HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/1982CLUP -
Tuesday, July 27, 1982
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Tuesday_,__July 27, 1982, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher,
Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons, and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Also present were C. B. Hardin, Assistant
County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the
Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves,
Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, explained the
procedure to be followed, announced that remarks would be
f
limited to five.minutes and that the meeting would be ended
at 10 o'clock and another meeting scheduled, if necessary.
He further noted that the full Planning & Zoning Commission
is not present tonight, although their Chairman, Carolyn
Eggert, is in the audience.
The hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
Jit 2 7 1982
1 K 50 FAASS
JUL 271982
LAND USE MAP
INDIAN RiVER COUNTY
—...r_—.—. .— f.. RR2
i- G'§4{•f�,�,�^bj �fe .. t AG
I,ak"roq Vi•f, it axr
K 50 -NEE 689
LD2 SET EnWr= AFEAS i r•
AG z�2
,� «,> , , nroxEo use
} z gLEBASTUN oiWIM Us COWNERM4L
L D Co
1 �� w •; -. rSrB�a;�a„ j ' f ;- a;1 .. t- t - r .•
^:'h,A.`. i...:.. .. ' '"3' '.�'''`•`,.. »`Tt•v7 3 c,,F ' ?.,�' L�q `,,� ,� V`7`:��'. �Y •'F' ��r:. -x-.: +WW+.p_ LDr::
R
I F�t< S .. j - � �•�{- ��'}! < t `� - ! .. t � r :, ,. � LD2 1 1 t{ °gi=lt
* F k• i,,a Yj f'•i'� T ct, a( X )L
plN1.' :D 3
. ¢. �y�e a e �24sa y�ai era •�, � AG ��* .�ti � I rk�}JL't � _L_ �' .'� ;�HC` r..
%etm'.s,�xµi�d�i.gla+.4 amga j a4 w?t� D
'v°6° 4c�$'s` °�" axaea+a� _h-tc4•tlY 1 '2• ^"'.u.'3v:..
,°�� -@s,,'+',•6a #+yeb+`'gs'rp;84a�'£.y,� r - ri[aa -y ?£? s t , r R = - -9 "'.q i ' ''�+•�-
.#'a°3?'�c4R'Q��
i � � t:•�"i+a fid.. ,,t j i. �.•�h`s.,:'3 .''
°, .a+•rT ',*�%€ ��yy....pr' +.»`�Skd< Jisd l k9an{.' +' tFC S�-'.- i ie y ..
at` •" �, .#i -s.. p,r'^>ui ka'k"cs.'uYSly4.. •t:r. r - •Dia-
.. I ,�"+.,SFi�S�1 '���bA�� J"5�' 6•��*d � _ � _ _ D2 YERO BE ,- xA` � .
L.r .��.�.r.._ AY -t3 of $� ,,•i 'ie' ,Td�•014t, �m r.�. . mp 4 k ` .qJ
'1 a
1> i � "���ia�a�'I-Y�ry t�•� •g p•o� � �,p'
.. •ENV AL AREAS EAST OF I I g q ',$e s?-�aF
ARE FM -2_ - , p •e;G"s*.,Yea °''+gF'b.a°t r RAG
AG g; ° ty�p ;y7
•A4 EF
•ENVIFIROMNTAL AFM
WEST OF 1 ' .. s�� s c`'' ric ?r; . • - i. '�
ARE AO . I L.t` �.n b S ¢"' LD1 L - x ■
JANUARY 8. 18 2
a 4•k: n•
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE If an person decades to
y pe appeal any decision made on the above matter, he or she wi.
Che Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to regulate the use of,, -.-,.need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he or she may need to insure the
and within the area shown in the map in this advertisement., "^ ?' ' '.a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony 1
evidence of which the appeal is based.
n 1
A public hearing on the proposal will behold on Tuesday, July 27, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. at",*!.!, ;
he County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. All interested In -.t.- Indian River County 7
livlduals are Invited to attend and comment on the proposal. Consideration will be given to Board of County Commissioners F
all requested amendments to the following elements of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
+ i �3 BY: Doug C. Scurlock, Chairman of
O Land Use - - - £ ' .L - "' :1 "� ` - - .. The Board of County Commissioners z
• Transportation
• Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection s 'i : ,.: ?'` r '`
• Housing
THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP '
• Recreation The Future land Use Map is an intregral part of the land Use Element of the Com
• Sewer, Water, Drainage and Solid Waste ;>. prehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future Ian,
• Utilities (Electric) a "? a, use patterns for the next twenty years. These activity patterns include residential uses, cam
o Intergovernmental Coordination :` mercial uses, industrial uses, institutional uses, open space preservation areas, agriculturc
a J + 'uses, and areas with a mixture of uses.
Urban residential land use districts are shown on the map by four population densit,
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 'classifications. These are designated as: -
The Couniy Commission shall also hold'a second'public hearing on the proposed Com-` -_` low Density i (LD -i) - to 3 units/acre
prehensive Plan at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,*,,.... Low Density 2 (LD -2) • to 6 units/acre . w
Florida, on Tuesday, July 27, 1982 at 7:00 P.M.; at which time the Commission sholl consider ` ' Medium Density 1 (MD=1) - to 8 units/acre ` • ' Aae n
adoption of an ordinance entitled; Medium Density 2 (MD -2) - to 10 units/acre
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF. IN. , r ;�. ... Rural and Agricultural districts are shown on the map by three population densit,
DIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-1 AND ADOP• "•.' classifications. These are designated as: a•
TING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS Agricultural (AG) - 5 acres/unit
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE , Rural -Residential (RR -1) - 2.5 acres/unit
"LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975", Rural -Residential (RR -2) - 1 acre/unit
AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 163.3161, ET. SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, PRO. Three areas within the County have developed a historical mixture of residential, cam
VIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURPOSE, VESTED RIGHTS, mercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been classified as mixed-use districts
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SERVERABILITY AND EFFEC• Within the boundaries of these districts, the existing variety of uses would be accom
TIVE DATE. i modated to develop in the future.
+. Mixed Use District (MXD) • to 14 units/acre
Future commercial and industrial land uses are designated at strategic locations o
Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan are available at the Indian River County nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node specified a general activity or ac
Community Development Department located in Suite S-241 B at 1840 25th Street. Vero tivities that may be expected to develop within the next twenty years. The proposed Futuri
Beach, Florida, at a cost of $15.00. Land Use Map also designates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands.
1-A
LD1
:..�^ �` w€, ,)-s�+•:,
CUTOLVIST OOIV41EF7 IAL
.t ifiw
p,rraL aan rvo�AL
R,P L
♦e�nL�srFa/�L
nCOIVNEFi7AL ''•
> .
(!
LD2 SET EnWr= AFEAS i r•
AG z�2
,� «,> , , nroxEo use
} z gLEBASTUN oiWIM Us COWNERM4L
L D Co
1 �� w •; -. rSrB�a;�a„ j ' f ;- a;1 .. t- t - r .•
^:'h,A.`. i...:.. .. ' '"3' '.�'''`•`,.. »`Tt•v7 3 c,,F ' ?.,�' L�q `,,� ,� V`7`:��'. �Y •'F' ��r:. -x-.: +WW+.p_ LDr::
R
I F�t< S .. j - � �•�{- ��'}! < t `� - ! .. t � r :, ,. � LD2 1 1 t{ °gi=lt
* F k• i,,a Yj f'•i'� T ct, a( X )L
plN1.' :D 3
. ¢. �y�e a e �24sa y�ai era •�, � AG ��* .�ti � I rk�}JL't � _L_ �' .'� ;�HC` r..
%etm'.s,�xµi�d�i.gla+.4 amga j a4 w?t� D
'v°6° 4c�$'s` °�" axaea+a� _h-tc4•tlY 1 '2• ^"'.u.'3v:..
,°�� -@s,,'+',•6a #+yeb+`'gs'rp;84a�'£.y,� r - ri[aa -y ?£? s t , r R = - -9 "'.q i ' ''�+•�-
.#'a°3?'�c4R'Q��
i � � t:•�"i+a fid.. ,,t j i. �.•�h`s.,:'3 .''
°, .a+•rT ',*�%€ ��yy....pr' +.»`�Skd< Jisd l k9an{.' +' tFC S�-'.- i ie y ..
at` •" �, .#i -s.. p,r'^>ui ka'k"cs.'uYSly4.. •t:r. r - •Dia-
.. I ,�"+.,SFi�S�1 '���bA�� J"5�' 6•��*d � _ � _ _ D2 YERO BE ,- xA` � .
L.r .��.�.r.._ AY -t3 of $� ,,•i 'ie' ,Td�•014t, �m r.�. . mp 4 k ` .qJ
'1 a
1> i � "���ia�a�'I-Y�ry t�•� •g p•o� � �,p'
.. •ENV AL AREAS EAST OF I I g q ',$e s?-�aF
ARE FM -2_ - , p •e;G"s*.,Yea °''+gF'b.a°t r RAG
AG g; ° ty�p ;y7
•A4 EF
•ENVIFIROMNTAL AFM
WEST OF 1 ' .. s�� s c`'' ric ?r; . • - i. '�
ARE AO . I L.t` �.n b S ¢"' LD1 L - x ■
JANUARY 8. 18 2
a 4•k: n•
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE If an person decades to
y pe appeal any decision made on the above matter, he or she wi.
Che Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to regulate the use of,, -.-,.need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he or she may need to insure the
and within the area shown in the map in this advertisement., "^ ?' ' '.a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony 1
evidence of which the appeal is based.
n 1
A public hearing on the proposal will behold on Tuesday, July 27, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. at",*!.!, ;
he County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. All interested In -.t.- Indian River County 7
livlduals are Invited to attend and comment on the proposal. Consideration will be given to Board of County Commissioners F
all requested amendments to the following elements of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
+ i �3 BY: Doug C. Scurlock, Chairman of
O Land Use - - - £ ' .L - "' :1 "� ` - - .. The Board of County Commissioners z
• Transportation
• Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection s 'i : ,.: ?'` r '`
• Housing
THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP '
• Recreation The Future land Use Map is an intregral part of the land Use Element of the Com
• Sewer, Water, Drainage and Solid Waste ;>. prehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future Ian,
• Utilities (Electric) a "? a, use patterns for the next twenty years. These activity patterns include residential uses, cam
o Intergovernmental Coordination :` mercial uses, industrial uses, institutional uses, open space preservation areas, agriculturc
a J + 'uses, and areas with a mixture of uses.
Urban residential land use districts are shown on the map by four population densit,
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 'classifications. These are designated as: -
The Couniy Commission shall also hold'a second'public hearing on the proposed Com-` -_` low Density i (LD -i) - to 3 units/acre
prehensive Plan at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,*,,.... Low Density 2 (LD -2) • to 6 units/acre . w
Florida, on Tuesday, July 27, 1982 at 7:00 P.M.; at which time the Commission sholl consider ` ' Medium Density 1 (MD=1) - to 8 units/acre ` • ' Aae n
adoption of an ordinance entitled; Medium Density 2 (MD -2) - to 10 units/acre
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF. IN. , r ;�. ... Rural and Agricultural districts are shown on the map by three population densit,
DIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-1 AND ADOP• "•.' classifications. These are designated as: a•
TING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS Agricultural (AG) - 5 acres/unit
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE , Rural -Residential (RR -1) - 2.5 acres/unit
"LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975", Rural -Residential (RR -2) - 1 acre/unit
AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 163.3161, ET. SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, PRO. Three areas within the County have developed a historical mixture of residential, cam
VIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURPOSE, VESTED RIGHTS, mercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been classified as mixed-use districts
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SERVERABILITY AND EFFEC• Within the boundaries of these districts, the existing variety of uses would be accom
TIVE DATE. i modated to develop in the future.
+. Mixed Use District (MXD) • to 14 units/acre
Future commercial and industrial land uses are designated at strategic locations o
Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan are available at the Indian River County nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node specified a general activity or ac
Community Development Department located in Suite S-241 B at 1840 25th Street. Vero tivities that may be expected to develop within the next twenty years. The proposed Futuri
Beach, Florida, at a cost of $15.00. Land Use Map also designates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands.
1-A
P ubla:sh;cd Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River Courity, Florida
COUNTY -OF INDIAN RIV :
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before tl,e undersigned authority persc•nally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who cn cath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper ,rug: s1 -ed
at Vero Beach in Indian River Ce).ant✓, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, :;eing
a
�._---in` t n
in the matt __,
matter of !?_.f`t„4L4._::�-± 5�7') C�� �f• ' ��!
the Court, vias pub
lishti ,said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper pubiis'-:ed at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has h, ,aofere
been conilrwu.x ;ly publisEed in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been c -tired
Ps second class r^ait matter at the pest office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Fl rida
for a period of one year next precr-eding the first publication of the attached copy of dwer-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, corrimissson or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for pu.` Fcation in the said r a✓ -s .,yore
Sworn to and sabscrib d bef re me * :is � r�'2 day oA.D.1_l + r
(Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cou /ndian River County, Florida)
SEAL
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the people who had filled
out cards at the previous meeting would be given an
opportunity to be heard first tonight.
Planning Manager Challacombe stated that some are on
tonight's agenda, some are present tonight, and some have
submitted letters. He called out the names of those who had
filled out cards, and those not answering present and not on
the agenda were Robert Knight, William Hoyt, Mrs. McNichol
and Mr. Parker.
Mrs. Ann Robinson stated that she had filled out a
slip. Mr. Challacombe felt she had spoken at the previous -
meeting, but Mrs. Robinson stated that she did not.
JUL 2'7 2 50 Pr00®
1982
JUL 271982
� ® ME69 ,
The. Board agreed that Mrs. Robinson could speak at this
time.
Mrs. Robinson of 3008 Nassau Drive, wished the Board to
consider an open space density designation such as the City
of Vero Beach already has, i.e., P-1 for public open space -
golf courses, parks, etc., and P-2 for semi public open
space - private golf courses and things of that nature. She
stated that the Planning &'Zoning_ -Commission was unanimously
in favor of this, and she believed it would be helpful in
showing where the open space is located and in protecting
Mr. Challacombe did feel such a classification would
afford some protection and tend to prevent government from
selling off lands that could be used for parks. He stated
that he had intended to discuss this in conjunction with the
Recreation Element of the Plan.
Discussion ensued about this applying to environmental
areas also, and Commissioner Lyons felt we may be confusing
land use and zoning.
Mr. Challacombe agreed that is possible and also
believed this needs further research by the Attorney since
there may be tax ramifications.
It was generally agreed that Mrs. Robinson had raised a
good point, but that it needed further research and should
be considered as a possible next step at some time in the
future.
Mrs. Robinson next requested that the Board once again
give consideration to making the eastern part of the area
north of Barber Avenue LD -1 instead of MD -1. She emphasized
that this area is flood prone; it is in the 100 year flood
zone; and it has no access to roads. Mrs. Robinson felt
that an MD -1 designation indicates an area is suitable for
affordable housing and stated that if the Board is going to
encourage people to live in the 100 year flood zone, the
3
public should be given some kind of warning. She felt a
much better designation for Sections 13, 24 and 25 north of
Barber Avenue would be LD -1.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher to designate
Sections 13, 24 and 25 north of Barber Avenue LD -1.
Commissioner Lyons seconded for purposes of discussion.
Commissioner Lyons asked if this would include that
whole area, and Mrs. Robinson stated it would be only that
area colored yellow, which is now zoned R-lA. She explained
that the reason that she did not ask that all the area be '
included is because there is access for part of it. She did
not want the Agricultural in this area rezoned to
residential.
0
Mr. Challacombe commented that Mrs. Robinson basically
is saying everything presently zoned R -1A would be LD -1, and
actually you are overlaying the Land Use Map with the Zoning
Map.
Considerable discussion ensued as to the fact that at
various previous meetings, we have had a great deal of
public input about this area, and Commissioner Wodtke felt
if we are going to make substantial changes in the map we
have advertised, particularly in regard to a request of this
size and nature where it is not coming from a property`
owner, that we would have to readvertise and notify the
property owners involved.
Attorney Brandenburg agreed that the.Commission has
advertised a map showing specific designations and led
people to believe that is what they are proposing to adopt.
He noted that every property owner cannot attend a meeting
based on the assumption that someone who does not own that
certain property will ask it to be changed, and, therefore,
if a change were to be made, he would have to recommend
continuing the hearing and notifying the property owners
involved.
J U L 2 7 1982 4 Box 50 FAU-L 6
J t1 L 2'7 1982 50 43,
Commissioner Bird felt that this is really the eleventh
hour. He stressed that we have discussed this particular
area before for many hours; we noted Mrs. Robinson's concern
previously; and that is why we delineated the environmen-
tally sensitive area here. The property owners went along
with us and proceeded to this point believing the map
reflected the Commission's attitude to the area. He
believed a great majority of this' County falls in the 100
year flood plain, and with the MD -1 category, he felt the
Commission will look very carefully at the characteristics
of any land requested to be rezoned.
The Board generally agreed they could not make a change
such as this without a public hearing involving that
particular area, and it was noted that this area will be
revisited when the zoning requests come in.
Commissioner Lyons withdrew his second, and the Motion
died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he did not need the
100 year Flood Map to tell him where it gets wet in the
County and he believed that area should be changed. He con-
curred with Mrs. Robinson that by leaving the land in this
designation, we are misleading the public by allowing them
to assume this land will support more than it actually will.
EXPANSION OF 50 ACRE ROSELAND HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE AND
40 ACRE SEBASTIAN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
Planning Manager Challacombe reported that since the
last meeting when several questions were raised by property
owners in the vicinity of the above nodes, staff has done
some research and found that, including the approved site
plan of the Sebastian River.Medical Plaza, the total number
of acres now being used in the Hospital node is approxi-
mately 36.08 out of a potential 50. This, combined with the
fact.that we have lost the 40 acres of the Sebastian node
due to annexation by the City, does not leave a whole lot of
5
acreage for commercial uses, and staff is requesting that
the Board consider increasing the present Hospital node by
40 acres to a total of 90. He noted that this node is
geared towards hospital related activities and would also
have the flexibility of general -retail commercial.
Considerable discussion followed on the "lost" node,
and Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that owners in the
Sebastian node have the right to request this Commission to
relinquish their two year zoning control; however, at this
time no one has a site plan.
Chairman Scurlock felt our purpose is to confine these
nodes to specific areas rather than stretch them out and
that we should be careful about expanding them until there
is a demonstrated need.
f
Mr. Challacombe commented that there is a demand
pressure for other than just hospital related activities as
demonstrated by requests previously presented and some still
to be presented concerning properties in proximity to this
node. He emphasized that this is a 20 year plan, and that
the north Sebastian node actually is in limbo.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, that the 50 acre
Roseland Hospital/Commercial Node re-
main the same.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the tapes of the
July 13th hearing, which he was unable to attend, indicate
that the Board apparently advised two applicants with
apkoximately 4h acres of property that they could come into
the Hospital node and stated that another case would
probably be a neighborhood node type of situation, if a need
was demonstrated. Since over 36 acres of this node are
already developed, he believed it is obvious that there will
6 Box 50PACE 6 LP
JUI. 2 7 198
JUL-27 1982 50
be a need for more than 14 more acres of commercial in the
next 20 years.
Discussion continued pro and con as to the need for
expansion of the node, and it was agreed to hear the request
by Stanley Zaleski re the Hospital node before voting on the
Motion on the floor.
ITEM #7 - STANLEY ZALESKI REQUEST TO CHANGE THE SEBASTIAN
HOSPITAL NODE TO HOSPITAL/GENERAL.COMMERCIAL AND THAT IT
INCLUDE HIS PROPERTY
Stanley Zaleski informed the Board that he has 10 acres
adjacent to the Roseland Shopping Center which is located
across from the hospital. Mr. Zaleski stated that he has
had doctors interested in purchasing his property, and he
wants to sell it and get out from under it. The problem is
that he has been unable to determine the specific zoning and
learn exactly what he can do with his property. In
addition, he cannot find what the setbacks or requirements
are under a commercial hospital zone, and he would like to
know where he stands.
Planning Manager Challacombe read the following letter
from Attorney George Collins representing Mr. Zaleski:
7
..i 11::�'`, 15�•:»►i1. l,i��i�1•t��i L\ +.il/•it,j•
CHAAT!.RE
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW
-
PLEA•.L t�( .. S 1
i - a'`K at er6
t44 11(AU
a;ALVr+. B
VENO rfk Ar... CL —4 7.: J:itrJ
A —L.Ar.1 w CALs.eF_L
r ,�
14, 19 32
E1:1a\EVJ iA=.'.-3
Jul
P Q BO% 266
._
22! NCR r" U 5 V^ 1
SEBASTIAN, c_GRI;;A J.';`_.ts
30S -:.3A 3156
..r. Arr a " a=L:ombe
Indian i'.'er �_'cu:i ty Plannir.0 Department
1_340 '25t:- street
Vero Eeacl-:, Florida 3296E
Dear Art: .
• I renreser.t Stanley Zales_j, who owns property directly
across the street from the Sebastian River Medical Center on
the east side of U. S, 1. Mr.,-Zaleski's property abuts the
Roseland Shopping Center on its south boundary and Bay Street
on its north boundary.
Last night at the joint meeting; a recommendation was made
to include Dr. Kha=raja's property into the commercial pod.
Also I understand the property directly south of the tRinute
Saver was included in the nod. It seemed the recommendation
was to consider that com=:ercial pod to include retail cor_-aercial
as well as hospital co=:ercial. From a -review of your recom-
mendations, the pod presently includes Mr. Zaleski's Dronerty.
My client would make two points:
1. Mr. Zaleski would prefer to have his property available
for retail corr+ercial as well as hospital commercial.
2. If there are any changes made by the planning staff
that would affect Pyr. Zaleski's property, i could appreciate
notice to that effect.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
GGC,Jr/jcn GEORGE,G. COLLINS, JR.
CC: Mr. Stanley Zaleski
In the following discussion, it was noted that
apparently Mr. Zaleski's property is within the node, and he
should come in with a site plan and ask for something
specific.
Discussion once again arose about the commercial -
acreage in the node, the amount taken up by the hospital,
8
J U L 2 71982 Box. P E ►
JUL 27198
50 69
and the need for more commercial. Commissioner Fletcher
pointed out that there is a subdivision nearby made up of
one acre lots; there is other residential in the area; and
these people are greatly concerned about what goes in the
node.
Commissioner Wodtke believed you have to look at the
reality of the highest and best use of the land, and Mr.
Zaleski pointed out that it was Mr. Yoder,.the developer of
the residential subdivision in this area, who sold him his
land; therefore, everybody who bought an acre parcel knew
about the commercial when they bought their property.
Mr. Challacombe commented that the type of commercial
that could go_ in there would be very restricted commercial.
He brought up the example of the Doctor's Clinic in the City
of Vero Beach and the surrounding residential development.
Chairman Scurlock noted that even if the Board agreed
to expand this node, we could not give Mr. Zaleski a
definite answer until he came in with a site plan.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, brought up the point that apparently confusion
has developed in regard to the type of commercial in this
node. The intention was that it would be general
commercial, but now the impression seems to be that the
commercial would be strictly hospital related. The Planning
and Zoning Commission, therefore, is requesting that this
designation be changed from Hospital/Commercial to Hospital/
General Commercial.
In further discussion, it was noted that there is no
definition of Hospital Commercial in the Land Use Plan. Mr.
Challacombe felt it would include a combination of
convenience and goods stores and offices.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would be any
different for this area than for the Vero Beach Hospital
area, and Mr. Challacombe felt the Sebastian Roseland area
D
would differ in that it is a lower density, lower traffic
area.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that with 36.08 acres of this
node already in use, there is not much left for future
growth and stated that while he would not consider a 40 acre
expansion, he might consider 10.
Discussion continued re the feeling that it is not
necessary to look very far in the future to see the
commercial development using up the remaining acreage.
Commissioner Fletcher asked the Attorney what a
property owner who is conceptually in the node but does not
have a definite plan calls his land.
Attorney Brandenburg replied that he calls it the
underlying zoning with the possible potential of being
included in the Hospital Commercial node. He noted that
anyone buying such property would probably buy it with an
option based on the owner presenting it to the Commission
for approval.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to offer an amendment to the
Motion on the floor, which was to leave the node as it
presently is.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Fletcher
voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote
agreed- to amend the Motion on the floor to in-
crease the Roseland Hospital/General Commercial
node by 20 acres.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
original Motion as amended. It was voted on
and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher
voting in opposition.
10 BOOK 50 PauE f f
JUL 27 1982
K 50 PnE 090
J U L 1982
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to amend the text of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan to include full definitions of
Hospital/Commercial, Tourist/Commercial,
Industrial/Commercial, Industrial, and Commer-
cial, to be sure that those are separate
definitions and that the_,commercial in the Hospital
area is not to be limited only to Hospital re-
lated commercial.
ITEM #4 - ADMINISTRATION PROCESS FOR REZONING AREAS IN
COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD NODES
Community Development Director Bruce King reviewed the
following procedures for rezoning relating to commercial
nodes:
CCY IVERC IAL NODE
Z ON? I N G PROCEDURE
Ccrmiunity Development Department
July 20, 1982
1
1) Calculate the total acreage of current com-Rercial develoMent located
in the Ciesignatr d cannercial ncxio.
2) sul.)tract this aggreclato figure frcni the total acreage allocation for th(�
ccnmercial node.
3) If this 1:k31ance excccxis the cni-mercial acreage allocation, then sufficient
c(z11nercial larki uses on tl.e lx ri phery of the node shall be da wm-zoned in
order that the acreage limitation is not exceeded or this iilnitation shall
be increased to acccaiTnodate tho existing ccxmlercial land uses. This
decision shell be prcdicat(-d utx)n the evaluation of the actual viability of
the existing cutmlercial land uses.
4) If the difference between the total acreage of existing cc=ercial uses
and the nale allocation does not exceed the ccam�ercial acreage allocation
for the designated node, then the vacant land situated between the existing
cumiercial uses may receive a cciaTiorcial zoning designation if such additional
cumercial zonings do not ex.ceed the node's allocation.
5) Upon ccuipletion of the foregoing process should the total amount of commercially
designated property represent a small percentage of the node's allocation, then
scrne of the vacant properties adjacent to those already ccsrmercially designatcxl
may also be designated as ccnmx=ial in order to provide a larger supply of
cuitrercially zonae: land in the m.-irkot place. This action may mitigate the
c2scalat.ion of Lund prices for future commercial developments. 'leis decision
shall ly_ theultin-iate rosponsibil-it.y of the LXord of Colony Caiimlissioners with
'1 ation from the Plaiininct and Zoning Commission.
11
6) 1%11 other propearties ,surrolukd ic,.1 those designated as c(-umcrcial through thi,,
1prcN_ s,, shall LX-_ : or utii in cuipl lance with the adopted ;rind Use L•'luant of ':Ix.
Ccs a)rehensive Plan.
7) petitions for cane-orcial re -zonings :shell be evaluated in relation .to rxr.;-oiziwnc,e
criteria v.bich are prcgx�sed to lc establislxxd in the County's now Develq-runt
axle. (lie criterion may bo the pro�x rtion of the unallocated balance of a
ccsimercial node's total acreticic t.,ldcli would be required to be designat.c�d
in order that the zxi cel utidwr coisideration kx' contiguous to propert.i cs currently
Zc4led O(almorciaL4,s tho p-rCC1l1tl(;E' increases, then a less favorable rc.ca�Bix.rc? :ti:�r:
t%uuld be generated for the rc ,-oniixl rc\lucst. Rezoning ix,-titions sliall fol.low
Lho saiv approval pro,.-oss as currently utilized.
S) F1CI1 designatc0 ill tlu� 1.uul U_se Elorent of the Canprehensive Pltu� shall
receivo an alpha-ilUWVic COLI� �tiIiicl. it can be identified. This will
enabl.� tho Plmuzincl Division Staff to monitor this process on a continuing;
basis for each node. It is antic ii-)ated that this information could lx-- stored
amd retrievod as part of Ulo pro[x>sed Information System through
t1x- use of a catlic)cle ray tulx, (CP.'11) located within the offieies of the Community
Develoallent DepartniDnt.
Commissioner Wodtke asked what approach we are going to
take after adoption of the Master Plan in regard to
eliminating the long existing strips of commercial zoning
near a large commercial node.
Mr. King explained that the areas that do not have a
commercial node designation would be zoned in compliance
with the plan. The maximum density possible would be
identified in the Land Use category, and through the
administrative process, there would be notification and
public hearings. The starting point will be to zone
existing commercial uses; the second priority would be
in -filling processes; and third would be those directly
adjacent.
Commissioner Wodtke_.brought up the point that if a
property owner does not know how his property is zoned, how
is the Property Appraiser going to know. If people have to
pay taxes based on commercial zoning, but cannot develop the
property as commercial, he felt there will be problems.
Mr. King believed there may need to be some
communication between his department and the Property
Appraiser's office.
JUL 271982
12 5 0 PAuE 7U
JUL 2 71982 50 FAUN 701
ITEM #2 - EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT I-95
AND SR 60.
Mr. Challacombe reported that staff analyzed the need
for expansion of the Commercial/Industrial node at I-95 and
State Road 60 as requested at the last meeting. It was
determined that there are 138.2 acres now in use, and if the
approved site plan of F. M. Morency for LM were included and
Mr. O'Neill brought in his -site plan, there would be
approximately 159.06 acres in use out of a total 230.
Presently the text of the Land Use Plan states that there
shall be a maximum of 80 acres for commercial and 150 for
industrial in this node. Staff is not recommending a change
in the size of the node, but rather that the cap of 80 acres
for commercial be eliminated to allow for flexibility and
let the market determine the need.
Mrs. Eggert informed the Board that the Planning &
Zoning Commission agreed with this recommendation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird. to remove
the acreage limitations on the two uses
allowed in the Commercial/Industrial Node
at I-95 and SR 60.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this was instigated in
response to the request made by Mr. O'Neill and other
property owners in the area, and Mr. Challacombe confirmed
that it was.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
13
M
ITEM #3 - LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR AREA AROUND 80TH AVENUE
AND 126TH STREET - DeJOIA - carried over from last meeting
Frank DeJoia came before the Board requesting that the
Land Use designation on his 5 acre tract in the Roseland
area be changed from LD -1 to LD -2. He noted that earlier
this year, he did obtain preliminary plat approval on his
proposed Rose Haven Subdivision, which will contain eight
12- acre lots; the approval, however, was based on removing
the word "duplex" from each lot because this would result in
more density than allowable under -an LD -1 designation.
To: C], -.airman and me^bers of the Indian River County
Commission.
Fro:-.-,: F
arank DeJoia, owner of ROSE :iAVEii Suhdivi s i or..
Subject: Proposed change of land use designation from
LD -1 to LD -2.
1. INTRODUCTION
ROSE HAVEN is an unrecorded subdivision comprising;
approximately 5.02 acres in the Roseland area. It is
abou u one Half rale southeast of the Sebastian River and
o --.e quarter mile southeast of Roseland Road (see flute I).
On April 71 19829 the Indian River County Commission
granted preliminary plat approval to ROSE HAVEN subject
_ a
to the removal of the wording "duplex lot" from each lot.
The subdivision will have eight lots, each of which comprises
a minimum area of one half acre.
II. BACKGROUND
(a) Zoning Plate I). The ROSE HAVEN subdivision is
located in an area currently zoned R-3 which allows up to
15 units per acre. To the southeast is a strip of R1RN
(Mobile Home District) that extends from the Sebastian City
line northeastwards for more than one half mile. To the
northeast is the Townsite of Roselandwhicl-4s zoned R-1.
(b) Lard Use Plat II). On the old..19.75 Comprehensive
Land Use map, ROSE HAVEN was in the area designated "medium
density" which permitted densities up to 12 units per acre.
The new 1952 Land Use map places ROSE HAVER. in the LD -1
district which allows not more than 3 units per acre.
Bordering ROSE HAVEit to the southeast is a huge area
designated MD -1 (up to eight units per acre). This district
extends several miles from the Sebastian City line near
Roseland Lake all the way to and along the Indian River.
J U L 27 1982 14oK
50 PAS -7Z
J U L 2 71982 sex 50. WE 703
Vic) Develorment (Plate III). The L shaped area souti -
west and southeast of ROSE MAVEN is about ?'5;b' ,leveloped
wit h over 90% of the existing units being mobile 1homes. A
review of the 1981 tax rolls indicate that there are over
130 mobile homes and only 9 single family dwellings in this
area. Northeast of ROSE HAVEN, in that portion of the Town -
site of Roseland southeast of Roseland -Road, development is
only about 20% completed and many of the streets have not
been cut through. A typical lot in' the To rnsite of r:ose'!, rd
=easures 60' x 1401.
III. SUBDIVISION PROCESS
The writer began the subdivision process approximately
eighteen months ago. At the outset, and, all during the "
process, it was mad -e ciear to Indian River County Staff that
the intended use of ROSE IL&VElL was duplex homes on half acre
lots. The intended duplex usage was again made clear both
in the legend of the Plat and in discussions at the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) meeting of January 5, 1982 (see official
minutes of this meeting).
In a letter received from the Indian River County
Planning Department three weeks after th TRC meeting, we
were informed that duplex lots would not be compatible
with the new Land Use Map. This was confirmed at the
County Commission's Preliminary Plat Review.,of Basch 23,1982.
Each duplex would require site plan approval, and two units
on a net one half acre lot calculates to be four units per
acre.
IV. CONCLUSION
The writer believes that duplex dwellings on h31f acre
lots in ROSE F.AVEN is compatible with the existing development
of the surrounding area. Duplex homesites are needed in Roseland.
It is Planned to record restrictive covenants which would
prohibit car Forts and other undesirable elements an;! help
insure better quality homes. The construction of eight
duplex hones on the five gross acres would result in a
density of just over 3 units per acre. This is a lower
densis;;• than that of the many mobile homes built on ?0'
and 75' lots in the area.
15
V. REM�IIMENDAT- ION
It is hereby requested that the Lard Use District of
ROSYAVE�N be charged from LD -1 to LD -2. If this char e
is approved, it is my intention to immediately initiate
a petition to change the existing zoning from -R-3 (fifteen
units per acre) to R -2A (four units per acre).
Respectfully,
G t,
Frank DeJoia, 0,wmerR07E HAVEN.
Mr. DeJoia reviewed the above statement, emphasizing
that there are 75' wide lots with mobile homes on them
coming right up to his property and immediately across the
right-of-way is a huge area covering half of Roseland, which
is designated MD -1 and allows 8 units per acre. He believed
this boundary is arbitrary, and pointed out that there is no
LD -2 in this area to make a transition from MD -1 to LD -1.
In view of his present R-3 zoning and the existing
development in the area, Mr. DeJoia felt that what he is
asking for is not only reasonable, but would improve the
area.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if Mr. DeJoia had presented
this to the Roseland Property Owners Association, and Mr.
DeJoia stated that he reviewed this project on the site with
David Lapham, president pf the Roseland Property Owners
Association. Mr. Lapham did not raise any objections and
did not feel it violated the plan; he did not call a meeting
of the Association.
Planning Manager Challacombe reported that staff
visited the area and verified the inventory supplied by Mr.
DeJoia, which listed 9 homes, 131 mobile homes, 23 vacant
lots, 3 duplex areas and a church in this vicinity. He -
noted that the mobile homes referred to are to a large
J U L 2'7� 1982 16 8009 5 0 PA�E. 7�:
J U L 2 71992 0 pAba-705
extent trailers of another era, and staff also found a few
questionable uses that need to be brought to the attention
,of the Zoning Department. After analysis of the situation,
staff agreed that a duplex type development would supply an
excellent buffer between the LD -1 and MD -1 and felt that an
LD -2 classification on the A.A.Berry Subdivision, Lots 37
and 38, and Haven View Subdivision would be in order. As we
get into administrative re -zonings; however, it was felt that
the maximum LD -2 of 6 units per acre would be excessive in
that area.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Land Use Map be
changed to show LD -2 in place of LD -1 for Haven
View Subdivision, Haven View Addition #1, and A. A.
Berry Subdivision, Lots 37 & 38, basically forming
the L-shaped dimension.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that his basic concern is
the original concern that the Roseland Property Owners
Association had about density in that area, and he saw no
difference in this and the original request for site plan
approval. He noted at that point staff was of the opinion
duplexes were too high a density for that area and now they
just want to change the designation to make it fit.
Mr. Challacombe explained that the process they went
through with Mr. DeJoia previously was preliminary plat
approval on his subdivision, which has nothing to do with
the zoning - the subdivision process and zoning process are
two separate entities, one involving the subdivision of land
and the other involving the division of uses.
Commissioner Bird further explained that by Mr. DeJoia
indicating duplex on 1/2 acre lots, he was indicating 4
units per acre which was in conflict with the Land Use Maps
17
He was, therefore, informed he would have to have this
amended on the Land Use Map. Staff has done a thorough
study of the area, and is recommending the change.
Commissioner Fletcher noted for the record that the
subject property does adjoin his own personal property, and
his vote will so reflect.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Commission Fletcher wished
to file a conflict of interest, and Mr. Fletcher stated that
he did not and that he would vote.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
ITEM #5 - FELLSMERE AREA AND HOME -WOOD SUBDIVISION
The following three letters from the Mayor of Fellsmere
Joe Suit, Jr., the Interim Mayor Alvin Thomas, and Attorney
Herris representing Albert Kahn, Trustee, for Homewood
Subdivision, are hereby made a part of these Minutes:
City ®f Fellsmere
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 38
FELLSMERE, FLORIDA - 32948
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PHONE 571-0116
June 9,1982
Board of County -Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
POLICE DEPT.
PHONE 571-1360
Re: County Comprehensive Land Plan for Indian River -County,
Florida as prepared by Community Development Department.
February 24,1982.
Dear Sirs;
Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning act of 1975, the City Council of
Fellsmere reviewed the proposed plan for Indian River County_
at its regular meeting May 13,1982. The following comments
were approved by Council for the Board of County Commissioners
prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
18
50 7
JUL 27 192K ���
r JUL 2'71982
50 707
On April 15,1981, the City of Fellsmere requested
certain properties immediately outside our city limits be
considered LD1 (see attached letter and your reply). After
many meetings by council and impacts by concerned citizens
outside the city, some of our requests are hereby revoked.
After studing all the aspects and impacts on our people
within the city, the Homewood Subdivision will cost the
city taxpayer a great deal of money in providing services
to the unincorporated area should the LD1 concept be approved.
Example, approximately 8•miles.of the city dirt roads inter-
sect the Homewood Subdivision. This is the only access this
subdivision would have to CR 507. Assuming all property
within the subdivision were developed sfte 1080 homes,
populas and vehiclular traf-fic would use 15 streets of
concentrated residential area. -
Joined with this problem is the police protection these
homes would require. Historically,'and by mutual aid
agreement with the Indian River County Sheriff Department,
the city police would service thses homes in the absence
of the County Sheriff Department which is located
approximately 20 miles away. This is an added burden that
would be placed on the city taxpayer with no additional
revenues to support these needs.
The RR1 zone west of the City of Fellsmere will impact
the city in permitting a home per 21-, acres as well, but
certainly not as much as the LD1 zone south of our city
limits.
Both properties are owned by a single trustee for a
beneficary of several investors. The City Govcrnmont
has on several occasions negotiated with the trustee
for the annexation of Homewwod Subdivision. These
negotiations were unsuccessful which reduced the cities
possibilities of a broaden tax base and revenues to
provide the services they will require.
I
Therefore it is the intent of the City of Fellsmere
Council to request that the Homewcrod Subdivision be
reduced from LD1 zone to Agricultural and require the
developer to provide access roads to CR 507 for the
RR1 west of the -City of Fellsmere, relieving a great
burden on the City Government to provide graded roads
to the development.
Thanking you for your consideration in this important
matter, I am,
Siric�erely,
Joe B. Suit, r..
M4ayor
cc: County.Planning and Zoning Department
Community Development Department
Daniel Kilbride, Esq.
A. Kahn/Trustee
I. Harris, Esq.
19
City of Fellsmere
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 38
FELLSMEXIE. FLORIDA - 32D48
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PHONE 571.0116
April 1S, 1981
Panning U Zoning Department
2121 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
POLICE DEPT.
PHONE 571-1300
Dear Sirs;
i
The intent of the LD1 zoning of the County Planning
and Zoning does not have a defined line seperating the
agricultural zoned property. It is the request of Fellsmere
City government and all person concerned immediately outside
our city that the LD1 zoning, including the Homewood -Subdivision
only, be considered with the following boundaries and the
balance of the property surrounding is requested to be RR
rural residential.
1. The north line being the CS4 canal at the North
county line.
2. The West boundary being Park. Lateral canal.
3. The south :bQuridary..being_-Ditch 24. {.
4. The east:.boundary beng:the'east boundary canal.
Without considering --'-these;. property fora LDl- zoning -would
.:,pop.er�;eimpact':gr.eat.1y•ei•ght .siections.o_-By
increasing: 'the_'nature of all the proper.Ly.".to• agr. culatural_
N
zoning :and :Tegiiir.e=-a ,mii tum. of..:ten-,-acfes- rho elite :=:would
stunt..the: grow:th'..of:-tih`e*Nor.thxes-t -county �onsid'e:rably, :z
feel that wthotit; .:,a subs-tantial ;gr.ow.th...rate :in our:;;area
a
it would= not 'only be detrimental "'to °'�}ie'�Cty "and the'surroundi.^.g '
area, but also.impact greatly_the entire northwest part of the
county. _ '
Any consideration you may give in your public hearing to
this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your
cooperation in this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Alvin Thomas
Interim Mayor .
J U L 2 `7 1982 2 ° paor 50 PAor 711�
r JUL 271982
IRVING Hicnrns
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 109
2550 DOUGLAS ROAD
CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134
Board of County Commissioners
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(30S) 443-2336
June 17, 1982
50 PAGE709.
Re: County Comprehensive Land Plan for Indian River County,
Florida as prepared by Community.Development Department.
February 24, 1982.
Gentlemen:
As the representative of Mr. Albert H. Kahn, Trustee, and a beneficiary
under the trust, I received a copy of the letter addressed to you and signed
by Joe Suit as Mayor of Fellsmere. The letter was dated June 9th, 1982.
Needless to say, we were shocked and dismayed at Joe Suits remarks
since it appears he has zeroed in on our holdings in particular.
In order for the County Commissioners to be fully informed, I respect-
fully request that we be given an equal opportunity to be heard - at your
convenience - especially with reference to paragraph two which clearly is
untrue.
As owners of this and contiguous property for over 23 years, I'm sure
we cannot be classified as fly-by-night speculators not interested in the
orderly development of that area.
Thank you for your consideration in the past and we hope we may ex-
plain the underlying motive of the letter you received from Joe Suit.
IV
Yours very truly,
-._ Ai- __
Irving Herris
Attorney at Law
IH:ck
cc: Joe Suit
Helen Suit
Albert H. Kahn
21
Nick Suit informed the Board that the owners of
Homewood Subdivision are in agreement with the Land Use Pian
designation of LD -1, but would like to suggest that the area
to the south and west be made a buffer zone allowing one
house per 2-1/2 acres and then gradually receding to the one
house per five acres called for by the Agricultural designa-
tion. They feel this would be a better situation than
having a home built on five acres adjoining one built on a
lot. Mr. Suit reiterated that this is just a suggestion,
and they do feel the area as it is laid out now is
sufficient.
Mr. Challacombe reported that staff's recommendation,
and he believed it is also the recommendation by people in
the Fellsmere area, is that all of Homewood Subdivision be
lowered to the RR -1 designation. He noted that the City of
Fellsmere indicated they couldn't provide the services that
would be required at the LD -1 level given the existing tax
base.
Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, staff's
recommendation is to make the yellow area blue, and Mr.
Challacombe agreed.
Nick Suit believed there was a misinterpretation by the
City of Fellsmere as to the development plans under the
LD -1, and after discussion re ingress and egress to the
Homewood Subdivision, he believed the City is now willing to
let it stay.at LD -1.
Mr. Challacombe -suggested that we should determine
exactly what the City of Fellsmere does want.
Alvin Thomas, Interim Mayor of Fellsmere, concurred
with Nick Suit, that the letter from former Mayor Joe Suit
was a misinterpretation that all this property including
Homewood would be LD -1. If this were so and there were
1,080 homes, the City could not afford to provide services, -
which was the reason the letter was written as it was. Mr.
22 Bum 50rh
-JUL 27 1982
JUL 2 7 198 a � �
Thomas believed that leaving Homewood Subdivision LD -1 and
having a buffer of RR -1 would be in the best interests of
the City of Fellsmere, as stated in his letter.
Irving Herris of Coral Gables, a part of the group
which owns a major .part of the subject property, next came
before the Board. Mr. Herris noted that when he attended
the last meeting in Sebastian re the Land Use Plan, he had
believed this was all finalized at that time. He explained
}
that since they considered the City of Fellsmere a
population node, they felt the logical thing would be for
the density to decline as it moved outward and go from LD -1
to RR and then to Agricultural, consistent with the way it
is done in other area. He continued that this was planned,
but was emasculated at the Sebastian hearing. Mr. Herris
then talked about personal problems between himself and Joe
Suit and informed the Board that Mr. Suit made incorrect
statements in his letter since according to him there would
be 15 streets cutting through Homewood and that would be
impossible unless they built 15 culverts over Ditch 18. Mr.
Herris reported that they do -plan some development in the
near future, but there is no tremendous surge in demand for
land use there. He felt based on the Land Use Plan, the
major factor to be considered is consistency.
Discussion then ensued as to whether Homewood
Subdivision is actually subdivided, and Mr. Herris stated
that it was subdivided back in 1924 into lots about 2/3 of
an acre in size, but he did not know if it was recorded.
Zoning Director Walker stated that Homewood Subdivision
is unrecorded, and the plat shows the lots as being 2-1/2
acres each.
Mr. Herris stated that he only knows what they bought
and are paying taxes on, which are basically 2/3 acre lots.
Discussion continued as to the total acreage involved,
23
and Mr. Herris stated some of it is in fish farms so that
actually about 300 acres are involved.
Discussion continued re the staff recommendation of
RR -1 for all of Homewood Subdivision.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher to accept
staff's recommendation of RR -1 for Homewood Subdivision.
The Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Challacombe explained that staff recommended RR -1,
or 1 unit per 2h acres, to coincide with the lot size. He
noted that there are no demand pressures in this area, and
there was concern expressed by the City of Fellsmere and the
people who came to the previous meeting.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that the City of Fellsmere
requested the change, but it now appears that they have
I
withdrawn that request and have basically said they would
like to consider extending RR -1 below Homewood Subdivision.
In further discussion, it was generally agreed that
there was some confusion as to what the City of Fellsmere
actually wanted.
Chairman Scurlock commented that at the meeting held in
Sebastian we came up with the concept of.the LD -1 just as it
appears on the map and the majority of the people seemed to
be happy with this; now it appears that we have some sort of
internal feud going, however.
Mr. Challacombe pointed out that whether we designated
this property RR -1 or LD -1, it is now zoned Agricultural and
to come in with a higher density would require a rezoning
request.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to make no change in
the designation in which Homewood Subdivision is
included on the Land Use Map at this time.
24 Roof
J U L 2 7 1982
J U L 2 71982
50 PAU 1
Commissioner Lyons stressed that all this was discussed
at the meeting held in Sebastian when a goodly number of
area residents were present, and he did not believe we have
enough of a showing here tonight to make a change of the
magnitude requested.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that while he felt the
transition suggested would be an improvement, he also would
not in favor of making a major change at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposi-
tion.
ITEM #5 - COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION IN FELLSMERE AREA
- HEARNDON AND ROYALS
Mrs. Susan Hearndon reported that when she and her
husband bought their property nine years ago, it was zoned
commercial, and it is now designated RR -1. They want to
open up a feed and western wear store on their property, and
they feel there should be a neighborhood node in this area.
Planning Manager Challacombe reported that staff went
out to the site and got commercial acreage calculations for
Fellsmere. A map of Fellsmere was displayed showing the
commercial acreage. The Hearndon property is located out-
side the City limits on a dirt road, and there are no public
water and sewer facilities in the area. There are no
existing retail commercial uses, and staff could not justify
commercial in this area.
In discussion it was noted that there are 13 mobile
homes in this area. Mr. Challacombe reported these are
relatively permanent type residents, not transients, and
these.are archaic type trailers. The area is currently
zoned commercial.
25
Mrs. Hearndon informed the Board that -she had been
given to understand that they could have retail sales in an
agricultural zone.
Zoning Director Walker stated that, although the sale
of such things as saddles, spurs, etc., would be allowed, it
has been determined that selling western clothing cannot be
defined as agriculturally oriented.
Helen Moss, Fellsmere resident for 22 years, felt the
real question at hand is where to put the commercial
property, and if it is located on 512, there is already a
node at the I-95 intersection two miles away. Miss Moss
pointed out that all the roads in Fellsmere, except for the
main street, are dirt roads. She felt a western wear and
feed store would benefit the community. Miss Moss continued
r
that she would like to see the Hearndons keep their
commercial zoning, and she believed there is sufficient
acreage for a neighborhood node.
Attorney Brandenburg explained the procedure that would
have to be followed in asking for a neighborhood node
whereby the Hearndons would have to submit a site plan and
then the Board would make a determination of whether this is
a good location for such a node. He noted that this comes
under the Zoning Code and not the Land Use Plan and is not
within the scope of tonight's hearing.
The Board agreed that no action could be taken on this
matter tonight.
Mr. Challacombe -mentioned that a letter had been
received from the Royals, owners of the trailer park in the
subject area, authorizing the Hearndons to speak in their
behalf.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Royals' existing
trailer park would be considered as a part of a neighborhood
node, and Mr. Challacombe believed trailers are not included
26 E490K 50 ?4E 7114
J U L 2'7 1982
J U L 2 71982
in the definition of a commercial node - only actual
commercial uses.
FRANK WILSON
Planning Manager Challacombe reported that Mr. Wilson,
who owns 1.7 right behind the Hearndon property, has written
a letter asking that he be informed just what use he can
make of his property. This property is zoned commercial
presently and is designated on the Land Use Plan as RR -1.
Mr. Challacombe stated that if Mr. Wilson comes in with a
site plan, it will be forwarded to site plan review and then
to the County Commission.
A lady in the audience reported that Mr. Wilson wants
to sell the property, but he can't sell it if he doesn't
know whether or not it is commercial.
Community Development Director King believed Mr.
Wilson's question mainly related to whether a residential
structure would be permitted on his property since it does
not meet the acreage requirements of RR -1. He felt Mr.
Wilson would be able to put at least one structure on that
property and stated that he will write Mr. Wilson a letter
to that effect and have the Attorney review it.
ITEM #6 - COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION IN THE SR 60 AND 43RD
AVENUE AREA
Peter Beuttell came before the Board in regard to the
following letter, and noted that although the property in
question is presently zoned C-1 commercial and this
historically has been a commercial area, the new node does
not include this property.
27
tune 291 1982
;r'r. rt C -h ' =cc-
�'lanninc� Sect.
Soard of County Corrissione:s
!S4C 25�-h Street
Vero Ee_ch, Florid= 32960
Dear Mr. Ch=lacomb L.Board of County Commiosioners,
,s Ouner of Lot 22, Fineuood Subdivision, Section 4, Range 33
East, Tounship 39 South, I respectfully request that the area
West of 43rd Avenue to Uinn Dixie"s best property line and
north from 19th Street to Route 60 be redesignated under the
Comprehensive Land Use Flan from LD -2 to Commercial.
r
The domnercial charccter.of the area has been established
for a very long tine as evidenced by the --following businesses:
1. Winn Dixie Surer Market 6.- Dan "s Hoffbrau Haus
2. Eckerd Druo Store 7. Cumberland Farms
3. Mikes Fin:: B. Denis Scaroinato, D.V.f•''.
4. Freds-Texaco 9., Indian River Faint & Harduare
5. Lennies Fackr.ge & Lounge 10. Boog-N-Betts, Inc.
I thank you for your considerrAion in this matter.
Richard C. 9euttell, Sr.
Considerable discussion followed on the 10.55 acres of
existing commercial Ase, plus the commercial acreage
recently added by First Bankers and Ed Schlitt, and the fact
that the idea of placing a node at the Kings Highway
intersection is being vacated.
Mr. Challacombe reported that staff is recommending
adding 50 acres to the existing 90 acre node, which would
add potential at the Kings Highway intersection. He
explained the basis for this recommendation is that staff
28 50l FAG- 715 .
J U L 2 71982
I�
50
JUL 27 1982
regarded the commercial designation of the two major
rezonings recently approved by the Board in this area as a
.policy statement.
In further discussion, it was generally agreed there is
a need, and Mrs. Eggert reported that the Planning.& Zoning
Commission concurred with staff's recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
accepted the staff recommendation to add 50
acres to the existing 90 acre Commercial Node
at SR 60 and 43rd Avenue.
ITEM #8 - LAND USE DESIGNATION PARCEL ON SOUTH SIDE OF
HOBART ROAD AND 39TH AVENUE
The following letters were submitted:
s
N7
l
✓ V BEACi+ TAr)RAVd_ P 3-2C (305)23 •. _1
REckQ.. ESTATE 3206 CARDINAL Cui'v:= �"ERC BE C-1. FLORIDA 329' J -J':5
Julv 14, 1932
Comsunity Development Dept.
Indian River County
Administration Bldg.
18-40 25th Street
`aero Beach, Fl. 32960
Gentlemen:
This is a request for the Community Development Depart-nent to _
review the Land Use*Plan currently placed on the property
described in the attached material:
'IN of N=2 of NE-4of NW; of Section 3, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East;: -NZ of U.S. lot 4 of Section 34, Township
31 South, Range 39 East;" -The Nz of the N2 of Government
Lot 1, -Section 3, Township•32 South, Range 39 East; all
said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida:
We ask to be given preference on the July 27th Meeting. We
attended the July 13th session but time ran out. We signed
applications on arrival.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
k
Truly Yours,
� .I R /'.moi• ��l-.moi .�� ..
Ada E. Miner
Realtor/Associate
AE?4/a b _
_ enc:
cc: Rene VandeVoorde, Attorney
Roger Staley
Carolyn Eggert, Planning b Zoning Commission
Don Scurlock, Chairman County Commissioners
RE ALICi� �L$ �o,iloe,iol Cow•'w�.aiol AuoeQ• WfCowdo-ialwon$
JUL 2'7 1982 30 ��K 50 P�v, i
J
J U L 2 7 1982
0 �E �.
RE: Master Plan Change
PROPERTY:
Van Cortland Corporation
U. S. #1 South of Hobart Landing
I•
Orignial Zoning - R-3 and Cl -A
Allowed: 6 Single Residence per Acre
8 Duplex per Acre
15 Multi per Acre
II.
Suggested: L.D. 2 L. D. 1 _-
RR -2
MPZ Allowing: 6 3."
1
III•
Owner desires Clarification:
.
Property split after almost 10 years of ownership.
Why was line drawn on East side of U.S. 1
dividing
property.into LD2 and LD1 when topography
is identical.
Groves begin South.
This line was not exercised on West side.
Owner is out
of the country but has Florida attorney.
There is
a
contract on this property contingent upon
zoning.
Therefore,
it's imperative we.have an answer soon!
IV.
Purchaser wants Clarification: Can he build 200
Units
East of
Route 1?
V.
l
This has been in limbo for 1:2 years and after
numerous
meetings
with City and Zoning and Planning Officials no
one has
given us
a workable answer.
VI.
What are the boundaries outlines of the Industrial Node
suggested?
Should this not be West of the RR only?
Will any Commercial remain?
Ms. Ada Miner came before the Board representing the
owner, the Van Cortland Corporation, and stated that
actually many owners are involved. This land was original
zoned R-3 and C -1A. Hobart is to the north and the property
goes to the river. She stated she was.speaking about the
piece on the east which was divided into LD -1 and LD -2 on
the Section line, the LD -2 being to the north, and the LD -1
to the south.
31
Chairman Scurlock noted that the higher density abuts
Hobart Road.
Ms. Miner stated that a portion of it does and the
other portion is Mr. Wilson's property on which she believed
a site plan has just been approved for multiple units. She
stressed the problem is that this land was divided on the
section line, and the owner is requesting that the LD -1 be
redesignated LD -2 so the entire parcel can be developed
under the LD -2 designation.
Mr. Challacombe reported that staff does not recommend
any change. He pointed out that we have the right-of-way
for Hobart road, as well as the section line, separating
this property currently. Hobart Landing is to the north,
but as you go south, there really isn't any development,
r
which is one of the reasons for the LD -1. He felt if we
allow the extension of LD -2 south, there will be more
requests to keep on moving it further south.
Commissioner Bird asked if a developer can average
densities when a line bisects his property.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that State Law says very
plainly that you cannot issue a development order contrary
to your Plan. The Zoning Code says the majority of the
zoning on the property will apply to the entire parcel, but
you don't have anything like that in the Land Use Plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani-
mously denied the request for the change in
designation requested by the Van Cortland
Corporation on their property on the east of
U.S.1.
Mrs. Miner informed the Board that the remainder of -
this property was zoned Commercial and it today sits in an
32
JUL 2 71982 50 Feu.
r 1
J U L 2 71982
industrial node. She wished to know what can be done with
this property.
Mr. Challacombe stated that basically at the last
meeting staff recommended that this 50 acre Industrial Node
be changed to an Industrial/Commercial node with the idea
that the industrial would be on the west and the commercial
on the eastern portion.
Mrs. Eggert informed the Board that the Planning &
Zoning Commission agreed with the above recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
agreed that the 50 acre Industrial Node on
U.S. 1 south of Hobart Road be changed to an
Industrial/Commercial node with the industrial
portion being on the west of U.S.1 and the
commercial portion on the east.
ITEM #9 -LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PARCEL ON ROSELAND ROAD -
DENNY HENDRY
I
Denny Hendry, Pastor of Roseland Gardens Community
Church, spoke to the Board of his dream and belief that he
had been given a mission to establish a spiritual cultural
center in Roseland. He spoke in detail of his plans for
building 2 -story, 8 unit apartments at Roseland Gardens to
provide homes for the retarded, among others, and noted this
would be prevented by the Land Use Plan designation of LD -1.
Pastor Hendry pleaded that the Commission not kill people's
ambitions by being too hasty.
In the following discussion it was noted that an LD -1
designation allows 3 units per acre and LD -2 allows 6.
Pastor Hendry stated that he would like to have zoning
similar to Vista Royale, but he would settle for LD -2.
33
N
Planning Manager Challacombe stated that the staff
could not recommend a change of designation.
Commissioner Lyons noted that the Commission previously
had a pretty full discussion of this area with a large
contingent of people from the Roseland area, and the LD -1
was what the majority supported.
Pastor Hendry stated that he has owned property in
Roseland since 1949 and has never been invited to be part of
the Roseland Property Owners Association. He believed that
they do not represent the people, and he felt he could raise
a much larger group to support his request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner
Wodtke voting in opposition, the Board
by a 4 to 1 vote, accepted the staff's rec-
ommendation and made no change in the
designation of LD -1 for the Hendry property.
#10 - REQUEST TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF WEONA PARK
SUBDIVISION FOR COMMERCIAL USE
Planning Manager Challacombe read the following letter
from the Pastor and Chairman of the Board of Directors of
First Baptist Church, Wabasso:
JUL 2 1982 34
5o, Jc 79-o
r 1
.JUL 2 71982 K 50P� 2
N O. BOX 1.45 WABA55o. FLORIDA 3297)
TELE- 589.5256
July 13, 1932
Nr. Dewey Walker, County Zoning Manager
& The County Zoning Board
Gentlemen:
It is nun understanding that the—property described belo:_a is ten-
tatively slated for change in zoning status from commercial to
residential under the new comprehensive plan.
This property is presently owned by the First Baptist Church of
Wabasso and is up for sale. *We have made some commitments related
to the sale of this property in light of its value as commercial
property. We would wish, therefore,that the zoning status remain
commercial.
The property is described as:
North 116 feet of tract B lying adjacent to Lot 1, Block 6,
Weona Park Subdivision and all of Lot 1, Block 6, Ueona Park
Subdivision.
A/K/A: Bridge Boulevard, Wabasso
We are unable to attend the zoning hearing tonight due to prior
commitments• But we wish to register our position with you by
means of this letter.
• ,Sincerely yours,
Stan Sanford, Pastor
�+ 7
C �2 _�
Albert E. Patterson,
Chairman, Board of Directors
Mr. Challacombe reported that basically we have a 150
acre commercial and industrial node in this area and if
these gentlemen come in with a site plan, their request can
be addressed at that time.
ON MOTION.by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed that no action be taken at this time on
the above request.
35
SCHEDULING OF THIRD C.L.U.P. HEARING
Discussion ensued as to continuing tonight's public
hearing. The Planning staff reported on the letters and
elements remaining to be covered, and discussion continued
as to the best time and date. August 19th at 7:00 P.M. was
suggested, but several Commissioner could not be present.
The possibility of considering adoption of the ordinance on
August 24th and having an interim meeting was brought up.
Attorney Brandenburg reported on the cost of the ads
involved and noted that if the adoption of the ordinance
were to be considered separately from the Land Use Plan
hearing, it would be necessary to run separate ads for each
aspect at a considerably greater expense.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed'to
I
advertise the next C.L.U.P. hearing and intent to adopt
ordinance for Tuesday, August 10, 1982, at 6:00 o'clock P.M.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board of County Commissioner
adjourned at 10:30 o'clock P.M.
Attest:
'J" 0), &A
Clerk
Chairman ---
3 6 50 F'at;[ 72
J U L 2'71982