Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 08-18-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Stephanie Morgan, Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy and Kathryn Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Russell Akins without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner II; Mr. Michael Brilhart, Strategy and Special Project Director; Ms. Karen Butcher, Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator; and Ms. Talea Owens, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Grande gave a brief presentation of the procedures as of what to expect for today The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. 1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold today. 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. 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. 2 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. The roll call was made and Chairman Grande asked if there were any other announcements to be made. A few of the P&Z Commission members stated they have spoken with a number of residents, and attorneys on the TVC Element proposal. They have also participated in the first meetings or workshops regarding the TVC Element and have read all of the TVC Element documents. Mr. Michael Brilhart, Strategy and Special Project Director for the County, thanked all staff members of the Regional Planning Counsel and consultants that helped prepare the TVC Element document. Mr. Knapp and Ms. Hensley has arrived Presenting this item is Marcella Camblor, the Urban Design Director with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel and Project manager for the TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the St. Lucie County Comp Plan, along with Regional Planning Counsel Executive Director and staff. For the past eleven months, the Regional Planning Counsel has been working in public and open ways to create the comp plan amendments. Ms. Camblor stated they believe that they have been able to create a balanced plan, due to the amount of public participation that they have received. She stated the TVC pla The balance objectives, ideal of the type of quality of life and character that they envision for the North County Region. The balance has created development that achieves a better relationship with the local ecology and agricultural character that the residents hope to preserve. Ms. Camblor viewed a general location map of the TVC Element. The area in red is the special area plan as listed throughout the document. The boundaries of the special area plan coincide with the boundaries of the Charrette. The TVC area can be seen on the map as the light blue area. The TVC area is approximately 28 sq. miles and the special area plan is about 60 sq. miles. Everything being discussed at this meeting only applies to the TVC area (light blue area on map), not countywide or necessarily to the rest of the special area plan. 3 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. The four basic concepts of how the TVC works are as follows: 1.The TVC is based on parcel size. It works differently whether a parcel is over 500 acres or under 500 acres. If a parcel if over 500 acres, a property owner is entitled to develop a town or a village (depending on the size of his/her property). He/She can also decide not to develop and maintain his land for agricultural purposes and participate in the transfer of development rights per rim. If a parcel is less than 500 acres, the property owner has the right to submit a joint- application. The joint-application involves getting together with another property owner, to get to the 500 acre threshold and submit an application to develop a town or a village. This is also the same as with more than 500 acres, wherein they maintain their property for agricultural uses and utilize the TDR Program (Transfer of Development Rights Program). Parcels under 500 acres also have the option of the 10% rule. The 10% rule is policy that allows smaller land owners to transfer 90% of their current density yield, to a town or a village that is being developed. Once smaller land owners transfer 90% of their current density yield, they maintain 10% of their density yield, for their property for future development. The last option that parcels under 500 acres have is in regards to the land owners choosing not to be a part of the TVC or to build in accordance to any of the settlement principals established by the TVC. If smaller land owners choose not to be a part of the TVC, they can subdivide their parcels into individual parcels, equal or less than their current density yield, which in an essence is exactly maintaining their current property rights which is what they have according to the current future land use designation. 2.The second concept is that the TVC is a form-based element. The neighborhood is the planning unit of the entire TVC. The TVC also introduces the concept of the transact, which is a system that distributes densities throughout the neighborhood to ensure different concentrations of densities in different building types throughout the community. 3.The third concept is the idea that the TVC is based on a system of transferring development rights. This idea state in order for towns and villages to be built, property rights are moved around and located in the areas where it makes more sense for development to occur. This transfer of development rights as proposed is a market driven transfer of development rights. It is formed-based because it is based on the neighborhood basic planning unit, and it is not clustering homes, without having to follow a specific form. 4 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. 4.The fourth concept is the ideas that open space will be guaranteed and perpetuity as development comes along. This is not something that the County has to go out there and purchase, but is something that naturally occurs as towns and villages come in line. The TVC is also aiming at guaranteeing a course preserving the rural character, while encouraging opportunities for continued agriculture. It is also a plan that aims at guaranteeing or off-setting the biological and ecological impacts of all the new development that is proposed in this area. It is a way of managing all the development rights that had already been distributed throughout the North County area, and managing them in such a way that their impacts will be off-set. It is a way to guarantee improvement of the water quality for the Indian River Lagoon. It is a way to guarantee an interconnected system of nature habitat preserves, greenways, parks and open space. It is also a way to guarantee a framework for a vital community. Ms. Camblor concluded stating this is the physical framework that is being laid out in the TVC that has the objective to accomplish all of these issues. There are five main differences between the last draft of the TVC and the current draft of the TVC. 1.The first difference is the layout of the document. The order of pages has been shifted because the Department of Community Affairs recommends this change for better organization. The concept of the family farms has been replaced by the 10% density yield rule. There has been a change to the transfer of development rights matrix. The change represents a reduction in the multiplier in a couple of cases and creation and clarification of the categories. There has been a change of formula of workforce housing. There has also been a change to one of the maps that delineates the receiving sites. The first change that discusses going from family farms to the 10% rule is located in the documents on page 3-7 and is policy 3.1.2.6. Before policy 3.1.2.6 there was a policy that allowed for persons that have a 40 acre farm out in the countryside, to potentially transfer some of their density, and build additional homes within their parcel provided that the homes were for family members. This change to the policy, the 10% rule, stated that for parcels that are less than 500 acres in size, they are able to utilize the TDR Program to transfer a minimum of 90% of the transferable density to an eligible receiving site within the approved special area plan. The property may then be subdivided into individual home sites up to the number permitted by the remaining transferable density. Such home sites are eligible 5 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. For example, someone (today) who has a parcel that is 80 acres, under the 10% rule those people would have to first transfer 90% of the actual yield. Therefore 72 of those initial units would be transferred through the TDR programs and applied a multiplier. Once they do that, with the 10% remaining (which would be 8 units according to the example given) they may subdivide that property into 8 parcels. The LDR will determine whether or not those have to be clustered or if they will be large lots. They land owners have to follow the land development regulations if they do this. The flow-way and connectivity of road ways will be maintained as the remaining units are placed into the Countryside. Once the developer does that, it is considered that they have done their portion and have participated in the TDR to help clean up the Countyside of at least 90% of the unit; therefore they become eligible for services provided that they pay for the cost of the services. All of the categories of the change to the transfer of development rights matrix are shown in red on the displayed map. Not all of the categories that are shown in red have been changed; some have been re-worded, rephrased, or split in half. The first two multipliers that allow internal transfers when building a village or town have been reduced. The one for the town was reduced from a value of 2, to a value of 1 ½ and the one for villages was reduced from a value of 1 ½ to a value of 1.25. It is important to create a category that encourages the transfer of development rights from significant natural habitats. In regards to the proposal, if a parcel that has significant natural habitat is inside of the Urban Service boundary, then the units can be transferred to a town or a village, outside of the Urban Service Boundary. In addition, no units from within the Urban Service Boundary are permitted to be transferred outside of the Urban Service Boundary and receive the multipliers. If a developer that is building a village or a town, in the amount of countryside or open space that they are required to leave, decides to created new natural habitants (restore the land to its original/natural condition), they shall receive an additional incentive for doing that. In the third draft of the workforce housing component, it was required for every town or village to have 20% of their potential yield as affordable housing. The percentage has changed to 8% of the proposed number of units. The overall number of affordable housing units has not changed, but the mathematical equation has changed. As the underlying land use varied per property owners, the mathematical equation for affordable housing changed. 6 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. For example, as listed under the initial calculations, 1,000 acres yielded 200 affordable units. Under the calculation of the current 8% of the proposed number, 1,000 acres yield 160 affordable units. The end results are very similar. commendation for approval. She stated staff recommends that the text be added to the TVC Element, which requests that dedication of lands within each TVC special area plan for the use of future public building space in the North County area. She stated they will add additional text for the previous recommendation that will include county buildings. She also added that they Mr. Lounds arrived to the meeting. Mr. McCurdy asked if the creation of natural habitats will follow the guidelines of the collier county. Ms. Camblor stated it will not follow the collier county because the collier county has percentages that can add over percentages. There program is similar to the collier county in the sense that they are heavily inclined to restoring and preserving natural habitat. It is an incentive for property owners who would like to restore their land and turn it back to the natural habitat. Mr. McCurdy asked if there were guidelines that set goals for the credits that are to be achieved. department to establish goals. Mr. Knapp asked if there were any provisions for developing property under the 10% rule, without selling the 90% (but holding it to be sold), so that property owners can do something with their property prior to the market demanding that 90% is sold immediately. Ms. Camblor stated based on the way it is currently written, property owners would have to sell 90% of their land. However, they are working on an ordinance which states if a property owner designates the 90% to be sold, an easement will be placed on their property and it will allow them to get started. The 90% of the additional density is committed to be sold. 7 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Knapp asked that the current rights of the land be explained (how it is zoned as of right now, as to how it will be zoned for future land use). He asked which of the two, as far as current rights go, is being spoken on. Ms. Camblor stated the base that they are using is the future land use map because it the Chairman Grande asked it there were any other questions. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Russakis he TVC preserves existing property rights while providing development and shall fo property owners move forward with the TVC, without knowing what the TVC land development regulations are. A speaker stated the land development regulations have to be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. He added they will work through the TVC to assure that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan hold true, through the LDRs. He stated nothing intended is being taken away through the LDRs that. Chairman Grande asked the speaker if he is inferring that as the comp plan changes, the LDRs will be prepared so that they are ready. The speaker replied yes and that they will be working on that. Mr. Russakis stated as a property owner, the process of waitin uncomfortable. He stated if he was waiting to buy property then he can understand the process of waiting, but when you already own property, how can you go forward. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Russakis what his recommendation to the board would be. Mr. Russakis stated he would feel more comfortable if they knew what the TVC regulations were going to be. He stated property owners are being asked to trust someone that is going to develop the LDRs that property owners will have to live with. He restated that it is very uncomfortable. Mr. Russakis asked if the TDR Program was in existence. 8 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated they are working on developing the TDR Program. Mr. Russakis stated he would like for the TDR Program to be in existence before the TVC Element is approved. He stated if the property owners have to sell their TDRs before they can do anything with their land, there is no use for the TDRs. He stated the property owners would not mind being apart of the idea of the TVC Element but there are too many unanswered questions for their lack of understanding. He stated he would property owners and their uncomfortable grief of waiting for the development of TDRs and such have you. Mr. Tom Babcock stated he has been in the development business for the past 25 years, developing communities in Broward County-Huntington, Martin County-Martin downs, St. Lucie County-St. Lucie West and Brevard County, in the community of Vierra. The TVC plan employs urbanized planning and development principles for the establishment of new communities. He stated they have been most successful within the confluence of major metropolitan areas with high wage employment and high job growth. They have also given the perception of success in areas preferred by wealthy second social engineering. In both cases, the developer had the option and not the requirement to develop a new urbanized community, with varying sizes and where the developer could exercise control over most development issues. The TVC plan imposes the new urbanized principles over a much larger area, with numerous issues and owners, none of whom can control what the other may or may not do. It is a major departure from the norm, when government dictates the market and how Our nation and form of government is a democratic republic, which was formed to protect the rights of every single, living being, which includes all of us and not just the majority. This includes every property owner, grove owner as well as every developer. It is a great responsibility that we all share. He asked that the board moves forward with considering to modify and adopt the TVC plan with what is hoped to be a mutual consensus. As a master plan community developer, he recognizes a need for a master plan in the Indrio Road corridor. He stated he is in support of a modified TVC plan that offers incentives to development to be financially successful and permits the goals of the plan to be achieved without the diminishment of existing development rights. Several County Commissioners have stated during the course of public hearings that there would be not diminishment of existing rights. 9 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated his concern with the possible overlay is that the remaining alternative, namely the TVC plan, will not accomplish the stated goals because of the disincentives that lie within the document. The following are the primary disincentives to successful implementation: Moving from what is existing under the current comp plan ( 35% open-space requirement to a 60% open-space requirement for a town and a 75% open-space requirement for a village) Establishing a minimum density which requires a purchase of TDVs (transfer of density value) Establishing minimum workforce housing requirements, without a tracking or county system for a balance supply and demand system for workforce housing. Mr. Babcock stated in regards to open-space, poor communities have developed a beautiful community of traditions. They have planned and implemented the combination of conventional and new urbanized TND (traditional neighborhood design). The TND accounts for 30% of their market demand, which builders are able to supply. As proposed by the TVC plan, 100% of the supply of new housing must be TND. The other 70% of the market goes elsewhere. Actual land sales and velocity can never be comparable to traditions. Tradition sells approximately 60% of their land, for both residential and non-residential purchases. The other 40% includes open-space, drainage, civic, roads, and school etc. Under the TVC a developer may only achieve the sale rate of 35% of his land. As proposed under the TVC plan, a developer in the TVC area can sell slightly more than one half of the land as Traditions and at a rate that is, at best, 30% of the sales velocity of Traditions. If the developer can not be successful, then the county and residents can not expect to achieve their goals for a different development scenario. This development scenario includes establishing all necessary transportation-utility infrastructures that is required with or without implementation of the TVC plan. The peer review group also recommended a reduction in open-space requirements for both towns and villages, which did not appear in the third graph. Mr. Babcock restated that he is in support of the plan and is asking that the open-space requirement is reduced from the current 60% to 40% or possibly 50%. 10 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the Arterial Roads networks should also be creditable towards civic uses and open-space with TDV (transfer of density credits) credits as well. He stated this will help ensure financial viability and provide rights-of-ways necessary to implement the TVC master infrastructure strategy. The recommended changes also include the reduction in minimum density requirements for both towns and villages to allow for the change in open-s choice may only be to proceed under the existing comp plan because of the proposed TVC inequities and disincentives. Mr. Babcock concluded stating he wants the plan to be successful and urges the Board to consider the changes. Mr. Babcock stated he agrees with the other speakers who stated the LDRs and TDV plan are not yet complete. Mr. Tom Skubic stated he has lived in St. Lucie County for 42 years. He stated he feels that he does not have individual rights. He asked what the community is going to do to protect his rights to his land and property. He stated the constitution gives him the right to protect his property from all invaders. He stated he is not against any developments, but he wants his rights to be protected. Mr. Skubic stated he does not understand the terms written in the proposed TVC plan, but he believes that he has a right to preserve and keep his property the way he bought it. Ms. Camblor stated every policy and objective protects and enhances the property rights of everyone in the community. There has been no down zoning and no elimination of ild or not build or preserve agricultural uses. More options have been provided. Chairman Grande asked if a property owner chooses not to sell TDRs or do anything differently than he/she is currently doing, will she/he be able to do it. Ms. Camblor stated the property owner can still do it. Mr. Skubic stated he is a little concerned that that will never be the case. Ms. Camblor stated properties under and over 500 acres have the right to keep doing 11 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Bob Banger stated he lives in the North County Charrette area. He stated he has in February of last year. He stated he has participated, along with several hundred other residents, in the process of designing their residential neighborhood. He stated the only objection that he has heard in the plan is an increase in density. Mr. Banger pointed out that density in a few small areas can be absolutely necessary in this county. One of the biggest problems in St. Lucie is the availability of affordable housing. Affordable housing will never be reached if the county continues with homes on one to five acres. Valuable people in the community, such as teachers and so forth, can not afford to buy homes costing $400,000 to $500,000. If the present conditions continue of one dwelling per one/five acres are allowed to continue, the cost of the infrastructure needed would be overwhelming. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Skubic. Mr. Banger stated in the towns and villages and down town areas, there will be retail stores and offices for the apartments on top to them. Other forms of affordable housing, close to the down town areas, along with the bigger neighborhoods form a community. One of the most important criteria of this plan is the flow-way concept. Storm water will be cleansed before it reaches Taylor Creek, and then the Indian River Lagoon. If only the South Florida Water Management and the Army Corp or Engineers would do the likewise with the discharges of Lake O, the County can restore its most valuable asset in the Country to its original pristine condition. Mr. Banger stated the TVC concept is the greatest thing to come to St. Lucie County ever. Growth from over 1,000 people a day moving into Florida is not going to stop. If the growth can be managed, just as the TVC proposes to do for the North County area, St. Lucie County will be recognized as a place where the Broward and Dade County mistakes are at last stop from moving north. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Banger. Mr. Stan Green stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Bob Banger. He stated Mr. Banger said everything that he would have said. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Green. Mr. David Weis stated he lives in Broward County, but his principal place of business is in St. Lucie County. He stated he is an owner of a grove who has interests in the success/and or failure of the TVC. He stated he has attended every meeting since April, when he was first put on notice of the proposed TVC. 12 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. The owners of the small parcels in the TVC area are the most adversely affected than anyone else in the area. He stated when he first met with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, he asked them what the value of a TDR would be and they could not give him an answer. He stated he feels that the land owners may be forced to buy TDRs in the nearby future. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Weis to clarify what he was saying be smaller property owners may never be in a position of buying TDR. Mr. Weis clarified that he was speaking of smaller property owners selling TDRs. He Mr. Weis wrote a letter to further his beliefs and opinions about the TVC plan. His letter will be included in the minutes. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Weis. Ms. Cynthia Angelos stated her client is in favor of the concept and the goals of the TVC. -dividing parcels of record that are 500 acres or more in size in located outside of the Urban Service Boundary for express purpose of owner of 500 acres or more from developing their property under the current property rights that they enjoy. Therefore, anything that has been said contrary to that is an incorrect statement as relates to land owners of 500 acres or more. Regarding the proposal concerning open- off density and less open-space. Ms. Camblor ose of avoiding TVC of Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Angelos. Ms. Brenda Hogue stated her family and she have been in the citrus business all of their lives. She added that her family and she understand the value of the land. She stated her family and she have recently changed gears. When the TVC issue up, they were not 13 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Counsel along with the help of a hired attorney have been very helpful in explaining the TVC Element to her and her family. Ms. Hogue stated she has concerns about the LDRs and their effects in the nearby future. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Hogue. Ms. Noreen Dryer stated she would like to address four comments that she has regarding the TVC plan. 1.If existing rights are going to be preserved, then it needs to be mentioned in the plan. Property owners are not being treated equally. Property owners with more than 500 acres are not being treated that same as property owners with less than 500 acres. 2.The 60% and 75% of open-space or countryside requirements are too great. When the minimum countryside requirement is combined with the minimum density requirement, it creates a problem for creating the type of lots that are marketable. 3. develop a town without buying density. th 4.The changes in the July 26 draft make the requirement a countywide application. area plan. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Dryer. Mr. John Martin stated he operates a citrus grove and a plant and landscape nursery. He stated he has a 10-15yr. business plan for his nursery and has no intentions of selling the property, but he must reserve the right to be able to sell the property at a moments notice, due to the fact that he has a heart condition. He stated he has great concerns over the current state of the TVC. He stated very little land transactions have taken place in the North County, since the TVC plan has come into effect. He stated this is because anyone considering purchasing a piece of property, in the North County has not idea as what to expect they might be able to do with their property. 14 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the TVC plan has been a moving target, from the time that it had begun. He stated he was guaranteed that his development rights would not be taken away from him. According to the TVC plan, he has no idea whether he would have to adhere to the 60% open-space rule, which gives the property owner 40% of the property. Mr. Martin pointed out that he was a Local Planning Agency Commissioner for 10 years, in the County of Palm Beach. He added he is a certified financial planner and have been the president of the Boynton Beach Chambers of Commerce. His professional background goes to say that he had a lot to offer to the Charrette process, had he been invited. He stated the property owners were not invited and they found out that the He stated he has concerns with population growth management of the TVC. He stated the TVC is proposing to increase what exists now by 76% of the population of the total area, while squeezing that population into 40% or less in the available land space. He pointed out the concept of traffic problems, with the increase of the population by 76%. He stated nearby neighbors will continue to drive their vehicles as the TVC plan proposes to provide walking distances from the development to local stores. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Martin. Mr. Trias asked Ms. Camblor if the land development regulation will differ tremendously from the current issues. Ms. Camblor stated the land development regulation for the towns and the villages will follow traditional sediment principals and they are already established in the TVC document. She stated they are working on guaranteeing connectivity of roads, connectivity of the flow way and connectivity of the flow-way and of the open-space as development occurs in those other parcels that do not become towns and villages. Chairman Grande stated his reading to the 3.1.2.6 options says that under option 6, if a property owner had a 35acre parcel that was zoned 1 to the acre, an option that is available to the property owner would be treating the property exactly as it is today, and not participate with LDRs, without looking for bonuses and maintain all of the current rights of development. 15 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated that is correct. She stated property owners would be better off today, under the TVC plan with a 35 acre parcel, than they are now with the current land development plans. Ms. Debbie Holly stated she lives in the southern most part of the TVC area that will be affected by the plan. She stated as a community member, she is concerned with the housing of the incoming population and the school systems. She asked where the land would be derived from to fit into the TVC that will compensate for the workforce students attending the schools. She stated statistics reveal that approximately half of the related to the apparent contradiction between the current school choice plan in the County and the neighborhood school concept that the TVC encourages. Ms. Hensley stated there is no commitment that schools will serve only that community. She stated the idea that schools will serve only the TVC community, was never apart of the TVC discussion. The idea was that there is a need of a school, altogether. Terms regarding utilization of that school as to who uses that school will be in the school preview. The concept of schools being able to be used as open-spaces has a good concept, because of the various activities that take place in schools. The idea that there is a school site attached to this, does not in anyway dictate who attends the school. Ms. Holly stated the county as a whole is experiencing tremendous growth in both the north and South County. She concluded stating she feels that the growth of the County deserves a lot of consideration before it moves forward. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Holly. Mr. Michael Busha, Executive Director with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, stated they have been working with the school district, searching for an understanding of creating a plan that works for everyone. He stated the TVC offers diversity in income, age and affordability etc. This diversity offers the ability to kids to attend schools that are closer to home. Ms. Hensley stated the TVC concept provides an opportunity to do something different that will help with over length potentially and the new ideas that are being done in the student assignment process. She stated it is the same issue dealing with workforce 16 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. housing, as oppose to subsidized housing. She stated the TVC offers an opportunity for a mixed community. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Hensley. Mr. Colin J. Macomber stated he is a resident of St. Lucie County and his children live in St. Lucie County and work in the County. He stated he has a long term interest in seeing St. Lucie County a prosperous and well planned community for his grandchildren. He stated he applauds all of the efforts that were made to examine the big picture in the North St. Lucie County. He stated people do not mix in gated communities. Mr. Macomber stated as he listens to the arguments of the public and the Treasure Coast rights are going to be protected. He stated open-space in traditional community does not mean anything. If you do not live in the community, open-space is not available to you. Those living outside to the Mr. Macomber stated he does not want traditional development because of the reasons that he mentioned. He stated he does not want to drive down a congested street and see nothing more than gates or walls. He stated he wants open-space. He stated he wants diversity. A community that has only one kind of people living in it is boring and stagnant. He stated he want a mixed community. He stated a development wherein none of the home owning residents own homes less than $300,000 demands a certain income and demands a certain kind of person. He stated what is left is the figuration of where everyone else fits into that grand scheme of things. have you, which will allow them to gain entry into that gated community. He stated those are the people that are going to be pulled into houses, such as the teachers and all other county workers that provide services to the County. He stated there needs to be a communities, in the community. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Macomber. Mr. Paul Dereli, a land development attorney with the law firm of Greenberg Toreg, stated he has clients both inside and outside of the TVC area. He stated he concurs with most of the sediments in the development community that the open-space requirements of 60% and 75% are extreme and will result in a difficult development housing product in the market with small lot sizes. 17 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated he is concerned about the special area plans policy. Mr. Mike Harrison stated the answers to his questions regarding facts about the TVC plan and LDRs have not been provided. Mr. Harrison stated he needs answers to the progress developments that are proposed for the TVC plan so that he can plan his life according to the changes. Ms. Julie Orband stated she has concerns about the school factors. She stated nearby schools do not work for the students, if they are failing schools. She stated the existing schools systems need to be improved before other schools are built. Ms. Susie Caron stated she is in favor of the TVC plan and asks that it is approved. Other comments that Ms. Caron made, had been made previously by other speakers, in favor of the TVC plan. Mr. Tom Mitchell asked the Regional Planning Counsel if the amendments of the future land use maps and existing agriculture areas cover the North County or is it countywide. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is an issue in the North County and not countywide. She and use designations, that those would have to go through a similar planning process (not the TVC), as the TVC area initiatively went. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Mitchell Mr. Craig Monts stated he hopes that the County works toward a fair balance satisfying both, the citizens inside and outside of the Urban Service Boundary, for the sake of the quality of life. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Monts. Mr. Alex Brown asked how the future land use rights of land owners outside of the study area will be affected under the current language terms. Ms. Camblor stated the future land use right is affected only if the land owner decides to make a change to the future land use. Mr. Brown asked if the future property rights of the owners throughout the rest of the county are now affected by the TVC plan. 18 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor replied no. The future property rights do not change as of today. She stated nothing changes in regards to future property rights, for anyone not doing a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Brown stated to make simple future land use change in the future will require a comprehensive land use amendment. He asked if that is what the language affectively says. Ms. Camblor stated a land use change requires a comprehensive land use amendment today. Mr. Brown asked if the current flexibility that owners outside of the area now have were being taken out. Ms. Camblor replied no. Ms. Camblor stated current DOT absorption rates deal with plans that are designed for sprawl. Mr. Wade Walker stated traffic has two components, which are trip attracters and trip producers. He stated houses to houses are trip producers. There is an increase in the number of housing units. He stated there is a correspondence increase in the proposed infrastructure network, to support the TVC plan. He stated there are very few roadways in the current plan. He stated the TVC Element proposes a fine grain network of major and minor streets which probably increases the east west capacity. Mr. Brown stated there needs to be a set value for the TDR plan. Chairman Grande stated if the TDR plan floats with the market, it would unreasonable to Mr. Jack Schwy stated he has been a property owner for approximately 20 years and he is against adoption/transmittal of the TVC plan. He pointed out issues such as the small Mr. Skeet Jernigan, representing the Community and Economic Development Counsel, stated the group that he represents is still in the process of trying to understand the TVC document and have not decided whether they agree or not on the TVC plan. Mr. Jernigan also made comments containing his concerns for the TDR program. Mr. Jernigan made comments containing his concerns for the land development regulations and open-space. Mr. Jernigan concluded stating, he would like the 19 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. opportunity of receiving answers to the unsolved problems and questions that he has asked. Mr. John Martin made a comment about the value of TDRs and how they work, in comparison to the TDR program in Palm Beach County. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Martin. Mr. Bobby Klein made comments against the TDR program and its impact on those that will be impacted by the TVC plan. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Mr. Hearn wrote a letter reflecting his feeling and concerns about the TVC plan. This letter will be copied and attached to the minutes. Mr. Busha stated their consultants have remodeled the entire base of Water Management for the TVC Element to assure that the TVC plan and the density proposed for the amount of units, work. addressed the open-space requirements and everything that ties within. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias stated he supports the TVC process and he feels that it is a very ambitious effort. He also stated the small details that the land owners opposed can be worked on and improved as the TVC plan undergoes development. Mr. Knapp stated he has concerns regarding the LDRs and how they are set up, along with the rules for the TDRs. Mr. Knapp agreed with Mr. Trias and stated that he like the concept of the TVC and he is for the open-space. Ms. Hensley stated she was leaving but would like to make a statement before she leaves. She stated the school board likes the idea that school sites are classified as open-space. She stated the school board also likes the idea of a mixed use that would help facilitate a more functionality of a geographic area, for parents and kids. There was a 10 minute break. Chairman Grande announced there are three options for the outcome of the TVC plan. He stated the options are to recommend approval for submission of the TVC plan, 20 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. recommending denial for submission of the TVC plan or tabling submission of the TVC plan. Mr. Hearn read the letter that he prepared (this letter is attached to the minutes). Mr. Hearn is not in support of the TVC. Mr. McCurdy stated he agrees with Mr. Hearn. Mr. McCurdy asked that the TVC be tabled. Ms. Morgan stated the questions and comments that the land owners made about their concerns, did not receive responses from the Regional Planning Counsel. She stated she does not feel comfortable passing something on to the County Commission that the Local Planning Agency can not support. She stated she wants to approve a project that people are happy with and that the Local Planning Agency can support and back. She agreed with Mr. McCurdy and stated she prefer tabling the project. Mr. Knapp suggested implementing the land regulations so that the small property owners will be satisfied and still be able to do something constructive with their land that follows the plan of the TVC. Mr. Lounds stated he has historic land vestment in the TVC area land. He stated their families have owned their parcel of land for long period. He stated the vested families have a different look at the TVC plan, instead of a developer who has bought parcels of land and want to develop it. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that the questions that the land owners have should be answered before the TVC plan goes forward. Mr. Lounds asked what the purpose of talking about a special area plan for this is, other than the TVC. Mr. Mike Busha stated the special area plan is the area that will be the only place that credits can be transferred in and around. He stated the TVC area is the area where the new land use would apply. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Busha if the transfer of density deals with special area only. Mr. Busha replied yes, the transfer density only deals with the special area. Ms. Hammer stated small changes should be made to the TVC document to promote satisfaction and eliminate tabling the TVC causing further delay. She stated she supports forwarding the TVC plan to the County Commissioners along with all of the comments that were made by the public. 21 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hearn asked as the TVC plan evolves, will targeted industries be considered to apart of the open-space. Ms. Camblor replied yes. Mr. Trias stated the TVC plan is the best plan that has ever been presented before the Local Planning Agency plan. He stated because the plan is not perfect, that does not mean that the plan is not good. Mr. Trias stated he prefer that the Board recommends approval of the TVC, so that the process of the project can move along, and changes to the land use regulations or open-space can be resolve. Mr. Trias stated he would like to make a motion recommending approval of the TVC plan under three conditions: 1. Open space is furthered reviewed. 2. The LDRs are prepared before final adoption. 3. The TVC apply only to the TVC area. Mr. Hammer stated she will second the motion. Mr. Hearn stated he does not support the TVC plan because he does not feel that the project is complete. Mr. McCurdy also stated he feels that the County can do better and does not support the TVC plan. Mr. Trias stated he will amend the motion so that the TDR program will be developed before the final adoption of the TVC Element. Ms. Hammer seconded the amendment to the motion. Roll call was made. Mr. McCurdy said no. Mr. Knapp said yes. Ms. Morgan said no. 22 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds said no. Mr. Hearn said no. Mr. Trias said yes. Ms. Hammer said yes. Chairman Grande said no. Chairman Grande announced that the motion failed 5-3. After the motion failed, Mr. McCurdy made a motion to table the TVC plan. He stated the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel have heard a lot of comments and concerns of the residents. He feels that the project needs to be tabled until the board receives more feedback and a more modified document, for further adoption or development of the TVC. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. A meeting has been scheduled to take place on _October 6, 2005_ to continue for the tabling of this meeting. 23 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex August 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Talea Owens, Sr. Staff Assistant Charles Grande, Chairman 24