HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Minutes 05-15-2006
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LULCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 15, 2006 Convened: 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 1:50 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Doug Coward, Chairman, Chris Craft, Frannie Hutchinson,
Paula Lewis, Joseph Smith
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County
Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County
Attorney, Robert Nix, Growth Management Director, David Kelly, Planning Manager,
Michael Brillhart, Strategy and Special Projects Director, Don West, Public Works
Director, Vanessa Bassey, Environmental Resources Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano,
Deputy Clerk
The Chairman of the Board opened the meeting .
The Secretary to the Board read the following statement:
In accordance with Section 163.3184(15) c) of the Florida Statutes, we must provide a
sign in form at transmittal and adoption hearings for the public to provide their name and
address if they would like to receive a courtesy informational statement concerning
publication of the state land planning agency’s Notice of Intent to find an amendment in
compliance with State Law.
The form is available for your signature and will be submitted to the State along with any
amendments that we send to the State.
Please print your name and address clearly.
1.GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS
ORDINANCE N0. 06-019 – Adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendments relating to the
TVC Element; the Preserve PUD; Quail Meadows PUD and Text Amendments to the
FLUE, Transportation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination and
Capital Improvements Elements.
Mr. Michael Brillhart introduced Ms. Marcella Camblor, Regional Planning Council
member who made a presentation on the Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment
prepared by the Council.
Ms. Camblor gave an overview of the TVC from inception to present.
Ms. Camblor stated the changes which have occurred in the document since the last time
th
the Board reviewed it on October 17 at the time it was being transmitted to the
Department of Community Affairs, they also worked on developing the land
development regulations and those land development regulations have been presented to
the Local Planning Agency. They felt it important to have both documents presented at
the same time so the community can see there was nothing hidden in the Land
Development Regulation’s and they are simply a tool to implement what the TVC is
proposing. They responded to the Department of Community Affair’s objections,
recommendations and comments. They completed and or correction certain
inconsistencies in the data and analysis that had been previously submitted to the
1
Department of Community Affairs. They also added a number of policies to address the
Department of Community Affair’s objections, recommendations and comments.
Ms. Camblor stated they had added a number of definitions and made the terminology
consistent throughout the TVC, the Land Development Regulations, the Transfer of
Development regulations and all the other ordinances being proposed. The concept of
open space and countryside was clarified and continued to work with developers on the
design of two towns outside the urban service boundary, (one is part inside and outside)
and one village currently inside urban service boundary.
The new policies created address open space and the countryside, and clarification of
some of the terms. The second policy addresses adequate school sites and adequate
school capacity. Another policy addresses supply and provision of potable water and
sanitary sewers to eligible recipients. There are policies to address coordination and
management of the flow ways and these were incorporated to address the concerns of the
Environmental Advisory Committee. There has been a policy to increase the specificity
of the TDR program and this was a request by the Department of Community Affairs.
Policy to address transportation concerns and policies to address the general monitoring
of the TVC over time.
Ms. Camblor commented on the new definition which clarifies when for example a town
needs to leave 60% of open space and build on the 40% that remains. The new definition
clarifies that of that 60%, 50% absolutely needs to remain countryside. The remaining
10% is the limit in which the other components can live.
The TVC presently has 12,372 acres. Currently there are two towns and one village
being proposed. The total area for the 3 developments total 2,109 acres, or 17% of the
total area of the TVC.
The County is presently working with the landowners in the TVC area toward creating a
developers agreement so that the developers pull their resources together to build a street
network.
There are two new schools being proposed for the north county area by the School Board.
Staff recommendation was to adopt the ordinance regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Coward advised the Board of the letters received encouraging and
commending the Board action on the TVC .
Commissioner Coward alluded to two specific recommendations that the team felt could
be handled in the Comprehensive Plan component. The first being an inventory of land
designated as countryside essentially a mapping effort.
Ms. Camblor advised the Board they drafted a new policy addressing this issue.
Policy 31512- Mapping the Countryside
An inventory of lands designated as countryside in the regulating plans for all towns and
villages will be maintained on an annual basis.
Commissioner Coward asked Ms. Camblor to elaborate on policy 3.1.5.3 pertaining to
the golf courses.
Mr. Camblor stated the golf courses were a topic the Environmental Advisory Committee
Discussed at length. The options presented went all the way from eliminating the ability
to have golf courses associated with the towns and villages to removing multipliers
associated with the land that is occupied by the golf courses. Language was crafted to
address the Environmental Advisory Committee’s concerns. The policy 3153 item C of
the policy. This policy reads today, one golf course per town or village may be counted
towards the fulfillment of the required amount of Countryside, provided that it is
designed to accommodate reuse wastewater.
2
The language added to the above policy reads: and incorporates the natural flow way and
an integrated trail system. Additionally, while golf courses may be counted towards
fulfillment of the countryside, the underline transferable development rights of the land
that it occupies, shall not be eligible to apply the multipliers set forth in table 34.
Commissioner Coward suggested minor changes be incorporated they are:
1)Harbor Branch- Page 3-45 figure 3-16, they identify Harbor Branch as an
important research and office area they would like to maintain, however, if you
look at the sending sites, Harbor Branch is not identified as an appropriate
sending site and it should be.
He believes they could be adding language to page 3-26, policy 3.1.7.3 TDR Sending
Sites, that incorporates research and education. He believes adding on number 7 on page
3-27, “for research and education “ to that sentence.
Commissioner Hutchinson suggested the work “park” be eliminated throughout the
document where it states, Research and Education Park, i.e. page 3-44 policy 3.1.10.4.
Commissioner Hutchinson requested on page 3-iii definitions, the term Research and
Education Park is too specific.
Commissioner Coward also expressed his concern with the language that dealt with the
specific numbers of schools, page 3-20 where it states, “ The TVC area shall at build out
have a total of 8 new schools – six K-8 and two high schools”. His concern is that this is
assuming maximum build out will occur. He does not believe this will occur and stated
he felt they needed to identify the proper number of schools per population, a ratio.
Ms. Camblor suggested striking out the last sentence.
Mr. Marty Sanders, Growth Management Director, St. Lucie County School Board
concurred.
Commissioner Coward addressed page 3-16 table 3-2 town requirements, for the open
space requirement 60% countryside minimum, his concern is the 10% open space
components maximum . He suggested the 10% open space component maximum be
stricken.
Commissioner Coward commented on the 132 meetings that have been scheduled by the
Regional Planning Council with the general public and staff.
Mr. Michael Brillhart, Special Projects Director addressed the Board and stated he felt
comfortable that they have followed the work that is being performed into this particular
element and this particular plan amendment is what they consider implementable in both
the Land Development Code and the TDR program and is sufficient to enable
development to occur at a sustainable level as recommended as part of the TVC Element
and staff is recommending approval.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. John Baker, 1768 Coral Way, North Vero Beach, addressed the Board and
questioned why he cannot receive an answer to a concern for a piece a property that
currently in the urban service boundary has an underline land use that is different from
the AG zoning. The question comes whether or not you are participating in the TVC.
Can an individual who wishes not to participate in the TVC develop their property in
accordance with the mixed use land use. When this question has arisen, he has received
various answers.
Ms. Campor stated, “yes”, and addressed page 3-8, policy 3.1.3.1 item # 2.
3
Mr. Kenneth Metcalf, 101 E. College Avenue, Tallahassee, Fla. 32301, representing
Indrio Road Development, L.L.C, addressed the Board regarding transportation
concurrency, Page 3-43, policy 3.1.9.17 and requested clarification.
Mr. Metcalf requested the following language be added as the final sentence to policy
3.1.9.17.
“At a minimum this methodology shall be consistent with requirements of section
163.3180(12) or (16), F.S. as applicable.
Commissioner Coward requested the County Attorney review the language and a
decision would be made later in the meeting.
Mr. Victor Wyatt, 2394 Johnston Road, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in opposition to
the TVC and stated the building being approved in North County would cause too much
pollution and suggested the Board consider requiring 1 house per acre.
Mr. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, Ft. Pierce, Florida, addressed the Board regarding
the LDR’s and stated multi-family may not be marketable and expressed his concern with
what he felt was continued proliferation of septic tanks. He addressed the school issue
civic use credits and other items. He asked the Board table the amendment at this time or
vote no.
Mr. David Weiss, Koblegard Road, expressed his concern for the small grove owners and
the small parcel owners. He also expressed his concern with the fact he may not be able
to fly aerials in the future. He addressed the right to farm issue.
Ms. Linda Nagy, 8006 James Road, Lakewood Park addressed the Board with her
concerns on the poor development in her area before the TVC was initiated. She
expressed her support for the TVC however, expressed concern over her property values
due to the high density.
Mr. Stan Green, 5002 Deer Run, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC .
Mrs. Dotty Green, 5002 Deer Run, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in favor of the TVC.
Mr. Paul Scholl, 6008 Birch Drive, Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in opposition to the
TVC. He stated it was his opinion this was driven by those who expressed “not in my
back yard” statement. He advised the Board he had only attended one meeting scheduled
by the RPC with the community.
Mr. Charles Grande, 9950 S. Ocean Drive # 705, Hutchinson Island, Fla. 34957,
addressed the Board in favor of the TVC and expressed concern on two issues: 1) the
10% rule and is concerned with the spaces between the town and villages and he is not
sure he wishes to see ranchettes and in his opinion, this may happen. 2) The TDR
capability is crucial for this to succeed and it needs to be structured.
Mr. Gary Hunter, Hopping Green & Sams, addressed the Board on behalf of their client,
Indrio Groves Land Trust joint venture of Lennar and Centex Homes. A letter with
comments was submitted.
Mr. Hunter alluded to page 3-7, policy 3.1.2.7. He stated in reading the policy he felt it
was inconsistent with parcels of 500 + acres. They are working diligently to come up
with a project that is consistent with the TVC. He also stated he felt this policy does not
do enough to protect existing property rights for the 500 acre parcels.
Mr. Gregory Burke, 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Fla., representing the Treasure Coast
Chapter, American Institute of Architects, addressed the Board and stated the TVC has
given them a good tool to handle the growth in the county and recommends approval.
Mr. Scott Morton, 1601 Forum Place, West Palm Beach, Fla., 33401, addressed the
Board and commended the team on the changes. He stated he was in favor of the golf
4
courses due to the better water quality and the native habitat they provide. He stated he
was unclear as to where the multipliers were taken from.
Ms. Nadine Stewart, 5001 E. Seminole Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida, addressed the Board in
favor of the TVC.
Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida, addressed the Board in favor of
the TVC and advised the Board she is happy with the quality of her well water and septic.
Mr. Jay Maycumber, 8680 Indrio Road, Ft. Pierce Florida, addressed the Board in favor
of the TVC.
Mr. Alex Brown, 13939 Indrio Road, Brown & Brown addressed the Board and alluded
to the letter of comments submitted. Mr. Brown advised the Board he was representing
various landowners who oppose the TVC amendment as written.
Mr. Ramon Trias, 703 Florida Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, addressed the Board in favor
of the TVC and commended the team and staff for their efforts.
Ms. Arlene Goodman, 4410 Areca Palm Drive, White City, Florida, addressed the Board
and questioned why this concept was moving forward when there were so many other
such communities in the country that have failed.
Mr. Bob Bangert, 5608 Eagle Drive, Ft. Pierce, Florida, addressed the Board in favor of
the TVC amendment.
The Regional Planning Council addressed the public comments.
Ms. Camblor addressed Com. Hutchinson’s comment on the word “Parks” attached to the
Research Park and Agricultural Park. The team had worked on language to propose to
the Board for their consideration.
There would be three places where they would have to make amendments to the proposal
to get this change done.
1)Definition: Page 3-iii, delete entire definition and replace with the title
“Agricultural Research and Education Facility” – the agricultural uses and the
associated facilities including greenhouses, laboratories and field offices related to
agricultural research activities such as but not limited to, USDA, IFUS, St. Lucie
AG Research and Education Park and Harbor Branch.
The two other places in the document which need to be noted are as follows:
th
Page 3-30 9 transfer condition to read: From Facilities provided in connection with the
St. Lucie County Agricultural Research & Education Facilities to an Eligible Receiving
Site.
Page 3-44 policy 3.1.10.4 Agricultural and Education Park – Delete the word ”Park” and
insert, Agricultural and Research Education Facility.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve these changes.
Page 3-20 policy 3.1.4.9 Adequate School Sites and Capacity shall now read after
deleting the last sentence is as follows: To ensure adequate school locations, the
proponent of a new Town or Village shall work with the County and the St. Lucie County
School Board to determine the most appropriate school site that fulfills the location,
capacity and concurrency requirements set forth by the TVC and the adopted St. Lucie
County Interlocal Agreement for School Concurrency as required by Senate Bill 360.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve this revision.
5
Ms. Camblor also advised the Board on the same page is another proposed modification
to two tables, Table 3-2 Town Requirements Page 3-16 and Table 3-3 Village
Requirements Page 3-19. The portion of the table which addresses Open Space and
Countryside required outside the Urban Service Boundary: delete the 10% open space
maximum on both tables.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve this revision.
Page 3-25, new policy 3.1.5.12 Mapping of the Countryside- An inventory if lands
designated as Countryside in the regulating plans for all Towns and Villages will be
maintained on an annual basis.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve this added policy.
Page 3-27 policy 3.1.7.3 TDR Sending Sites, item number 7 , to read: Land used for
Higher Education, Targeted Industries or Research and Education Facilities.
The TDR Committee members expressed some concerns as to what this would mean if
additional parcels were available for the supply in demand ratio. It is believed this has to
do with whether or not they are in or outside the urban service boundary and how this
might affect that balance.
Mr. Martin, TDR Committee member stated he did not know what the numbers were
with regard to the supply in demand and what this represents.
Commissioner Coward stated their intention in the amendment is not to bring in lands
outside of the study area.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve the revision.
Page 3-22 policy 3.1.5.3 Components of the Countryside section c) golf courses proposed
new added language to read: and incorporates the natural flow way and an integrated trail
system, additionally while golf courses may be counted towards the fulfillment of the
countryside, the underline transferable development rights of the land that occupies shall
not be eligible to apply the multipliers set forth in table 3-4.
The current language allowed for one golf course per town or village. In a case of the
town the multiplier is at 1.75 and in the case of a village is at 1.25. The Environmental
Advisory Committee is recommending golf courses be removed all together. The
compromise the RPC has placed is to allow for one golf course and reducing the
multiplier from 1.75 and 1.25 for towns and villages to 1.1.
Commissioner Craft stated his concern with the language with regards to the trail system
being related to the golf courses.
Ms. Camblor stated it was not intended to be understood this way, however it does read
that way.
Commissioner Coward requested modification and requested Board consensus on
whether or not they wished to leave the one golf course in.
It was the consensus of the Board to leave in one golf course.
The new language would say rather than “and incorporates natural flow ways, to read, “
and does not interfere with the creation of a continuous flow way and integrated trail
system”.
It was the consensus of the Board to support this revised language.
Commissioner Coward asked if anyone was in favor of modifying the proposed
multiplier.
6
It was the consensus of the Board to leave the multiplier as they are.
The next issue discussed was the “Right to Farm Act” questioned by Commissioner
Hutchinson.
The team had two suggested areas where the right to farm act language would go in the
Land Development Regulations.
Ms. Camblor addressed page 3-7 policy 3.1.2.6 number 3.
Commissioner Hutchinson expressed her concerns with this issue and small parcel
owners, the negative affect on a neighbor when it comes to noise from cows etc.,
Com. Coward requested consensus on the Comp Plan language.
Mr. Busha, Regional Planning Council suggested incorporating the following language:
“ At a minimum the Florida Right to Farm Laws apply to existing and new agricultural
uses in the TVC. Owners of land are encouraged to initiate continue and expand
agricultural operations and shall be protected according to the allowances of the
agricultural zoning district that applies to the land”.
This can be added as a new policy, 3.1.2.8 under that objective on page 3-7, or it can be
placed with number 3 on policy 3.1.2.6, however, this policy is specifically guiding
development outside of the urban service boundary. The first option would apply in
either case.
It was the consensus of the Board to approve the revised language and it is to be noted as
policy 3.1.2.8.
There was an issue of confusion regarding differentiating open space uses and
countryside.
Page 3-19, table 3-3 Village Requirements regarding percentage countryside minimum
and open space components maximum. The policy on pages 3-22 and 3-23 lists the
different components of the countryside and the new policy on page 3-23, policy 3.1.5.4
listing the open space components. A) civic uses this includes the school mentioned
earlier and the sheriff.
Page 3-32 table 3-6 was addressed by a member of the RPC.
The Team suggested not having transition language added which addressed development
applications in the loop prior to the TVC amendment being approved.
Mr. Brown readdressed the Board and stated during the stop gap ordinance the Board
permitted applications to move forward as long as the intensity or density was consistent
with what was then allowed. He represents someone who has spent considerable amount
of time going through this process in the last nine months and staff has processed the
application and sent back 15 pages of comments and they have responded to these
comments. To just now say that those projects you have invited into the process (should
this be passed today) and have allowed to be processed through the stop gap ordinance
are now done, this is all he is asking. Without this language in both the LDC and the
TVC the Comp Plan Element they would not be able to continue to move forward.
Commissioner Lewis stated they may run into problems with those that have already
been allowed to proceed under the stop gap. She does not recall holding those to the test
on the items addressed.
Ms. Noreen Dwyer, representing Laurel Garden, LLC addressed the PUD application and
her concerns.
The County Attorney stated that from the perspective of fairness, they did pass the stop
gap ordinance and they did allow people to file applications, he does not have a problem
7
with the proposed language. These are PUD’s the Board has discretion upon and does
not have to approve if they do not meet the standards or conditions that the Board has
even under the old code. The Board has flexibility and the language proposed is fair
since it allows those people who applied under the county’s existing proposals that did
not increase density or intensity.
Commissioner Lewis stated she was concerned for those who they have allowed to
proceed at this point that would suddenly become ineligible and felt this would not work.
She recalled they have looked for some of the elements but is not sure they have looked
for all of them and does not wish to stop people now .
Commissioners Craft stated those that are moving forward with 1.1 today and this is
1,000 + acres, the fairness issue with the way the stop gap was written they should be
able to.
Commissioner Smith stated he concurred with the County Attorney’s recommendation
since they can look at the road connectivity and the project and the issues and make
decisions based on that whether or not the TVC passes or not.
Commissioner Hutchinson did not have a comment except “fair is fair “.
Commissioner Coward stated he would stand with the County Attorney.
Commissioner Hutchinson questioned why credit would not be given to a parking garage
as a civic use.
The team addressed page 3-25 policy 3.1.5.9 Administration,
Commissioner Coward suggested language on policy 3.1.6.2 on page 3-25 dealing with
the system management. He suggested adding, “ these shall be executed by the county or
an entity designated by the county with all necessary funding identified by the developer
of the new town or village and provided by the developer or its future residence.
Commissioner Lewis expressed concern and stated more details needed to be worked out
regarding this policy 3.1.5.9 and others on page 3-25, re: management of systems.
Commissioner Smith thanked the Board for initiating this process and stated he would be
supporting the amendments.
It was suggested this language be added to 3.1.5.9 rather than 3.1.6.2.
It was the consensus of the Board to add this language.
It was the consensus of the Board to incorporate Mr. Metcalf’s language to policy
3.1.9.17 at the end which read: At a minimum this methodology shall be consistent with
requirements of section 163.3180 (12) or (16) F.S. as applicable.
It was moved by Commissioner Craft, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve
incorporating the amended language as proposed by the Regional Planning Council staff
and County staff as previously stated with the understanding that this is an interim step
and not meant to adopt the Ordinance, the public hearing will be continued on the other
items subsequent to discussion on the TDR and LDR Ordinances, and; upon roll call, the
vote was as follows: Aye’s: Smith, Craft, Coward; Nay’s: Hutchinson, Lewis, motion
carried by a vote of 3 to 2.
Commissioner Hutchinson stated, there are many great concepts to this issue and she
does not wish to give the impression that she is against the TVC as a whole. The issue is
there are many unanswered questions and she fully supports the concept. It is due to the
lack of details why she is voting against it today.
8
2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT /STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS(4:48)
First reading of Ordinance No. 06-017 adopting land development regulations to apply to
property generally located in the Towns, Villages and the Countryside Comprehensive
Plan Element boundary (Map A) as part of the TVC Comp Plan Amendment being
considered and identified within Ordinance No. 06-019. No action required. The Board
is to consider adopting Ordinance No. 06-017 at its second reading public hearing
scheduled for May 30, 2006
at 6:00 p.m.
An overview of the Land Development Regulations was given by Ms. Camblor, Regional
Planning Council.
Ms. Camblor stated there are two types of changes. There are changes that would require
a rezoning and would need to go through the rezoning process and there are changes that
would not require the rezoning of property. The changes that would not require rezoning
1) extend agricultural activities, 2) someone who wishes to build a new home on their 1
acre property, 3) someone who wishes to sell their TDR credits, 4) someone who would
want to participate in the 10% rule which is selling a minimum of 90% of their credits
and subdividing their parcel into the remaining 10% density into large lots to smaller lots.
There are changes that require a rezoning: 1) a developer who wants to come in and
wants to create a new town or a new village would have to rezone to what the LDR’s
identifies as the new Town, Villages and Countryside zone. 2) a person who would like
to sub-divide a track into lots at previous density levels outside the Urban Service
Boundary, 3) someone who wishes to build new stores and apartments within the Urban
Service Boundary or what the TVC refers to as incremental development, 4) and
residential development inside the Urban Service Boundary (in this case they would need
to use the old PUD zone that is currently available if re-zoning is desired).
Ms. Camblor advised the Board they have added a diagram and language that clarifies the
open space and countryside component and the implementation management. The
language that addresses flow ways, the management and the maintenance has been
extended in the Land Development Regulations. There has been clarification regarding
the impacts that the future street network will have on the developable areas and which
ones will be impacted by the future street network and will have the ability to transfer
credits.
There is a lot type that has been added and it is the “cottage lot”. They have modified
street sections based on input received by the local planning agency. They received
valuable input from the Environmental Committee as well as the Smart Growth
Committee, however since they received the input after all this submitted to the Board,
they have not had the opportunity to incorporate it for this first draft, but will have it
incorporated for the second hearing. The concepts include the following: 1) augmenting
language that addresses connectivity for the countryside, the TVC element addressed this,
but the LDR’s did not. 2) expanding the native habitat requirements for restoration credits
including requiring multiple habitat types. 3) requiring tests pesticide levels in soil and
water before development, 4) requiring installation of permanent water quality
management systems, 5) removing electric motors, 6) reduce areas identified for the bulk
head edge tied to the flow way system, 7) language to encourage sub-surface drip
irrigation, 8) comments were received requesting a reduction of 30” first floor elevation
requirement for the apartments houses.
Ms. Camblor commented on the Transfer of Development Rights and stated the
Committee decided to accept the TDR Ordinance with the understanding the TDR
Committee will continue to refine this ordinance between now and when it comes back
on May 30, 2006 and they wish to continue working on the condition of the approval or
at least continue to work on the issue on the sunset of the development of credits, stating
once the property owner decides to participate in the TDR program and convert their
underlying densities to credits, apply the multiplier convert them to credits, and begin to
sell, this person has 20 years before those credits sunset. The Committee wishes to have
more time to conduct a more extensive analysis on the applications of the sunsetting
9
provision. This is in general what has to be modified and they still have to add or
subtract before it is returned to the Board.
Staff recommendation is that there is no action required. This will be considered for
adoption on the second reading on May 30, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Coward commented on Page 61 the Flow Way System. This was
discussed at length at the Environmental Advisory Committee that the way the language
is written, “ the flow way system shall be designed to be navigable”. The sentiments of
the Committee was that the flow way system should be designed for environmental
restoration purposes and if there is an ability to incorporate navigation that’s fine, but a
discussion needs to be had on whether it should be mandated.
Mr. Perry stated they had included it was to try to get the maximum benefit for the
residents in the area.
Ms. Camblor stated specific language they were recommended by the Environmental
Advisory Committee was to change the first paragraph on page 61 to state, “ while the
flow way shall be designed primarily for restoration and water quality purposes it shall be
navigable by only by boats powered by paddles or sails.
Commissioner Coward stated he would like to incorporate opportunities for this but he
does not want it to be the driving force. He wants the environmental restoration to be the
driving force. He envisions the greenways and the flow ways to have a natural wetlands
system that will serve as a polishing and cleansing opportunity and this should be the
primary goal. He would like for it to be encouraged but not mandated.
It was the consensus of the Board to re-write so that the environmental is present, and
include what the other Board members requested.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Kenneth Metcalf, 101 E. College Ave., Tallahassee, Fla. 32301, stated they do not
have any specific comments on the Ordinance at this time they are evaluating the
revisions and wish to maintain continuing discussion with staff.
Mr. Jim Brindell, 777 So. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Fla. Representing Rhodes
Holdings, stated they have had discussions with Mr. Brillhart and his staff regarding a
particular provision Section 4.04.04E1B, Page 5 Residential Subdivision within the
Urban Service Boundary. He advised the Board he had sent proposed language to Mr.
Brillhart as well as the County Attorney and Mr. Brillhart sent back revised language on
May 7, 2006 and he responded on May 10, 2006 accepting the revised version clarifying
the intention with respect to that section.
Mr. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, stated he voiced his objections previously to the
restrictions on those who have 500 + acres, page 1, 4.04.03-B, on page 14, policy
3.01.03.2.B (1) 2 again he is voicing is opposition to the countryside open space
requirement that do not have a compelling health safety and welfare need. Page 51,
3.01.03 EE 2N (1) restriction on civic spaces and a minimum of 2 ½ % of the net
developable land but not more than 7 ½% of the net developable land. This is an issue
discussed previously, and one issue on page 53 policy 3.01.03 EE 20, paved parking
areas not being creditable which he thought went away in the TVC amendment.
There is a requirement for schools and this would not be fair and equitable for each
developer who may have a school where others may not.
Ms. Julia Shewckuk member of the Smart Growth Committee addressed the Board and
presented written comments dated May 15, 2006 to the Board. They are not taking a
position for or against. The letter reflects recommended revisions and concerns.
Mr. Scott Morton, 1601 Forum Place, # 805 West Palm Beach, Fla. 33401, Indrio Road
Development, thanked staff and stated they would like to continue dialogue.
10
Mr. Doran Russell, 1862 Midway Road, White City addressed the Board regarding the
navigable waterways in Ft. Lauderdale. He stated he would like to see better
development in the county and felt they can build coexisting navigable waterways along
with flow way systems that are ecologically compatible.
Commissioner Craft commented on the parking issue and asked if a recommendation had
been provided. He would like a minimum number of parking spaces provided within it to
qualify and a number of floors.
Commissioner Coward suggested giving general direction that they agree there should be
some provisions for parking and ask the Consultant team put together some alternatives
for them to consider at final reading.
Commissioner Smith stated he would review it, however, in his opinion parking should
be part of the infrastructure and something that is done and inducements should not be
provided.
Ms. Camblor’s comments on this issue were unintelligible.
Three of the Board members concurred to direct the team to bring back a modified
version for final reading on May 30, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
1.GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS
(6:00:09)
First reading of Ordinance No. 06-018 adopting land development regulations for
Transferable Development Rights to apply to property generally located in the Towns,
Villages and the Countryside Comprehensive Plan Element boundary (Map A) as part of
the TVC Comprehensive Plan Amendment being considered and identified within
Ordinance No. 06-019. – No action required. The Board is to consider adopting
Ordinance No. 06-018 at its second reading hearing scheduled for May 30, 2006.
Ms. Camblor stated the team had been working closely with the TDR steering committee
and the committee was comfortable in general with the TDR ordinance as presented.
The only outstanding issue the committee has had with this ordinance is the provision to
sunset the credits once they are implemented. The committee did not take a position one
way or another they requested more time in order to conduct an analysis.
Mr. Martin, Johnston Road resident, TDR Committee member, stated the Regional
Planning Council had always represented that they always intended to have a 2 to 1
demand to supply ratio of TDR availability to demand for TDR’s. They feel they are
very close to this figure based on the information related by the Regional Planning
Council. They feel the county does not need to take on the role of being a banker at this
item. The county should act as a clearing house and information source on TDR supply
and demand. They feel the county does not need at this time to take possession of TDR’s
or create pricing of TDR’s. They would like to continue the dialogue and follow the
process through.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, wanted to make it known again that he is not
opposed to the TVC and or new urbanism, he is opposed to certain aspects of the
amendments and regulations that discriminate against certain landowners, particularly
those with 500 acres plus.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden and McCloskey, member of the committee concurs with
Mr. Martin’s comments. He advised the Board they were not trying to sabotage the TVC
Element they were trying to make sure that the TDR subpart of the LDR were not
ambiguous were as clear as could be and reached their intention.
11
Mr. Ferguson stated he heard Ms. Camblor state regarding the text change on page 7 part
C and he believed she said it was an oversight and they would add the language. The
bottom line being if you have 9 acres or less because they were using a percentage you
got excluded from participating in the TDR program, the consensus was that those
parcels could not be excluded and simply needed to add language that they transfer all
but one of their credits they can participate in the TVC.
Commission Coward asked the consulting team if they were comfortable with this and
the team concurred.
The Board also concurred.
Mr. Ferguson addressed the supply in demand and stated the demand number comes first
and then the supply. You should have at least 2 times demand of the available supply for
of TDR credits for a viable market oriented TDR program to function. The two main
assumptions they relied on in crunching the numbers is that according to the planning
council there are going to be a least 8 towns that will be driving the demand side and of
those 8 towns created they will develop at a minimum 3 units per gross acre which is
higher than the minimum density required under the TVC exactly 50% higher. As a
general rule the minimum density comes out to 2 units per gross acre. They use the
calculation that in reality projects are developing at 3 units per gross acre which works
out roughly between 7 and 8 units per net acre. These are the two main assumptions.
Commissioner Coward noted issues to be taken care of before the second reading.
1.Page 7 regarding smaller lots where everyone agreed would be modified.
2.Issue regarding the sunset clause(balance of sentence unintelligible)
No further comments, no action necessary.
Second reading May 30, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF ITEM NO. 1 UNDER PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE
NO. 06-019 NO. 2 THE PRESERVE PUD
This PUD Comp Plan Amendment was transmitted to the Dept. of Community Affairs
and this property deals with 75 acres.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated they
will be going back to the Planning and Zoning this coming Thursday.
Mr. Mark Mathis, Lucido & Associates addressed the Board and reported the 4 issues
noted by the Department of Community Affairs
1.water/sewer, this issue has been addressed by FPUA who will be providing
capacity.
2.transportation analysis, this information had not been included in the
transmittal. An industrial future land use has a higher traffic generation
capability than a residential high future land use.
3.schools- this has been addressed through detailed negotiations with the School
Board and have forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs.
4.workforce housing, they forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs
their 10/10 program and they continue to commit to that program and have
proposed it to be part of their PUD ordinance that would come before the
Board in the future.
12
Mr. Brillhart advised the Board the City of Ft. Pierce had the opportunity to review this
project and wished to addressed the issue on traffic which is noted in the Board’s packet.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
Quasi-Judicial – all Board members have had contact with applicant representatives.
Staff re-stated their position: Staff recommended approval of the plan amendment.
Commissioner Smith asked that staff review the parking on the western edge of the
project.
The County Attorney stated, if the code requires a certain amount of parking currently the
Board has to comply with that and any changes would need to go through the process.
The Planning Manager stated they are working on the site plan and hope to have it
worked out soon.
Mr. Ferguson stated there were two out parcels they were suggesting to set aside as
commercial, however, the current PUD ordinances limit the commercial area of the
Residential PUD to 3 % of the area. They are proposing to leave the out parcel, the
southwest corner as part of the PUD for future extension of Metzger. The out parcel in
the northeast corner would exceed the 3% so they are requesting as part of the adoption
tonight, that this property be excluded from the land use amendment and it remain as
what its current land use is which is industrial and at some point they would need to come
back for rezoning or development which is consistent with the proposed residential use.
It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Lewis, to approve
staff recommendation to include Mr. Ferguson’s request (for clarification purposes, this
is not on the Ordinance, this is an interim approval at would lead to ultimately be
included in the ordinance) and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
3.QUAIL MEADOWS PUD (6:47:35)
Mr. Brillhart advised the Board in working with the Consultant and the DCA the
consultant has prepared a solution which he believes DCA is working with them on that
will help alleviate the increase in traffic.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, representing the applicant addressed the Board and stated this
item was similar to the last item. There were some comments from the DCA and have
provided a response and he believes they have addressed all of them. The one issue was
how to address traffic. They have addressed this concern with the DCA and have reached
a verbal agreement with the DCA on how to address the Kings Highway issue, staff
understands what that approach is going to be. DCA has relied on the FDOT to help with
the analysis. They will be working with staff to draft language to submit it to DCA for
them to sign off.
Quasi-Judicial- all Board members have been in contact with the representatives.
It was moved by Commissioner Hutchinson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis, to
approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
4.TEXT AMENDMENTS
Mr. Brillhart stated the text amendment dealt with changing a phrase that was identified
in a future land use, the transportation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental
coordination and capital improvements element. The term “unincorporated” was used in
13
several instances, staff had recommended changing the phase “unincorporated” to
“countywide”. This amendment was sent to the state and they found it in compliance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
It was moved by Commissioner Craft, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve this
amendment and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
5.ORDINANCE NO. 06-019
This includes the TVC Element, the Preserve PUD, Quail Meadows PUD, text
amendments as one package.
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance including all the elements as amended.
It was moved by Commissioner Craft, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve
Ordinance No. 06-019, and; upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay’s: Lewis,
Hutchinson, Aye’s: Smith, Craft, Coward; motion carried by a vote of 3 to 2.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned.
___________________________
Chairman
____________________________
Clerk of the Circuit Court
14