Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 05-30-2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING Date: May 30, 2006 Convened: 6:05 p.m. Tape: Adjourned: 10:50 p.m. Commissioners Present: Doug Coward Chairman, Joe Smith, Chris Craft, Paula Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator; Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator; Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator; Heather Young, County Attorney; Vanessa Bessy, Environmental Lands; Mike Brillhart, Growth Management; Lauri Heistermann, Deputy Clerk 1.GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS Second reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 06-017 adopting land development regulations to apply to property generally located in the Towns, Villages and the Countryside (TVC) Comprehensive Plan Element boundary (Map A). The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 06-017. Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects, provided some background information to the Board. Marcella Cambor, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council addressed the Board. She reviewed a general location map, which made references to a special plan which is a 60 mile area between the Indian River Lagoon and west of I-95, to the North the Boundary is the Indian River County Line and to the south is the C-25 canal. The TVC is partially in the Urban Service Boundary Line and partially outside the Urban Service Boundary line, but zoning for all of the properties is Ag-1. For the individuals that do not want any change to their property, there will be no action required. They will not be required to re-zone. There are changes that will require a re-zoning and there are changes that will not require a re-zoning. The changes that do not require re-zoning are as follows: Someone who owns land and wants to expand with Agricultural activities, this is a permitted use. A person that wants to build a new home on a lot they currently have. Someone who wishes to participate in the TDR program and sell all of their development credits or transfer them to an eligible receiving site within the TVC. Someone who wishes to participate in the 90% rule, which is selling 90% of their transferable development credits and sub divide the remaining 10% of their credits in their parcel. The changes that would require re- zoning are as follows: Someone who wants to come in within TVC, create a new town or village, this would require a re-zoning from Ag-1 to the new zone category of planned town and village zone (PTV). Someone that wants to subdivide a parcel into lots at a density that they had previously, outside the urban service boundary. The third condition that would require re-zoning is if someone decides to build stores or apartments or incremental development within the urban service boundary. Finally, residential development within the urban service boundary. She advised the Board that some new text had been incorporated into the land development regulation. She reviewed all of the changes that were proposed at the May 23, 2006 meeting. The team addressed Florida’s right to farm act and clarified ways to encourage agricultural uses. There have been performance monitoring standards for the Towns, Villages and Countryside element incorporated. There has been clarification as to how the separation between the final transit zones, and the Countryside shall occur. Also, clarification on size and location and percentages of civic buildings within the different transit zone. There has been text added to reinforce the notion that the Countyside and the element of the Countryside need to connect. There has been language added to incorporate public parking structures, as uses that could count towards the fulfillment of the urban service requirements of the town or village. Also, to allow parking lots, if they are designed with pervious materials, the parking lots for civic buildings, with targeted industry and for higher education only, be allowed to count towards the open space requirements. The percentages of open space and the percentage of countryside are not changing. There has been language added to address the connectivity of the flow way and trails system be a priority when there are golf courses planned within a town. The new LDR’s also address natural habitat restoration and make it clear that it should include multiple upland and wet land habitat types, that should be consistent with the soils in the area. Additional language was added to encourage sub-surface drip irrigation systems for the use of reclaimed water. Also the new LDR’s address the issues with navigability, no power boats on the flow way. Also, text was added to monitor the storm water management system. Staff recommendations regarding the ordinance 06-017, is that the Board adopt and approve this ordinance. She advised the Board that they had received additional input from some of the developers that are working on creating the new towns. The first amendment proposed would impact the property inside the urban service boundary and the change that has been incorporated to this section requires at least 3 consecutive transit that the developer picks, be incorporated.. If the property is under 32 acres you can make just one transit zone. If you are over 32 acres, inside the urban service boundary, it would require at least 3. Commissioner Coward asked if the consulting team had recommended approval of these items. Ms. Cambor stated that the consulting team has worked with the attorney that had submitted the change and the team is recommending that it be approved. Commissioner Coward asked if County staff had seen and been involved in the changes. Ms. Cambor stated that the staff had not see the recommended changes. Commissioner Coward asked if this was considered a significant change. Ms. Cambor stated that the team does not believe that this is a substantial change. This will guarantee that the development has some diversity. She also stated that one of the developers caught a definition that was missing. On Section 3.01.03.EE.2.G. there is a table that requires first story elevation of 30 inches. It was the teams recommendation to grant this change. Non-Elevator apartments three stories in height or less may be built at grade and shall provide a minimum front yard of 5 feet. On Section 3.01.03.EE.2.p(2)(II) changed the word bridge to crossings. On Section 3.01.03.EE.2.p.(4)(II)(4) which has to do with the depth of the littoral shelf. The text as amended would read as follows: Average water depth over the littoral shelf should range between 2 to 18 inches at the control elevation. The littoral shelf should be contoured to create areas with shallow depressions that should dry down or retain 2 to 6 inches of water when the water level is 1 foot below the control elevation, except for points of inflow which may be deeper. PUBLIC COMMENT Alex Brown representing Jim Rusakis addressed the Board. He advised the Board that Mr. Rusakis’ concern is regarding the future land use of the property. Ms. Cambor stated that the Towns, Villages and Country sides has a policy number 3.01.25 which is on page 3-6 of the TVC element. The policy is called transferable development value map, which establishes the potential uses, densities and intensity for properties in the TVC area. The TVC element shall not limit the underlying potential densities or intensities as establish by the pre-existing future land use element. Terry Lewis, Regional Planning Council concurred with Ms. Cambor. Commissioner Craft asked that under the old comprehensive plan, if they were entitled to the future land use. Mr. Lewis stated that the policy reads as follows: The TVC element shall not limit the underlying potential densities or intensities, as established by the pre-existing land use element. Alex Brown stated that the confusion with policy 3.1.82, specifies the intersection of Emerson Avenue and Indrio Road is permitted to have a neighborhood center. Mr. Cambor stated that the policy that Mr. Brown is referring to states that accommodation or retail uses shall be accommodated and located appropriately based on the approved special area plan. It also states that required retail uses, shall provide the minimum amount of retail use as outlined in table 3-A. Commissioner Coward stated that this would not be a location where you would put a mall. Ms. Cambor stated that the property that Mr. Brown is referring to has Ag-1 zoning with future land use designated as commercial, however it has never been re-zoned. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive addressed the Board. He referred to Page 12, which refers to the monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the TVC elements, which the County is going to do. He referred to the workforce housing by the product types including the number of bedrooms. Ms. Cambor referred to number 5 under A. This refers to the number of workforce housing units. She stated that the team concurred that this is a very good point. Tom Babcock referred to page 53, section 3.01.03EE.2.0, number 3-7 which refers to the parking areas. He asked if the School Board had agreed to the conditions. Ms. Cambor stated that the School Board had been notified, and the School Board had not responded. Tom Babcock stated that the Board had agreed with him that it would be unfair to a land owner to have the parking area count towards civic uses if the School Board said they did not want to do pervious parking.. Commissioner Coward stated that the Board had not given specifics about the porous asphalt and that the consulting team was trying to improve the suggestions that were made. Bill Spicowski stated that pervious asphalt and pervious concrete are mainstream products. The downside is that they require sweeping on a quarterly basis. Tom Babcock referred to page 61 3.01.03EE2(p)6(i)4. This refers to approval from DEP prior to the time that a permit can be obtained to excavate to determine levels of herbicides, pesticide or metals in the soil. A member of the Regional Planning Council addressed the Board. He stated that this is not a common problem, but the environmental committee had recommended that the wording be added. Ms. Cambor stated that the Environment Resources Department and the Environmental Advisory Committee had recommended the current wording. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she was under the impression that most any development must do soil boring test. Commissioner Coward stated that he believed that this would be pertaining to the flow way system, not to the environment. The concerns are that the lands could have previously been agricultural lands and there may be pesticides and herbicides in the soil. Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Lands addressed the Board. She stated that what they are trying to do is to have a phase I and have a Phase II if it warranted and would also include the testing of the soil. If there is a problem then it would need to be resolved or it needs to be re-designed, because the water cannot come in contact with the soils. Tom Babcock stated that he is trying to make sure that there is a program in place that works. Jim Rusakis addressed the Board. He asked what the zoning was for the intersection of Indrio and Emerson. Commissioner Coward stated that the property was zoned Ag-1. Jim Rusakis asked if the property had been zoned commercial use in the past. Ms. Cambor stated that the future land use and the use of the property that is being addressed is a commercial site, however the zoning is Ag-1. She informed Mr. Rusakis that he would have to re-zone, once a plan is submitted to get the entitlements for the parcel. A member of the Team addressed the Board. He stated that the Board has the discretion to determine what is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and what the appropriate zoning is. He stated that this property has commercial designation and agricultural zoning. Ms. Cambor stated that what has been said is that what was going to be used as a base for the TVC the future land use element for the area. If the property is commercial then it would be brought into the TVC as a commercial property. Jim Rusakis asked what the maximum of square footage would be allowed in this commercial intersection. Commissioner Craft stated that the TVC allows the property owner to decide based on the quality of the project that is brought forth by the developer, by the land owner. He stated that there are no entitlements due to the land owner. What the entitlements are is the amount that the Board can not exceed. Jim Rusakis asked if the 3 parcels designated in red, have commercial. Commissioner Coward stated that currently they are not commercial. Ms. Cambor stated that the only time there is a cap for commercial use in the TVC is when the entire 28 square miles hits the 5 million square feet for the entire area. She also stated that required retail uses, new developments shall provide the minimum amount of retail use as outlined, based on the number of homes proposed. Jim Rusakis asked if the maximum would be at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Coward stated that the maximum is the land use that is in place today. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that some of the questions that have come out relate to Page 3-2 regarding what the DCA had sent in on the maximum permitted housing units the Commercial retail or the industrial uses and the 5 million square feet commercial retail. Commissioner Coward asked the square footage of a regional mall. Ms. Cambor stated 1 ½ - 2 million square feet. James Brendell , on behalf of Rhodes Holding addressed the Board. He advised the Board that he supports the amendments and asked that the board also support them. Rob Schwerer, on behalf of the Zimmerman family trust addressed the Board. He gave a history of the property. In accordance with County code, state statute and comprehensive planning act, the zoning of AG-1 would have to be made compatible with COM which would need general commercial as a designation. He voiced his concerns regarding the intent to change the future land use by adoption of the TVC. He stated that staff had confirmed that there was no intent to change the future land use. In the pre TVC designation this property , by engineering calculations with a middle of the road commercial development being 36 acres at a major intersection, would have entitlements of up to 450 thousand square feet of commercial development. He asked how commercial uses could be included in a map for transferability of development rights, when you can not transfer the rights for commercial. He also asked if you could transfer commercial development rights from one parcel to another. Commissioner Craft stated that the property is commercial as a matter of right, however the intensity of the commercial is not a matter of right. Rob Schwerer referred to table 3-8. A member of the team addressed the Board. He stated that the term potential entitlement is the accurate term. The Board could consider granting the applicant no more than 150 thousand square feet of commercial space under the old code. Ms. Brown stated that future land use maps have always had potential density and intensity. Anything below the potential maximum is within the discretion of the Commission to either grant or not grant. Rob Schwerer asked that some of the revisions be re-drafted to make them absolutely clear. Commissioner Craft asked how many acres the parcel was. Rob Schwerer stated that the front piece is 36 acres and the back is 36 acres, which has RE. Ms. Cambor stated that the first issue is an interpretation issue. She referred to figure 3-3, transferable development value map. She stated that the map is on page 3-5 of the TVC element shows residential density that each property has within the TVC. Rob Schwerer asked the Board to work with him to clear the inconsistencies. Erick Valley, addressed the Board. He gave the Board a history of his background. He stated that he was involved with a TVC. He informed that Board that he was in support of what the County was doing. He informed the Board that they are using the County’s product as a model for there project. Sol Klinow, land owner on Kobleguard Road, addressed the Board. He asked for clarification regarding a zoning change. An unidentified member of the team addressed the board. He stated that previously it would have required the re-zoning to PUD and now you would re-zone to PCS. Sol Klinow stated that under the TVC you had the same rights as they had currently. He advised the Board that he had a piece of property on Kobleguard that is just on the boarder of the urban service boundary line. Ms. Cambor stated that under the current land development regulations you would have re-zoned to a PUD. Under the TVC you would re-zone to PCS. Sol Klinow stated that they had been advised that there was no difference, however he believes that there is. Ms. Cambor that the only thing that the LDR’s would do for the parcels would be that they would guarantee connectivity of the flow way and connectivity of the road ways. Commissioner Coward stated that it had been emphasized that the property rights had not been taken away. As a long term of planning they need to make sure there is a road network, and environmental issues are being incorporated. Sol Klinow addressed concerns of losing current road ways. Ms. Cambor stated that this is not proposing elimination of any existing roads. She also stated that the towns and developments that are being proposed in this area are bringing additional north, south, east an west connections. Cynthia Angelos on behalf of Indrio Groves addressed the Board. She commented on the land development regulations. She stated that they were requesting that the language be included to enable the Community Development Director the authority to approve minor revisions to variances to provisions of the LDR’s. If the Community Development Director was given the authority to approve minor variances to the land development code, this would enable the approval to take place. She recommended the language be added to page 11 of the land development regulations. She informed the board that she had addressed it with staff. Mr. Spikowski addressed that Board. He stated that the right place for the language to be placed is in Chapter 11. He informed the Board that Chapter 11 is undergoing major revisions through the County Attorney’s Office and the Growth Management Department because it is 15 years old. John Baker addressed the Board. He addressed the land use and current zoning of two pieces of property. He stated that he was in support of the TVC. Commissioner Coward addressed the work force housing question that was raised. He stated that this was a worthwhile suggestion. This referred to page 12 Item A to include Work Force Housing. He stated that he would support the addition. Commissioner Craft stated that he would also support the addition. It was the concensus of Board to include a number 5 to page 12 item A pertaining to workforce housing. Commissioner Coward stated that the next issue that was raised on page 53 was regarding parking. He stated that the Board discussion at the first reading was to provide additional flexibility for parking related to civic uses. He stated that based on the county’s personal experience with the porous asphalt/concrete, he is not supportive of narrowing it down to only these opportunities. Commissioner Craft asked if Commissioner Coward was looking for additional language or deletion of the porous concrete/asphalt. Commissioner Coward stated that based on the conversation at the last Board meeting they had discussed flexibility for parking areas and did not want it restricted to porous asphalt/concrete. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that based on all the new technologies and the proposed changes coming through on different types of materials used, she would be hesitant to add anything that would keep restricting things. Commissioner Craft stated that he did not feel that this was a restriction. He stated that he felt that it was providing flexibility. He recommended expanding the language. Commissioner Lewis asked if the Board was suggesting removing pervious surface requirements. Commissioner Craft referred to the deletion of A, B and C. Commissioner Lewis concurred with Commissioner Craft and stated not to remove the whole section pertaining to parking. Commissioner Craft stated that he would support this. Commissioner Coward stated that the document is extremely specific. He stated that this example is to specific. Ms. Cambor asked if the Board was suggesting that all of item number 7 be eliminated or that the only part of 7 that remains reads as follows: Parking areas including access that pertain to civic uses, targeted industry, higher education can be counted as open space. Commissioner Coward suggested adding the language reduced asphalt is encouraged. Commissioner Smith asked if they were going to allow parking areas in general even if they were not permeable. He stated that he thought the Board was looking for permeable. He suggested the following language be used, component only when the surfaces are permeable. Commissioner Coward stated that the Board had a broad discussion that certain civic buildings, whether it is a schoo1 would have parking required as a part of that and there were suggestions that these should not be excluded from counting towards the open space within the built environment. He stated that he thought it was the consensus of the Board to provide the parking areas because it was part of the civic use. He stated that he did not recall any discussion regarding permeable. Ms. Cambor stated that one of the things to be considered are as follows: Parking areas including access drives and isles, that serve civic uses, targeted industry and higher education can be counted as open space components. Reduce asphalt and pervious surfaces are encouraged. Commissioner Coward referred to page 61, soil testing. He stated that some language needs to be incorporated as to exactly what type of standardized practice or best management practice that is. Ms. Cambor stated that the proposed language is a follows on page 61 under section 3.01.03.EE(2)(p): Before final approval is granted to excavate a phase I environmental assessment and warranted a phase II environmental assessment shall be submitted to St. Lucie County, if a level of contaminants such as pesticides, herbicides and metals in the soil are found to exceed state standards. Commissioner Coward asked the 3 attorney’s if any of them has any concerns with issues related to the commercial discussion or any other component of the TVC. An unidentified member of the team stated that the ordinance had been read. This did not spark any kind of concern over inverse condemnation action against the County. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney stated that she concurred with the team members comments. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she can not understand how that does not constitute perceived taking. She stated that there needs to be a clear knowledgeable, understandable clarification and definition. She stated that it was very specific in definitions of the neighborhood center. A neighborhood center averages 100 thousand square feet in size and is anchored by a grocery store. She asked if the minimum of 150 thousand square feet was for the entire corner or per parcel. It is the unknown and that is why she disagreed with her counterparts. An unidentified member of the team stated that typically the County would have brought forward a re-zoning application or site plan application. TVC does afford city centers for the individuals that have commercial. Ms. Cambor stated that the areas designated for convenience centers, local store or neighborhood center, the range applies to the entire area. In the case of a new village or the intersection of Kobleguard road and the new east west connection, that convenience center being proposed the range would be for the entire 4 corners. Commissioner Coward referred to the TVC overlay amendment on page 1. There were no concerns addressed by the Board. Commissioner Coward asked if anyone had received any specific language or comments from Mr. Schwerer in advance of the meeting Ms. Cambor stated that there was a letter sent to the County, however it was not recommending any language changes. Commissioner Coward asked staff if they had received any letter from Mr. Schwerer on revised language. Heather Young stated that she had not seen any letter if one was sent. Commissioner Coward stated that Mr. Schwerer showed up for the last meeting out of 142 and requested language changes. Commissioner Coward address Ms. Angelos’ concerns with the minor variances. He stated that he liked the concept, but wanted to make sure it was not implied inversely. He stated that he would not like to give staff the ability to reduce open space requirements. When it gets to the details about the building types he anticipates that there would need to be additional flexibility through this process. He stated that he would like to have minimum flexibility for the right issues. Commissioner Smith concurred with Commissioner Coward. He stated what he would like is to receive a memo when staff is making a recommendation and provided an early approval. He stated that he would prefer the Board still have an opportunity to get involved. Commissioner Lewis stated that she would like to see the revision in Chapter 11. Commissioner Craft stated that if staff grants a variance, they are given the authority in advance. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she would have to question, if Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council would be giving the variance, or would it be the County Board. She asked for clarification on what the criteria would be as to what would be allowed. Ms. Cambor stated that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has a contract to be a consulting team to staff, this team would still be working under the Growth Management Director. It would be the growth Management Department , per their recommendation. Commissioner Coward stated that this should be prioritized for the glitch bill that is coming forward to provide some additional flexibility. He stated that he agreed that the Board should be dealing with broader policy issues. Commissioner Hutchinson asked what the time frame was for Chapter 11. An unidentified team member stated that they were just waiting for staff comments. Mike Brillhart stated that staff in Growth Management has been reviewing the proposed changes to Chapter 10-12 of the Land Development Code. He advised the Board that they should be able to bring it back before the Board in 60 days. Commissioner Coward referred to page 1, regarding open space and countryside. Commissioner Coward addressed the minimum floor and the elevations for ADA requirements. He stated that he has no problem with the change. Ms. Cambor stated that this issue had to do with the American Disability Act. There were no concerns addressed by the board. Commissioner Coward referred to page 58 regarding the deletion of bridge to crossing. There were no concerns addressed by the Board. Commissioner Coward referred to page 60, additional language regarding points of inflow which may be deeper. There were no concerns addressed by the Board. Commissioner Lewis voiced concerns on page 3 and several places throughout the document pertaining to maintaining at least 90% of the unused transferable development value. She asked if it was up to 90%. Ms. Cambor stated that it is a minimum of 90% in the TVC with a maximum of 100%. She stated that this was a policy decision. Commissioner Coward stated that he felt that they had already dealt with this issue, however it could be revisited. This gives the small land owner several options. Commissioner Hutchinson referred to the right to farm act on page 54 3-2, she asked how the limitations apply to agricultural use and facilities. It specifically states where they then have to be located. An unidentified team member stated that this is a criteria that the County Commissioner would consider for a proposed town and village. Commissioner Craft asked Commissioner Hutchinson to rephrase the question. Commissioner Hutchinson referred to the LDR on that specific page it states the following limitations apply to agricultural uses and facilities. She stated that she did not feel that it preserved agriculture. She stated that she felt it restricts it. Commissioner Craft stated that he felt they were looking a ways to try and preserve it. Commissioner Coward stated that the language reads the continuation of viable agricultural uses in the Countryside and on neighboring properties is a primary design goal for the countryside. Such use constitutes unique and irreplaceable resources and are major contributors to the economy. The assignment of transix zone must accomplish this goal in manner consistent with the Florida rights to farm act. Ms. Cambor stated that it continues on page 55 and states that once transix zones are assigned the following limitations apply to agricultural uses and facilities. The limitations are for the agricultural uses proposed within the new town for village. Language can be added to include within the towns and villages within the PTV. Commissioner Craft referred to the right to farm act. He stated that there had been conversation about how they would be able to continue to farm inside the TVC. Commissioner Coward commended Peter Spike. Peter Spike stated that one of things that are trying to be worked in to the LDR’s, which have never been in LDR’s before, is the concept of designing agriculture to fit within an urban environment on purpose. Commissioner Coward stated that if they do nothing there will be no agriculture. He stated that he was pleased that the issue of agriculture had been raised, and the language was strengthened to clarify that everything within the law be done to protect existing agriculture. Commissioner Craft thanked the public, developers, landowners and the team. Commissioner Coward referred to page 52 subsection (o), the open space and countryside standards. The middle paragraph they have a must shall. The word shall should be deleted. Commissioner Coward referred to page 53 under subsection (6) dealing with golf courses. He stated that there was some redundancy. Commissioner Coward referred to page 55 second paragraph from the bottom under golf courses. It was moved by Commissioner Craft; seconded by Commissioner Smith and upon roll call Commissioner Lewis and Commissioner Hutchinson were opposed to Ordinance No. 06-17. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY & SPECIAL PROJECTS Second reading and Final Adoption 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 Countyside (TVC) Comprehensive Plan Element boundary (May A). The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 06-018. Mike Brillhart addressed the Board. He gave the Board a brief overview. Ms. Cambor, She stated that there had been some changes made since the first reading. Text was added to address the 90% rule for parcels under 10 acres. This is something that the TDR committee requested at a previous meeting. It allows parcels between 1 ½ acres and 10 acres to participate in the 10% rule provided they are outside the urban service boundary. The next change clarified TDR transfer conditions for parcels inside the urban service boundary that opt to develop in accordance with a planned zoning district other than the planned towns and village. The final major change was the addition of a definition for agricultural research and education facilities. She stated that staff recommend that the Board approve and adopt Ordinance 06-018. She informed the board that there had been some recommended changes by the TDR committee. On page 2 of the ordinance item number C that addresses allocation of transferable development rights within the North St. Lucie County Special Area Plan (SAP). The change that is proposed is to the first sentence to read transferable development rights are afforded only to properties with residential development potential . the second proposed change is to page 7, which allows parcels between 1.5 acres and 10 acres to participate in the 10% rule. The proposed change reads as: Parcel of at least 1.5 acres and under 10 acres may transfer development rights. The Third recommendation of the TDR Committee is that in the definition of agricultural resource and education facilities, page 20, that the acronyms be spelled out. She informed the Board that the Committee had also recommended some changes that the team did not feel that they were appropriate to include. The first change in the ordinance on page 4 section E that refers to the TDR sending area. The TDR sending area describes the areas that may participate in the TDR program. The second change the TDR the Committee recommended is on page 8, the top paragraph number 5, parcels inside the urban service boundary that opt to develop in accordance with a planned zoning district other than a PTV may not participate in the TDR program as sending sites for either internal or outside transferable development rights transfers. There was added language that said this would not preclude these properties from participating in the 90% rule. It is the teams recommendation that this not be added. She advised the Board of the Website that had been proposed and the specific functions that this website had to offer. Commissioner Hutchinson asked if the team was in favor of the website. Ms. Cambor stated that the team was in favor of the website. Commissioner Coward referred to page 17. The first paragraph under section H it states that conservation easement shall be used to restrict future use of open space and countryside. He stated that the list A-F these would not have the option of putting a deed restriction. Ms. Cambor stated that this was correct. Commissioner Coward stated that what is trying to be accomplished through the language is that they are trying to identify a third party land trust. PUBLIC COMMENT Johnathon Ferguson addressed the Board. He stated that he was going to make some comments as a member of the TDR Committee. He informed the Board that the changes that were referenced were the consensus of the TDR Committee. He advised the Board that they did not have a quorum. Page 3 number 3 the consensus of the Committee is that sunset provision are unnecessary. Page 5 number iv has to do with what is considered open space. The LDR allows parking to be counted towards the countryside. He stated that he thought it was the consensus of the Committee to exclude the reference to paved parking to make it consistent to the LDR’s. It was the consensus of the Committee to not penalize land owners that were accommodating one of the regional road networks. He also referred to page 21 the definition page for conservation easement and deed restriction. He informed the Board that he had recommended doing away with the term conservation easement and limit the use to deed restriction. Tom Babcock 261 Marina Drive addressed the Board. He concurred with Johnathon Ferguson. He informed the Board that he was also a member of the TDR Committee. He stated that it is unfair to a landowner that has major right of ways going through their property. John Martin, Chairman, TDR Committee addressed the Board. He concurred with both Johnathon Ferguson and Tom Babcock. He requested that the County not function as a bank or a purchaser of TDR’s. He voiced his concerns with the TDR Committee. Commissioner Coward stated that the continuation of the TDR Committee would be beneficial. Naureen Dryer addressed the Board. She referred to page 7, the first sentence has some typographical errors. Robert Johnson addressed the Board. He informed the Board that he lived on 100 acres that they farm citrus on. He questioned the values of property with in the TVC. Commissioner Coward stated that this program is the most progressive growth management strategy in the State of Florida. Commissioner Coward addressed Mr. Fergusons comments. He referred to page 2, which referenced the word only, but also the reference to the TDV map. Ms. Cambor stated that this would change to read as follows: transferable development rights are afforded only to properties with residential densities consistent with figure 3-3 of the TVC element. Commissioner Coward addressed the sunset provision. Ms. Cambor stated that it has to do with allowing people who have to buy credits to have a market which allows willing sellers to not sit on their credits. She informed the Board that one of the changes that the team recommended was that the sunsetting clause be changed so that after 20 years, in the case of a town or a village, if they had remaining credits that the credits would have to be used within that town or village. Commissioner Craft stated that he was in favor of the secondary language. Ms. Cambor stated that this does not mean that everyone in TVC has 20 years to sell their property, this means that one they make the decision to sell credits that is when the clock starts ticking. Commissioner Coward stated that he was comfortable with the wording Commissioner Coward addressed comments made on page 5, paved parking. Ms. Cambor referred to page 5, iv to make it consistent with the LDR’s, it is the teams recommendation to delete the end of the sentence. The sentence would read as follows: Civic building lots including school, police stations, houses of worship. Commissioner Coward referred to subsection vi, which deals with roads and the country side. Ms. Cambor referred to 15 of the LDR’s. She stated that these roads would not be impacting development towards the minimum density requirements. She stated that the team feels strongly that a paved area is not countryside. Commissioner Coward stated that he felt very strongly in favor of what the Regional Planning Council just reviewed. Commissioner Coward referred to the conservation easement discussion. Ms. Cambor stated that Mr. Daniels is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and has personally managed over 140 programs similar to this. He actually felt very strongly that every single parcel within TVC had to have a conservation easement. Commissioner Coward stated that the County had brought an expert in and he stressed the importance of the conservation easement in the language outlined, which is less restrictive that what he would like. Commissioner Craft asked about the website, he questioned whether or not it referenced a price. Ms. Cambor stated no. Commissioner Craft asked if they had a list of TDR’s sold. Ms. Cambor stated that they could add what has been sold between which parties and add a date. Commissioner Coward requested that this go back to the TDR Committee to bring back to the Board with some advice. Commissioner Hutchinson referred to the Ordinance page 20 TDR’s. Ms. Cambor stated that in the TVC and other places of the Ordinance, there is a provision for the county to become a bank, should that be necessary. Commissioner Coward referred to Mr. Johnson’s comments. Ms. Cambor stated that the first question was what our credits were. She stated that it was not up to the County to establish a price on a credit much like it is not the County’s roll to establish a price on a house for sale. Credits are normally worth 8 – 35% of the value of the unit that will be built and sold through the purchase of that credit. She referred to the second question raised by Mr. Johnson., which was land inside TVC overtime would be more or less outside the TVC. She stated that there has been a lot of interest by developers, to purchase property, inside the TVC . Commissioner Craft commented on the value within the TVC and outside the TVC. Commissioner Coward stated that if nothing is done the area would grow out into sprawl. The value of the communities that will be built will far exceed the sprawl that would occur if we did nothing. He referred to page 18, section iv, the last paragraph, the first sentence. Commissioner Smith thanked Commissioner Hutchinson and Commissioner Lewis, because of their questions and concerns. He also thanked staff. Commissioner Coward thanked Mr. Brillhart, Robert Nix, Faye Outlaw, Doug Anderson and County Staff. He also, thanked the Regional Planning Council. He also thanked the St. Lucie County residents. Ms. Cambor stated that the team has also been excided and also very proud to have been able to work with the Board and Staff. Commissioner Lewis thanked the team. She advised the Board that she would be supporting the TDR’s. Commissioner Hutchinson expressed her thanks to staff and the team. She also commended the residents of St. Lucie County. Commissioner Lewis thanked the members of the TDR Committee and her appointees to the LVC Committee. It was moved by Commissioner Smith; seconded by Commissioner Craft to approve Ordinance 06-018 and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ________________________________ Chairman, Board County Commissioners __________________________________ Clerk Circuit Court