Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 10-06-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Pamela Hammer, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Craig Mundt, and Kathryn Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephanie Morgan, John Knapp, and Carson McCurdy with 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. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 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. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 2 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 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 members from the public and attorneys regarding these petitions. Mr. Michael Brilhart, Special Projects and Strategy Director stated this is the continuation of a transmittal public hearing for an amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the adoption of this includes Comprehensive Plan establishing its Chapter Three, entitled the Towns Villages and Countryside Element and it amends the future land use designation to create a TVC land use designation. He stated this is the continuation o transmittal public hearing for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Marcella Camblor stated this is the continuation of the presentation that was presented by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on Aug 18, 2005 for the Towns Villages and Countryside Element (TVC Element) of the Comprehensive Plan for north St. Lucie County. She stated based on the input that they received on August 18th that they have made changes to the draft (draft # 4) that they presented before. She stated the draft that they are now presenting is draft # 5. She stated the changes were made based on the input that they received from the Local Planning Agency and the public on the previous meeting. Ms. Camblor stated she of the questions and concerns that were raised during the last meeting. She stated they will address a lot of traditional planning principles that are embedded in the north St. TVC Element. She stated the principles that she will discuss are not new principles, but are principles that have been around for thousands of years. She stated communities throughout Florida and throughout the country are practicing and embedding these principles into their communities. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is unique because of the way its principles are combined into the TVC. She stated these principles are not just to ensure great developed areas or a great urban environment, but to ensure that as development occurs, meaningful public open-space is created and there is a link between the developments that occurs in the county and the meaningful public open-space that is created. She added open-space was the key concern that residents had when they first began the TVC process back in February of 2004. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 3 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated the TVC is trying to achieve the balance between the development and the local ecology and agricultural character that the citizens want to preserve. She stated they have gone through several months of public meetings and of planning with the community and the public. She stated they feel very comfortable with the new revised TVC document and with the document begin transmitted and sent to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to DCA. She stated the board can send their recommendation, along with their comments. She stated she will refer to the Special Area Plan throughout her presentation of the TVC Element. This area is bordered on the east by the intra-coastal waterway, by the canal to the south, and just a little west of I-95 to the west and by the County line to the north. She stated within that Special Area Plan is what they refer to as the TVC area. Ms. Camblor stated the Special Area Plan is close to 60 square miles in the north County area. She stated she will go over the first and major changes between draft # 4 and draft # 5. She stated she will categorize the major changes into four points. The first major point is the applicability of the TVC Element and where it applies within St. Lucie County. She stated they made a number of language changes such as definitions, typos and grammar errors. She added that they have re-organized some of the language. She stated she will go into detail with the language changes as it is necessary. She stated Mr. Knapp brought up a very important point with the 10% rule, and she will also address that issue. Ms. Camblor stated there has been one more reduction in the multiplier and she will address that as well. She stated they will address only the minor language changes that the Planning and Zoning Commission request. The most important thing is the issue of applicability of the TVC. She stated last August they made the mistake of adding some text into this element that seemed that the TVC Element would be projected or would be applied in other areas of the County, other than the Special Area Plan. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 4 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. She stated that should not be the case. She stated it is not the intention of the TVC to be used beyond the SAP (Special Area Plan). She stated on the first page of the TVC document beginning at the introduction, they have added a sentence that says that the TVC Element applies only to the Special Area Plan for north St. Lucie County. She stated some of they made some of the changes after version # 5 was received and they have added those pages. She stated all of the changes that they have made point to the same exact issue which is guaranteeing to those people that were concerned about the applicability of the TVC that it is meant to be only on the SAP (Special Area Plan). The second change that they made is a paragraph that they had to add in the current Plan of page 2 of those amendments in their document. She stated this paragraph had to be added in order to allow the TVC to happen within north St. Lucie County. She stated they added one more sentence to this paragraph that stresses that the purpose of the TVC land use designation is to accommodate future growth within the special area plan for north St. Lucie County. On page # 2 of the TVC document, there is a change on Policy 3.1.1.1. and it talks about Special Area Plans forms the basis for amending the future land use map changed that to say, Special Area Plans forms a basis for amending the future land it is not the only one, but a way of doing this. She stated Policy.1.1.1.2. has caused all of or most of the concern and confusion back in August and is the policy that refers to Special Area Plans forming a basis for amending the future land use map in existing agricultural areas. She added that Policy 1.1.1.2., has been completely eliminated and it does not exist anymore. They have amended the objective that follows that policy, which is Objective 1.1.2. She stated in the last sentence only nd allow new development in accordance with the Towns Villages only , to signify that this is not the only way to do this and they continue to add more language to that sentence tha to the Special Area Plan in St. Lucie County. Ms. Camblor stated to reassure that the TVC plan only applies in north St. Lucie County Special Area Plan, the last sentence of the prohibit the conversion of property in the agricultural Towns Villages and Countryside Element 5 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. areas to high intensity urban uses etc. is specifically permitted or required in the Towns Villages and Countryside Element or other programs designed to preserve a good cultural lands as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Camblor stated all of these are issues that refer specifically to the same issue. The second change is the issue that Mr. Knapp brought up back in August. Policy 3.1.2.6 of the TVC Element addresses the options that land owners have for development inside of the TVC that are outside of the Urban Service Boundary. This addresses every land owners, regardless of the size of property that you have. There was an issue with point # 5 of this policy, which is the 10% rule. The 10% rule talks about the fact that a property owner is entitled to maintain 10% of his transferable density. She stated initially it was written that a property owner has to sell 90% of his remaining transferable density, which he could apply a multiplier to, in order to participate on TVC and then develop that 10% that he kept. With the 10% that the land owner kept, he was entitled to services. Ms. Camblor stated Mr. Knapp brought up the idea of what if the land owner could not sell them and if so, was there a way for the land owner to permanently deed that 90%, if he does not find a buyer immediately and is he still entitled to develop that 10%. Ms. Camblor stated the it is possible to do that. It is possible to find a way that 90% density gets transferred, deeded or set aside permanently and the 10% can be developed with out the need to sell anything yet. For parcels less than 500 acres in size, 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 be subdivided into individual home sites up to 10% of the Transferable Density. These home sites are eligible to receive Urban Services of She stated it does not need to be sold, but it needs to have been set aside for future transfer. She stated they have gotten several calls and heard several people talking about being it refers to the to be included in the Land Development Regulations. She stated the red changes that are listed in Policy 3.1.2.6.6. address that issue. She added that is another way to ensure that all of the Land Development Regulations will be aiming for Towns Villages and Countryside Element 6 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. connectivity and compatibility with the existing adjacent development, without affecting d these are some of the major changes that they have made. She addressed the reduction on the transfer of development rights multiplier. This is the DB34 that shows the Credit Matrix and the multipliers that a land owner can apply as he is participating in the TVC (whether building a town or village or just transferring the rights off of his property). If you look at lines three and four, it shows that transfers from the Countryside of a town located on a contiguous property, both inside and out side of the Urban Service Boundary to its net developable area was reduced from the multiplier of 2 to a multiplier of 1.75. In line number four, from Countryside located inside of the Urban Service Boundary to an eligible receiving site located inside of the Urban Service Boundary, that multiplier was also reduced from 2 to 1.75. To keep this progression, reward with a higher multiplier for those objectives that are higher on the list of TVC and the residents and reduce those that are lower in this scale. This still maintains that important proportion that we need to keep between supply and demand within the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. Ms. Camblor addressed questions and concerns raised back in August of 2005. She stated they can categorize those into five major points. She stated she would like to comment on: Open-space requirements TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System The increase in the population that the TVC is bringing Marketability issues The Land Development Regulations. As far as the open-space requirements, the objection that they are hearing from some people in the community is that there is a 60% open-space requirement for a town and a 75% open-space requirement for a village. She stated outside of the Urban Service Boundary only, is too large. The first clarification that they want to make is that these requirements are only for towns and villages outside of the Urban Service Boundary, not inside of the Urban Service Boundary. She stated there is a reduced requirement inside of the Urban Service Boundary. She added that it is only for those people developing towns and villages. This is not for the smaller land owners or anyone not building a town or a village. Someone that has a 40 acre site will not be required, if they are not a part of a town or a village to leave 60% or 75% open-space. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 7 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. The second thing that they would like to clarify is that within this open-space, whether you are in a town or a village, there are a lot of things that can be counted towards that requirement. This includes schools, civic buildings, parks, targeted industry, workforce housing in excess, and the large edge lots that were recommended by the peer review etc. She added that all of these things count toward that open-space and reduce that percentage. Therefore the 60% to 75% of open-space requirement will be substantial smaller once you subtract all of those things that are now being counted, which are in the current plan and are not allowed to be counted towards the open-space requirements. A lot of their consultants have talked about the importance of this open-space to accommodate the increased drainage requirements that will be in this area, due to the development that is coming in and the need to treat some of the reused water on site. She stated they have had there engineers complete the modeling for this area. She stated one of the interesting conclusions that he shared with them is that because of the open- space and this system, one of the great things that they will be achieving is a 50% increase in water quality treatment volumes in the area. She added that this will be a She stated the 60% to 75% of open-space requirements is being largely reduced by all of the things that you can count towards it and was the commitment that they made to the community when they first started the Charrette. She stated it is the commitment to accept development in these agricultural areas outside of the Urban Service Boundary in exchange for meaningful public open-space at the end of the day. She addressed TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. She stated they have heard that there was some concern with the fact that there is a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System associated to the TVC. She stated the objections that they heard were: 1.It was not possible to transmit this document until the TDR Ordinance was completed. 2.There needed to be a guaranteed price for purchase or sell of the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System before the TVC Plan was adopted. 3.There needed to be a guarantee that there would be a market for TDRs. In regards to completing the TDR Ordinance prior to transmittal, most Comprehensive Plans denote the intention that there will be a TDR Program period. She stated their commitment to the Local Planning Agency, the Board of County Commissioners and the residents has been from day one, that the TDR Ordinance will be developed by their team, with public participation, just as much as they have had throughout the entire TVC plan. She added it will be completed prior to the adoption, not the transmittal. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 8 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. She reiterated that prior to the adoption; everyone will have a chance to feel comfortable with the TDR Ordinance prior to this document getting adopted. Regarding value, there were many people asking them to commit a value or a number to a purchase or sell price of the TDRs. They were also asked whether if there were going to be a market driven TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) System. She stated that they know and their research and their consultants have informed them that successful TDRs allow value to be market driven. In market driven scenarios, there are at least two ways that you can estimate the value. The first one is related to the price of rural land. The price of the development credits will be a factor of the ultimate sale price of the house or the unit that is being built through the purchase of that credit. That credit is anywhere between 8% and 35% of the ultimate sale value of the house that was built with that credit. This is as much as they will commit with the price. The second way, by which you can define this, is estimate it to the value of a conservation easement. It is very comparable to the value of a conservation easement. If you are going to purchase a conservation easement, it is a very comparable to what the value of a conservation easement is. Ms. Camblor addressed the issue of a guaranteed market for the TDR credits. Ms. Camblor stated they feel comfortable enough because the Comprehensive Plan has enough detail in it that will assure consistency in the decision making process. She stated it has been repeatedly stated that the minute you give density away, you kill the plan and the minute you give density away you throw everything out of the window. She stated the Credit Matrix is embedded and there is enough instructions in there that it is not just as easy to give this density away, guaranteeing a stronger TDR Program in the County. At the same time there is enough flexibility built into this document by adding Policy 3.1.7.1.4., which encourages the County to investigate the possibility of a PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) Program. Should it be necessary and or should the County need to intervene and step in to actually purchase, sell or do something with those credits such as to enlighten the market a little, they have the opportunity to do it. It is detailed enough to guarantee that it will be strict and it is flexible enough to allow the County to step in should it be necessary, without having to go into a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ms. Camblor stated there is the objection that the TVC will increase population. She stated they have bee in creditably honest with the Local Planning Agency, the Board of County Commissioners and with the residents. She stated they have done the math and they have stated that with this multiplier the overall number of units will increase, but it Towns Villages and Countryside Element 9 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. is defined. They have given information stating what that multiplier is. She stated they have also stated that that 22, 300 units that is present today is a base and not a cap. The TVC brings a cap in the number of units. Currently they have two applications for DRIs (Developments of Regional Impacts) in their office as it sits today, within the TVC area. As these applications were presented to them, they were both asking for increases in their density. If these application were to be approved as presented, approving these two DRIs (Developments of Regional Impacts) would mean a 20% increase on that base of 22, 300. Ms. Camblor stated she has not seen a DRI that has come into their office and not request an increase density as of yet. Mr. Trias stated Mr. Mike Busha gave them a number of the amount of units that are currently being reviewed for DRI. He asked if Ms. Camblor remember that roughly, so that they can compare that. Mr. Mike Busha stated in the County, it was about 71, 000 units in the County currently in office for review. Mr. Hearn stated he is still having a problem with the future land use density being used. He stated if they are going to be completely honest, they need to say that they are going from 12, 541 units that are permitted in that area that have not been built, to 37, 500. Ms. Camblor stated the 12,000 units are referring to the zoning. She stated the truth is that percentage; if they were looking at zoning would not be 20% but more like 130%. Mr. Hearn stated from 12,500 to 37,000 is 3000% increase from the zoning as a guarantee and everything else has to be approved. Ms. Camblor stated the issue with the 37, 500, TVC and the way it is structured is that this is the cap and a worse case scenario, assuming every single square inch of land gets developed as a town or a village and applies the highest possible multiplier. The fourth point is market ability. She stated they have heard concerns as to whether the traditional principles and neighborhood designed applied will be marketable. She stated they have heard percentages that say that only 305 or 35% of the people want to buy this. She stated there is a strong market, which 55% of Americans go for a compact pedestrian oriented mix use neighborhoods. There is a price premium that goes from 4% to 25% for the TVC or the traditional neighborhood development. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 10 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. There is a park premium and they insist the importance of the smaller parks very much in the development of their towns. There is a 22.3% premium for every unit that is within 100 feet of neighborhood parks. There is a premium for the smallest lots of 197% over the premium of the largest lots. There is a higher appreciation of Traditional Neighborhood Development. This comes as a 2.5% higher appreciation of an analysis of houses done in Traditional Neighborhood Developments that compared Traditional Neighborhood Developments to Conventional Subdivisions in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida, done by Morris and Homes in 2001. She stated the element of the Countryside in the TVC Element is the key to all of these premiums. There is a 19% to 35% premium in the sale of homes of every lot that is bordering preserved areas. It is on those lots that border preserved areas that are not developable in the future. There is a negative percent for homes that face developable private open-space. This points to the fact that there has been a lot of questioning as to whether the open-space should be broken up into private lots or not. There also is a 2% increase for private protected land, and .5% for protected public open- space. All of the analysis that addresses the marketability was done by Todd Zimmerman from Zimmerman Volk and Associates who will also be giving a presentation when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. He is top in the nation at doing this type of analysis for the private sector and not for the government. There have been concerns about the height and compaction everything into villages and towns creating a multi-family development with tall buildings. She stated they have included this transact/diagram into the Comprehensive Plan specifically to show and commit that height of the maximum of 4-stories only to the core of every neighborhood or village or town and then the height immediately tapers down as you go into the center and the edge of the community. She stated they know that within a block to two blocks, the height immediately tapers down. Mr. Bill Spickowski stated he is with the consultant team and they are working on the regulations. He stated noting within the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will change the Urban Service Boundary, although the boundary can change, they are not proposing to change it. Land within the Urban Service Boundary is treated differently than the land outside to the boundary and the regulations have to take that into account. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 11 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. The existing zoning also does not change. It has been in effect for a long time and the Comprehensive Plan change will not change the zoning, but the zoning will stay the same until the land owners ask for it to be changed. The zoning has been in placed for a long time and within the TVC, it is mostly AG-, which are one acre home sites and there are also PUD and business zoning but mostly AG-1. The Urban Service Boundary will stay the same and the zoning will stay the same. However, the future land use map is up for change. Within the TVC it is mostly RE and some MXD and a couple of other categories. This amendment will out the TVC future land use map designations and change them to the TVC. They will have the new future land use map category and the TVC plan will explain what that means. The underline zoning is still there and is still in force, as well as the Urban Service Boundary For the landowners who just want to keep doing what they are already doing, there is no change. However, f land and may want to get out of agriculture or develop vacant land, all of the different types of changes allowed are grouped into two categories. For example, some of the changes will not require rezoning and the approval will be done by the St. Lucie County staff under administrative level. On the other hand there are the changes that would require rezoning. He gave examples of some changes that would not require rezoning: 1.Those that have been growing grapefruits and want to convert to a tree farm, they do not have to rezone because their zone already allows agriculture. 2.Those that have attractive land and want to build a house on it, the zoning already allows that. 3.Those that choose to participate in the TDR Credit Program, does not require rezoning and land owners must follow the rules to do this. 4. The ten percent rule is something that they would like to be doe administratively to increase certainty for those who choose to participate in that particular program. 5.If someone chooses to subdivide un-subdivided land into full one acre lots, which is allowed by the current AG-1 zoning, they can go ahead and do this. Mr. Spickowski stated these are the things that do not require rezoning and they are basically like what the rules are today. These are the things that do require rezoning: Towns Villages and Countryside Element 12 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. 1.If a land owner wants to build stores or apartments within the Urban Service Boundary it requires rezoning. The Zoning District that they would create for that would also provide for the regional business district where I-95 and the Turnpike converge and also in the transitional areas where light industry is allowed under Kings Highway and St. Lucie Boulevard. He stated that will require rezoning just the same was it would require rezoning without the TVC. 2.To subdivide a tract into smaller lots at the previous density levels that you have under the prior plan requires rezoning. 3.To create a new town or village is not allowed in the AG-1 Zoning District and requires rezoning. Basically, three new zoning districts that will accommodate those three types of changes and a TVC overlay would accommodate those kinds of developments that do not require rezoning. They would like to hold a Land Development Regulation workshop in December, before which they would release a very complete draft of how they think this should work. This is not a public hearing and will not be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. There will be at least three public hearings required. There will be a Planning and Zoning Meeting and at least two hearings before the County Commission before they adopt it. They have committed to have the first of those two on the same night as the County Commission is scheduled to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Trias asked what is going to be on the regulations. Mr. Spickowski stated for someone who wants to build a town or a village, there will be a clear description of how they would go about doing that. In someway, it will resemble the PUD process and the way the hearings work. Particularly in that complete site plan would have to be brought forward and it will be in the form of a regulating plan that shows those transects zones and the developed portion of the property. It will also show which transect zones that the developer chooses and where he put them on his property. He added that it will show the entire countryside portion and it will include all of the standards in the TVC Element. In addition, it will include more detailed standards where the Element says that it needs to comply with the regulations. Mr. Spickowski stated the overlay district that would apply to someone who does not need to rezone will be a standard overlay. He stated this is a layer of regulations that modify all of the existing zoning that falls within the overlay area. Mr. Trias thanked Mr. Spickowski. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 13 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Camblor stated they have staffs recommendations for transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners with the conditions that they have put in the packets. Ms. Camblor stated the park in the center would also count toward the fulfillment of the requirements of the Countryside. Ms. Camblor stated the affordable housing is not to be counted toward the 8% of the total requirement of open-space. However, if a developer wishes to build an addition of that 8%, the difference or the footprint that that would have been occupied by that building can be counted toward the open-space requirement. She stated their estimate is that it may come down to 50% for a town and about 60% for a village. Mr. Hearn thanked Ms. Camblor. Mr. Busha stated the buildings, in relation to the workforce housing are not to be located in the countryside. Chairman Grande asked dif there were further questions. Mr. Lounds asked if the countryside was contained in the property that is being developed Ms. Camblor stated yes. She stated the countryside is contained within the same parcel where the development occurs. It is important to identify that they are not suggesting that the countryside happens in neighboring properties. The countryside and the flow-way happen on the property that is being developed. Ms. Camblor stated the purpose of the Land Development Regulations will be to ensure that if you own a property, that will not happen to you and there will be compatibility with what is around it. Mr. Lounds can he hook up to the city to that water and sewer. Ms. Camblor stated there is an option that allows a land owner at his own expense to hook up to that if he decides to participate in Policy 3.1.2.6 Option # 5. In this particular policy and option, the land owner will guarantee to transfer 90% of his density and with the 10% that remain; he can hook up to that utility at his own expense. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 14 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. It is an incentive to try to clear up the countryside of units. You will not be able to subdivide into 41 acre lots and not develop a town, but continue business as usual and render services out every single home. However, to 10% of those, if a land owner commits to transfer the 90% remaining, then at their expense they could hook up. Mr. Hearn asked if the property will have every right that they have today, including applying for PUD, when the TVC plan is adopted. Mr. Spickowski replied no. He stated the land owners can not chose to ignore the TVC Element. He stated outside of the TVC area, the rules would be the same as they are today because the rules are being restricted only to this TVC area, unless the County chooses to expand it to other areas in the future. Mr. Hearn asked if the land owners will have all of their same rights as they have now, including applying for a PUD after the TVC Element is adopted for the area outside of the 28 square mile area. Mr. Spickowski stated yes. He stated outside of the 28 square miles, it stays the same but inside of the 28 square miles, the rights and rules are restricted. Ms. Camblor stated Mr. Hearn pointed out that there was an area that had some potentially environmentally valuable lands. She stated it was their intention to include this when they did this land. She stated that they corrected this and would like for this to be added into the motion as well as the amending of the document. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Lounds asked if they were going to contain the reused water on the towns and villages. Ms. Camblor replied yes. Mr. Busha stated the idea behind all of this is to contain the impact of that development within that property boundary. He stated over time, a lot of development has occurred -space or other sources to take care of their impacts. He stated the notion here is to try and have as many impacts as possible to mitigate those impacts within the boundaries of the Towns Villages and Countryside Element. Mr. Spike stated as of right now, there are three primary users of water, which are the environmental, agriculture and urban. He stated there is not enough good or cheap water Towns Villages and Countryside Element 15 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. to go around for al l three of them, so they have meetings to figure out who will get the water that is there. He stated this allows all three segments to use the water. Mr. Spike stated contaminates in the Indian River, Nitrogen and Phosphorus are an assets to an agricultural operation and agriculture can be used to extract those tings out of the water, so that when the water reach the environmental areas, it will of sufficient quality to meet the standards. Mr. Spike stated they are injecting reused water out of site, where no one will be able to use it again. He stated this is a way of stretching the water supplies that they have and making sure that everyone has enough water of the right quality to meet their needs. Mr. Lounds asked what they do with the water on a day when it rains. Mr. Spike stated the calculations you do not design a system so tight that you have to use that water everyday but you need to have enough land available to where you can still apply it on a day where it is raining, without causing run-off. Chairman Grande stated the title, Towns, Villages, and countryside appears to be based upon the TVC Element as a whole which is the entirety of the 28 square miles. As you get into the document, the countryside that is referred to in the document is not the space between the towns and villages but is the open-space within the towns and villages. The term countryside does not apply to those areas outside of the towns and villages that are between the towns and villages. He stated it only applies, in document, to the space within the borders of the towns and villages, which you would think of as common open- space if you were looking at a planned unit development, instead of a town. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Rotirbough asked where will the money be derived from in the increase in schools. Mr. Rotirbough wanted to know why is the TVC Element here. Ms. Camblor stated they have a team that has been doing a financial analysis and development pays for itself. Chairman Grande stated they are an advisory board to the County Commissioners to come forward with their recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Rotirbough stated it is tripled what the permitted area was. He stated the amount of money that will go into the school system because of this development is tremendous. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 16 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hensley stated they use a calculation of .4 kids per households to determine how many kids are generated in the school district. Mr. Rotirbough stated most households that he knows of have a couple of kid and a couple of cars. He stated there could be approximately 7500 cars coming into the area. He also spoke about the impacts that the traffic will have in the area. Mr. Rotirbough asked if the developer will pay for the roads that will be required because of the development. Ms. Camblor stated they will pay for the roads Mr. Alex Brown stated he agrees with the Mr. Rotirbough. He introduced the next speaker, Mr. Thomas Pelham. He stated Mr. Pelham is a land use attorney from Tallahassee. Mr. Pelham is highly educated and experienced in the areas of growth management and planning. Mr. Pelham is a land use and growth management law attorney with Faler White. Mr. Pelham practices statewide in both the public and private sector and he has been a consultant to many local governments throughout the state. Mr. Pelham rec and graduated with high honors. He also received his JD Degree there with high honors. University in Politic Law Degree from Harvard University, specializing in land use law, government law and property law. Mr. Pelham is the former secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, from 1987 to 1991 and he was originally responsible for supervising the Florida Growth Management Act. Mr. Pelham is a former member of the Capital Area Planning Commission in Tallahassee gislative Policy Committee, and has held a number of other honorable offices. familiarity with the Comprehensive planning process. Mr. Thomas Pelham stated he was asked to appear before the board on the behalf of some of the residents. He stated he was speaking on the behalf of Brown Ranch Inc., the Edgar Brown family, the Bernard Egan family, the Dan Scott family, the Nick Stuart family and the Vernon Smith family. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 17 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated the TVC element is a bad idea Comprehensive Plan. Development Code, not the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the TVC plan is should be an overlay that is optional for people who want to use it. He stated this large scale area will be developed over a long period of time and there is a need for flexibility. Comprehensive Plan, the flexibility will be taken away because amending the Comprehensive Plan is a time consuming and expensive process. Mr. Pelham stated it is premature to be considering transmitting this package to the department because the plan is incomplete. He stated there is data missing from the packet. He stated every Plan Amendment package that is transmitted to the department is required to be supported by data and analysis, which the TVC plan does not include. He stated there is no data and analysis regarding adequate public facilities and not plan to show that this plan will be financially feasible. working on it. However, it should be here now and a part of this package. Mr. Pelham stated the plan may look grand but it may not be realistic. There is no information in the TVC plan stating that the plan is realistic or financial feasible, which is required by state laws. He stated there is no data and analysis to support the need for the huge increase in densities and intensities that are being proposed in this Plan Amendment. He stated state laws require data and analysis and this is missing from this package. He stated there are not corresponding amendments to other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated in order for this to pass they need more than just amendments to the future land use element, particularly amendments to the capital improvements element and a long term capital improvements plan for providing the services that are needed and this plan is required to be financial feasible. elements, which are required by law. He stated the Department of Community Affairs recently found a Plan Am project, not in compliance because it did not have the capital improvement element. He stated neither this board nor the Board of County Commissioners should be considering transmittal of this single piece of the puzzle to DCA (Department of Community Affairs) until it has all of the missing components. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 18 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He concluded stating what is being proposed here, in his view is radical. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has presented a visionary plan. He stated he respectful suggest that the County closely evaluate that vision and determine whether it is realistic, grounded in reality, is it financially feasible, is it lawful and does it treat land owners in a reasonable and fair manner. He stated the minimum open-space requirement is 60% which includes the minimum density requirement and the TDR requirement. He stated the County will be telling a significant number of land owners that they can not develop their property, unless they develop it to a much higher density than they are currently allowed to by law and in order to get that density, you have to go buy it from someone else. He stated the cornerstone of this plan is the TDR Program. He stated Dr. Nicholas has made it very clear that TDR Programs do not work in this state. Mr. Pelham stated there is no infrastructure to support this project for 28 square miles. He asked how the development will be paid for. He stated the developers will not pay for this development. Mr. Hearn asked if Mr. Pelham was stating that they should not transmit the TVC Element for review until all of the other things are in place. Mr. Pelham stated he was saying is that the plan needs to be entire and complete before it is transmitted so that everyone will have a clear understanding of how the Plan works. Mr. Camblor stated she agrees with Mr. Pelham because data and analysis is necessary and all of the points that he mentioned. She stated the information that Mr. Pelham is speaking about can be picked up from their office and is on the web. Mr. Pelham stated it was very clear to him from Marcella that the consultants are still staff had issue written comments and they have raised many of the points in their own comments that he is raising. Mr. Trias stated when projects go to DCA for review, DCA decides if the developer needs to make changes and what those changes are. Mr. Pelham stated it is not the norm to knowingly send incomplete Plan Amendment packages to DCA. He stated it is contrary to the law to knowingly send a substantial amendment to the future land use element without the corresponding amendments to the capital improvements element, the transportation element and with the supporting data Towns Villages and Countryside Element 19 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. and analysis. He stated that is not the norm and is not fair to the citizens and not fair to the department. Mr. Tom Babcock incomplete. He stated no respect or consideration is being given to the existing land owners. He stated some of the land owners have land that has been in their families for long periods of time and have been in this County for a long time. Mr. Rusty Akins stated he feels that there is a large concern about the feasibility. He stated there have been more failures in TDR Programs than successes. He stated the board is faced with decisions that are not thoroughly examined. Mr. Akins stated to look at the Stop Gap ordinance for example; no one knows how to apply for the stop gap let alone how it is to work. He stated he has talked to staff members and legal staff members and no one can give him any answers concerning the matter of the TVC plan. He stated the concept of what it being proposed in St. Lucie County is good because they are trying to do what is best for the County in the future. However he has concerns about the density increase. Mr. Akins stated no one has addressed the Adams Ranch Project, wherein 15,000 development credits are being freed. He asked where these credits are going. He asked if those credits will be available to add onto the 35, 000 that they are talking about now. He asked if the 50, 000 units in the TVC area will be available to the community. Chairman Grande stated the Adams Ranch is a different subject and they need to stay on this subject. Mr. Akins stated he have concerns about the actual perpetuity of the TVC. He predicts the votes to pass by three and he stated if it takes only three votes to create the TVC Element, then it only takes three votes to increase the density in the TVC. Mr. Mundt stated he raised the perpetuity question with staff as well and the answer that he got is that their County Attorney is working on it. Mr. Mike Busha stated if there is going to be additional density applied to this area and any changes; it would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would go through the same process of public debate. Ms. Heather Young stated what Mr. Busha indicated is correct. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 20 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Spike stated he has information on the Transfer of Development Right Program form Collier County. He stated in this plan, when a property owner transfers their development rights to a receiving area; the property that is transferred from has an easement placed on it. He stated the easement is held jointly by the County and the state agency; so that the County alone can not break the easement and allow more developed land that have the development rights sold. In other words, there are ways to build that perpetuity business into it. The next public speaker Mr. Rawlins Brown yielded his time to Mr. Cox. Mr. David Weiss stated this is the wrong method for this plan and this plan is incorrect. He stated a hometown democracy is around the corner. The idea that if hometown democracy passes, land use plan amendments and changes to the amendments will not only be before the County Commission, but will be a referendum of the entire County. He stated within an amendment, there will always be changes. Mr. Weiss asked why there is a rush to get the TVC plan up to Tallahassee. He stated the expert that has previously spoken said the plan is not complete, so why no wait and get the plan done right. The TDR Program will fail. There is no evidence that a free market TDR Program has worked in the entire country. He stated Dr. Nicholas could not provide evidence of a TDR Program working. Mr. Weiss stated the TVC plan is improper. He stated the LDR expert stated they will have LDRs in December, but he gave s can not be given up now and his answer was not conditioned on any sort of DCA approval. Mr. Weiss stated the TDR program will be held unconstitutional. He stated the TDR program is not proper. Ms. Camblor stated they have a presentation showing that all of the TDRs work both in Florida and in the Country; however they will not be presenting this tonight. She added that they will be happy to present this at any time. Mr. Mundt asked about the issue of unconstitutionality. Mr. Weiss stated the idea that no one can clarify the value of the TDR before they propose to sell them is unconstitutional. He stated the free market system of a TDR Program has not worked here, according to Dr. Nicholas. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 21 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Noreen Dryer stated she has raised the issue of the provision of utility services. She stated they would ask that the County revisit a prohibition against the provision of utility service in this area. She stated water and sewer require at least half acre lots. She stated they are punishing those that do not follow the TVC plan by not giving them the benefits of the TVC such as increased density. However there is not option as to choose to be a part of the TVC or not to be a part of the TVC plan. Mr. Dan Karri stated the big picture is to encourage open space. He stated the people in that area currently do not access to water and sewer and there is nothing wrong under right today and will be in the future. He stated the point is not to create incentives that encourage the patterns or development that are not what the citizens are looking for. Therefore, if landowners transfer their development rights, then they will have access to that. He stated they are not trying to create incentives to create sprawl. Ms. Dryer stated upon creating the TVC element it also creates a big problem. She added that the plan is incomplete and there are a lot of things that need to be considered before the plan is adopted. Mr. Ken Tuma stated in policy 3.1.1. it says that in the undeveloped areas, the land use plan will require high degree of citizen participation and shall be submitted as part to the data and analysis required to amend a future land use map. He stated according to the way that he read it, that the SAP plan (Subject Area Plan) are required if someone wants to change a 10 or 11 acre site. He stated he feels that the developers are working towards the answers to some of the questions but they are not quite complete. Mr. Mike Busha stated does not mean that it needs to be used all over the County. applicability. Mr. Jernigan stated the open space requirement is too large. He agreed with the other speakers that said the TDR Programs do not work. He stated the consultants are still working on the marketability of the project. He echoed the comments of the other spea the in competency of the TVC plan. He mentioned the difference between landowners with property over 500 acres and landowners with property under 500 acres. He stated the differences are not fair. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 22 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Ms. Anthia Genotas stated they have reviewed this process recently and found out that in spite of the required change in pattern, they will not be taking the rights away from the landowners and there is still reasonable use of the land. Mr. Hearn stated if property owners with property over 500 acres lose their right to apply for a PUD and do that type of development in the TVC area. Mr. Mike Busha they are losing the right to develop a PUD in that area. Mr. Jernigan asked 500 acre parcels being treated different than 490 acre parcels. Mr. Mike Busha stated because they were the ones that were given the new rights to develop more density that what is allowed today. Mr. Skeet Jernigan stated then it should be an option. Chairman Grande stated this can be recommended. Mr. Paul Schall stated he is against the TVC Element and is in agreement with all of the comments and statements that were raised that were against the TVC element. Mr. Schall stated the developers could not have an idea as to what the impact will be for the surrounding residents because they are from the northern area, where as the subject area is in the southern area. Mr. Schall stated there is a traffic increase and the plan will back fire. Ms. Camblor stated the industrial parcel will not lose its value and the exact same amount of acres that industrial will remain industrial. Mr. Schall concluded stating the plan does not address infrastructure and is incomplete. Mr. Jack Schwey stated he agrees with Mr. Pelham and Mr. Weiss in the area that this plan is incomplete and needs further planning before it is submitted to DCA. Mr. Stan Green stated he would like to thank the Planning and Zoning board for their effort. He stated this plan is probably the last opportunity for the county to benefit and he is in favor of the plan. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 23 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Wendell Cox stated he is speaking at the request of some of the land owners. He has been donated speaking time by Tom Mitchell and Wellman Brown. He stated the board should consider the role that homeownership has displayed in the development of this country. According to International Economic data, the average we have had rampant suburbanization. He stated as cheap land has been developed in the suburbs, this has made it possible for homeownership rates to substantially increase. Mr. Cox stated homeownership is a very important factors in the economic development our nation and other nations as well. He stated 42% of the household equity in the United States is in homeownership. Therefore this is a very important issue in terms of developing and maintaining the wealth and affluence of the nation. He stated his basic concern is to notify some of the difficulties that we face with respect to problems of declining homeownership which are particularly bad in this area. He stated where you find significant land use regulation; you will find that prices have gone through the roof. When you limit the amount of land for development, you drive prices up. He stated we need to be completely aware of the choices that we make because the choices that we make are to drive some people out of the homeownership market. Mr. Hearn stated information is based on information calculated from Port St. costs are higher than St. Lucie C Mr. Cox stated his point is that we should be concerned about housing affordability. Mr. Cox stated the problem with the workforce housing is about 60% of the households in this County are below the 120% level. Workforce housing is useful when it is used properly. Susan Caron stated she is in favor of the project because the County is growing and needs to grow responsibly and maintain our quality of life. Mr. John Holt stated he was all for the TVC plan up until he found out they were changing densities. He stated he is against the project. He argued that the water dumps in the Indian River Lagoon. He stated no one has shown any concerns for the water management systems. He added water runs down hill. He stated human waste can be Towns Villages and Countryside Element 24 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. traced and found in the water because nutrients do not disappear but have to be used and harvested out of the system. He added no one is currently harvesting the nutrients out of the system. He concluded stating he his against the TVC plan until further information is provided as to how the water management system will operate. Mr. Collin Jay Macomber stated he is for the project. He stated there is no additional density at all being added to the area because of the development. He stated we need affordable housing. He stated schools need to be integrated and mixed so that the children will not be held on buses for long periods of time as the buses are traveling across the County picking up kids and trying to integrate the buses. Mr. John Martin stated he is He stated if they can leave things as they are, for one unit per acre, then everything would be fine. He stated he never expected to ask for any density increase on his property. He stated he commends the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for addressing the issues that needed to be addressed. He asked what the average price of a unit will be, since Ms. Camblor stated the value of a TDR will fall between 8% and 35% of the sales price of a unit. Ms. Camblor stated they gave a general calculation of the value of the TDRs so that the homeowners to come up with their own percentages. Mr. Busha stated the percentage of the TDR values is based on what the developers say they might be able to pay or absorb to get an extra unit on the land that they have. He stated the market will establish the value of the TDR Program. Mr. Martin stated in the 10% rule it talks about preserving or ensuring connectivity of roadways and flow ways. He stated he has concerns about this. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias stated they have been reviewing the TVC Element for quite sometime and every time they review it, they learn something new. He stated the consultants have provided good advice for the construction of the TVC Element. He stated the TVC Element plan is not perfect, but it is pretty good and he is comfortable with it and supports it. Mr. Lounds asked the developers if there are provisions in County or state statues that will allow changes to be done to this plan in the future for what ever reasons that the county or state may require. Mr. Busha replied yes. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 25 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds stated the plan is not totally rigid and is still somewhat flexible. Mr. Lounds asked if the value of a TDR depend on the value of an acre of land. Mr. Busha stated if in fact a land owner transfer his development right and place an anything, then there is residual value left. He stated a lot of conservation easements that are granted do not allow landowners to do anything with their land. He stated this Transfer of Development Right Program will allow some residual value to continue farming, and keep 10% of their future land use density that landowners have before they sell their rights. Ms. Camblor stated for the record, landowners will not be able to transfer a unit from other Cities. Ms. Camblor stated in order for a TDR program to work, there have to be very clearly defined sending and receiving sites and there have to be a calculation of how many units Mr. Lounds asked if there was still language in this provision about it not being specifically enough to keep it out of the rest of the County. He stated the fact that the plan will hold specifically true to the TVC area should be added to the text so that landowners will not feel that the development outside of the Urban Service Area other than the TVC, will have the same criteria as the TVC Element. recommendation will be only applies to the Special Area plan area, can be added into the text. Mr. Lounds stated he is not comfortable with the fact of the utilities driving development. right to hook up, to save potable drinking water. Mr. Lounds stated staff has put a lot of time into the TVC plan and their issues need to be addressed. Mr. Hearn stated as a crisis in our school system, we are at the bottom of the school rankings as well as national rankings. He stated they are hoping to attract quality people who want a good education for their kids. He stated more growth will not solve their crisis. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 26 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hearn stated the accessory units such as cottages and such have yous that will not counted as density concerns him. He added that he is concerned about the value of the TDRs. Mr. Hearn stated he is concerned about how they are using the countryside in this project because it seems to be disappearing. Ms. Hensley asked if Collier County was an overlay district. Ms. Camblor stated it is an over lay. Ms. Hensley stated Senate Bill 360, the new Growth Management Bill, addresses the currency issue but that does not come until the end to 2008. She pointed out that this will address the future needs. She stated if the plan is done correctly, it provides the infrastructure needs, within proximity to the users. Having a variety of housing types within close proximity creates higher density, but also a better use of the infrastructure. She stated a school in an area with the appropriate demographic make up would imply little transportation needs. She stated this is a true bonus to the community as well as to the tax payers. Ms. Hensley stated there are many things that need to be addressed. She stated DCA intends to be partners with community developments and help shaper their design and give guidance. Mr. Mundt stated he has not seen a development being developed that does not ask for greater density. He stated the development should include incentives and benefactors. He stated he will support this. Ms. Hammer stated she agrees with Mr. Mundt. She stated she loves the open-space requirement in this plan. She stated compromising is needed and used in this plan to try to find a plan that works for the community. She stated she feels that this plan is a starting place. Chairman Grande passed the gravel to Vice-Chairman Mr. Hearn, and stated he will read a motion that has prepared, based on the time that he has spent looking over the plan, working with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel and listening to all of the sketches of the plan, of the last month. Mr. Grande stated he moves that they forward a modified version of the 9/22 TVC Elements to the County Commissions with a recommendation of approval with the following changes: Towns Villages and Countryside Element 27 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. 1.I would adopt the recommendation made by the staff in the staff report. 2.I would Mr. Lounds suggestion of including the latest sufficient by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel 3.I would use the term and Countryside to mean the space between the Towns and Villages and not the space inside. 4.-space to mean undeveloped areas within the towns and villages. 5.I would define that development credit exchange go active a bank or a market banker to provide an orderly market for TDRs as recommended by Dr. Nicholas. 6.I would eliminate the matrix per density bonuses. TDRs are one-to-one bankers, which they identify the visual credits for the workforce housing. 7.I would eliminate the guarantee of Urban Services in the Rural area, outside of under 500 acres. This will eliminate 3.1.2.6. (#5 and #6 would apply to both large and small parcels) 8.deration s in the TVC area. It is just an added complexity, as far as exchanging density. The Urban Service Boundary would stay where it is and all of the existing divisions will stay as they are. Services will be provided within towns and villages, not provided in the Countryside. Existing Boundaries would remain for parcels one developing according to the TVC. 9.I would reduce open-space requirement to 40% or 50% and I would make it the same for towns and villages. 10.I would eliminate any minimum density requirement greater than 5 per acre. As designed in the market, it dictates what lines up at and developer will not develop those densities that are impractically low. 11.I would eliminate counting brick and water as open-space for the countryside. That would include buildings and parking lots. 12.I would also eliminate the large lots or off-site locations counting towards the Countryside. All these things I believe will probably simplify this plan by half, and make it much easier to understand and I would authorize the Chair to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel to develop the updated version with the indicated changes that will be presented to the County Commission and the version recommended for approval. Vice-Chairman Bill Hearn asked if the maker of the motion will include the additional sending area plan amendment. Mr. Grande said yes. Vice-Chairman Hearn announced that there is a motion. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 28 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lounds stated he would second the motion, but he has few concerns about some of the criteria that are placed with the motion, such as the Urban Service Utility questions and getting the Chairman to work with the Regional Planning Counsel. He stated he feels when they pass the item up, they are done with it. Vice-Chairman Hearn passed the gavel back to Mr. Grande for the purposes of seconding the motion. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there was a motion and a second and asked if there were further discussion. Mr. Lounds stated he will not vote for the motion if the motioner will continue to have the Urban Services taken out of it because of his feelings about potable water. He also stated he feels that once the Planning and Zoning Commission turns the item over to the Board of County Commissioners, then it is out of their reach and they have done their job. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that they all each, as individuals had the opportunity to come before the County Commission on their own feelings about the item when it is over and done. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that he understands the transfers of density properly well enough to know that the market place will set the value and the developer will tell the land owner what he feels that value is worth. Chairman Grande stated he would have no problems eliminating the Urban Service Boundary consideration and the last part that Mr. Lounds mentioned with the Planning and Zoning Commission being finished with the item at this point and time, if it is agreeable for the seconder. Mr. Hearn stated that is okay with him. Mr. Mundt stated he has a problem with eliminating the matrix and density. He stated he feels that that is one of the points of getting the developers to work with the program and he feels that if that is taken away and put it strictly out, then it would create a one for one bases. He stated he feels that that should remain. He asked Chairman Grande to explain the part about the development credit exchange. Chairman Grande stated developers will be lining up to develop according to the TVC rules once everyone agrees that this is exactly what they want. He stated he believes that without the bonuses they will maintain a much higher price for credits. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 29 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. He stated he believes that the bonuses are the only threat that exists to the value of a TDR. If they double the numbers, the only thing that will happen is have the number that people will take. Mr. Mundt stated the reduction of open-space requirement for 40% to 50% is too low and he would like to see something higher. Mr. Lounds stated he agrees. Mr 40% 50%, they are not including what they are including now, so they are not really reducing it that that far. Countryside is going to be Countryside and it will not be Countryside/schools or targeted industries or what have you, but it will be truly Countryside. Mr. Trias stated he would feel much more comfortable with a more simple motion. He stated he feels that the TVC document has been revised and worked on and that adding so many criterions for changes will create more problems. Ms. Hammer stated she would be more comfortable voting in favor of a motion that would ask the County Commissioners to look at the issues that Mr. Grande raised. She stated Mr. Hearn stated they are only an advisory board and they should start out with a 1.1 density and if the Board of County Commissioners feels meet to change the density, and then let them change it. The Roll was called: Ms. Hammer voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds voted against the motion. Mr. Trias voted against the motion. Mr. Mundt voted against the motion. Mr. Hearn voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated the motion failed by count. Chairman Grande asked if there was another motion. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 30 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Continuation of the TVC Element Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Mr. Trias stated he would like to make a motion that they forward this document to approval. Chairman Grande stated would they like to add on to that, the latest memo from the Treasure Coast that that would be seconded by Mr. Lounds. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Ms. Hammer asked if the motioner and the seconder would also be willing to forward the other concerns that had been raised and ask the County Commissioners to take a look at them. Mr. Trias stated the comments that have been raised are on the record as part of the minutes. Chairman Grande stated that would be part of the motion. Chairman Grande asked if there were any discussion on the motion. The roll call was made: Ms. Hammer voted for the motion. Mr. Mundt voted for the motion. Mr. Hearn voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds voted for the motion. Mr. Trias voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted against the motion. Chairman Grande stated this motion passed and will be forwarded with a recommendation of approval. Towns Villages and Countryside Element 31