Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-21-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting April 21, 2005 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Pamela Hammer; Kathryn Hensley; Carson McCurdy; and, Stephanie Morgan. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Knapp; Ed Lounds with notice; Russell Akins; and, Ramon Trias without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator; Mr. Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Diana Waite, Planner III; Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael Bowers, Utilities Director; and Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:15 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES All board members present disclosed that they had spoken to members of the public in . regards to the North County Charrette ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Grande gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight. The meeting will progress in the following manner: The Chairman will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 2 The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 2005 Mr. Kelly made a correction of a comment under Roll Call that should be deleted. Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 19, Paragraph 4 where Mr. Cox stated that there someone. That was not what he said. She requested that staff go back and listen to the tape. Mr. McCurdy made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. All were in favor. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2005 Ms. Hammer had a correction on Page 16, top of the page, where it stated that Ms. Hammer left at 7:20 p.m. to add due to illness. Ms. Hammer made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. All were in favor. Chair Grande suggested to the board to slightly change the sequence of the agenda items and suggested that Item No. 6 which was the North County Master Plan be moved to the top of the agenda. He felt that there would be a lot of comment on that item and that they may choose not to pass it along at this time. Ms. Hammer know how many people were present for Item Nos. 3 and 4 and to make them sit through Item No. 6 seemed unfair to her. Vice-Chair Hearn concurred with Ms. Hammer would be fairly quickly resolved. Mr. McCurdy stated that he and had no problem with moving it to the top of the agenda. Ms. Morgan d Chair Grande got the consensus from the board members to move Item No. 6 to be heard first. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 5 AGENDA ITEM 6: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ORD-05-012 Michael Brillhart stated that staff would make their presentation which would allow the staff from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) to prepare their presentation information. He stated that in their packet were some comments and staff recommendation for their review that the Planning Growth Management staff had put together for them. Staff had since given an updated version based upon comments that they had spoken of with the TCRPC staff and had come up with another recommendation, which was the modified version. He went on to give a brief history behind the project. The process began prior to February, 2004, but off with a public hearing, public workshop that took place over a 10-14 day time period back in February, 2004. Citizens were concerned about the potential development patterns, the potential for future growth in the North County area and based upon a lot of the allowable one unit/acre development scenario and some of the other types of properties that were being looked at for development potential that were both within the Urban Service Area (USA) and alongside the USA in the rural area. The County realized that there was a lot of concern with the current Comprehensive Plan language Land Development Regulations regarding future development; the Board recommended and put together a process to create optional development scenarios to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. It was currently adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan to work with the citizens on being able to provide some sort of options for three specific goals and there were other goals. The first one was to protect the rural character, agricultural character of the area; the second one was to provide sufficient amount of future open space as part of that; and thirdly, and very strongly to try to control as best as possible urban sprawl. With these three things in mind the TCRPC began a number of months ago to create for the Plan. There was an identified study area which originally represented about 18,000 acres, it since had spread a little bit over to the Indian River Lagoon on the eastern boundary to take in a much larger area because of the need to not only look at that initial 18,000 square foot area, but also the entire north county as part of the recommendations for options of consideration by the Regional Planning Council (RPC). meeting was scheduled for a couple of reasons; the first one was to provide opportunities for the general public to comment to the LPA on this particular item and secondly, to get potential feedback that staff could present to the board when the board reviewed it over the next four and six week timeframe. Staff has worked with the RPC and some of those comments in the packet from last week and continuing to work with them, both in the Comprehensive Plan conceptual elements and the Land Development Regulations component that would take place over the next several months. Ms. Morgan pointed out that there was a memo from staff requesting a continuance until the next tentatively scheduled meeting on May 11. Ms. Young responded that was April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 6 could do some additional work with the RPC, there were also some questions about the map that appeared in the ad that needed to be addressed. plan would be to re- advertise it. She stated that if the Board was interested to hear the public, since there was a crowd they would have to open the public hearing. They Board may want to hear what the RPC had to say so the people that were present could hear that and if they wished to speak after they could do so. Her recommendation was that the item be continued and any comments made then that could be something for staff and the RPC th to look at prior to the 11. The board members stated that they received the new draft very late and was unable to review it properly. They requested to get the revised draft at least a week prior to the May 11 meeting. Chair Grande questioned why the next meeting would be scheduled to May 11 and were there other items on that agenda. Sheryl Stolzenberg, Planner responded that staff had originally set the May 11 date for three private sector amendments that were submitted and there was a text amendment that was desired in order to bring the Scenic Highway plan into the Comprehensive Plan and it had been established originally before this came forward and the idea of continuing it came forward. But if it desire to deal with only this item, then staff would have to look at what to do with the private sector amendments, because those people hade submitted and they had a right also to be heard and there are only regular amendments twice yearly. th Chair Grande asked if it could be heard on the 19 instead. Mr. McCurdy have a problem with pushing it out two months, he had many concerns and felt it would take more than two to three weeks to resolve those concerns. Chair Grande asked staff if they could move the agenda items that were scheduled for ththth the 19 to the 11 and schedule this item only for the 19. Ms. Stolzenberg responded that that was okay. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator stated that they were trying to balance a couple of things, operating under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners to fold in a schedule for Planning and Zoning or Local Planning Agency in time to bring something back to them so that they could absolutely meet the first submittal date of June 7 for Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on this particular item. If it was apparent that there was no way this board was going to be in a position to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners so that they could consider those and then meet that first submittal date, that was a reality that the Board of County Commissioners, LPA, and the public would have to accept. She committed staff in getting the comments to the board members in sufficient time for it to be heard on May April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 7 19. Chair Grande requested that the finalized version be sent to the board for review on May 11 in order for it to be reviewed for the meeting on May 19. Mr. Busha stated that they had worked and requested that TCRPC go through their presentation as there might be new questions that would come up as a result as well as a lot of questions may be answered as a result. Marcella Camplor stated that their goals at this time were to accomplish three different things. The first was to review, you have a package that was presented by staff and the package that was presented by staff had two parts to it. An initial part that had six major conceptual issues and then it had a second section where they were making comments or amendments to the language of the April 8 document that we had submitted. So the first thing we wanted to do was to go thru those first six items which I think were big issues. The second thing we were intending to do and then again we were assuming that you had read this report or had sufficient time to read this report was to review the Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVCs) goals, objectives and policies and then take as much time as you wanted to go over those policies. By the way, all the strike-thru and underline version includes all those comments and suggestions that we heard from you when we had the one-on-one meetings about a month and a half ago. The third recommendation also on this report and as Michael Brillhart told you, we did have a meeting with staff today to go over those issues and I think we were on the same page regarding that. Let me go through the first six items first, again these six points are in the document that you received from staff dated April 14, this is the cover of that document. That firs amendment as a new land use designation or a new element of the Comprehensive Plan, presumably a design element. The supporting documentation required by Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J5 and 9J11 Florida Administrative Code or data and analysis refers to the material as amendments to the Land Development Regulations. If a Towns, Villages, and Countryside amendment is a new land use designation, then as required by subsection 163.3.1.7.7.6A of the Florida Statutes the land use designation must include standards to be followed in the control of population, designation needs to identify the maximum allowable, quantifiable term like maximum units that we would end up at the end of this. In our conversation this morning with your referencing the statute, however, in your TVC element, you do have this defined, we also have been in conversation with the DCA as to how we were approaching defining these elements and it defines it in four different ways. It defines it in the mix of uses six points. It also addresses density and April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 8 intensity in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, it addresses the transferable density value map which is Figure 3.1 where it establishes densities and intensities, the existing ones. Additionally there is a TDR credit matrix which establishes the maximum number of units as required by the DCA; and we can get into that in just a little bit. The second comment that staff had was an item that had to do with the total number of units that would result of all of this and the method used to evaluate this proposed new is a comparison between what is allowed by the existing Future Land Use Designation u in previous presentation going to show you a little bit of that. Vice-Chair Hearn Land Use as compared to the TVC land use? Ms. Camplor In number of units? I will get t Vice-Chair Hearn land use density is what would be allowed on each given project as it comes up. Ms. Camplor One thing I forgot to say at the very beginning. We are a team of people and a lot of, I might refer to different people to answer questions, because our legal counsel is here, Nancy Stroud and our acting consultant Peter Spike, Michael Busha, and Anthea Ginotis I mean it is not an entitlement, but when it is being reviewed, what you have to review is worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario is what your Future Land Use identifies as that ultimate lump number that someone can apply for. So we have tested both under the or Nancy, but we can get to that in just a second. Chair Grande lines current zoning? Ms. Camplor For the most part your zoning in this area is AG-1 (Agriculture 1 du/acre) and your Future Land Use is one which is one unit to the acre, so there really with the land use. Chair Grande That is true, under the zoning it would be roughly the same as under the Future Land Use? Ms. Camplor Yes, and then the statute says that when you do the comparison that the DCA is looking for you have to go with the Future Land Use. But in this particular area the same. If we were looking inside your Urban Service April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 9 Boundary (USB) to other areas outside the TVC the story is different. Vice-Chair Hearn a lot of land inside the USB for this particular project with this RU which is five units per acre against what is now zoned one unit per acre? That is my concern. Ms. Camplor There is one portion of that, yes, so there would be a somewhat of a again the statutes require that when we do the comparison we do it using the Future Land Use. sure where the number 23,300 additional dwelling units as a result of applying the TVC was really coming from. We had a conversation with staff, we agreed that even though the methodology that we both used was the same one, they had used different data, so this is really not the ultimate additional number of units that will result, and I think staff understood that was not the number we were using. The 23,300 was really a number of there today, that was a different, does that make sense? Chair Grande That does make sense. I think the other thing that the most of us would e Future Land Use is the same as the zoning way or the other, what I think everybody would like to know is what would be the additional number of units under the current one to one and what would be the additional number of units under the, I think it is approximately two to one that this plan results in? Ms. Camplor again what your land use, your Future Land Use proposes today and what the new plan would propose. Of course in this comparison which we have had to do, we knew from the beginning of the Charrette that the goal was of course to preserve as much settlement. had absolutely no provision for open space, as you just said one unit to the acre or more depending on the area; again absolutely no provision for any sort of public open space or countryside. The proposed model guarantees between 60 and 75% of open space. That is one of the big physical differences. As far as units the difference between the current model, the current Future Land Use Map and what will result after applying the TVC in the current model you have a potential for 20,904 units in the TVC area, which is what is outlined. Chair Grande Ms. Camplor d April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 10 in the red, 20,904, bear in mind there is no fully developed neighborhoods out there today, the rest is Mr. McCurdy Spanish Lakes. Ms. Camplor No, but if you loo Vice-Chair Hearn complete build-out correct? Ms. Camplor That is what the statute requires, yes, complete build-out under your current Future Land Use Map, yes. Vice-Chair Hearn I understand that, but I want to make a statement here, this plan has a lot of merit for our community if it is done right. My concern about using figures like this is that in my mind there is no way all of those units will ever be built and there is no around here too long to think that somebody would be eliminating all of the countryside happen in the worst case scenario. Ms. Camplor Well we have a hard time presenting to you the worst case scenario, plans in and test them at the worst case scenario. I think the big difference though, and we all know, just as we know when I tell you the number for the worst case scenario under the TVC I like you want to believe being forced to look at the worst case scenario. I think the one thing that you know, absolutely for sure, that you can be certain of, is that under your current model you do not have a single provision for public open space. The difference is in this entire area except for a very small area which is worth preserving which is not designated preserve, as a matter of fact it is designated with the highest possible intensity that you have in potentially be chopped up into the one a we have to do by law because this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment is tell you what your plan says; and this is what your plan says. Vice-Chair Hearn I understand that, the other thing that I want to point out is, these additional dwelling units 23,300 or whatever number you come up with is only based on reality of being adopted in other parts of our county and there going to be a lot more going in for that too. I just want to point out that this is a small area of our community April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 11 Ms. Camplor I think this is an issue that deals with the multiplier and with a specific policy in the plan how this is addressed and then if you want, Mr. Chair, we can start to talk about. Chair Grande details along the way if we could move along and look at what it would look like in the new plan and keep going. Ms. Camplor Okay, and in the worst case scenario for the TVC which is the image you have to your right of course we had to go ahead and do exactly the same thing and after applying all those four elements that I told you about in the previous slide the total number of units that you could potentially end up with would be 37,554 which is probably a 16,500 give or take increase in units of which 4,020 would be required to be affordable, not in addition, but of which, and with a guarantee of about 11,000 acres within the TVC a guarantee that 6,661 would be open space. Again, this is the worst case for the open space, it could be potentially more than that as w ask a question or.. Mr. McCurdy I have a bunch of them. Ms. Camplor amendment contains a policy which is 3.1.1.3 that says when a conflict arises between the TVC and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the TVC requirement shall violates subsection 1.6.331.772 which states you know you have co-ordinate all the elements in your Comprehensive Plan. After our meeting this morning with your staff C element shall apply to those portions of the County where the TVC land use has been adopted, but the most restrictive policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan regarding preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, historical and archaeological Item number four talks about the fact that this proposed amendment might create certain property rights issues and I know all of you have questions regarding this This is not an issue for those property owners in the TVC, but inside the USB because that minimum parcel size has been eliminated in the version that I guess unfortunately you did not have enough time to review. But it has not been eliminated outside the USB Policy 3.1.1.7 provides optio the issues if you want when we go into the elements that we can talk about, and our April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 12 legal counsel can address. Vice-Chair Hearn When the TCRPC and I had one on one session I had asked the question about the possibility of several property owners making a co-op to form a TVC, have you addressed that? Ms. Camplor That has been addressed, if you look at the bottom our proposed solution to this policy 3.1.1.7 item number two, initially we had wri application with adjoining property owners to develop a town, or village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC. I think that the other thing we decided to do to follow with that item number two is to put additional language in the Land Development Regulations (LDR) that states how some of these coops could be organized in order to submit plans. One thing that I can tell you is, since we have been meeting with a lot of property owners that are under the 500 acres, a lot of them, actually two of them that developments and/or other major land holders and I think that the recommendation you submit your plan in conjunction with this other larger development, you could be a ve managed to address this issue that way. Mr. McCurdy proposed development, but there are a lot of properties and small property owners that are going to be impacted directly participate. I think some of the rules as written are onerous and they are going to be, in adjacent counties in real estate appraisal work in dealing with this type of thing, I at it, and I know that you guys are doing a good job, but I just feel that there are very, very many issues here that as this evolves it will continue to come up and we still have a document that is a draft at this point. I literally received this about 10:30 a.m. today th or th the 19 and the public is going to be allowed to speak here, I think that is part of the process, Ms. Camplor this on time, I know that at every presentation we have made, the prime is most of our presentations have been to the Board of County Commissioners but I do recall that when Mike made his presentation to the joint board we, I think, he made the point that this is a living as your staff said, is get the first transmittal date with the DCA and continue to work and continue to modify this document until September when it will be your official transmittal this through April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 13 as quickly as possible, you have a lot of developers and a lot of people that have been asked to try and get it resolved as quickly as possible. Again the whole intention of this with the understanding that this is a living document and we will continue to modify this until September. Mr. McCurdy I have no problem with it being a living document, but I have a problem Ms. Camplor The fifth issue was an issue that said that there was need to transfer how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process would be managed. Would it be a market driven system and there were questions referring to that. We know it is correct, it needs to be clarified and it needs to be defined, but that language does not with your staff will work on that. All your Comprehensive Plan needs to do is establish the fact that you will have your TDR's, bu document. The sixth and last point was a comment regarding the fact that the flow way concept need to be managed jointly and of course, the TVC is talking about this being managed separately. The truth to this point is that the team, TCRPC with our consultants, even working with your Utilities Department and the South Florida Water Management District and the Fort Pierce Fa be only one entity will probably then require coming back and making a change. This is something that has not, we have not been able to define yet. th Going on to issue number two which is reviewing the April 8 strike through and underline, I will go through this in as much as you all feel comfortable. What I do is I have every single page of the d we should jump directly to those. I can tell you where those changes have happened, Chair Grande the opportunity to go through the underline and strike through version, so if you were to walk us through it, it would be a very time consuming process based on where you April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 14 and I would assume that there is a chance that somebody is going to say something probably will not be what comes back next month. What is going to come back next month should be t then had the opportunity to go through it individually and prepare our comments and we can walk through the document and approve or comment at that point and time. Assuming that there is no objection up here I would actually skip that part of this Ms. Camplor Chair Grande Unless there are any major philosophical changes that you would like to put on the table now. Ms. Camplor No, I know that one of our consultants would like to address the board remember that if you do have any questions today, counsel back next time, but she is here. So if I can have Mr. Spike just address the board for a few minutes. Peter Spike that the cornerstone behind the whole idea is a Transfer Development Rights program where there are currently development rights established over all the land and the end that no longer whether or not are takings or unfair to people and that sort of thing are very real to bring up is that this May 4 at our Committee for Sustainable Treasure Coast Rural Education Center in Fort Pierce and the morning session is open to the public, this is the suthe strategy for rural land preservation, that sort of and other places in the country to talk about where they worked, why they worked, and why they failed, so if, I think it would help everybody if they could understand more about TDR programs as a philosophical way of going about transferring development interpret it and determine whether or not our proposal is a fair way to do it. I just wanted to mention that. Ms. Morgan We have a growth management planning meeting on May 4 and 5, two Ms. Hensley May I ask if Mr. Spike could be sure that there is either video or a hard copy or something that we could look at that. Mr. Spike April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 15 Ms. Hensley That would be very much appreciated, because most of us have already Mr. Spike directors from St. Lucie, Indian River, and Martin and the Treasure Coast to talk a little are going on here. Chair Grande May I suggest that either you get to Michael or Michael get from you at the end of that day the tape of that meeting. point going to shed light on it for us, we should view that before our next hearing on this issue. Mr. Spike have it up to you the next day. Ms. Camplor by item there is probably no point in looking at the proposed amendment to the tax for your recommendations, so whatever you want to do right now, it Chair Grande If there is no objection, if there are no questions up here, what I would suggest is opening the public portion getting the public comments on the record, so that these folks can take what they want from them. Ms. Hensley May I ask that if members of the panel up here have specific questions that could be addressed that they email them or send them in writing to the TCRPC so they can have their responses ready and will understand what the depth of the questions and I think that could hold true for the public too if they have questions or concerns they can always let the TCRPC know what their concerns are, so that in Chair Grande happen before they leave is Marcella is going to put her email address up on the screen, so that she gets bombarded over the next month. Ms. Camplor placed her email address on the screen studio@tcrpc.org Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. David Weiss, owner of Bluewater Groves which is a 38 acre grove fronting Koblegard Road north of Indrio. There are several philosophical problems that I have and some actual problems. The actual problems are those that were outlined by Mr. McCurdy. The issue is one of evaluation of and that is when I met with TCRPC; let me for over two years, I was never asked to be a part of this process, I was never included. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 16 Chair Grande body is onboard with this. Mr. Weiss It has been stated. There is a question of due process, there is a question that if I as a land owner have one density unit to the acre right now and after this plan is passed I have one density unit to 50 acres tha a taking without calling it a taking. When I asked the nice people at TCRPC, by the way after making numerous phone calls, numerous emails, I then had to hire an attorney and then I did get a meeting with TCRPC. When I asked them how would you value a TDR there was no answer. When I told them that I had a deal on this property that went south as a result two days after the TVC was published, I had no answer. When I told a value on my property after the TVC was passed there was some scoughing but no mathematical formula to show me exactly what it would be. Vice-Chair Hearn Where did the concept of one unit per acre go to one unit per 50 missed that. Mr. Weiss My understanding of reading of the document and based on the advise of counsel is that there is a density of one unit to 50 acres, meaning that there would be a at I had planned to when I purchased it after I was done farming the property. As a little background, everybody knows the hardships that farmers like myself are going through; the hardships that we had two of the worst storms in the season in this part o my, Steve Cassons who manages my farm and a number of other farms in this area when it is developed as a TVC as said that it would. So for the idea have this Greenacres life, where you have the family farm down the street on Koblegard and we can walk to the Mom and Pop Store, The farmers do not live on these farm one is going to farm it so what is going to happen is it is going to be all vacant land and it will be a taking without calling it a taking. Vice-Chair Hearn I can assure you this board member will never vote for a document anything less than what you have now. Mr. Weiss W April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 17 give you TDR credits. Again we need to have a very thorough understanding of what their expert said this is the fundamental philosophy underlying this document and if they wheel. The way I see it is that you have a wobbly wheel no matter how much you stack s still going to have a wobbly wheel rush it up to Tallahassee. The fact that they want to hurry this thing, appreciate the time. Kieran Kilday of Kilday and Associates, land planners I represent Glassman Holdings who own property both inside and outside the USB area, but entirely within the boundaries of towns, villages, and countrysides. There is a lot of issues out there and I opportunity to come back. I want to hit on a few things just to try to get clarification. The devils and the details as we know, we saw a very nice watercolor of vision for tomorrow, when we saw it, we said, well how are you going to get there and frankly this ing to refer to my last version but my page numbering is probably off now. But I think that making sure that we all know what Chair Grande off the front. Mr. Kilday Three things, first of all regarding my client a specific case, they own the property which is within the USB area at the northwest corner of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue. density. The property shows up at that corner colored grey, as best that I can interpret it, it means it has no transferable density while it is in the area and there is only about three or four parcels which were awarded the color grey and we would like some clarification on that. You go to the back of your document, you have an Exhibit A, no page number, and that shows the current land use and correctly shows the property as being commercial, as it is planned and zoned. If you go to the next Exhibit B.. Chair Grande looking really behind Mr. Kilday whichever way you want to go. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 18 Chair Grande Has the TCRPC assigned no density to commercial properties and is Mr. Kilday Ms. Camplor That TDV plan that Mr. Kilday is referring to is what we need to use to start so that indicates what those properties had when we first began before we did anything in the TVCs. So whatever had one unit to the acre is colored one color, whatever had commercial is colored another color so in your Future Land Use Map that Mr. Kilday Okay, so I think that answers I have no transferable development rights on shows it in the new TVC color of blue, but then Figure 3-12 which is a figure that shows -28 shows where those retail areas are actually shows a little village corner store up the street from us on Emerson Avenue. But what it does show is that there is no commercial now located at that intersection. I go through the plan as it is, I have no development option, transfer of unit option, and I have no commercial option in the end plan and I would like to have that looked at. Second item, and I will try to move a little quicker. If you go to Page 3-24 you have Table 3.5 and it gives an example of how the system works and how the density is calculated. I think that this table needs to be further added to because I think it is as it is, it shows how on a 500 acre village you would end up with 688 units because 75% of your property is open space and you get a 1.5 ratio. In that sense everything is correct on it, the problem is, when you get to the bottom line I now have a village center that has 688 units and 500 acres, but when I go to Table 3.2 which gives me the minimum criteria for village centers, it says the minimum density is five units per acre, got to find 1,81 density transfer 1.5 units per acre, which means I need 1,200 acres additionally. A village center really is 1,700 acres, because I have to get the development rights off an The other issue it needs to point out and maybe this is where the 16,000 additional units putting 2,500 units on 125 acres and that is 20 dwelling units per acre in the town center. Now if I want some single- April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 19 mandatory minimum density. The bottom line is there will be a lot of green space in it this document. It is going to look like a downtown urban area stuffed in that 125 acres. I think the plan needs to clarify that because I think the general public is looking at the painting and not looking at the details, and it is a very important detail, 20 units per acre is far and above the densities of average rental garden apartments that we build which are usually only 12, 14 units per acre. why we need it. If you go to the chart on roads which is 3-32 it tells you the future widening of roads. It shows Indrio Road from Johnson Road to US Highway 1 as remaining a two-lane road through 2030. Now the irony is and you are there two nights currency as a two- built out there and the road is going to be able to stay as a two unit? We have to have consistency within the planning. Clearly, my roads work with that area. My last item and I added this item and I just heard the gentleman before me speak to it. I think it is outrageous that TCRPC would suggest to you that you would send a half finished plan to the DCA and call it a living document. I TCRPC, I could be there a year and a half making it right before that thing moves forward. I think the standards that government applies to the private sector also should apply to the government as well. Thank you. Ms. Camplor I think I would be more than happy and any one in our staff would be to spend as much time as is necessary as we have spent with all of you with planners like Mr. Kilday explaining the math behind all of this. Actually the number of units that you need in a village to develop a village is 438. I got lost in how he did the math, but the to that, but this is what I can tell you the units you would need in a village after you do the net average density. All the other issues we can address them I think again when we go back to all the policies and I will address any of the question that you think I should. Chair Grande Going through what Mr. Kilday was saying one of the statements, if I heard that right was, having to go out and acquire another 1,700 acres and the only d, it was acquiring most important thing that came out of this presentation and I really appreciate your making it is it seems clear to me that Mr. Kilday as a representative of a major developer in the area and you really need to be in the same room for some period of time and come out of it with some agreement as to what his role as a developer in this April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 20 future plan would be and it would be real interesting to see what his reaction to the definition of that role would be. I would be real interested to have Mr. Kilday come back why he is then so satisfied with the answers that he got. Ms. Camplor Chair Grande Great. communities. Three of which I believe that all of you probably know well and two maybe not so well. First was Martin Downs in Stuart, which I was associated with from 1980 to 1988; after that was Huntington in Broward County; after that it was St. Lucie West, then Viera in Brevard County, then back here at Tradition, in St. Lucie County. who builds a community that contributes to the economic and social benefits of the communia particular home from a particular builder. So it is important for all the community developers to build lifestyle to build something where somebody wants to live. In Martin Downs is a community of less than 2,500 acres and the actual build out was somewhere around 4,000 units. St. Lucie West was 4,600 acres and will reach build out this year with approximately 9,000 units. Tradition which is being built by Core Communities is approximately 8,000 acres and will be something in the neighborhood of 20,000± units at build out. Majority of those communities therefore average somewhere less than 2.5 units per acre overall. One of the slides that was presented here by the TCRPC you have currently approximately 21,000 units on 20,000 acres or 21,000 acres. What they are proposing is 37,000 units on 21,000 acres. An average density of approximately 2.3 persons per household you start with an overall population on 21,000 units of approximately 46 population to approximately 85,000. You have in this plan and there is a lot of elements in this plan that are good for master plans sustainable communities. However, the important thing for all of this to work is to have the infrastructure in place. The road way network, a way that those roads, the right-of-ways are going to be acquired and those roads are going to be built. Now that maybe with an impact fee program or whatever, but you need to have that in place before this starts or nothing happens. As happened the other night with the project that was not approved because it did not meet concurrency. I believe that development needs to be concurrency. I believe that development the rest of you and I believe that development needs to pay its own way with impact fees, that support schools, support fire stations and support a transportation network. But th a method, a financing method that gets those roadways built, nothing happens. Some LDR's today and without the were eluded to by the previous speaker. Multi-story condos are not going to sell out in April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 21 the countryside. There is no view. Multi-story condos sell on the beach because there is a view, and so getting density or having density transfer may not mean a thing if you cannot sell it. In addition, if everybody is getting it and everybody has to build to the between developments that will be very problematic for the marketplace and for the local with the open space. I believe that the open space, you should be able to have platted -half acre platted lots, CDD or property owners association, those people are going to be taxed on that. They providing the necessary public access points around those platted lots I believe accomplishes the same thing, t feel that you need to change your open space requirements. I think the other issue is that I think that this plan needs to encourage development and give some bonuses for development that meet the planning, technical requirements that the County is looking for with new development. There should be some bonuses for somebody that that you have today with respect to the use of your property. Chair Grande The last part of what you were saying about there should be some bonuses for participating and you should have the right to do it the old way if you choose not to participate, if I understood correctly and I think I did, I thought the new plan did have roughly a about? Mr. Babcock Chair Grande Above and beyond the doubling of the density? Mr. Babcock Yes. Tom Sullivan with the law firm of Lounds, Drusdick, Doster, Canter and Reid out of family run business that consists of about 75 acres. It is located west of I-95 and it is within the proposed TVC amendment area, but outside of the USB just by way of couple points that have been raised tonight, but I also want to address one point that I erlined text. But in at least a dozen places in the TVC it clearly like a cornerstone of the community. I think it is important to point out one of the provisions that was talked about by Marcella I believe is the Policy 3.1.1.7 which talks April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 22 about properties that are situated in the case of my client that are outside of the USB and it gives development options for those particular properties. And I believe it says the Urban Service Boundary have several options for development in the TVC area, the first being developed as a town or village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC; the second, submit a joint application with adjoining property owners to develop a town or village in accordance with the requirements of the TVC; the third is maintain the property for agricultural uses; and the forth is that as well with contemplating the discussion about it and clarification on that. When we talk about maintaining the property for agricultural uses I think and again I had an opportunity to talk about this clarification with TCRPC and there was an indication that there was a willingness to look at clarifying some of this language, but I think it is important to be able to say that the, and I think it is really vital because the proposed TVC Future Land Use Designation, if you look at the back of the packet here, for those of you that have it, on Page 1, but it comes after Page 3-38 you have at the bottom the proposed TVC future land Use within it. I understand that the entire concept of the TVC is to sort of prevent the one to one type of development; I think that is kind of a separate issue that deserves discussion. But I think that it is important with regard to the agricultural uses that are permitted in the zoning districts today, that those, that new development within those agricultural areas is permitted and that in other words on a practical level these folks in similar situations can walk up to the permit desk if they want to have another barn put language of the TVC element that you can, that something to the effect of that the existing agricultural uses or agricultural uses that are permitted as zoned today are important to have that spelt out in some of these regulations. Let me also point out one inconsistency, I know there are going to be redrafts of this, but let me just point this out and something that occurred to me. Chair Grande Before you go on, I am a bit confused by your concern, and I say this really talking to Marcella, I thought in the example that you brought up where somebody had an agricultural use, 100 acres for example with a house on it that they would, if they were going to stay in agriculture and perhaps build a barn or other accessory uses in most of the planning rights that they never planned to exercise anyway, so I guess my question is going through that entire discussion what exactly is problematic? Mr. Sullivan In my view the way the Policy this 3.1.1.7 is drafted today it says , To me that is not clear that new development can occur of an agricultural character that is zoned for agricultural uses April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 23 Chair Grande t have one. Mr. Sullivan important to let folks understand that they can continue with that. Let me come back to something that was raised earlier, as I understand it, as it is drafted today, the sell the property or develop it yourself; what are your options? Just to take the example village outside of that what can you do? I think it is vital that that be clarified whether existing future land use designation of one to one, can you do that? Let me just come back to something that when the TCRPC was talking about this language, was talked about if you submit with was what was said, if you submit with other owners that could comprise, if you could get to the 500 acres in ou want to keep going forward with your agricultural program now and who knows what the future holds, you might want to link with that village later, but are you sort of kind of at the mercy of whether they want you to be a op in accord with that type of use. I think it is important to have really to be able to expressly say that and I know Mr. McCurdy you talked about if to consider, but I think fo addressed and I think can be addressed by revising some of these. Chair Grande think it is clear. Ms. Camplor te it, but a couple of things to answer to Mr. Sullivan. I think we did have a phone conversation today, just to go quickly back to the agricultural issue and making sure that those uses could be preserved, I went back to the document and looked at the definition of agricultural and it also talked about livestocks, so that would take care of the horse e going to talk about open space and how and who this gets developed. We did also recommend to him that even though they did not have the intent to develop today, the fact that they are adjacent to a development that is going to potentially going to be a town, it is just major size, that they should begin conversations with their neighbor to at this point make sure that when that development happens, it happens in such a way that it could plug in, in the future and that their parcel can complete that town or complete that village. I think that was our recommendation to them today. Mr. Busha April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 24 solve with this whole idea is the situation where right now almost all of the agricultural land in St. Lucie County has land value that is greater than its agricultural production to preserve that value because obviously that might be our retirement plan, get financing after hurricanes and all that sort of thing; so we want to make sure that we preserve that. At current though there is only two ways to capitalize on the value of the land that is in excess of its agricultural value and that is to borrow money against it or to sell the land. Those are the only two ways you can cash in on that value, which means North St. Lucie, most of the land up there has been sold to either speculators or developers. What the TDR programs allow you to do and this has been done in other places, it allows the land owner to capitalize on the development potential of this land without having to sell it. So if you want to be a farmer and stay a farmer, there is a way to capitalize on this additional value that we all have right now without having to actually sell it to a developer to get that or to go into debt. Mr. Sullivan I think some of those explanations provide some clarification on some of developing village that there should be some flexibility for the notion of the land owners that are adjacent to that to being able to add on to the village by dealing with the County hypothetical, but I think there are going to be some land owners that fit into that box and I think that is more of a reasonable use of their land to be able to realize that type of development structure in the future. Jim Russakis, 8801 Indrio Road, the concerns that I see here are mostly economic little as 125 acres if you were doing a village and have the other property owned somewhere else within the Charrette area. The problem where the inequity would come in and the economic inequity would be those people that have less than 125 acres, h their property. It has been mentioned in a lot of different ways. I heard conversation about Mike mentioned having a meeting with the property owners. I highly suggest that we do that and probably a couple of them and I highly suggest rather than just those people that have heard and whatever they make it their job to contact those people either under 500 acres or especially on 125 acres, because those are the ones that are going to have the real economic impact. I visited with Mike on a few issues and we never got back in touch with each other on the two for one for the . as paved road frontage say for instance Indrio like Suzy Caron has then you might have some property on the dirt road such as I have in other are and then you have land that just has easements, you have different values of land. To located in other areas and we have a April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 25 ago. So what does this do, it raises the inexpensive land and lowers the expensive land and because the developers should, and if resolve that problem. Mr. Hearn I heard you mention that the practicality of this thing being built out to the extent that suggested probably may not happen; I heard Mr. Babcock speak in the same manner. So I think an overlay with incentives is what Mr. Babcock suggested I think would be a great idea, you give people incentives to do There in is going to be a lot of issues between property owners and staff. To try to get this to the DCA too quick, hurriedly, is going to be a grave mistake and an inequity again to us because we can bring our attorneys now to discuss it with yourselves and the County Commission right here; it goes to DCA what have we got to do then. You all the County Commission and the attorneys we have fighting to preserve our rights and Mr. Babcock talked about roads, I agree, but what about water. We have not served the property yet that is inside the USB area and that was one of the concerns with moving it get services to t concern for some getting, because then we would know whether it would be happy or unhappy. At this point I do not know what we are getting. Patrick Hodges with Olson and Associates of Northwest Florida we are the owners of the southeast intersection of I- DRI process for many months. Our company was involved in the initial workshop that took place in January, 2004 and the follow-up meeting that occurred in February. We had a pre-application meeting before submitting our ADA, we were able to take the plan that was presented at that pre-app and submit it as it was, there were virtually no comments, negative, there were some positive comments made, so we submitted the ADA in August of last year. Our first comments came back a couple months late due to January, 2005. During all those receipts of comments, we had no significant opposition or what we thought substantive issues to deal with. In December we were invited to come down to meet with the TCRPC to discuss possible revisions to the plan based on the document you have before us tonight for consideration. We had a one hour meeting that was supposed to be followed up the next day with presentation of a revised plan, February of this year, met with them and we were presented with a revised plan that was prepared by the TCRPC with assistance from their consultants and of course, the in-house studio group there. We certainly were surprised by the changes, they were significant, the changes that were presented in the plan, the organization, the structure of the plan was entirely different, but we did not withstand all of the suggestions that April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 26 were made and as a result of that meeting, we were able to arrange for a two-day workshop or Charrette if you prefer that term, where we met with the TCRPC staff and the consultants and spent a couple of days trying to resolve the disparate qualities of the two plans. I think that it is certainly fair to say that there was willingness on our part to make that plan better and to work towards the plan that had been given to us in February and we made a lot of progress. However, we still have many concerns and a great deal of work to do in order to resolve the differences between the plan that was presented to us, we left our meeting which took place on March 23 and 24 with an agreement that we would both go back and work further from the plan that we left the meeting with as a point of departure with an understanding that we would meet again to compare revisions or refinements of that plan that would be prepared independently and still willing to follow that course of action and we made a commitment during that meeting to do the best we can to meet the stated objectives and goals of the TVC. We certainly think many of them are good objectives and represent good planning thought and principles. However, we do have a lot of concerns, not the least of which is the open space requirement. Our initial plan, although the requirement at the time was only 30% open space actually provided for 47% open space, which is a significant contribution on our part. We feel like there are many, many irritative steps to take in resolving the differences between the two plans that we had and the one that we are currently working on. We certainly want to support your suggestion of a continuance of this meeting. We would urge you to, because of the magnitude and the scope of this document, to consider a special hearing for this meeting only and not be arbitrarily constrained by a schedule which is, in my opinion, impossible to meet. That we all have time to further discuss and then hopefully resolve in a very positive way the differences that we all have now. Because there are many and there are many miles to go before we sleep. Ms. Hammer Mr. Hodges, the two-day workshop was that just your corporation and the TCRPC or were other developers also? Mr. Hodges We were the only landowners represented. Chair Grande I would like to say that I have been very pleasantly surprised and grateful for the patience shown by so many members of the investment community and development community, not just yourself, but Mr. Kilday is sitting out here who has been trying to move forward and is in roughly the same position. The County as you can see trying to move as quickly as possible to come up with what their vision for the future for this area is and having investors and developers that are willing to participate in that and come up with something that is good at the end of the day is probably the best thing that can happen for all of us. Mr. Hodges Thank you very much. I do want to go ahead and reiterate the few of the concerns that are more specific than the generalities that I have eluded to. I think that we would support the suggestion of County staff that this TVC document be considered not as a component and actual part of the Comprehensive Plan, but more appropriately April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 27 as a design guideline, we certainly want the open space issue to be given a great deal more consideration and discussion, both in public hearing and in smaller meetings between the TCRPC and the landowners, not only the large landowners, such as ourselves, but more the landowners like the ones I met with this afternoon who have smaller tracts, 40 acres, 75 acres in size, as well as some of the larger developers. We are concerned about the burden that the open space concept might place on the r financial performer that demonstrates how that can actually be accomplished. It would be a tremendous cost in restoration of these agricultural lands to natural forested communities or plant communities or even recreational uses; not to mention the ongoing cost of management and maintenance which will be significant. We think that understand that shows how they work. What the physical form of the town or the village center will be and that the marketplace is willing to accept that. That it is financially ns of this community want. Thank you. Bobby Klein, law firm of traded some philosophical discussions about the concept in general. I have not had a chance to get with him specifically about this; I too would echo the opportunity not only for the landowners but to sit with some of the peers sooner rather than later to talk about these concepts. I was going to wait and try to meet with Mike because of the fact that we have had a long standing relationship, but I think given the forum here, I think it is better to get these out and some of these are more comments, some of them maybe questions, so I thought it was better to get it to help them do their rewrite. Echoing the struck by essentially the duality of this document, if you will. Parts of it have been criticized because there is not enough detail, there is not enough information, there is this document has significant amount of detail that I believe are misplaced in a design guideline is part of a Comprehensive Plan is the answer either. I would say this on behalf of someone who represents developers as well as someone who used to do what you do, sat on the Planning and Zoning Commission for six years and as a government reviewing it. If through the practice, if through the utilization of these rules, whatever is passed, there are problems, then it will take another Comprehensive Plan to change them and when you talk about the patience, I think that patience is not there to last another 18 to 24 months depending on what time you get in and how long it takes you to develop the changes and when it is processed through the DCA. I would think that as you know, you have seen many glitch Bills come through where staff as it implemented the Land Development Code (LDC) realizes that there are provisions that going to be right back with a Comprehensive Plan amendment waiting for the submittal April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 28 period, and as you have been advised, you only get two a year and if you miss it, then you have to wait another six months or so to get there and then start the process. I believe the appropriate location for the details are the LDR which should come at the same time that we are discussing these Comprehensive Plans so that you and we can evaluate the broad policy which is all that should be in the Comprehensive Plan and the implementation which should be in the LDC. That way you will know and we will know what is expected. From a staff perspective, staff I do not believe could take this document and judge a development as to whether or not it complies with these rules. I understand that the are coming, but I believe that should the in the process then determine that there was a problem with the Comprehensive Plan, how do we go package. Very similarly to what the County Commission recently implemented that now a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment change must come forward with at least a PUD master plan of some sort, so they can understand what the developer is intending to do. At least get an idea of how it is going to be implemented as broad land use change. As was mentioned earlier, I believe that the same rules that apply to the development com this document. y comfortable with it, is in Policy 3.1.1.1.2 that is the Reduced Requirements that is on development within the USB, because that is the one that confuses me. New development located within the USB within a special area plan have a reduced requirement for countryside open space and have no minimum parcel size as outlined in Policies listed. Tdevelopment shall adhere to the settlement principles and TVC land development regulations, well of course, I just indicated understanding what is expected of someone inside the USB. But when you go to the settlement principles in 3.1.4.2 and that starts on Page 36, this is the discussion of what somewhere inside the USB that is within this area, if you read that neighborhoods form 15 First neighborhood shall contain a mix of uses including residential, retail, office, civic, and . Within the USB the open space ave residential, retail, office, civic, and recreation. Chair Grande that nobody ever conceived of and that is developing 40 acres as a 40 acre piece. The April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 29 entire concept of the plan is to look at the neighborhood as a whole. Now the 40 acre piece may wind up as part of a neighborhood or it might wind up as being open space that provides credits for the neighborhood, but the 40 acre piece will never and I want to stress this and get a concurrence the TCRPC, the 40 acre parcel will never be a front of us. Mr. Klein understan piece of property that right now has Residential, Medium land use on it, nine units to the rty owner does not have the right to the current land use and zoning within the USB where the County has demonstrated that they have to provide urban services and allow them to develop. Ms. Camplor I think that Mr. Klein is right, inside the USB you do not have a minimum parcel requirement, therefore, you do not have to build a town or a village. You were lopments. That will be part of a bigger whole, but you were exactly right in your concept. Mr. Klein that. If you look on 3-7 this is essentially the neighborhood diagram, this is the one been developed, but the ones that have been developed are have had a number of conversations and I would be way, everybody does the same thing, I d over-riding principles, have the rules, and have different ways to meet the concepts. To put one size fits all in the Comprehensive Plan is just asking for a world of trouble. The other really big concept that I want to get to is the discussion of the special area plan and this is 3.1.3.1, Page 3-5 Special Area Plan and it basically, it is 3.1.3.1 and it says and then there are 13 items listed, all of which presumably or not presumably, actually this mandates that a special area plan must meet each of these requirements as they have created. Now I go to Policy 3.1.3.2 Item No. 1, well so April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 30 appro Commission that has given formal status to that Master Plan. It was a concept, a bunch of people met over a weekend, the Design Studio met, drew some pictures, came back and we ll, of law. Second, when you read the description here it says Charrette process are illustratively depicted and do not portray a property specific land that purports to come in with this special area plan, how is the developer suppose to develop something that they can then bring to staff and when they finally do that, how does staff review it and tell you whether or not it meets anything? Let me go one further. Look at Item No. 11 on the list, I believe that there are probably some question, I also believe some probably have been met, but there is not the data and analysis that any of us have seen review, it says for the operation and maintenance of essentially, that is water, waste water, drainage, and roads. And you can probably add a few other things to that as well. This looks at can tell you without a doubt, there is no strategy for extending utilities other than the developers have to pay for the capacity, not only do we have to pay for the capacity, it a reservation fee to reserve discussions now. There is no strategy and it certainly is not being implemented and I not a big part of this, maybe the plan growing out the amendments that are here, maybe special plan. I understand the flow ways are nice, it certainly is a great place to walk and bike and enjoy yourself, but to mandate a flow away on every single development, to mandate that. ways all connected to other flow ways . participating to having some constructive conversations with the TCRPC and with you again. But those were the big issues that I wanted to hit. Thank you. Michael Busha I actually agree with Bobby on two counts, one that the plan itself April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 31 agree with Bob are finished. It was were done, so people would understand that. One thing about the drainage, the flow ways and th connect to something and represent part of a flow away too. I know Bobby and I need Mr. McCurdy Mike, when are the going to be done? Mr. Busha Ms. Morgan Just a comment, so this is a draft, but it was going to be presented to us tonight to possi Mr. Busha As a draft. No, it exists. Ms. Morgan It exists, but it has not been approved. Mr. Busha it until the Board finally adopts the whole thing. Ms. Morgan Bu Mr. Busha Chair Grande needs to go up to DCA for their comment and it would come back with quirks and at the same time you would be going through the LDR adoption process and in September this would be actually considered for approval. Caroline Velenueva, a representative of Indrio Groves Land Trust on behalf of Lennar Homes. We have a property, 1,026 acres just east of Spanish Lakes Fairways, west of Koblegard bound to the north by Indian River County and north of Indrio Road. We are following a similar path as Olson and Associate is and we certainly, I would like to take a moment and thank all the hard work that Michael and Marcella and Anthea and all the yourself, us and the rest of us in the audience. Similar to the public and private to come together and get to a plan that everyone can live by, April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 32 have done a lot of work in working with Spanish Lakes Fairways helping them with the because sometimes the word investor experience that Olson and Associates did with this one hour meeting that we had in mid December with Marcella and some of the consultants to explain what we anticipated to be our development program, in addition to they asked questions and it was a constructive program, but we thought the next day as they had told us we were going to while, a few efforts. I had to actually drive to Orlando to get that meeting set up. When we did have that, we were presented with a counter-proposal, but I would like to remind We were given something that was true to what you all are seeing in this plan before en on the taxpayers. This 60/40 percentage similar to what some of the previous speakers have said we share in that understand, and we will be responsible for the people that we will be bringing to St. Lucie County. A master plan community that we would do due to the scale and size of include a school, it will have hopefully a hurricane shelter, if we can get something like to enact these principles, these inter-connectivity grid patterns. There are some fundamental principles that we can do as part of this, in the development community, in living here. But forcing people to do it, not giving them options, being held to a double standard, because like others have said here, we seem to be rushing this plan through. But if I were to give you something that was half way done, you would tell me to go back and work on it some more. Vice-Chair Hearn You mentioned hurricane shelters and you mentioned that we need to do something now, what did you mean by that? Ms. Velenueva There is a particular questio Hurricane Preparedness and normally it requires applicants to address hurricane evacuation routes. What we would do, what would be our evacuation plan to address by the APA where we can build to a better standard than what exists today, so our community recreation center can also double as a hurricane shelter, not just for our residents, but for other residents, like Spanish Lakes Fairways or Lakewood Park. Because this is a community effort. I was here the day after those hurricanes with those residents in Spanish Lakes Fairways. We were in Lincoln Park handing out those MRE's and so I understand the realities of what we went through. Vice-Chair Hearn April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 33 Ms. Velenueva ocial responsible thing to do. Vice-Chair Hearn I agree with you and I think it needs to be part of our future planning in any development that comes before us. Ms. Velenueva I just mentioned that to you all so that you understand that there are thin and not because we have to do it. But when you start to come together, but again it needs some more attention to the details. Vice-Chair Hearn I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expound on what you had Noreen Dreyer with the L in St. Lucie County for 25 years. I care about this county as a citizen of St. Lucie long time starting with the USB discussions leading into the Charrette process and now into the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before you today. I also represent a number of clients who have property interests in the Indrio Road area and you have heard from quite a few of them already tonight and they provided you with some information regarding the details of this plan that concern them and I hope that at further before anything is transmitted to the DCA. I just want to hit on a couple of more global issues and leave the details to the experts who deal with the details, but first, I think a serious effort needs to be made to notify every landowner in this proposed TVC area. We have no problem notifying surrounding property owners for development applications that come before you and the County Commission; and when the county is proposing to significantly impact the development rights of property owners in this area, k it is too much to ask that they get written notice. It may not be required by extra step. Some folks as you heard tonight were very surprised to hear about what was occurring and what might happen to their land until really a short time ago and I would agree that re who property owners, the landowners, many of them did not know about the landowners meeting and attendance at those meetings has not represented all of the landowners of the properties within that TVC area. Secondly, I am glad to hear that the are something that are proposed to be adopted at the same time as the Comprehensive to hear it. But going along with that, I think part of the problem with the Comprehensive put the April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 34 details in the . If our own planning staff, if our professional planning consultant One thing that really concerns me is that in an amendment of this scope with all of the really critical that something of this nature be tested by oth have any interest in this property or in this area who can look at it objectively, look at it from a fresh perspective. Not necessarily that there are any problems here, but we all ficult to really see how it works. Finally, I think the Planning Board members are absolutely correct in the first statements that do something and do it right before we go ahead and send it off to DCA. Thank you. Suzy Caron obviously I have to. from the speakers which consist of mostly representatives, developers, and landowners, that we need to micromanage this plan before it is submitted. In reality, I have been involved from the start of this project, and let the truth be said, TCRPC has in no way suggested we hurry through this process, but in fact our own County Commissioners have asked for swift action due to the pressure from some of the developers wanting to build and build big now. I believe that if we do this right and all concerns are covered, we would have a near perfect plan. I suggest everyone agree to build nothing until we reach that point. If everyone is truly willing to do the right thing for everyone involved, and we take the greed, and the demands out of the equation we would be able to accomplish what the citizens of north county said they wanted. After all, we are the community and we said it loud and clear at the Charrette what we wanted to see in the north County. I would like to thank the TCRPC for all that they have done in such a very short amount of time and hope that they will continue to work with our community. Patience is a virtue plan, we will be devastated in the North County, so I think that we should work very hard problems within our own and we have to accept that as well. As far as hurrying this all be patient and will have a beautiful plan. It will put us on the map. Thank you. Vice-Chair Hearn ause of it. You and I and the rest of the taxpayers of this community and we do need to get it right. We do need to make sure that what we do is going to work for the benefit for the folks that live here along with the folks that are coming to our community expecting to have a quality of life that they are looking for. Ms. Caron April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 35 looking at PUD's all the way out to I-95 and those with special interests and this and room. PUD's originally were made so that you could have open space and what it became was a fre against Pods done properly with existing density, but some people came in and started and say we wil w Vice-Chair Hearn Well I hope you will stay, and when you look for instance at the Ms. Caron Vice-Chair Hearn better. Ms. Caron We need to plan better. I was instrumental in the road situation Tuesday pped through and t. You know it actually works. I Vice-Chair Hearn We have a little calendar up here there is a quote on it by Albert Ein, boy does that fit this. Ms. Caron Absolutely. I would certainly think that Marcella and Mike and their staff would like a vacation, so would I after two years of never missing the meetings, just in case. I thank you for all that you do and that you listen and that you care about our community. Thank you. Colin Macomber, 8680 Indrio Road, I live next to the old school house on Indrio Road. over the last couple of hours. Every time I go to these meetings, I learn a little bit more about how the real world works. As an think about land use, densities, and future land use maps and concurrency and all of this stuff. All you mow your yard, you want to be able to go to the grocery store, you want to be able to get to work to taking that. Over the last two years with the Emerson Estates stuff I learned an awful lot. I learned that attorneys and people in the development community can abuse regulations that we have put into place to try to save our community to make our April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 36 community a nice place. I have watched people abuse those, it is unfortunate, but it watched the use of concurrency be pushed aside for developments and I have watched other problems like that happen. It is really nice to see there is an open discussion e been really excited to see this plan come from a few scribbled drawings by a few amateurs to the fruition where it is right now. I would hope that we could push this plan through to the point where we can at least get a good solid outside , if we can get this submitted, we can get the State to give us comments on what needs to happen and what needs to change. That can happen concurrently concerns about it, I going to end up driving down six lane highways with walls and gates from here to wherever, all you have to do is go down to Port St. Lucie or down to Palm Beach County to see the results of what is going to happen if we do nothing. I realize that you talk about well there may not be build out, I see all of this build out happening all the time. I see the manipulation of that supposedly has 2.5 3 houses per acre, I look on 7 houses to the acre from the demanding and asking for you to take something about this and give us something that is concrete, that is going to give us a good quality of life. We all want a quality of life to that point. It is amazing, I wish more people would spend some time sitting here listening and learning, because there is so much more involved in that quality of life than is going to give all of us that quality of life and let us be blissfully ignorant all of the details that have gone on behind the scenes. Thank you. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Busha ent. We have contacted asking again all the lawyers and consultants who are representing the property owners so we can put them on the list, so they know when the new drafts are happy everybody is paying attention. Chair Grande to your process. Mr. Busha As current as they have it. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 37 Mr. McCurdy Mr. Busha Vice-Chair Hearn Could you contact our local newspapers and get a good story on tonight I don Mr. Busha Vice-Chair Hearn Mr. Busha We can have them down, we can have the editor, we can come up and They have been following this, we have yet to see a great story done on it, but I guess they choose what to print. The landowners are the ones that we really need to roll up our sleeves and talk to them. Sometimes we get different perspectives from the landowners than we get from probably the most universally destructive force out there is gossip. When we talk about Vice-Chair Hearn There is one suggestion I would make at the next meeting that we Mr. Busha Chair Grande thth 19 some time around the 11 moving forward with, I would suggest to you that sometime between now and then, in a got a lot of questions coming from not being involved in the process. If you reach out and bring them in, they maybe a lot more supportive. The second one, I have a sense bus, we need to work at a pace that gets it done right rather than getting it done fast. I know those are not your specific instructions and I know we may wind up with a different chair for this board, if I say that publicly, but I really think this is probably as an important thi of getting it right is getting the public to believe in it and support it so that it goes forward with support as opposed to an adversarial situation. I was incredibly pleased to hear all of the investors and developers who stood up this evening and talked from a perspective of trying to get it right and kind of making a tacit promise, I see Bobby shaking his head, they would hold back from coming forward with development plans April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 38 that were inconsistent for long enough for us to get this right and I really appreciate that attitude. I think there is enough p going to have to believe in what herwise be there, somehow that needs to be justified. It may actually be justified in the TDR process, but if it is, I got to tell you, nobody understands it. Ms. Hammer When the new product comes out, will you be sure there is a date on it, if you dro Chair Grande Ms. Hammer Please put the date on it. Ms. Morgan Revise the page numbers, because either something happened or either Chair Grande only included those pages where they were making suggestions. Mr. Busha The only document we transmitted to you was dated April 8, should be a complete copy. Ms. Hammer moved that we accept the request to continue to May 19, 2005 at 6 p.m. Motion was seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. There was a 10 minute recess. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: MARGARET BENNETT CU-05-003 Mr. Kelly introduced Linda Pendarvis, a long time County employee who worked previously in the Zoning Department and now in Planning. He also introduced Sheryl Stolzenberg who spoke briefly earlier. Ms. Hammer requested the resumes of new employees to be sent to the board members. Linda Pendarvis stated that this was the petition of Margaret Bennett who requested a Conditional Use permit to allow a family residential within a radius of a 1,000 feet of was located at 3004 Anderson Avenue, Paradise Park, Fort Pierce. The existing family residential home that was within 1,000 feet of the request was located at 3009 Anderson Avenue. The conditional use permit approval would allow the applicant to apply for the required zoning compliance certificate in order to operate the subject property as a family residential home. Staff found that the petition met the standards of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land Development Code and was not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Vice-Chair Hearn The stars that are on our map indicating, is there two within 1,000 feet that are already there? Vice-Chair Hearn Okay, and another question that I have, the applicant is asking for three clients if you will for their conditional use, can that be made part of the condition on this? Ms. Pendarvis Ms. Pendarvis one never followed through with their license, so they never did actually receive a license. Yes it can. Vice-Chair Hearn I would be anxious to see if the petitioner would be willing to do that. Also my final question at this time, is the property securely fenced to the extent that residents cannot wander into the canal area? Ms. Pendarvis come up. But it does have a fence around the yard. Vice-Chair Hearn Ms. Pendarvis It is completely fenced. Vice-Chair Hearn And there is only one building on the property? April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 40 Ms. Pendarvis Yes, and her request with the State for her license was for only three beds. Margaret Bennett I already have foster license for children, I have two kids that practically grew up at my home, one was eight years old when I got him, and the other and I would hate to see them uprooted and have to go to another residential, since I my own and one of them is now graduating from high school, but he has no place to go and the other one is the same. I would love to have them remain in my own, but they are adults now, so I need adult license. Vice-Chair Hearn Are you okay having a condition on this for three additional? Ms. Bennett Chair Grande opened the public hearing. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff comments and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Margaret Bennett for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a family residential home within a 1,000 feet of another such family residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District because it makes sense with the condition. Motion was seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 41 AGENDA ITEM 4: KENNETH PALESTRANT, M.D. RZ-05-001 Diana Waite with the Planning Division said this is the petition of Kenneth Palestrant for a change in zoning from Agriculture, Residential which allows one dwelling unit per the the northeast corner of Christensen Road and west Midway Road. This is about ¼ mile th east of the intersection of 25 and Midway. The zoning districts surrounding the property are Commercial, Office on the east side, Institutional to the northeast and Agriculture, Residential on the west and directly north. Residential uses are located to the south, across Midway Road. The property is in a Residential, Suburban designated area which allows Commercial, Neighborhood and Commercial, Office uses. The applicant states that the purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a medical clinic and professional offices. The applicant recently submitted a site plan, which is under review by staff. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and finds it does meet the standards of review. Staff recommends that you forward this application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Vice-Chair Hearn Under the comments section it says the applicant states the intended purpose for the requested rezoning is to development, I guess we said develop property for a medical clinic and other professional office uses. The applicant - Residential Development (PNRD) application, but that they were contractually required to seek rezoning by a certain date. My understanding is Planned Non-Residential Development is a zoning change, and I think that would satisfy the requirements of any contract required that be done by a certain date, am I wrong with that or? Ms. Waite Yes, I believe that what the situation was, they were under contract to seek the zoning by a certain date and that did not allow time to prepare the site plan and the details that would be needed for submittal of a Planned Unit Development application. Vice-Chair Hearn But as I read this, it just states that they were required to seek the requirement that they seek approval by a certain date. Ms. Waite is my understanding. The applicant is here and can best address that question. Vice-Chair Hearn that the rezoning has to be approved by that date. Ms. Waite April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 42 Vice-Chair Hearn If they started the process, that to me satisfies the requirement that they do that. Chair Grande Perhaps the applicant can address that. Richard Sneed, Attorney for to the lead time. We were contractually obligated to file a petition to rezone the property. As I normally do I met with staff before I do anything and filing and we decided to file the petition to rezone and put in our petition to rezone that we had every intention as soon as we could to file for site plan approval and we have done that. We did that within a 60 day window, we were contractually obligated to have the property rezone so we took the route of just filing the petition to rezone and within that window of 60 days as you can see, we have Ernesto Velasco of the Velcon Group with us, he has prepared for Dr. nt and a landscaping plan has been filed and an application has been filed to have that site plan certification approved. fact, I even sent a copy to the chairman of the site plan and I think staff even forwarded it on to you as well. So that you could see that this was a legitimate request of Dr. Palestrant to locate his Urgent Care facility at this location. Chair Grande Contractually obligated to whom? Mr. Sneed In our application we told you that we were buying the property contingent upon being able to ein, we are the buyer of the property and under the contractual terms of it we want to be able to do what we want to do when we buy the seller. Vice-Chair Hearn The way I read it was that all you had to do was show good faith that you were applying for a rezoning. Mr. Sneed Right, the County would not accept a PNRD without a site plan, landscape plan, survey and they have a litany of things; so a PNRD is a package that goes in, what we did is in two steps and we hopefully tried to show good faith in doing it that Vice-Chair Hearn Mr. Sneed We a County. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 43 Vice-Chair Hearn if I understan to. Mr. Sneed initial application that we were not here just to rezone property, that we had a contractual bind, and that when I met with staff, and wrestled with our contractual problem that we ca application in good faith and got it before you and even tried to get it before you all which we accomplished and I suggested to my client that we really need to do this, that we would show good faith in filing a site plan and paying the money and going through the process. There is a lot of soft cost involved, we have the Velcon Group involved an Vice-Chair Hearn Diana, is the site plan something that you have to approve after the rezoning tak obligation to follow through on that? Ms. Waite A site plan is a completely separate application and there would be no obligation for them to follow through with the site plhis intent, but he could withdraw the site plan application. Vice-Chair Hearn that. Mr. Sneed put that in our application that I knew what your pleasure was, and we tried to meet that pleasure by doing it in two stages. If there is any way that we can contractually obligate ourselves not to do anything with the property without site plan approval, the doctor would consent to that or stipulate to that. Vice-Chair Hearn conditions on a rezoning. Chair Grande I guess the only that we can do really is, has the site plan application been filed? Ms. Waite Yes it has, it was filed on April 8 and submitted to the other departments for review. I believe it will be another week or two before we have the first round of issue; the is Midway Road capacity, our Public Works Department will be looking at that. But have a copy of the site plan, so you can make suggestions. Any suggestions you have April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 44 regarding the site plan, we can take those back and then continue to make those requests through the site plan process. Chair Grande I was just concerned as to whether or not it had been filed, but it has Ms. Hammer and change it with a rezoning? They can change the site plan? Ms. Waite Yes. Ms. Hammer I have a question. There are four buildings on 2.2 acres, what are your intentions for those buildings. Dr. Kenneth Palestrant I am a local physician in the community, primarily down in Port St. Lucie and have been in the Emergency Department for many years locally and two years ago I opened up an Urgent Care Center down in Port St. Lucie. Urgent Care medicine is pretty much an alternative to people going to Emergency Department. It is an alternative to people who cannot get in to see their own primary doctor. We take care of pretty much all comers, everything from kids to adults, elderly, trauma, x-ray, very similar to almost a free standing emergency urgent care experience. I felt that there is a tremendous need up in this area. We do a fair amount of industrial medicine n. A lot of our clients actually come from north of this particular site, the Midway Road Distribution Center for Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart up in Okeechobee Road, several industries up in Fort Pierce and I felt that there was a need in this catchment area of Fort Pierce for an urgent care center. The emergency departments are over burdened. I felt that Midway Road was a very good corridor to be on. One of the things that you need for urgent care is a vibrant community. A lot of our business is walk-in so therefore a good site is important. This particular piece of property, I could not find the actual size that I particularly wanted, which was smaller than this. One of those buildings, one of those front 5,000 square foot buildings, is going to be my urgent care center. The remaining 5,000 square foot and two 3,000 square foot buildings in the back are going to be professional office space and the obviously to plunk it that particular property and I feel that in the future with that particular area, the growth that there is going to be a need for additional physician office spaces, professional office spaces and I feel that this would certainly be suitable. Ms. Hammer that I see, it looks like what you think is your property line runs straight through their driveway. Did you see a copy of the letter and questions from the resident? April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 45 Dr. Palestrant I have not seen a copy of the letter, there have been some issues with l defer that to Ernesto Velasco with Velcon Engineering who did the survey for myself. Ernesto Velasco with the Velcon Group and we are an engineering surveying firm. We are working with Dr. Palestrant on this project and there is indeed a conflict with the property to the north. I am not a surveyor, but we did take a look at this particular a day or two ago. They provided us a copy of their survey so that we can compare it to ours. The only thing I can tell you at this time since we have not gone and done anymore research on it, there is a discrepancy between the two legal descriptions, that I am sure of. There is apparently an 8 foot discrepancy between the neighbor to the concerned, as far as Velcon Group is concerned, we are representing in our drawing what was issued to us as a Warranty Deed and the legal description in that Warranty Deed. As to the nature of the discrepancy or why the neighbor to the north has property is concerned and the legal description found in that Warranty Deed that Dr. Palestrant has, they are corresponding and they are as far as my knowledge goes correct. Chair Grande opened the public hearing. John Fossati I live at 4940 Christensen Road. If the line is in the middle of my driveway, le upset and my well would be in question. The problem I have is that mine is an acre zoning area. When I bought the property, they surveyed it, I have a warranted survey and in order to accomplish the acre, they had to go to 137 foot frontage and it comes out to 43,000 and change which gives me an acre. If you cut 7 feet off it, I have less than an acre. When I purchased the purchased the property they heads with them. I have less than an acre if their line stands. There is never a variance issued for less an acre. Chair Grande I think this is something though that this board would not be concerned with. The question really is, Heather, I guess is, what would you recommend to this property owner at this point and time. Ms. Young My first recommendation is that you probably need to consult with an attorney about the legal description on your Deed. I believe in the document, your letter you said it is the same s seller is still around, but I would recommend that you consult with your attorney to see what the problems are with your deed and what you all can do to resolve it. You may want to speak to Mr. Sneed as well, if he is familiar with the property, before you all leave. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 46 Mr. Fossati been a variance. Ms. Young me a non- conforming use in the lot if it is less than the acre. As far as the petition before them problem with that seven acres, or seven feet down the road, I believe there is still insufficient property to qualify for the CO zoning. Mr. Fossati they are going to infringe upon my property. Ms. Young As far as the site plan goes, obviously those survey issues are going to have to be resolved before we can sign off on it at County level. Mr. Fossati Ms. Young just looking at the rezoning issue. So I think if they chose they could go ahead and act before the site plan can be approved. Mr. Fossati It can be resolved simply b to be, which may infringe upon his zoning to get his four buildings in, having enough square footage, so we have to go to an attorney. Ms. Young o deal with. That would be my recommendation. Vice-Chair Hearn Aside from your boundary dispute, do you have any problem with this rezoning. Mr. Fossati No, the only problem I have, personally I move from county to county in this state, from New York and if you allow any more businesses without getting the road Chair Grande Whatever happens in this one, we promise not to move the West Virginia Corridor past your house. Ms. Young There is a plan that is moving ahead, as a matter of fact we had a meeting this week regarding Midway Road being addressed, the capacity being addressed. It is April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 47 Mr. Fossati a lot of problems on Midway Road because of right-of-ways and what I understand is the right-of-way for the road changes from 65 feet to 45 feet at my be taken into consideration. May have to take more of this property to get your roadway in. Chair Grande That will be part of the road project and they will work with all of the homeowners that have frontage that may or may not become part of the right-of-way. Mr. Fossati Who is going to pay the taxes for $168M for eight miles of road? Thanks. Mr. Sneed between Mr. Klein and another lawyer in Stuart, they are. We will certainly cooperate ter, but we were not aware of it until the survey was performed. All of that was disclosed in the with this gentleman. Vice-Chair Hearn Do you have any particular office hours or is it going to be pretty much 24 hour day, if necessary? Dr. Palestrant - No, not 24 hours, I did that when I was in the emergency room. No, 7 days a week, probably not to start out at the very beginning. the hurricane. I actually operate of a trailer and part of my office for unfortunately six whole concept behind urgent care, is that the emergency departments, unfortunately, Chair Grande What hours during the day? Dr. Palestrant 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday thru Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and probably 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Sunday. But I would probably not just start right out with Sunday, unless there is a need for it. If I see that there is a volume of patients that are We may end up doing it anyway because we already have a fair amount of patients up in this area who are coming down from Fort Pierce and even as far as Okeechobee coming to our center. We provide good Vice-Chair Hearn T this was a PNRD, they would be your hours. The way it is now, those hours could April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 48 with this issue. Dr. Palestrant A 24 hour day is just not feasible. Vice-Chair Hearn I understand that, but I want you to understand that it could be if you changed your mind. With the PNRD you could not do that. Dr. Palestrant that. The extended hours beyond what a physician office, a normal physician office is able to urgent care open 24 hours. Number one because there is not that significant of a need and Number two because it is not really financially feasible. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy After considering the testimony presented during the public Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Kenneth Palestrant, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District, because the Midway Road Corridor is destined to become a Commercial, Office Zoning District probably with retail, it makes sense. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote Vice-Chair Hearn voted no only because I d in the position to have to do a straight rezoning when I think a PNRD would have been much more appropriate and everybody would have assurances of what would have happened. Ms. Hammer voted no also for the reasons that Mr. Hearn stated, I would feel much better if we had a means to fall back on to protect the residents to the north. Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Grande voted yes . April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 49 AGENDA ITEM : PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATRIONS ORD-05-008 Ms. Outlaw On behalf of Mike Bowers, he asked me to request the board withdraw consideration of this item for tonight and that it be heard on May 11. Chair Grande You have our unanimous gratitude and blessings. Ms. Hammer made the motion to continue the item to May 11, 2005 at 6 p.m. or as soon thereafter. Vice-Chair Hearn seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the item was carried unanimously. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 50 AGENDA ITEM 7: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PARK ORD- 05-113 Ms. Waite Research and Education Park Overlay Zone is being proposed as a follow- up to the recent change in the area to an SD (Special District) Future Land Use Designation as part of our Comprehensive Future Land Use amendments a year or so ago. The Overlay Zoned is proposed to be added to Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code to guide development within the park. Currently there is a master plan being developed for the park, as a result there may be some changes to the draft Overlay Zone. The Park is intended to be developed consistent with the master plan and the overlay zone. The proposed uses are those expected to be utilized by the USDA, IFAS and St. Lucie County as they are assisting to bring businesses into that area. Businesses within the park would be associated with research and education at some level. We have notified the property owners within 500 feet and have received two calls on the notice. Staff has determined the drafted Ordinance is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and would be placed in Chapter 4 of Land Development Code. We recommend you forward the Draft Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Hensley like to make a little bit of a statement on this. The reason I think this is something that has a level of urgency is that the park authority has been approved by the County Commission. They have then been approved by the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida; it will be presented to the Board of Governors in June and there is somewhat of a need of the County having a firm commitment in order for the Board of Governors to give their approval which we have to have according to statute in order for the authority to proceed. The authority will be the governing body of this research park and will be autonomous in nature, but this is a key component of that going forward. This with the master plan and the commitment of all the different landowners in that area to work together collaboratively is essential for it to be successful. Chair Grande I have a sense that you are preaching to the choir. Ms. Hensley Vice-Chair Hearn I have a question, on the Zoning Map there is a little piece of -hatches on it, right in the middle of it, what is that? Ms. Waite That property is in private ownership. Vice-Chair Hearn Ms. Waite tand that they are aware of the research park and I preparing the master plan. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 51 Ms. Hensley participating; t do not actually fit with the confines and description of what a research park can be. They are going to be probably involved in many levels, but because they are existing structures, they do not meet the criteria. Vice-Chair Hearn Are we going to meet concurrency on Kings Highway with this project? Ms. Waite We are going to have to. Adoption of the overlay zone itself does not require us to meet concurrency. I was at the meeting today when there was talk about the master plan and part of that discussion was the four-laning of Kings Highway. When we get to the site plan stage, we will have to address concurrency. We do know that Kings Highway needs to be widened. Ms. Hammer On 4.03.03 Limitations on Land Use Applications and then down below there is a chart, not everyone that would be reading this would be familiar with all the initials that we use and that chart, would it be possible just in case when it is printed it carries on, instead of the PMUD and PNRD, could you just spell out what they are? Ms. Waite Vice-Chair Hearn Ms. Hammer Chair Grande opened the public hearing. Dennis Murphy - Earlier tonight a comment was made that the issue is coming before lasting, life changing effect on St. Lucie County. True, but this is going to have a bigger effect. The other components going to change the whole future of this community as it goes forward. Vice-Chair Hearn For good or bad? Mr. Murphy correctly. In looking over this, real quickly, and I only got it a couple of days ago. I normally I maybe up here advocating that we would delay this and clean up some of the inconsistencies and some of the questions that exist at the moment with the master plan king both as a resident of the county and as a representative for some adjoining properties on the east side of this project, that it needs a little bit of tweaking to happen, it needs a little bit of tweaking just to make sure everything is internally consistent with each other. Because in looking through it I found that there are some problems with it and if it is understood April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 52 that any action of the County Commission tonight would hopefully accept still some further refinement of this to something that fits the whole program, I think is better for comments in the land use options, yeah, besides identifying the PMUD and PNRD g to talk about changing the land use in here. The land use is already changed, it is Special District. Ms. Waite Some property within the park is not SD. Mr. Murphy d are not, but the majority of it is, thanks Diana. But the one thing and Diana made a comment that this is the second step in the think this is actually the second step; this is actually the third step. The second step is being worked on today and tomorrow over to the hurricane house and that is expected to be completed in the next three weeks, two weeks (Master Plan). Ms. Hensley general understanding of the master plan. Mr. Murphy Enough th who has some proected, we Park, we want to be a willing and cooperative neighbor and partner into this. Also as a resident of the County I will have an interest to see if this works and there is some gets done. I would encourage you to forward this to the Board as an expeditious action as possible. Chair Grande That was a rather ambiguous presentation. Do you have specific recommendations that you would like to put forward? Mr. Murphy I have a full green sheet markup in through here. A lot of it is editorial, I can tell you r talking about. Go to Purpose and Intent Paragraph B and it is an unintended consequence of how this was structured. The first line across the board, of the se Nowhere in nuances like that. There is another problem in here that relates to the identification of the uses. I have a concern that I think right now if you go and 4.03.05 and list it as it is today, we maybe pinning ourselves into a unintended box where we have to come back in and as someone put it earlier tonight do another glitch Bill to identify the listed uses. Be careful in here, we want to have maximum flexibility, we want to have maximum we want to say April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 53 somebody who wants to go out into the Research and Education Park wants to make tuning of it that needs to be looked at as it goes forward. From other perspective, look Vice-Chair Hearn What page are you on? Mr. Murphy Performance Standards as they relate to physical development, because again, what we think is going to fit at this particularly second and time, I will almost guarantee you there will be a business or an entity that needs to come in and for whatever their particular process is, that is not going to fit. Now part of that can get covered out through hopefully some of the work that EDSA is doing. This is not a commercial for EDSA or anything. the the final performance standards that comes in here. And this mostly is probably, it needs to come out of this board tonight to get to the County Commission in time to get appropriate to be read as they will be by the Board and keep this thing moving. We do want to see this t further. Vice-Chair Hearn Gazing into your crystal ball, if you will for a moment, tell us what you think this will do for our community. Mr. Murphy bringing, it becomes a marketing tool, a community status symbol, a point that we can look at both as people who live here and as people who have future development issues in the county to say hey look, this is here, this can expand our economic base. Vice-Chair Hearn I just hope we can keep some of the higher paying people living in Mr. Murphy Well, that opens up a whole other discussion regarding housing opportunities and I will not go into that one tonight. Vice-Chair Hearn I just detest when high paying jobs live in Vero Beach, a lot of them. Mr. Murphy I have a client, who you guys know about who has some property a little bit further south than this who has made a very strong investment towards a high quality residential community and we are hoping and we are going to actively market it towards April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 54 those who would be working in the high paying jobs here to live in that high costing community. Ms. Hensley There is a subcommittee for the Workforce Board and Economic Development Council working together with three counties and this is part of the central piece of discussion. That this will be the economic engine to drive economic has been discussed for approximately eight years before it got it to this point and there are rare opportunities, we have verbal agreement for University of Florida to do some expansion to fill some gaps in here. We have an agreement from Mr. Brogan from FAU to expand and fill some gaps in here and the president of Nova Southeastern is very excited about a potential of coming in and doing something that are not being done opportunity to have so much in this County that we can actually pull together collaboratively around the table. So it is extremely exciting, I think 20 year plan to actually bring high paying, high wage jobs, economic development, educational opportunities and experiences that probably will not be repeated, cannot be done anywhere else. Chair Grande Big step on getting to be the research coast. Ms. Hensley Big step. Caroline Velenueva representative for Avalon St. Lucie Developers, we are 840 acre immediately south of that u and fully endorse what the County is trying to do here. We just want to compliment what you all are doing. This is just a great opportunity to work together in partnership to realize this. I attended briefly the workshop today, some members of the staff, and you all have the right people on board and with that frame of thinking, we decided to forward to working with you all as we plan this community well, residents, research and development component to compliment what you all have. There is as well some commercial, school, parks the whole nine. Chair Grande closed the public hearing. Chair Grande I have one question of staff, on 4.03.04 Performance Standards, we have a 60 foot height limit, I was just wondering why we put it in here? Ms. Waite Sixty feet was used because that is the height limit in the Commercial, General Zoning District, as well institutional facilities. Vice-Chair Hearn Did you say that 60 foot height limit is allowed in Commercial, General, is that what you said? Ms. Waite Yes. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 55 Vice-Chair Hearn Chair Grande are about 60 feet, or 50 feet or 70 feet. My question is, does it make sense to have height limit in this document or should we leave that to the specific planners of any advisory board. Ms. Young To answer the Commercial, General question, it is 60 feet. Mr. Kelly there and if EDSA were to recommend different through the process, I think we would be back to modify this. Where as Mr. Murphy said there are a few things we need to County Commission and I think the concept is what is important. Mr. Hearn made the motion to move for approval. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the item was approved unanimously. Chair Grande wanted the record to show that he recommend that the height limit be removed from this particular document. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 56 Other Business Ms. Hammer reminded the board about the workshop on May 4 and 5, and for members would be really worthwhile. Next scheduled meeting will be the Special Meeting on May 11, 2005. April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 57 ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hammer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Charles Grande, Chairman April 21, 2005 P&Z Meeting 58