committee agreed to present three or four short and long term goals to the Board in a
43
twenty to thirty minute presentation.
44
45
4. Other Business
46
47
Mr. Kelly electronically presented the “Smart Growth Committee Recommended Changes to
48
Land Development Code (LDC),” dated May 5, 2008, which identify changes he felt could
49
impede the Smart Growth Committee’s recommendations to the LDC. These revisions
50
included the following areas:
51
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 8 of 9
?
1
Chapter 3 – Zoning Districts
: Review and revise permitted, conditional and
2
accessory uses and Planned Development Districts (PUD, PNRD, and PMUD)
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
3
consistent with chapter 7
?
4
Chapter 4 – Special Districts
: Develop and insert Neighborhood and District
5
Overlay Zones similar to TVC Overlay Zone Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
?
6
Chapter 5 – Adequate Public Facilities
: Has for the most part been addressed in
7
the Smart Growth Committee’s recommendations
?
8
Chapter 7 – Development Design and Improvement Standards
: 7.01- PUD allow
9
and encourage Smart Growth concepts, 7.02 PNRD vertical integration of uses while
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
10
considering the holistic uses, 7.03 PMUD- a good review of the code to either rewrite
11
or taken out this section of the code, 7.04 Area, Yard, Height and Open Space-allow
12
additional flexibility consistent with Smart Growth, 7.05 Transportation Systems-
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
13
related to engineering review access requirements, cross sections including
14
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and require interconnections.
?
15
Chapters 8 – Accesory and Temporary Structures and Uses
:Expand the use of
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
16
home occupations consistent with Smart Growth and new technologies.
17
18
Mr. Trias asked the committee about the format of this information for the purpose of it going
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
19
before the Board.
20
21
The committee agreed to implement these changes under IMPLEMENTATION at the end of
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
22
the memo, using the language “Amend existing Land Development Code…,” and adding
23
suggested revisions as an attachment to the Smart Growth Committee’s Recommendations.
24
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
25
26
27
Mr. Kelly presented a draft document to identify and make suggestions for revisions to the
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
28
Land Development code. Thus far, the document included suggestions for revisions to
29
chapters 1-4 & 7-9.
30
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
31
After Mr. Kelly’s presentation members of the Committee made suggestions of things they
32
felt needed to be add to the recommended revisions and how they would include them into
33
the existing documents to be presented to the Board.
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
34
35
The Committee concluded that they would only include general recommendations that
36
impeded Smart Growth in the existing documents and all other recommendations would be
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
37
given to County staff.
38
39
The Committee made final comments and decided that the implementation of a time frame
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic
40
for the completion of the Committee’s recommendations will be discussed in the next Smart
41
Growth meeting.
42
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
43
ThThis meeting adjourned at 11:1635 AM
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Underline
Smart Growth 05 08 09 Draft minutes Page 9 of 9
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold