HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 06-29-2006
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
2
June 29, 2006
3
Special Meeting
4
5
6 (A DVD recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file with these
7 minutes as part of the record).
8
9 The special meeting of June 29, 2006 was called to order by Chairman Hearn at 6:00
10 P.M. in the Commissions Chambers, Third Floor Roger Poitras Annex
11
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
12
13
MEMBERS PRESENT
14
15 Chairman Hearn, Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Knapp, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan and
16 Mr. Mundt and Ms. Hensley
17
TWO MEMBERS ABSENT
18
19 Vice Chairman Ramon Trias and Ms. Caron
20
OTHERS PRESENT
21
22 Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, Robert Nix, Director, St. Lucie County
23 Growth Management, Gil Backenstoss, St. Lucie County Assistant Growth Management
24 Director, Ernest A. Cox, III, Esq., Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Robert S. Raynes,
25 Jr. Esq. Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Anita Jenkins, Wilson Miller Planning & GIS
26 Coordinator, Mr. John Percy, Gladdin, Jackson Community Planners
27
ANNOUNCEMENTS
28
Agenda Item #1: St. Lucie County Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Zone
29
Land Development Regulations
30
31
32 Chairman Hearn mentioned that he had received some correspondence that he did not
33 know if staff had received from the Indian River Citrus League endorsing the Rural Land
34 Stewartship Overlay Area.
35
DISCLOSURES
36
37 Ms. Hammer mentioned that she met with the applicant on various occasions and had
38 spoken with various members of staff and commissioners about this application. Mr.
39 Grande indicated he did the same.
40
Minutes from the June 15, 2006 Regular Meeting
41
42 Chairman Hearn requested that approval of the Minutes of Thursday, June 15, 2006 be
43 postponed until the next meeting, since the committee received the draft copies at
44 , Thursday, June 29, 2006. The motion was carried unanimously.
45
46
1
Agenda Item #1: St. Lucie County Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Zone
1
Land Development Regulations
2
3
4 The item was presented by Michael Brillhart, St. Lucie County, Strategy and Special
5 Projects Director, for the county, and he stated that in October 2005 the Board of County
6 Commissioners (BOCC) transmitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the State
7 Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The particular Comprehensive Plan
8 amendment was in regard to the establishment of a Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay
9 Zone in St. Lucie County, Florida. The amendment was developed in accordance with
10 Florida Statute 163.3177.11D dealing with the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program.
11 The actual amendment as mentioned was transmitted up to (DCA). We received back an
12 ORC Report in that regard. The applicant has had an opportunity to reviewe the ORC
13 report and develop responses back that would be reviewed by our Board for a
14 Comprehensive Plan Adoption, which will take place on Tuesday, July 11, 2006.
15
16 Chairman Hearn asked Mr. Brillhart to please explain what ORC stands for to the public.
17 Mr. Brillhart briefly explained that the ORC Report is the Objections, Recommendations,
18 and Comments Report that the State Department of Community Affairs puts together in
19 response to proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. As part of the Comprehensive
20 Plan amendment there needs to be a set of implementing regulations, requirements, that
21 can be use to actually implement the major components of the Rural Land Stewardship
22 amendment, those being the Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and the Stewardship
23 Receiving Area (SSR).
24
25 Mr. Brillhart pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission Package contains a
26 copy of a revised and redlined version of the Land Development Regulations, that would
27 be use to actually implement within St. Lucie County, the Comprehensive Plan
28 amendment. These are the same amendments which this Board reviewed, and then made
29 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. This particular review is
30 based upon looking not only at the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but also in
31 reviewing the Land Development Regulations for the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
32 These Land Development Regulations are proposed as a new section to our existing Land
33 Development Code under the new Section 4.05.00, the establishing of an area Rural
34 Stewardship Area Overlay Zone.
35
36 Mr. Brillhart announced that Ernie Cox, Esq. with Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. and
37 a team, for the applicant, are here to go over the Land Development Regulations and the
38 revisions that were made from the workshop held on Thursday, June 8, 2006.
39
40 Chairman Hearn said that before Mr. Ernie Cox comes forward he had a couple questions
41 that he would like to ask Mr. Brillhart. Chairman Hearn mentioned that in Governor
42 Bush E-mail that is received each week, one of the articles stated that the Babcock
43 Ranch purchase was signed into law. The State of Florida is providing three hundred ten
44 million dollars to purchase BabcockRanch. Chairman Hearned if the state is
45 supplying any money to the county to offset the cost for implementing this plan in St.
2
1 Lucie County. Mr. Brillhart said that the state is not sponsoring any funding assistance to
2 St. Lucie County, Florida.
3
4 Mr. Ernie Cox representing the applicant announced that they will address the issues that
5 the Planning and Zoning Board had asked for more information from the previous
6 workshop meeting regarding this project.
7
8 Mr. Cox indicated that this would be only the second Rural Land Stewardship Area in the
9 State of Florida. He announced that he had the great pleasure of working with the people
10 from the Adams Ranch, the group of professionals from out of state, and the people from
11 Florida Conservancy Development. He spent countless hours on county staff meetings,
12 conference calls, revisions, reviewing redlines, and making revisions since October 2005.
13
14 Mr. Cox gave a brief summary of the Collier County RLSA program. The program is the
15 creature ofnew legislation found in Chapter 163.3177, F.S. There have been a number of
16 changes to the statute which requires concurrency to be tightened, and requires schools to
17 be added. This was an idea to essentially value environmental, cultural and agricultural
18 resources. Things that the typical market would not value as high. Whether it is a
19 wetlands, hammock system, or slough, the idea of protecting the eco system. Also, the
20 idea of promoting agriculture, and saying that we would like agriculture to continue being
21 a profitable business in the State of Florida. This is an idea to provide an incentive to do
22 that. The changes that had happened are the reduction in size. The legislature decided
23 that the 50,000 acres size limit that had originally been established was too big. Nobody
24 was really using this program. The size was lower to 10,000, 11,000, 12, 000, 20,000 and
25 30,000 acres to see if somebody would actually use this. Mr. Cox mentioned that the
26 program here is using 22,000 acres, double the minimal size. Mr. Cox pointed out that
27 there is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Exemption, but at the request of the
28 county and the Regional Planning Council, they have agreed not to use the DRI
29 Exemption. When the project begins its process, it would go through the full DRI process
30 with the Regional Planning Council review, in addition to the stewardship receiving area
31 process.
32
33 Ms. Hammer asked Mr. Cox if they would have the DRI commitment in writing.
34 Mr. Cox affirmed that the DRI would be in writing.
35
36 The idea is to look at the 25 year or greater population, and to start looking at a different
37 pattern of development. Using a new incentive base tool, where the public can gain by a
38 better pattern of development, the environment gains and the owner gains, to create better
39 communities.
40
41 Ms. Anita Jenkins introduced herself as Principal Planner with Wilson Miller on this
42 Rural Land Stewardship Project. She stated that she would like to begin with the
43 discussion of the Land Development Code (LDC). She mentioned that when they created
44 these codes of implementation, they asked themselves, are they meeting the intent, does
45 this further the program, and are they able to implement what our policies tells them to
3
1 implement. Ms. Jenkins said she began with the intent of the Rural Stewardship Program
2 in St. Lucie County, that is, to further the principles of rural sustainability.
3
4 This is the goal that is contained in your Goals Objectives and Policies in the
5 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and that goal in summary is to preserve natural
6 resources, conserve agriculture, and direct incompatible uses away from the wetlands and
7 the uplands where those habitats are important to what you have in St. Lucie County.
8
9 Ms. Jenkins mentioned that they want to do this while discouraging urban sprawl. She
10 said they want a functional mix of land uses that promotes economic diversification in the
11 rural areas. Each code that is drafted in the Land Development Code is checked back to
12 the overriding goal to make sure that they are implementing what we had said on the goal
13 they had set out to do.
14
15 The pilot program location was shown to be in the NW area of the county involving both
16 Cloud Grove and Adams Ranch. From this, there are about four components in the
17 Growth Management Plan that we pay attention to, while we are drafting the Land
18 Development Code. One of the most important one is your Stewardship Overlay Map.
19 (The areas were shown on a map illustration) The maps demonstrate where growth may
20 occur and where growth lassification
21 area has habitat and hydrological stewardship areas, and the flow way, or water retention
22 areas, as those things that may not s program. (The
23 Future Land Use Map for the area was shown). . Currently, the Future Land Use Map
24 allows all of this area to be developed at one unit per five acres. Under the plan of
25 stewardship the (blue and green areas on the map) must be protected. That is the policy
26 that we set forth, . In the
27 (pink area shown on the map) are those areas with low natural resource values and may
28 be suitable for development.
29
30 The Land Development Code is being considered tonight. One of the very important
31 components of this program, within both the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
32 Code, is the natural index map. It is unique to St. Lucie County and to the Rural Land
33 Stewardship. This measures the values of the natural resources in a pictorial form on
34 both Adams Ranch and Cloud Grove. Those things that were evaluated in the process
35 include those that are listed in the index factor scores. The grove area has a low natural
36 resource value, and the small hammock area has a high resource value. Adams Ranch
37 has a variety of natural resources, and it has a variety of different values.
38
39 From the Natural Resource Index Maps, we do create the Overlay Map. This is directing
40 the protection of what is defined as important and unique to St. Lucie County in
41 protecting natural resource value and agriculture. This is one of the final components
42 that is very important in the stewardship program. This is what is determining the values
43 in driving the maps. This Stewardship Credit Worksheet shows each and every natural
44 resource value that we have evaluated and assigned a particular value. It also illustrates
45 the land uses that are available under the current zoning that would be voluntarily
4
1 eliminated under stewardship. These two things combined with the acres are how the
2 stewardship credits are created.
3
4 Mr. Ernie Cox explained that credits are generated on how you calculate the stewardship.
5 As an example, take 1000 acres that had a very high natural resource of 2.2. In this
6 example, we would have voluntarily removed the uses, the residential uses, conditional
7 uses that are on your existing codes, the earth mining use, the AG-1 use; leaving the
8 AG-2, which is pasture. That generates nine tenths of a credit for each acre when you
9 remove those layers. If you take off fewer layers you generate fewer credits. In this
10 example we are taking all the layers down to AG-2, and that generates 1980 credits out of
11 that 1000 acres. These are stewardship credits based upon the values.
12
13 A comment that is unique to St. Lucie County, when this process began, is that we were
,
14 told that St. Lucie County cares about their environment, and about its agricultureand
15 about its culture. When they designed the program, they designed in a different manner
16 than they did for Collier County, Florida. He made a comment that the stewardship
17 program allows you to design it base upon desires and policy objectives of the
18 community. If you eliminate all the uses above AG, so that the only thing the property
19 can be use for is agriculture, there is a credit there. This property cannot be used for earth
20 mining, conditional uses or residential uses. This generates more credits.
21
22 The cultural heritage credit may not apply in all circumstances just like the agriculture
23 may not, but the cultural heritage of St. Lucie County, its cattle industry, its heritage, is a
24 0.5 credit. In this particular circumstance there are 3,280 stewardship credits that would
25 be generated from this hypothetical acre.
26
27 Ms. Hammer asked Mr. Cox to please go over the section regarding the agriculture index
28 value. Mr. Cox indicated that they just get the environmental value. There is a program
29 that if you commit to using this land for agriculture, and you do not allow any usages
30 above it, there is an additional 0.8 credits for those acres that the person is committed to
31 bringing the land down to AG to promote the AG used. In this case that particular factor
32 would generate 800 credits.
33
34 Ms. Jenkins said, in contrast to that there may be an opportunity as this program moves
35 forward. For instance, in Collier County they have too large sloughs, which are not
36 suitable for agriculture, and there is not agriculture ongoing in those sloughs right now.
37 So they have the natural high resource value. The very high natural resource values are
38 very important to protect. They are not suitable for agriculture. If you find in your
39 community that this particular land is both very high in natural resource values, and has a
40 very high function in economic driver for your community in agriculture, and you are
41 willing to preserve it in agriculture, that is a way that we are meeting the goal that we set
42 forth to conserve agriculture and to incentivize the conservation of agriculture.
43
44 Ms. Hammer stated that she understands the credit formula, but not why they are adding
45 AG agriculture index value. She understands adding the cultural heritage, but she does
46 not understand why they are adding the middle piece. The county Mr. Cox responded,
5
1 through our meetings and through the existing Comprehensive Plan, said they want to
2 come up with a way to use this program to promote agriculture. Not just the natural
3 resource. So in doing this, it does not get as much credit as the natural resource. It does
4 not generate enough credit as the natural resource would. But it does generate some
5 credit. Another example is an area that does not have the natural resource but might still
6 have AG value. Ms. Jenkins mentioned that this is also used to incentivize land owners
7 in agriculture right now, with a different option. If they can keep their land, and it does
8 not necessarily have the high natural resources value to generate the credits that are
9 needed, but they are willing to stay agricultural, and were meeting that goal of conserving
10 agriculture in St. Lucie County, this gives them another option to think of. They are
11 trying to reward the conservation of agriculture along with the protection of natural
12 resources.
13
14 Ms. Hammer states that example one is the ultimate, and you get to have all these
15 additional pieces to it. If you go to another area, where it is the environmental lands then
16 it would not have all these pieces to it.
17
18 Ms. Jenkins stated that the idea is to incentivize the protection of those things that meet
19 all of the goals exactly like Adams Ranch is doing. They have a wonderful agricultural
20 operation, and through their stewardship of that land they have created natural resources
21 that are very high in value. This is a unique situation in seeing a land owner with both of
22 these. But if you have a land owner that is in a different type of agriculture operation that
23 does not necessarily promote the natural resources of that land, they have a different
24 option. They can opt into the program, and protect their land, and still receive credits
25 without the natural resources.
26
27 Mr. Grande stated that it seems like rather than selecting the highest and best use you are
28 taking the acreage and loading it with credits with everything. Mr. Cox stated no, but
29 rather it meets the criteria of what the county has said it would like to promote. Mr. Cox
30 then presented a second credit calculation example, with the AG index and cultural index
31 remaining the same at 0.8 and 0.5 but with a lower natural resource index of 1.6. This
32 results in lower total credit of 2,740.
33
34 In a third example he demonstrated that an even lower environmental value would
35 produce ever lower total credits. He explained that citrus land has very low
36 environmental value, and that Adams Ranch produces unusually high environmental
37 values because of its unique character.
38
39 Regarding the use of credits, based on 12,000 acres in Adams Ranch, because of some
40 high environmental values, 32,000 credits could be generated.
41
42 Mr. Hearn asked if the AG index values have time limits, i.e. would the AG uses have to
43 continue for some definite period of time? Mr. Cox responded that farming cannot be
44 -1 is more
45 intensive agriculture and AG-2 is less intensive. Some examples were given of these
46 types of use.
6
1 Mr. Lounds asked if it was the intent to preserve and protect the natural acres that exist
2 on the sites, and not let them go to agriculture. Mr. Cox responded that environmentally
3 valuable land would go to AG-2 and improved land would go to AG-1. So the protection
4 would occur, but maintenance to prevent exotic invasion could also occur. Mr. Grande
5 asked if these designations would remain forever and Mr. Cox affirmed. Mr. Knapp
6 asked if the 0.8 credits would be the same for AG-1 and AG-2. Mr. Cox affirmed.
7 However, the natural resource index score is higher for AG-2
8
9 Mr. Cox gave an example of using credits, which entitle acres, not units. The example
10 shows 2,290 credits, which at seven credits per acre, entitles a 327 acre Village. Then the
11 program requires a number of uses in a Village. For example, homes, goods and
12 services, water and waste water treatment systems, open space,civic, governmental and
13 institutional services, schools, and transportation facilities. Maximum andminimum
14 amounts are specified by the proposed code. Mr. Hearn questioned the minimum and
15 maximum for goods and services. Mr. Cox stated that it would be looked at.
16
17 Ms. Hammer questioned the amount of open space. Compared to other PUD and TVC
18 requirements, the 35% requirement here seems low. Mr. Cox responded the open space
19 also includes that which is created from the sending area. Therefore, for these 1,000
20 acres the total open space would be about 84% with 1,000 acres off site. Ms. Hammer
21 responded that the 1,000 acres would not be open to the public. Mr. Hearn stated that it
22 is also important how open space is defined. Ms. Hensley stated that the community
23 would look at the open space within the town.
24
25 Mr. Cox went on to explain the acres issue. Initially there will be 12,000 acres in the
26 sending area. It will generate 35,000 credits which equates to 5,000 acres in the receiving
.
27 area
28
29 Mr. John Percy with Gladdin, Jackson Community Planners is working on design
30 principles which are laid out in the goals, objectives and policies of the Comp Plan
31 amendment. The principles lay the framework for the Land Development Code in saying
32 what needs to happen in the receiving areas. They want to establish distinct
33 neighborhoods with focal points. They want a mix of uses, a walkable community, a mix
34 of housing types, a balance of mixes, key civic facilities, interconnected street systems,
35 integrated open space and trails, with context zone to guide the uses and transitions.
36
37 Mr. Percy described the requirements and principles for a town. Towns can be from
38 1,000 to 5,000 acres, and are guided by specific context zones, which include the town
39 core, town center, neighborhood general, neighborhood edge, and special districts. There
40 were various discussions about the specific design principles.
41
42 Mr. Cox went over the major items addressed since the June 8 P & Z workshop. They
43 have made sure that, (1). the cultural incentive credits are a one time credit, (2) the
44 restoration credit is established at 3 per acre, (3) the transfer of credits is clarified, (4)
45 water systems will comply with DEP and Health Department regulations, (5) contiguous
46 parcels in the sending areas do not have to be under the same ownership, (6) a required
7
1 environmental consultant is on an SRA project team, (7) all maps are dated, and
2 referenced to RSLA figures, (8) the design standards have been improved as required and
3 (9) specific language changes have been made as suggested.
4
5 Mr. Cox summarized the land development regulation outcomes, which are (1) remove
6 development rights from AG land without losing any uses, (2) protect environmentally
7 sensitive land without public sale or conservation easements, (3) reward Adams Ranch
8 for being good stewards and using best management practices, (4) accomplish this
9 program without taking the land off the tax rolls, (5) and retain ownership in the family
10 for future generations.
11
12 Mr. Cox continued by listing the additional outcomes of the code, which are: (1) to
13 discourage sprawl, (2) to provide a fiscally neutral test, (3) to provide incentives for
14 education, research, and public benefit uses, and (4) to produce sustainable rural
15 development.
16
17
18
19 Mr. Lounds asked about the neighborhood edge. He clarified that the minimum lot size
20 is 5,000 square feet and asked if that gives a density of eight to one. But larger lots
21 would be allowed.
22
23 Ms. Hammer stated that the review times for staff review are too short. Also, she
24 expressed concern that we do not have outside consultant to assist in review of plans.
25 Mr. Nix concurred that the timeframes are unrealistic. He was also concerned about the
26 limit of two information requests. Mr. Grande stated that even though the times are short,
27 the project is not accepted by default. Mr. Nix does not want staff put into a contentious
28 position.
29
30 David Powell, from Hopping, Green, and Sams in Tallahassee responded on behalf of
31 Florida Conservency and Development Group, there is no default permit allowed under
32 the regulations. The Board of County Commissions (BCC) would have to vote in the
33 affirmative. The limit of two requests for additional information comes directly from the
34 DRI Statute. Lack of information would result in a staff recommendation of denial.
35 Mr. Grande again questioned why the short timeframes remain.
36
37 Mr. Powell stated that in the collaboration effort no one person makes a change and he is
38 not aware of alternatives being proposed. Any proposal could be discussed.
39 Mr. Cox stated that timeframes should be considered in the context of sending vs.
40 receiving areas. Receiving is far more complex.
41
42 Mr. Nix stated that there is a difference in the way an applicant behaves in a local vs.
43 state oversight process. You cannot equate a local code to the DRI Statute
44
45 Mr. Hearn asked for the alternative.
46
8
1 Mr. Nix stated that the developer gets two chances to submit the right information or they
2 have to reapply.
3
4 Ms. Hammer stated that the five working days for sufficiency review is unreasonable, as
5 are other time frames. She appreciates the applicant adding an Environmental Consultant
6 to the required group, and based on staff recommendation, believes a surveyor should be
7 added also. This would be in addition to the professional engineer and the architect.
8 Ms. Hammer stated that handicap accessibility must be assured. She asked why the
9 height level was changed from three to three and a half stories.
10
11 Mr. Cox stated that it should not be changed.
12
13 Ms. Hammer expressed concern about sidewalks only being on one side of the street, as
14 stated on page 47.
15
16 Mr. Cox stated that only occurs in the neighborhood edge, and it was done to allow for
17 special features that may exist in that area.
18
19 Ms. Hammer pointed out that sidewalks need to be on both sides for the Village Center.
20
21 Ms. Hammer expressed concern about other developers using this procedure. How will
22 other developers be held to the same standards? What is the effect of the AG land bill
23 signed by the Governor that allows development of AG land when surrounded by more
24 intense development?
25
26 Mr. Cox replied regarding the first question this process will only apply to the area shown
27 on the overlay map. Extension of the overlay requires a large scale plan amendment.
28 They would have to have all the components of this plan or they could not proceed.
29 Regarding the Agricultural Enclave Bill, the land would have to be surrounded on 75% of
30 its borders, and a sending area would have to be identified for this development also.
31 Mr. Grande stated that he understood this bill creates an entitlement, regardless of a
32 conservation easement.
33
34 Mr. Cox explained that the conservation easement must be honored, regardless of who
35 placed it. The rights would be gained only by the same terms, (as described above).
36
37 Mr. Hearn asked about the requirements for adequate workforce housing, including low
38 and very low income housing. How has that been addressed?
39
40 Mr. Cox responded that the proposal does provide for these requirements.
41
42 Mr. Hearn also asked about open space in hamlets.
43 Mr. Cox stated that it has changed that to match the five acres per 1000 residents that
44 staff suggested.
45
9
1 Mr. Hearn addressed
2 villages and hamlets, and his concern that the rules will change if that happens.
3
4 Mr. Powell responded that there is not a guarantee that there will not be an incorporation
5 at some time. That is a decision of the legislature, not the local government. He stated
6 that there will be ample safeguards to assure substantial input into any incorporation
7 request.
8
9 Mr. Hearn had a specific question about the minimum population of 5000 and average
10 density of 1.5 per acre.
11
12 Mr. Powell responded that these are the minimal required by the statute to request the
13 legislature to create a municipality in St. Lucie County. He further pointed out that there
14 are ways to protect open spaces and other features regardless of incorporation, and that
15 those techniques are included in the proposal.
16
17 Mr. Grande expressed the belief that the new towns should be incorporated, and that
18 states law seems to encourage that for developments of the size proposed.
19 Mr. Hearn explained that his concern is about preserving the original intent of the
20 development plan after incorporation if and when it occurs.
21
22 Mr. Mundt asked about having minimum lot sizes for town center and neighborhood
23 general, but not for village. What is the philosophy?
24
25 Ms. Jenkins stated this is to allow buildings to be set close to the street frontage, which
26 may create some odd size lots in these typically mixed use area. However, the applicant
27 agreed to take a look at that.
28
29 Mr. Lounds asked about agricultural incentive credits. Why was the 15 year half credit
30 and giving reward for the future families of the sending unit taken out?
31
32 Mr. Cox stated that there have been on going discussions about creating future credits for
33 areas that already have created credits, and that it may not be the correct approach. They
34 will get together with the Farm Bureau and IFAS and work with the county in finding a
35 different type of AG incentive credit that would not involve future credits.
36
37 Mr. Lounds pointed out that historically the fourth and fifth generations of AG families
38 tend to change the approach. He is disappointed that the incentives have been removed.
39
40 Where is the incentive to assure that Adams Ranch will remain as a sending unit.
41
42 Mr. Cox responded by stating that he may personally prefer to leave the future incentive
43 in, but they are working with a lot of parties and they are trying to negotiate a solution
44 that satisfies all.
45
10
1 Mr. Hearn would support the future credit if it did not create more houses in this
2 community.
3
4 Mr. Lounds response could not be heard on the recording.
5
6 Mr. Grande stated that the future generations will be paying taxes on the land, and all
7 rights will have been removed down to AG-2. They will be using it for AG, the only use
8 it has, and the possibility of them letting it go fallow is almost non-existent. They would
9 lose the land. They would either sell it with the imposed conditions, or they would keep
10 it working as it has been so that it pays for itself.
11
12 Mr. Lounds reiterated that the 15 year half credit is needed to assure that the land will
13 remain as is. Possibly allow this credit only for things other than dwelling units.
14 Mr. Cox responded that they are continuing to work on it, and that if the Commission
15 feels strongly about it, they should recommend it.
16
17 Mr. Lounds suggested the applicant come up with verbiage that would take the half credit
18 away from density.
19
20 Ms. Hensley mentioned that there has been discussion about developing a matrix that
21 shows the value of open space to the community as a whole. This is not available yet, but
22 when it is, can the program be amended to include the half credit when the value of open
23 space has been determined?
24
25 Mr. Cox responded, yes!
26
27 Ms. Hammer asked if staff has enough confidence to take an application like this, and
28 have enough expertise, to take a recommendation to the Board of County Commission.
29 Mr. Brillhart asked for clarification on an item. Under the SSA approval process a site
30 plan would not come to the P&Z Commission. He asked for clarification on both the
31 SSA and SRA application process.
32
33 Mr. Cox stated that on the SSA there is no development. It only restricts use. Therefore
34 it would get staff and Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) review, and then go to
35 the Board of County Commissioners. Whereas, the SSR is a development plan and
36 would go to Staff, EAC, P&Z and then the BCC.
37
38 Chairman Hearn opened the public hearing.
39
40 Ms. Linda Green, 1430 South West Cover Bridge Road, Palm City, Florida. She
41 stated that she was attending the meeting on behalf of a new nonprofit organization,
42
43 committee of the Sustainable Treasure Coast. She explained that they are an
44 Environmental Group interested in seeing conservancy set up throughout the state.
45
11
1 She thanked everyone for making it possible that a development can pay for agriculture
2 conservation, because it is open green space. Ms. Green also mentioned that it is so
3 important that development is not given away.
4
5 In addition Ms. Green addressed that the Adams Ranch concept will be looked at as a
6 possible way to save agricultural land. The Executive Director from Florida Audubon
7 had ideas how to restore the lake. His idea was to create an island in the middle of the
8 lake, and to plant trees for birds, and to create a place for canoeing in the waterways with
9 educational components. Perhaps even providing a charter school or university so the
10 children that attend the school would learn about Rural Land Stewardship and the
11 importance of agriculture and the environment.
12
13 Ms. Green also the
14 open green space, forever. She said because of her participation in the Sustainable
15 Treasure Coast Committee, her concerns are if you put these lands in open green space
16 with government, they are only secure as your County Commission votes. If you put
17 them in homeowner associations you have the wrong people running the show. If you
18 have environmentally sensitive land, you need to have a Biologist to determine how those
19 lands are going to be taken care of. She proposed for the open green space, to develop a
20 conservancy, and have them house the lands. Also, have more overlays by Florida
21 Audubon or 1000 Friends of Florida so that there would be several layers over the green
22 space. Therefore in 20 or 50 years, no one could come back and developed them. Also,
23 she recommended setting up a dedicated funding source going to Adams Ranch to assure
24 continuation of the agriculture operation.
25
26 Chairman Hearn thanked Ms. Green for attending the Planning and Zoning Commission
27 meeting and participating in the Sustainable Committee.
28
29 The next speaker Mr. Adnan Alghita, stated that he has been struggling with the land use
30 issues for thirty seven years. Furthermore he said that he pays three times the taxes to St.
31 Lucie County than his yearly salary. He mentioned that we need more input from the
32 citizens of St. Lucie County. He said that he has not seen any writing about this project
33 in the newspaper, and that is why he needed to bring this situation to the board for
34 attention.
35
36 Mr. Alghita said the most honest statement he had heard tonight was from a member of
37 the Board. He said that she indicated that she was not capable of dealing with all these
38 issues on this project.
39
40 Mr. Alghita mentioned that land use issues on big scales shows you the true mettle of the
41 people. There are the pitfalls that you need to have concerns about. The project will
42 bring more money to Adams Ranch and make St. Lucie County proud of their
43 community. He spoke about planning, engineering, agricultural, drainage, surveying, and
44 legal issues. He suggested that there be a special review board for all of these issues
45 relating to the Adams Ranch RLS Area.
46
12
1 Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing in order to come back to the board for
2 discussion.
3
4 Chairman Hearn asked Ms. Hammer if she wanted additional discussion regarding staff
5 and their expertise. She said she wanted to know how the rest of the board felt; whether
6 the rest of the board thinks that the present staff is adequate to be able to review this
7 project. She would like to see some dialogue.
8
9 Mr. Mundt stated that he thinks that Growth Management, Department, with the staffing
10 they have, recognizes what they can handle adequately. Mr. Mundt said he does not
11 think they would have any hesitation to bring in outside consultants if they felt it was
12 necessary to move projects in a timely manner, and to secure a more expertise than they
13 feel they have internally. Mr. Mundt asked Mr. Robert Nix Growth Management
14 Manager if he would concur with his statement.
15
16 Mr. Nix approached the podium and introduced himself for the record as the Director of
17 Growth Management Department, and
18 in fact they are reviewing a contract and will receive a formal copy tomorrow by
19 overnight mail for a consultant to review these proposed Land Development Regulations
20 and to present a report to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Nix indicated that
21 they would have an initial report ready before the first Board reading and a more detail
22 report prior to the second reading. A need for a third party review has been recognized.
23 As far as the other issue that was being discussed regarding the Stewardship Sending
24 Area and Stewardship Receiving Area, there is a restriction on the advance of the uses
25 that are permitted on those properties. Therefore, they are zoning changes, and can go
26 through the normal zoning review that is provided in our code, not some other special
27 kind of new review that we are all setting up today. You would incorporate an overlay on
28 the zoning map identifying the sending area and identifying the receiving area. The
29 policies in the zoning code would indicate how those areas might be regulated, and what
30 the requirements are for receiving and sending areas, for easements, and so on.
31
32 Also, it is good ideas to have the Environmental Advisory Committee weigh in on the
33 quality of the sending area. They would provide a report to this Board along with the
34 Growth Management report, and have both their report and the Planning and Zoning
35 report go to the Board of County Commissioners for an amendment to the Zoning Map.
36 Then this whole complex piece of this ordinance can be eliminated and the contention
37 would go away. The staff needs to have some clear guidelines that would set their pace
38 and the quality of their review. We are interested in amending the code in a way that
39 requires the staff to actually conduct a reasonable review the first time, and try to identify
40 all issues.
41
42 The staff should not be able to continuously raise new issues. The staff should make a
43 comprehensive staff report that should be complete. The staff would then be limited to
44 issues that are serious such as public health, public safety, and endangered species issues.
45 Hopefully the staff will be able to incorporate this kind of approach in the code.
46
13
1 Mr. Nix mentioned that these issues will be addressed in amendments to Chapters 10, 11
2 and 12, and will be brought in quickly for review. Also, he mentioned amending the fee
3 schedule, which will be brought forward to go through complete review. The fee
4 schedule would provide for less support for our functions from the general revenues
5 funds and the tax structures of the county; and more support from fees. It will also allow
6 us to capture fees from applicants when we need outside help to review their applications.
7
8 It will provide for applicants to pay the cost for consulting fees that we need to deal with
9 complex issues and applications, where we do not have the expertise in our staff to deal
10 with the issue at all. This should be in place fairly soon.
11
12 Ms. Hammer stated that she was glad to hear that there is an outside organization that is
13 going to review this whole concept. She wished they had a chance to review the report
14 before they made a recommendation. Ms. Hammer asked if we are on a time frame. Mr.
15 Nix answered that he is not aware of any specific timeframe, but that the board would
16 like to see this project to move forward. Mr. Nix said that the Board of County
17 Commissioners has set a Special Meeting set for Tuesday, July 11, 2006 for the Board of
18 County Commissioners to hear the first reading; Mr. Nix mentioned that the Board of
19 County Commissioners will simply receive a more extensive staff report to look at
20 additional information from an independent consultant.
21
22 Mr. Mundt questioned Mr. Nix if the consultants report or review would have been
23 completed prior to the Board of County Commissioners Meeting. Mr. Nix answered this
24 would be an initial contract report. If they do not have the time to formulate a final report
25 before the first meeting, they do have the time to look for big issues. Then they can
26 provide a more detail report prior to the Adoption Hearing.
27
28 Mr. Mundt asked if the Board of County Commissioners would have the opportunity to
29 ask for more detail or extend the time to the applicant for the next hearing if they need to.
30
31 Mr. Nix responded yes. He said that if the applicant has some big issues identified, then
32 the Board will have an opportunity to do a number of things, including referring it back
33 to the Planning and Zoning Commission if they wanted to.
34
35 Mr. Grande was asked a question by Mr. Lounds stated he who understood the concerns
36 about adding credits and creating more density to something that is already is established.
37
38 He asked, if Mr. Cox and his staff could come back with some verbiage that would put
39 the credits back into the family in a 15 year program and not add to the density either for
40 houses or commercial, would that be favorable? Mr. Grande responded, due to the
41 incredible complexity of this project we tend to lose site of the basics here. What
42 happening is the Adams Family is receiving millions and millions of dollars. He
43 questioned if there could be a fear that in the third or forth generation there is not going to
44 be the means to maintain this property that would be best for the family. He believes that
45 the people who are making this deal are smart enough to set up a trust program or a self
46 managing program that this takes a very small part of the incredible number of million of
14
1 dollars that are involved in this transaction to set it up as an endowment to do whatever
2 maintenance you are talking about. The very thought of in 15 or 50 years this is going to
3 change, is mind boggling to him because of the deal itself.
4
5 This is a large incredibility beautiful piece of land that is not threatened and no one is
6 considering developing it. What they are doing is they are selling off the rights to
7 develop in the future, which is an admirable thing to do. What is being considered is to
8 provide another amount of dollars every 15 years to keep this going. At the same time,
9 they are assuring us that this is legally binding, that they cannot develop. Mr. Lounds
10 responded it is not the resources future generations, and looking
11 at the safeguards for those of us who are hoping our grandchildren can value and get
12 value added from the ranch itself. He thinks this Board needs to insure in this document
13 that future generations of this family, or other families that would do a similar type
14 program, using this as a blueprint, would have the incentive to continue maintaining the
15 land as an AG2 Level without it being infested with exotics.
16
17 Ms. Hammer mentioned we are ready to sign an agreement with an organization to advise
18 us and evaluate. Perhaps they could address Mr. Lounds concerns to make sure it does
19 not include any more building of more houses, and asked the applicant to come back with
20 a recommendation to address to the County Commission. Mr. Hearn Chairperson said it
21 would work for him.
22
23 Mr. Knapp stated that he had a couple of issues and questions. He stated that one is the
24 discussion of giving more credits in 15 years. He is not necessarily opposed to this. He
25 is opposed to the number of credits, but feels that the credits would be a good idea to
26 encourage the farmers to keep the areas the same. He is not worried about making those
27 credits for houses because he is assuming that the houses would be in towns or villages
28 where the green space is already in this place, and he did not believe they would create
29 urban sprawl if they continue to be in the villages or town. There is going to be a need
30 for more houses. Another concern he has relates to what Mr. Nix had said about
31 eliminating certain sections of the ordinance. Mr. Knapp asked Mr. Nix to clarify.
32
33 Mr. Nix responded that the applications should be handled under existing code as zoning
34 changes, even if they have special standards for review. Mr. Nix said that he also
35 believes that the Environmental Advisory Committee should consider the creation of the
36 Stewardship Sending Area and provide a report to the Planning and Zoning Committee
37 and the Board of County Commissioners on that. Mr. Knapp asked what that would do to
38 this document. Mr. Nix responded, it would amend these sections and then go through a
39 process administratively with whatever special rules might apply to reviewing them, if
40 there are some criteria that needs to be adopted.
41
42 Mr. Knapp also asked about the rules and regulations for developers having to come in
43 for review in addition. Just because they meet the criteria, it does not necessarily mean
44 they are approved. The applicant would have to come back through the process. Mr. Nix
45 said that once you set up the sending receiving areas on the maps, specific projects would
46 then have to come through the receiving area to get the credits from the sending areas and
15
1 to apply for development approval, either for further rezoning, planned unit development,
2 site plan or subdivision approval. They would have to come through the process.
3
4 Mr. Cox, Esq. indicated that there are two parts; the creation of the overlay under the
5 Statute is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that sets up the Comp Plan. The Land
6 Development Code then sets up the process because there are no stewardship sending
7 areas outside the rural land stewardship. The sending area side, that is a new creation, is
8 not rezoning the property; the zoning is going to stay. It is just placing an easement on it,
9 which is a stewardship sending easement. This is required by statute. On the receiving
10 side it is similar to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), instead of going through the
11 normal PUD standards, which has the PUD requirements. It has heightened standards
12 that follows, Goals, and Objectives in the Comp Plan along with the statute.
13
14 The legislature created something like a PUD but its call a Stewardship Receiving Area,
15 preference would be to keep it as a
16 Stewardship Receiving Area. He stated that he is willing to work with the staff and board
17 not only on the timing issue, but also to be sure there is agreement on nomenclature.
18
19 Mr. Nix stated that there is an apparent significant difference of opinion about how to
20 approach this, and needs to discuss further. The applicant and staff have to talk and
21 amend the language for all to agree.
22
23 Mr. Knapp said he really likes the concept and hopes it does not get distorted as it goes
24 through the process, into something that it cannot be controlled.
25 Mr. Nix mentioned that this is a great project but that he would have to check some
26 administrative details and procedures.
27
28 Mr. Mundt questioned, in creating the receiving area, is a site plan also submitted at the
29 same time? Mr. Cox, Esq. stated that it would be a very detailed package, including a
30 site plan, drainage plan, traffic plan, etc.
31
32 Ms. Hammer suggested some changes to the proposed application forms that are in the
33 package. Mr. Cox, Esquire expressed appreciation to staff for helping them get from
34 point A to point B. He stated that with the Planning and Zoning input, this will be an
35 even better package when it gets to the Board of County Commissioners.
36
37 Chairman Hearn stated that this has been a very interesting project. He could not imagine
38 how it could come together. He has many concerns about the project. He shared a poll
39 about the Treasure Coast Area where 32% of people said yes to wanting to move to a
40 smaller community in North Carolina or Tennessee. Another 30.7% said they are still
41 here because it would be very difficult to arrange. He is really bothered by these
42 responses. He does believe the project will move forward, and he hopes it works as well
43 as proposed.
44
16
1 Mr. Knapp made the motion to send the proposal on to the Board of County
2 Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, and with all the recommendations
3
4
5 Mr. Grande commented, he has concerns about trying something new, and has found that
6 down the road good people trying something new can lead to problems. He is also
7 concerned about the complexity of the program. He is concerned that the development
8 area will have more rights than what existed previously. The existing sending area is not
9 threatened by development. While it is an extremely outstanding site, this is an
10 incredible price to pay to preserve it. Even though it is a very imaginative plan, he does
11 not believe it will work over the long run, it is not revenue neutral, and he will vote
12 against it. It would be great to have Cloud Grove built out, it would be great to preserve
13 Adams Ranch, but this is not the way to do it. He does not believe the plan is understood
14 in all its detail.
15
16 Hearing no further comment Chairman Hearn asked the secretary to call the roll.
17 Roll Call
18 Mr. Lounds Yes
19 Mr. Mundt Yes
20 Mr. Grande No
21 Ms. Hammer Yes
22 Ms. Morgan Yes
23 Mr. Knapp Yes
24 Ms. Caron - Absent
25 Mr. Hearn No
26
27 The motion was approved 5 to 2
28 Absent Ms. Caron and Mr. Trias
29
30 Chairman Hearn stated that the application will be forwarded to the Board of County
31 Commission for approval.
32
33 The next meeting will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2006 at the Commission Chamber,
34 Third Floor, Roger Poitras Annex at 6:00 P.M.
35
36 There being no further business to come before the Meeting Body, Chairman Hearn
37 adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
38
17