Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/10/1982Tuesday, August 10, 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, August 10, 1982, at 6:00 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, Acting County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. The hour of 6:00 P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER-. STATE OF FLORIDA Before the .,n:ters:g• rity persona!!y appeared J. J Schumann, Jr who sn nath sass that t -e is Business klaoaa-< t',e Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper Published at %-.-o Bea._h in indidn River .)uoty, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in tt-e •. a*ter if —___.._in the _ Court, was pub- lisped in said ne,tspaprr in 'he issues of s�-�---�*-4 1-9 Affiant further _ays that c"c >,s,d Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, ,n .j 'r,d :,: R -er County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore bren continuous o!ij-;e-j d ndian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second ciass rr matter at rI,e ;: ,t office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of :me yeer r-?xl the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and ai`+ar;t furtr. : .0 at he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate. _::nimission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the sa,<: newspaper. Sworn r.; and Nub, riued ��' %SEAQ of the Circuit 1 day fJ s nness Manager) ,_1njiian River County, Florida) Sam 50 �Aa 87 AUG 101992 Box 5.0 fA-UE 875, AG LAND USE MAP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AG . ..+ �b� .3•yy-bi y.e r} 1 .ENV8aKN&4TAL AREAS EAST OF 1 95 I ARE RR,1 -ENVIRDhOMENTAL AREAS WEST OF 195 i AG ARE AG , 1 a? K NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND sUSE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to regulate the use of kind within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. t ,1982. at b:00 P.M. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, August 10 at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florioa. All interested individuals are invited to attend and comment on the proposal. Consideration will be given to all requested amendments to the following elements of the proposed Comprehensive Plan { w` • land Use • Transportation • Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection • Housing t • Recreation • Sewer, Water, Drainage and Solid Waste • Utilities (Electric) f• Intergovernmental Coordination i NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE The County Commission shall also consider adoption of an ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I* DIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-1 AND ADOP- TING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ! "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975", . AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 163.3161, ET. SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, FRO• VIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURPOSE, VESTED RIGHTS, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. SERVERABILITY AND EFFEC- TIVE DATES s: Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance are available at the Indian River County Community Development Department located in Suite S -241B at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, at a cost of $15.00. I an decision made on the above mcners, he a► she will If any penin decides to oppeaY need o record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he or she moy need to insure that ea�c: n AG LD1 9 p B 2 b. .. -- JANUARY 6, 1981 a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. which record includes the testimony In evidence of which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners BY: Doug C. Scurlock, Chairman of The Board of County Commissioners THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future Land Use Map is an intregral part of the Land Use Element of the Com- prehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future land use patterns for the next twenty years. These activity patterns include residential uses, com- mercial uses, industrial uses, institutional uses, open space preservation areas, agricultural uses, and areas with a mixture of uses. Urban residential land use districts are shown an the map by four population density classifications. These are designated as: Low Density i (LD -1) - to 3 units/acre . Low Density 2 (LD -2) - to 6 units/acre .Medium Density 1 (MD -1) - to 8 units/acre Medium Density 2 (MD -2) - to to units/acre Rural and Agricultural districts are 'shown on the map by three population density classifications. These are designated as: Agricultural (AG) - 5 acres/unit Rural -Residential (RR -1) - 2.5 acres/unit Rural -Residential (112-2) - I acre/unit Three areas within the County have developed a historical mixture of residential, com- mercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been classified as mixed-use districts - Within the boundaries of these districts, the existing variety of uses would be accom- 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 or nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node specified a general activity or ac- tivities that may be expected to develop within the next twenty years. The proposed Future Land Use Map also designates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands. 2 AUGUST 3. 1982 •' LD1 -----• yes % KC13E LCCATX"_ OHOFg Ti 03VAErx:AL LD1 L •a�o�G*taco Di LD2LL. , �rn�Trruy r Dm \'°RMW w ENVRDr1�£NTAL y CD2' swjsrNE naEAe- ^' MXEO USE SEBASRM ../v::�s%i. u.s, CgvT/f� D2 D a tssracT D D t •�+. LD2 R Di SHOMS i' LD2 AG - _L ......_ T Y, • 1 . D2 Vista _;L = a? K NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND sUSE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to regulate the use of kind within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. t ,1982. at b:00 P.M. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, August 10 at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florioa. All interested individuals are invited to attend and comment on the proposal. Consideration will be given to all requested amendments to the following elements of the proposed Comprehensive Plan { w` • land Use • Transportation • Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection • Housing t • Recreation • Sewer, Water, Drainage and Solid Waste • Utilities (Electric) f• Intergovernmental Coordination i NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE The County Commission shall also consider adoption of an ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I* DIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-1 AND ADOP- TING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ! "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975", . AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 163.3161, ET. SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, FRO• VIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURPOSE, VESTED RIGHTS, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. SERVERABILITY AND EFFEC- TIVE DATES s: Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance are available at the Indian River County Community Development Department located in Suite S -241B at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, at a cost of $15.00. I an decision made on the above mcners, he a► she will If any penin decides to oppeaY need o record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he or she moy need to insure that ea�c: n AG LD1 9 p B 2 b. .. -- JANUARY 6, 1981 a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. which record includes the testimony In evidence of which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners BY: Doug C. Scurlock, Chairman of The Board of County Commissioners THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future Land Use Map is an intregral part of the Land Use Element of the Com- prehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future land use patterns for the next twenty years. These activity patterns include residential uses, com- mercial uses, industrial uses, institutional uses, open space preservation areas, agricultural uses, and areas with a mixture of uses. Urban residential land use districts are shown an the map by four population density classifications. These are designated as: Low Density i (LD -1) - to 3 units/acre . Low Density 2 (LD -2) - to 6 units/acre .Medium Density 1 (MD -1) - to 8 units/acre Medium Density 2 (MD -2) - to to units/acre Rural and Agricultural districts are 'shown on the map by three population density classifications. These are designated as: Agricultural (AG) - 5 acres/unit Rural -Residential (RR -1) - 2.5 acres/unit Rural -Residential (112-2) - I acre/unit Three areas within the County have developed a historical mixture of residential, com- mercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been classified as mixed-use districts - Within the boundaries of these districts, the existing variety of uses would be accom- 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 or nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node specified a general activity or ac- tivities that may be expected to develop within the next twenty years. The proposed Future Land Use Map also designates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands. 2 AUGUST 3. 1982 J ITEM #1 - THOSE WHO REQUESTED TO SPEAK AT THE JULY 27th MEETING Planning Manager Challacombe called out the following names: William D. Hoyt Robert D. Knight Robert H. Laber Ann McNichol M & G.Building David Cairn. Ed Herder Not Present Not Present Not Present, but represented by Ms. Miner at last meeting. Not Present On agenda On agenda On agenda ITEM #2 - SALLYDALE WIMBROW (David Cairns) Attorney David Cairns came before the Board repre- senting Sallydale Wimbrow, owner of a 2 acre commercially zoned parcel on North U.S.1 across the street from the entrance to Sebastian Highlands, on which property Ms. Wimbrow's father some -years ago published the Indian River News. In the past there was no urgency to develop since U.S.1 frontage historically was used for commercial purposes; now, however, it is shown on the'Land Use Map as LD -2. Attorney Cairns informed the Board that he advised Ms. Wimbrow to go ahead and get a site plan, but she is not financially able to do so at this time; therefore, he is representing her in an effort to preserve the present commercial zoning. Attorney Cairns emphasized that Ms. Wimbrow's property is surrounded by commercial uses and brought up the possibility of a neighborhood node. Planning Manager Challacombe stated that staff feels this is an excellent location for a neighborhood node, primarily because it is across from the main entrance to Sebastian Highlands. Right now we have 6.1 acres in this area committed through site plan; so, there is still room to develop under the neighborhood concept, and as demand shows a neighborhood node is no longer advisable, this Commission could expand -the neighborhood node to a full fledged node. Mr. Challacombe explained that the concept of the Plan is 3 AUG 101982 : aoK .0 Apt . AUG 101992 x .50 877 that when the demand is there, the neighborhood node would grow into a larger node that would be shown on the map; the floorings node, for instance, is now at 10 acres, and he believed this could be the same situation in time. Attorney Cairns observed that the subject property has been used for commercial purposes at various times over the years, but he could not find anything in the Plan to address this. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if there is not a current use at the time of adoption or.a site plan adopted, it would not be allowed; it must be an on-going commercial use. Considerable discussion ensued as to the commercial property already in this area and the proposed commercial development, and as to leaving Ms. Wimbrow's property as it is. It was noted that while there can be no guarantee at this time, the prospects for this property remaining commercial are good since, when it comes to rezoning in conformance with the Land Use Plan, both staff and the Board have indicated they would be in agreement with the in -filling concept for a neighborhood node in this area and with considering the need for a larger node as the demand presents itself. ITEM #3 - MARJORIE MATTSON (George Guccione, Agent) Planning Manager Challacombe read the following letter received from M&G BUilding: 4 M & i 3U I LD I N s , 1982 161 Churhi l l i1ve . Satellite 3each, F1 32937 July 20,1982 3ruce Kin; Community Develonement Department 1840 -25th Street Hero Beech, Florida 32960 Subject: Rezoning 5 -acre agricultural Tract. Mrs Mattson (owner of property) and myself have recently atteneed your public hearinal meeting on July 13th for the sole purpose of rezoning a five acre agricultural tract to a zoning that will allow two houses on that tract. (lot) Marjorie Mattson (a single Parent) would. like the. second house for her children who presently live all over the country, to be able to stay on her land where they come down to visit with her. We (Representatives, from M&G Building) would like to be heard on July 27th, on behalf of Pers. Mattson, at your public hearing to state this request before the board. The description 'of property is as follows: The south 330 feet of the north 990 feet of the west half of the following described nroperty; " The west half of the north west quarter of section 28, township 31 south range 38 east, less pine lake estates subdivision, unit one, an unrecorded subdivision as shown in official record book 121, nage 141, public records of *Indian River County, Florida, cont- aining 5.01 acres, more or less." Enclosed is cony of survey report with intended land use for descibed nronerty. Thank you s�o much for your time in considering this request. We hone to see you at the meeting. Si erely, George Guccione owner, M&G Building Mr. Challacombe stated that basically the parcel in question conforms to the Land Use Plan. It is zoned Agricultural; however, it is not in an LD -1 classification. They are asking if they can have two houses on one tract of land which is the same situation as in the recent Cooper rezoning request. The densities are in conformance; it is the type of zoning that is in question. He did not believe at this,point the Land Use Plan can affect them one way or AUG 101992 5oK 50 .,_� 878 AUG 101992 ,x 50 = b€ 819 another, but we do have a current Zoning Ordinance that says you can only have one residence per parcel. Discussion followed as to the fact that it would be necessary for Mrs. Mattson to have a survey and divide her property.in half in order to build a second house on this property. The Chairman instructed the Planning staff to contact Mrs. Mattson and advise her how to accomplish her purpose. ITEM #4 - TOM AND JOYCE GEMBERLING (Art Neuberger) Art Neuberger, a real estate broker with Florida Home Finders, came before the Board representing the Gemberlings, as set out in the following letter: Ali Community D"Vekpment <; W 1 t�dR`° .MC. 34f Department 2055 S.B. U.S. 01 ® Suite B ® Vero Beach, Florida 32960 9 Z 0 9 . 305/567-0300 July 19, 1982 Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River -Co. 1840 25th Street, Suite N.158 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Gentlemen: In the interest of Tom and Joceleyne Gemberling who are the owners of 211147th Street, legal description being: From NE cornu of SE4.of SW -I,., run W 505 ft, S 25 ft.to P.O.B. S 250 ft, W 105 ft, N 20) -ft, W 110 ft, N 230 ft, E 215 ft to P.O:B.,.as R Bk 94 PP 513 & R Bk 31, PP 424 less S 20 ft of E 105 Ft. As shown on the enclosed map, which is.presently zoned C-1 but which.is on the CLUP as MD -1, I would like to show reasons why the subject property should remain C-1. 1. Itis currently commercial and the owners have made plans accordingly.CP. 2. It adjoins commercial property on U.S. #1 already developed with an established business. 6 3. It is in the proximity of other commercial properties. 4. It is next to a drinking establishment and entertainment center which renders it less desirable for family living than for business use. Please make this information available at the meeting scheduled for July 27, 1982. Sincerely, Arthur R. Neuberger' Mr. Neuberger emphasized that although this property is bordered on two sides by groves, Rural Electric has built a warehouse on neighboring property and there are more warehouses in the area, as well as Sturgis Lumber Company; in addition, it is located near Mr'. Miller's Bar in the Gifford area and is right behind the TimberSteel Building. Planning Manager Challacombe noted that there is a fifty acre industrial node on North Gifford Road, and if it were stretched out to its maximum, it would go from 47th Street to 41st, which would include the subject property. He stated that 47th Street provides an excellent buffer for commercial uses. Mr. Gemberling pointed out that the Land Use Map doesn't seem to include anything in relation to what now exists in this area. He felt that to change his property to MD -1 would be a drastic change since there are a lot of existing commercial uses in proximity to his property. Mr. Gemberling stated that he would prefer to have his property remain commercial because he believed the MD -1 would limit him in disposing of it. Discussion ensued as to the fact that there are both heavy industrial and commercial uses in this area and as to whether it might not be advisable to make this an industrial/commercial node. Commissioner Lyons felt that the present node is flexible enough to take care of Mr. 7 AUG0 1982 ao� 50 tin 8 AUG 101992 wK 50 wc� 8SI Gemberling's situation and that to change the designation at this time would be a major thing and affect a lot of people. Question arose as to the consequences of having commercial property in a strictly industrial node, and Mr. Challacombe felt Mr. Gemberling would have to come in for a rezoning from C-lA to industrial. Commissioner Bird felt we should change the node to an industrial/commercial node because of the present mixed development in this area. He believed if we were changing from industrial just to commercial or vice versa, it might be a problem, but that to change it to industrial/commercial would not adversely affect any property owners. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to change the 50 acre ,,Industrial Node in the Gifford area to an Industrial/Commercial Node. Discussion continued as to the present mix of uses in this district, and it was pointed out that if the node remains all industrial, it will restrict everything east of U.S.1, where there is a good deal of existing commercial, to industrial. Commissioner Lyons commented that he now had been convinced that by making the node Industrial/Commercial, we would be making it better for the people. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 MR. & MRS. MOSCHEL (Margaret Mann Blanton) Planning Manager Challacombe read the following letter from Attorney Margaret Blanton of the firm of Samuel A. Block: 8 I . 1 ,. SAM UF -L A. E1-0CK 2140 10TH AVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960 SAMUEL A. BLOCK PATRICIA BOWER BLOCK MARGARET MANN BLANTON July 22, 1982 Planning and Zonig,g of Indian River County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Floria,a 32960 Attn: Arthur Challacombe RE: The South 250; of the North 250; of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 15- 32- 39 lying East of L*IS Hwy No., said landing lying being in Indian Riv61r County, Florida. Mark,etplace - currently owner by Willard Hoyt Dear Mr. Challaco-abbe, TELEPHONE (305) 562-1600 9 LL This firm represents the interests of Mr. and Mrs. Moschel who have a contract tc. purchase the above referenced property. This contract is made contingent upon verification that the property is, in fact, going to be rezoned to Qommercial property. We would appreciate a verification to us in writing that, in fact, this property is part of a Commercial Node that is to be developed in this area. We would also request that you provide us with a date that such rezoning will take place and the limitations, if any, there will be upon this particular property. Very truly yours, r � r Margaret Mann Blanton It was noted that all the Board can do is tell her what a commercial node is and that while it seems very likely this property will be part of the node, this can only be determined through site plan application on a first come, first served basis. Discussion ensued as to making up a form letter to this effect. The Chairman instructed Planning Manager Challacombe to draft such a letter and have the Attorney 9 AUG 10 i9�2� 50 >��t895' AUG 101992 aox 50 %j 6S3 look at it, and to inform Mrs. Blanton that we cannot guarantee anything. ITEM #6 WILLIA.1 W. CALDWELL The Board considered the following letter from Mr. Caldwell: Cplli .s, Brown, Caldwell & Carter CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL D. BURCH • 1934 • 1976 GEORGE O. COLLIN& JR. CALVIN B. BROWN WILLIAM W. CALDWELL BURNEYA CARTER X Mr. Don Scurlock, Chairmen Board of County Commissif?ners Indian River County 1840 25th Street _. Vero Beach, Florida Dear Chairman Scurlock: Re: July 27th, 1982 Meeting Land Use Plan: LD -2 Designation of South U.S. #1 Property I am writing to you as Chairman.of the County Comanission to again ask that the County Commission designate property which L own on the east side of South U.S. #1 across ,From the entrance to Vero Highlands, as part of a commerical node, or alternately, depict.it on the map with comrexcial zoning. In that regard, I am enclosing a copy of my January 20, 1981 letter to then County Planner David Reever and its attachments, together with excerpts from a Special Meeting of the County Commission on October 5, 1981 indicating that the property would be included in the neighborhood comtttarcial node. From my reading of the language of the Plan, it appears that I would be able to obtain a neighborhood use, but if I interpret the Code correctly, it would have to be a minimum of two acres. My property ownership constitutes approximately 51000 square feet, or.approxinPately 1.2 acres. The attachments to my letter to Dave Reever shows my property and its relationship to surrounding property and uses. From a review of the Land Use Njap it appears that this inter- section which is one of the few, if not the only intersection in the County, on U.S. #1 where the intersecting street crosses the FEC tracks, that there is not an industrial, commercial or commrcial/industrial node. I appreciate the planning staff and the County Commission not wanting to mark up the map to reflect individual situations; however, with the existing uses abutting the west right of way of U.S. #1, the e-xisting comnarcial uses on the north and south of my boundaries and the mobile homes park on my east boundary, there is no other use but commercial; however, it seems that the working of the plan would require me, even though I am zoned commercial now, to somehow become a neighborhood commercial to comply'with that section and also somehow obtain an additional 3/4 of an acre to make the minimum neighborhood commercial node. If the intersection were; to be designated with a node, or if the map itself is recolored at this intersection to authorize commercial use, it would be 10 PLEASE REPLY TO: • O P.O. BOX 3696 744 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32560 305.231.4343 • - O P.O. BOX 266 NORTH U.S. NO.1 i. Jul 19, 1982 v,l i 221 Y '�C -, }�y 4 SEBASTIAN. FLORMA3M8 : 30S -S85-3156 .iUL +:.bS2 -+w- U' RECEIVED �::, In COITImurity �.; Y °1. DFVOio�ment �q ,- �i pepartment � , Re: July 27th, 1982 Meeting Land Use Plan: LD -2 Designation of South U.S. #1 Property I am writing to you as Chairman.of the County Comanission to again ask that the County Commission designate property which L own on the east side of South U.S. #1 across ,From the entrance to Vero Highlands, as part of a commerical node, or alternately, depict.it on the map with comrexcial zoning. In that regard, I am enclosing a copy of my January 20, 1981 letter to then County Planner David Reever and its attachments, together with excerpts from a Special Meeting of the County Commission on October 5, 1981 indicating that the property would be included in the neighborhood comtttarcial node. From my reading of the language of the Plan, it appears that I would be able to obtain a neighborhood use, but if I interpret the Code correctly, it would have to be a minimum of two acres. My property ownership constitutes approximately 51000 square feet, or.approxinPately 1.2 acres. The attachments to my letter to Dave Reever shows my property and its relationship to surrounding property and uses. From a review of the Land Use Njap it appears that this inter- section which is one of the few, if not the only intersection in the County, on U.S. #1 where the intersecting street crosses the FEC tracks, that there is not an industrial, commercial or commrcial/industrial node. I appreciate the planning staff and the County Commission not wanting to mark up the map to reflect individual situations; however, with the existing uses abutting the west right of way of U.S. #1, the e-xisting comnarcial uses on the north and south of my boundaries and the mobile homes park on my east boundary, there is no other use but commercial; however, it seems that the working of the plan would require me, even though I am zoned commercial now, to somehow become a neighborhood commercial to comply'with that section and also somehow obtain an additional 3/4 of an acre to make the minimum neighborhood commercial node. If the intersection were; to be designated with a node, or if the map itself is recolored at this intersection to authorize commercial use, it would be 10 77 logical, consistent with existing uses and zoning, contemplated uses and =.-eliminate the guess work of the potential use of the property. I realize that the staff and the County have given my request in this regard considerable tima and thought in the past, but in view of the Zoning Board's recommendation on Mr. Lowenstein's petition and others at the July 13th meeting, I decided to make one further attempt to have the matter resolved in a permanent manner at this time to allievate me and the County from having to address the issue at what I understand will be at least two other public hearings in order for me to know what I can construct on the property. Thank you for, any consideration given this matter. very truly yours, Attorney Caldwell came before the Board, urging the establishment of a commercial node in this area. Considerable discussion followed as to the -existing commercial uses in the area, and Planning Manager Challacombe believed this is an excellent location for a neighborhood node. Mr. Caldwell stated that he was in agreement with the neighborhood node concept, but did not feel it was very realistic to think of property along U.S.1 as a neighborhood type shopping center. He believed that such a node on U.S.1 might be different than one west of the railroad -tracks. Commissioner Wodtke felt Mr. Caldwell was saying that in a regular neighborhood node they might not allow filling stations. Commissioner Bird commented that we really haven't reached the point of allowing uses in a neighborhood node, and Mr. Challacombe stated that some adjustments will have to be made for existing uses. In further discussion, it was generally agreed that we may have to look somewhat differently at a node on U.S.1 than in a residential neighborhood and also generally agreed that there would be no way to use Mr. Caldwell's property 11 AUG 101982 50 884 L, AUG 101992 900x:' .50. WH 8S5 except as commercial. Discussion continued as to the fact that on the day of the final adoption of the plan all existing commercial uses can continue to exist and can retain their zoning, and if they have an approved site plan as of January 6th, even though the Land Use Plan does not designate Commercial, they are allowed to continue and build; the 60 day transition period, however, has already elapsed. ITEM #7 - MR. & MRS. ED HERDER - Roseland The Board reviewed the following letter: 13315 Bay St. Roseland, Fla. Indian River County Commissioners, On January 15th, 1979, we purchased 2 duplex lots, #12 & #13 in block 2 in Roseland Gardens. The closing and sale of these lots were contingent upon the seller furnishing a letter from the county zoning department stating that a duplex could be built on each of these lots. 1r ; ;' ,t q j A copy of said letter is attached. V. Since there is a duplex immediately opposite the said property on ���`"=1'�'•� �� Lot #14 -Block 3 and one diagonally across on Lot #1 -Block 4 and these lots are the same size as the ones in question, we feel that it would be in keeping with the area to request that we also be allowed the use of this property as allowed at the time of purchase. Thank you Mr. & Mrs. Ed Herder 12 January 15, 1979• TO'WHOM ST MAY CONCERN: This letter will verify that Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, Roseland Gardens are currently, zoned. R -3A (Multiple Family). r • The current ordinances, subject'to site plan approval, would allow five (5) residential units to be built on these lots after abandonment of -the utility easement. 4 J .1. Zoning Department "I Mrs. Herder came before the board and stressed that they are not requesting anything that is not already existing in the area, and they would like to retain that zoning. The letter she referred to was received from Zoning Director Dewey Walker and dated January 15, 1979. Planning Manager Challacombe confirmed that there are existing duplexes in Roseland Gardens, also single family, and quite a bit of vacant property. All of the surrounding area is zoned R-1, but at around 4.7 units per acre. Mr. Challacombe informed the Board that the subject subdivision is in the R -3A Retirement District, which permits a multitude of miscellaneous uses aimed at meeting the needs of the retired, elderly, disabled or dependent persons, including everything ranging from multi family and guest cottages to convalescent homes, home occupations, etc. Discussion arose as to the fact that this is an area which needs road work badly and the County does not maintain these roads. Mrs. Herder agreed that these roads are to be maintained by the property owners. 13 AUG 101982 ..o�K # 50, 4�cL AUG 101992x - 50 . ARM. Mr. Challacombe informed the Board that the average lot size is 10,400 sq. ft., and while this property has an LD -1 classification, it is erroneously shown as LD -2 on the map. Staff is recommending LD -2 with the proviso that when we get into administrative rezonings, we look at 4 units per acre for duplex as the maximum. He pointed out that given the surrounding land uses and the platted subdivision lots, single family will still go above that density. The R-1 to the south is 6.2. Discussion continued about the amount of land involved, which is approximately 15 acres, and it was noted that the Hendry property is located directly across the street. Mr. Challacombe repeated that staff recommends LD -2 for all this area shown as orange on the map and presently erroneously shown as LD -2. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to leave the LD -2 in the Roseland Gardens area LD -2 as shown on the Land Use Map. ITEM #8 - MRS. ELIZABETH H. MASON Planning Manager Challacombe reviewed the following letter from Mrs. Mason requesting that she be allowed to retain commercial zoning on her property'on the southwest corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue: 14 Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission Indian River County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: County: July 30,,, 82" - I am the owner of the following escrii)eu prOPcrry ill I11dlall 1�i dvei_ The North 5 acres of the Fast 10 acrcs of Tract i, Section 27, Township 33 South. Ran`,e 39 lust. This property is located oil the southwcSt corner of Oslo lZoad and 27th Avenue. My husband and I purchased this property in 1957, with X -0 - intention of holding it until we reached re- iremenr ago, at which time we would either construct a commercial buildillt; or builL;i, s fol' rental purposes, or lease the land for commercial dcvcloprllcnL - which was Lo supplement our income ill retiroment. We believed that future develop- ment in that area would warrant our oi iginal purchase of Jhe property alld tax maintenance of it through the years, and fulfill our long-range plan regarding ownership of this property. I realize I am "out of order" at this late date, to pro-csL the rezoaLL101 of this property under the Comprehensive: Land Use Pian, froln_comiperciai to LD -i; however, wanted to at least have Alis letter in your file.for possible future consideration. I have not been in a -position to hire appropriate professionals to assemble and present the requireu surveys, markei,ii r analysis anti pru- jections of the area, which I understand arc prerequisites to considcraliol: of making a possible change In the Laid 'U:sc Plan now being readied for final adoption. By the same token, it would appear that researcl. by YOUr Jpel liiil>;s would certainly reveal these facts. without the necessity o[ dupiical�o,, La,-, my part. By this, I mean chat it is apparent that it is inlpr-aclical :o siaer that my property would be uesirable, or salcabiL!, as 1*usidenl.a1 property with even the current development in the: area o: the corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue. At the present, a resici i1ce OCCUI)iCS 1110, Cot -11e1' Of tlli.� intersection which was built 011 c0111mCrCl;llly %0110;11',)I'0j)Ci'LV at tilai Li11-io, which was approximately 20 years ago; A Cunlbcr•Iand store exists On the northeast corner, and a trailQr park Oil L: -,C so"I iicast C01.11e1% 1111111ccliill-elV south of my property are aeveral vcr'y shall residt211Cc propertieS wllicll also have been there for many years. 11rin1edinr.:iy b0hii'10 nlV property is a farm - cow pasture, etc. - hardly conducive to 1-esidC111 nl develop- ment now. A large portion of Oslo 1Wad from U. S. No, 1. west. to and including the intersection of Oslo and 27tH Avenue, including propoigv o;1 west from 27tH Avenue on Oslo, prescilriv have COil111 CCCLII dLWe1 l)111ent and additional land in that area is now being incluLiC�u iii Cite NIX olliti;;, permitting commercial useage under the new T.arld Use flan. Portions of 27th Avenue near this intersection are currently being LISed tor" commcrcl;:i .purposes, Oslo Road is certainly no longer desirable for future rcsidential development and it's intersections are certainly suited only for commerci,ii: use. 15 K ��U'. AUG 101982 Gaon 50 IAGZ -9 All this would certainly curtail any possible use or sale of n,y lend as well as curtail any long-range plaits established by n;_y husband anti n.c years ago, of future development and/or leasQ. of the property upon our If, retirement, as an income supplcmeM to us in addition to Social Security. It appears entirely impracticable that this property should have been changed from commercial to LD -1, and it is my hope tilat YOU Will retain this 'letter in your files as evidence of my object ion , and my request for review and reconsideration of the future rezoning ofi tiii5 property, from a logical viewpoint, from L1)-1 to a category compatible with the surrounding area which is commercial use. Very truly yours, (Mrs Elizabeth H. Mason 11. O. Box 986 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 \ Tel: 305-562-1671 Mr. Challacombe agreed that this would be a good location for a neighborhood node; it would follow the same format discussed before. Commissioner Wodtke noted there is existing development on that intersection and asked if that would be counted in the node. Mr. Challacombe stated that should be included and they would work the node around that area. The Board agreed no action was necessary and instructed the Planning staff to notify Mrs. Mason of staff's feeling that this would be a good location for a node and that she should proceed to submit a site plan. Community Development Director Ring suggested possibly including a little center located to the east on Oslo Road, but the Board felt that was too far away to be included. OTHER LAND USE COMMENTS A. Hearndon Planning Manager Challacombe reported that the Board discussed the Hearndon property in Fellsmere atthe last meeting, but Mr. Hearndon wishes to be heard again. 16 Mr. Hearndon came before the Board and stated that at the July 13th meeting he was almost led to believe he would be able to open a western wear store; at the July 25th meeting, his wife was given information in regard to submitting a site plan; and he just now has learned that since the transition period has expired, he cannot do that. Mr. Hearndon informed the Board of his long family history in this area, his business problems since the freeze killed his plants, his desire to try to build a new business and give the people in the area something they need, and stated that he felt what is happening in unAmerican. Planning Manager Challacombe explained that Mr. Hearndon's principal wish was thought to be a feed store, which would be permitted under Agricultural zoning as an agriculturally oriented business, and it was, therefore, suggested that he rezone to agricultural. Now, however, it appears that he is talking about selling western wear, which is obviously a commercial use and would require that a neighborhood node be developed. Staff's position, based on the unpaved road and family structures, is that a neighborhood node is unfeasible at this time. There is an ample supply of commercial land in the City of Fellsmere and by establishing a neighborhood node, we would be competing with the tax base of the city. Staff feels this neighbor- hood simply is not ready for commercial use at this time. Commissioner Fletcher asked if staff is making a decision about the market for western pants and -shirts, and Mr. Challacombe stated that what staff is looking at is the commercial zoning, which really does not fit this area at this time. Considerable argument ensued as to what is included in agriculturally oriented uses, and Zoning Director Walker emphasized that the primary use must be agriculturally oriented; feed is agriculturally oriented and so are 17 AUG 101982 oK , f, z 0A q. pr - AUG 101982 i on ' ►At saddles, but then you go from there to spurs, boots, etc., and you are getting away from the primary use and into competition with the man downtown selling retail. The Board then discussed the ramifications of establishing a neighborhood node, and Mr. Challacombe pointed out that, according to the Plan, to establish a node you would have to do a study relating to urban development; they saw no evidence of urban development, and a trailer park is not really a commercial use. Commissioner Pletcher had a problem with the Planning Department doing a market study, and it was explained that the applicant is supposed to do the study. It was noted that part of the problem is that this is a unique situation involving property in a remote area of the county, and it does not relate to the more urbanized areas. The commercial zoning could present a problem in that the requirements are very restrictive and would include such things as landscaping, paved parking, etc. Also, if a neighborhood node were established, Mr. Hearndon would have to comply with site plan requirements, but if he does this on an agricultural basis, then it would be a permitted use. Mr. Hearndon asked why he should have to put up $100 to have the zoning changed when he didn't want it changed in the first place. It was explained that with the existing zoning, he could not have both his residence and his business. Commissioner Bird asked if it were Mr. Hearndon's intention to start out selling just the feed to see how it goes and then later consider adding western wear, and Mr. Hearndon stated that it was. Commissioner Bird felt possibly the answer is to rezone to Agricultural which would eliminate having to comply with all the restrictive requirements, and then if all goes well, W W Mr. Hearndon could come back at another time for rezoning to commercial. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Board can authorize the rezoning, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the Board can initiate rezonings. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff to proceed with the steps required for rezoning Mr. Hearndon's property to Agricultural. B. Solesby Attorney Daniel Kilbride came before the Board representing Mr. Solesby who owns property in Jennings Addition to Quay at the intersection -of North Winter Beach Road and U.S.1., which property has been zoned C-lA for years. Mr. Solesby was not aware of any problem with the Land Use Plan until he wanted to have a small beauty shop on the property, and now he is running into difficulties. Attorney Kilbride emphasized that this area is a mixture of industrial, every type of commercial, and some residential. The packing house and other commercial uses have been there for twenty years; it is actually a Mixed Use District, and he felt to convert it to LD -2 is inappropriate. He informed the Board that Mr. Solesby's neighbors have no objection to his plans for a beauty shop on his property. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Bird noted that we have been rather consistent in leaving the MXD designa- tion on the west of U.S.1. He felt a neighborhood node would be more appropriate and could be in -filled with what is already there. 19 J AUG 101982 4 Mr. Challacombe stated that staff does not have any particular recommendation. This is a difficult situation in that while Attorney Kilbride is correct about the mixture of uses; it is principally a residential subdivision even though it.is zoned commercial, and once a house goes down, the resident is unable to replace it. Mr. Challacombe tended to agree with Attorney Kilbride, even though we have been keeping MXD principally on the west side of the highway, that MXD would be appropriate for this area in order for the people to be able to protect existing uses. He continued that what they have done with the other Mixed Use areas is give them definitive boundaries, and he did not feel prepared to do that at this point, but would like to come back with a recommendation. In further discussion, it was noted that hopefully this matter could be resolved tonight so we could move along with the adoption of the plan. Commissioner Lyons noted that it seems the situation is no different whether this stays commercial zoning or MXD, and you take a look at the neighborhood when you rezone in any event. The Board agreed to recess at 7:45 P.M. while Mr. Challacombe and Attorney Kilbride reviewed this matter. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened with the same members present at 8:00 P.M Planning Manager Challacombe reported that he and Attorney Kilbride are in agreement as to a Mixed Use designation and the boundaries they are looking at are from the packing house working southward along and over the subdivision to the end of all existing commercial uses - south to 67th Street. This would include the eastern boundary of Jennings Addition to Quay which would take in some lots on the east side of 33rd. Mr. Challacombe emphasized that this is a unique situation, and the 20 recommendation is to extend a Mixed Use Boundary in the area just described and look at redevelopment in great detail. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to designate the area described as Jennings Addition to Quay Subdivision and the commercial/industrial property immediately to the north and south of it as MXD on the Land Use Map. C. Hendry Planning Manager Challacombe informed the Board that Reverend Hendry of Roseland, who was previously denied a Land Use Designation change, has submitted a letter to the Commission stating that it is his intent to have his property annexed into the City of Sebastian so he can do what he wants to do. We have also received a letter from Mary Jo Andrews supporting the Reverend's concept. Commissioner Lyons felt Reverend Hendry may be creating an enclave, and if that is so, stated that he would move to have the annexation nullified. D. Paul Koehler Planning Manager Challacombe reported that Commissioner Bird received a letter from Realtor Paul Koehler concerning market study and node performance standards, as follows: 21 -WK 50 pAu 894 AUG 101982 August; Z, 1982 0K 50 FACE 895 4, Mr. Dick Bird P.O. Box 507 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Bird," I have reviewed the written section of the Comprehensive Land Plan and find one section disturbs me as'a real estate investor and developer. The two items of.concern are on page 33 and deal directly with commercial centers and the nodes that they are within. In Section ;, it states All nodes shall be permitted to develop on a basis of service needs. An applicant shall provide information regarding the immediate market or need before a node mar be established through the zoning code. I feel this restricts free enterprise by having a governmental body determine Why a man should build a business and offer a service to the community. If an individual has thb feel and determination to be in business that is no concern to the county, city or Federal Government. He should not have to prove a need for his business or the development of his land. In Section 7, it states Co,,�Iercial centers within all nodes shall have 4.5 square feet of land area to every one square foot of building space whenever possible. Elsewhere in the code it states that for evary square foot of building it requires so much parking and dictates the landscaping require- ments. Now in addition to these two requirements you are stating that you need in unison with that, 4.5 square feet of land. I think you are putting restrictions on restrictions and it becomes extremely difficult to determine the size of commercial property one must buy to fulfill a need. If you multiply this out, the property needed for a commercial center is expanded over and above the needs for parking and landscaping. This paragraph is redundant and expensive to the developer. ou for your consideration/9the above items. Kind regards, PAUL' E . KOEHLER REALTOR - G.R.I. Re market study, Mr. Challacombe explained that staff currently is performing an analysis and giving the Commission a statement of facts concerning a particular application in their memos of recommendation. What this requirement would provide is additional information as to whether a sufficient market is available for that particular use so we can look at the first come, first served basis as to where these should go and avoid ending up with a 22 E7 neighborhood node every mile or so and, consequently, a market glut of more commercial than needed. Commissioner Lyons felt an additional reason for such a study is to avoid having a curb cut every 50' or so along U.S.1. Community Development Director King commented that it is the intent to encourage flexibility in the nodal concept and also try to provide a mechanism whereby the total acreage allocated to a particular node would not be allocated within the first month of the zoning process, leaving nothing available for others who might wish to utilize their property commercially. -Mr. King felt a market study would place a burden both on the developer and the staff who would have to review the study. His suggestion was establishment of some policy in regard to'rezonings that have been approved but where no construction is completed within a certain period, requiring that such property periodically be brought back for re-evaluation; this would give the Board the option of putting commercial acreage that is not being utilized back into the market. Considerable discussion followed on Mr. Koehler's comment that requiring proof of a market need could be considered a restriction of free enterprise. Commissioner Bird did not feel we should be concerned in judging whether a business will succeed or fail and wished to know what the Planning Department would require of a developer to prove there is a need in a certain area for a convenience store, for instance. Mr. King stated that no criteria has been established as yet, but they basically would be looking at the things that are considered in the rezoning process, i.e., surround- ing uses - streets - availability of water and sewer, etc. Commissioner Wodtke felt making a determination of areas that are adequate for commercial use is one thing, but 23 AUG 101982 50 �Aa 896 FF,_ AUG 10 198Z 50 89 7. he would not want the County to get into the position of deciding the type of commercial. He felt that should be determined by the marketplace. Attorney Brandenburg felt the extent of the market study would depend on the type of proposal - if it were a regional mall, for example, we would want a full blown , study, but if it were just a convenience store, it obviously would not require such an extensive study. He noted that one of the reasons for this study is to prevent people from gobbling up all the commercial property in the county and keeping it under their arm, so to speak, when there really isn't a need. -This concept, however, would have to be well defined. Discussion ensued as to when this would all be done and defined, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that it will be part of what they hope to present to the Board and to the Planning & Zoning Commission in an entire package called Land Use Regulations, which will include the final Plan, the new Zoning Code, all the drainage, landscaping ordinances, etc., in one package so that an individual can have one document that will cover all criteria for developing land in the county. He did not have an exact time schedule, but stated that this will be accomplished as quickly as they can manage. He felt they have a very good working basis on which to proceed. Mr. Challacombe next discussed the requirement that all nodes shall have 4.5 sq. ft. of land area to every one sq. ft. of building space. He stated that if the Commission wishes to delete this wording, he has no problem with it; it is only an average meant to be used as a guideline. Chairman Scurlock believed we should have some kind of measuring tape, and Commissioner Bird felt Mr. Koehler is just asking if this measurement is excessive. 24 Attorney William Caldwell stated this guideline would be unworkable on his property. He felt the present landscaping and parking requirements, etc., are sufficiently restrictive and that this should be in the Zoning Code rather than in the Land Use Plan. Mr. Challacombe noted that this was meant for larger parcels, and agreed that it may not work well on small parcels such as Mr. Caldwell's. Commissioner Bird felt it would be helpful if staff could draw up something so the Commission could visualize what we are talking about. Commissioner Lyons suggested that maybe it should be stated that "generally" this requires about 4.5 sq. ft., which would not be so limiting. Commissioner Wodtke hoped when we get everything finalized there will not be too many discretionary areas where we have to make a decision on a case to case basis. Chairman Scurlock believed that with the annual evaluation, this will be a continuing process. He did not believe we can get to the end product in one shot. ITEM #10 - DISCUSSION CONCERNING LAND USE ELEMENT DOCUMENT A. Hospital Commercial Node Concept Planning Manager Challacombe stated that basically what we are looking at is a concept which would permit flexibility in this area for certain commercial uses, certain residential uses, and certain institutional uses. For example, in a Hospital Commercial node, there would be child care facilities, professional offices, hospital supported facilities, residence uses, multi family units and institutional units. He believed with this we could elimi- nate the problems associated with the R -3A Retirement District. 25 50 PAF 898 Y I AUG 10 1992 54 c 899 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the Hospital Commercial Node Concept as recommended. B. Interval Ownershi Mr. Challacombe next brought up the complex issue of time sharing or interval ownership and where it should be located in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. He stated that it is staff's feeling that this is basically a transient use, and from a planning standpoint, they would suggest that certain commercial areas be delineated for this type of use. Discussion followed re designating such use in the R-3 zone which allows hotels, and Mr. Challacombe felt that would be appropriate also. In respect to the question of how to deal with this issue in terms of the Master Plan, he did not have a specific answer, but noted that they are looking at definition; the City Ordinance contains a definition of hotels and motels and they look at the use itself as transient quarters oriented to serving seasonal or transient residents. He pointed out that State Statutes prohibit zoning contingent upon ownership. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that there is a State Statute that indicates you may look at time sharing with respect to the use, but you may not distinguish because of the form of ownership, which is difficult to interpret; it is a residential use, but it is a transient residential use and that is because of the form of ownership. The Attorney felt that we would want to handle this within the Zoning Code itself and not particularly speak to it in the Land Use Plan. Community Development Director King believed that Robert Reider of the Vero Beach Civic Association has 26 expressed concern that if nothing is included in the Land Use Plan to prohibit conversion to some form of time sharing ownership, then someone who owned a home in Vista Royale, for instance, could convert their condominium to interval ownership and have a negative affect on the neighborhood. Chairman Scurlock believed there is a deed restriction, and Attorney Brandenburg felt the Zoning Code can limit this to a certain type of district. Mr. Reider emphasized that timing is important, and the major concern is the transitional period. He stressed that the interval ownership concept is spreading very fast, and because of the present economic climate, developers may try to bail themselves out this way. Considerable discussion ensued re the protection afforded by our Zoning districts which allow transient use. Attorney Brandenburg did not feel we are sufficiently protected but that we could write some protection into the Code. Commissioner Wodtke felt this is a very important matter, and if it will take time to implement, that we should immediately address this in our current ordinance on an emergency basis and also address it when we rewrite the Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the staff and Attorney research transient use of housing and take the necessary steps to address this issue in our current Zoning Code. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Bird commented that condominium units are sometimes rented on a weekly or monthly basis. It was felt that most of the condominium associations address this. Mr. Reider worried about what can take place before the resident owners form a property owners association and noted 27 OAK 50P� AUG 10 1982 � J r- AUG 101992 50,, Fnr- 901 that.another danger is that this could be applied to single family residences. Discussion ensued about the gray area between renting and time sharing, and Attorney Brandenburg felt this is a very strange area since it is -really a residential use, but should only be allowed in Commercial. Mr. Reider noted that the City Ordinance has coped with this by making it a conditional use rather than a permitted. use. Sam White, president of The Moorings Property Owners Association, pointed out that their property owners association would founder if they had interval ownership because there would be no way to administer it with such a multitude of owners. He stated that anything the Board can do will be very much appreciated. After further discussion, it was agreed that the Attorney was instructed to research this matter further. Commissioner Wodtke withdrew his Motion and Commissioner Lyons withdrew his second. ITEM 11 - SANITARY SEWER, POTABLE WATER, DRAINAGE, AND SOLID WASTE ELEMENT Planning Manager Challacombe reported that Public Works Director Jim Davis and Traffic Engineer Orr are present and would like to review the drainage section. Chairman Scurlock asked if any Commissioner had any objection to any specific element or if there was anything Mr. Davis would like to highlight. A. Drainage Element Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Attorney has re- viewed all elements, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that he has read them all, but he did not help draft anything except the Land Use Element. 28 Chairman Scurlock believed that Planning contacted every Commissioner who is working with particular areas - transportation, recreation, etc. He stated that his only question is whether there is enough flexibility to look at each situation rather than just apply a broad specific criteria - in other words, enough flexibility not to require that something be done whether it makes any sense or not. Mr. King stated that they will have the flexibility, and actually drainage on a particular site will be handled through the Land Development Code. Public Works Director Davis agreed there is some flexibility, but pointed out that it is still in the context of the St. John's District's rules and the DER's, which dictate a minimum standard. Commissioner Bird stated that he agreed with the concept of retention on site, but he wished there was some way this could be done through undulating swales rather than ugly retainage ponds, which he felt are eyesores. It was noted there is a choice of methods for draining, but the retention pond is the most economical. Mr. Davis explained that they do not dictate the method as long as it gets the job done, and the new implementing ordinance will merely require that post development conditions will not create more of a burden than predevel- opment conditions. Commissioner Wodtke brought up Page 63, Paragraph J, -re drainage system maintenance where it states that maintenance shall be provided by owners when properties are not dedicated to the county. He felt we might need to say when properties are not dedicated to and accepted by the county since there are situations where it is not advisable for the County to accept dedicated property. Community Development Director King felt that is a good point and stated they are including it. 29 AUG 10 1982 M1 ; 50 n41902 AUG 101902 WX 50, PAC F. B. Erosion Control Mr. Davis stated that erosion control on both the state and local level is an important consideration, and we do try to address erosion control in this element. C. Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water and Solid Waste Element Chairman Scurlock felt our sewer and water priorities are a bit mixed up in that a higher priority should be given the Route 60 area as opposed to the North County. Planning Manager Challacombe stated that staff concurred with this view for a number of reasons. Situa- tions have changed. We now have a number of large rezonings in the South County area, as well as a number of large site plans, and it appears to be inevitable that this area will be developed prior to North County. In addition, the South County system could tie in on an expansion basis to Route 60 much easier than creating a new system in the North County. Chairman Scurlock stated that his personal feeling is that where septic tanks are suitable and conditions are acceptable, we should not encourage mass systems; rather we should make use of what makes sense. Mr. Challacombe agreed that we.do not want to strap the County for excessive sewer service and their wording speci- fies that extension of sewer service shall be economically feasible. Commissioner Fletcher emphasized that it should be not only economically feasible but also ecologically. Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone had any real problem about priorities. No one did, and it was agreed that the North County would be made a second priority after Route 60. Planning Manager Challacombe next discussed Solid Waste on Page 65, Policyl-A, which deals with funding of County transfer stations, and noted that this does not pose a problem except in relation to the City. of Vero Beach where the question of dual taxation arises. 30 s � � Chairman Scurlock noted that a uniform fee for every- one in the county was discussed in detail during budget sessions, but he did not believe there was any determina- tion. He stated that the Commission is committed to looking at that situation and finding the best overall answer. In further discussion, Commissioner Lyons suggested leaving out Policy 1-A and 1-B and retaining the statement in Objective #1: "The County will continue to serve as the responsible local government for developing and operating solid waste disposal facilities." Chairman Scurlock concurred that would give us more flexibility. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to strike out Policies 1-A and 1-B; but retain Objective #1 under Supplementary Solid Waste Systems. ITEM #12 - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Chairman Scurlock noted this is a big element and involved a lot of effort. He asked if the Board had any particular problems with it or staff wished to highlight anything. Commissioner Lyons believed it is a great step forward for the county to try to figure out which roads will be through roads, and he believed the Transportation Committee should be commended. The Board had no specific problems. Public Works Director Davis' only comment was in regard to Policy Statement #3 on page 71, which deals with service north of S.R. 60 and investigation of plans to alleviate conditions on U.S.1, which he felt should be reworded for clarification. 31 A u G 101982 50 PAtF 994 AUG 101982 50 PAU 005 Commissioner Wodtke asked if this element goes in depth into right of way to be set aside. Mr. Davis stated that there is a chart on Page 79 which is a functional road classification summary, and this table complements the Thoroughfare Plan itself. Commissioner Fletcher noted there was nothing in this element to address the problem of 10' wide winding roads, such as are found on Orchid Island. Mr. Davis stated that at this point in time there is no provision for less than a 20' pavement for a local road. He felt the definition of local road could be structured so that it could define a local dedicated road then if the developer wanted to go with a local private road and the Board wanted to grant a lesser paving width, perhaps that could be included in the Subdivision Ordinance. The definition of a local road in the Statutes is basically a road with less than 600 vehicles a day. Commissioner Wodtke talked about 12th St. and 4th St. being designed for a speed of a certain number of miles per hour, and Mr. Davis explained that would be the design speed, not the posted limit. Discussion followed as to existing drainage ditches and the need to have an additional 70' of right-of-way, and Mr.Davis explained that the Drainage District owns the 30' right-of-way; so, we actually need a total 100' right of way if in the year 2000, for instance, we wanted a road with all facilities, sidewalks, drainage, etc. Discussion continued on the right of way we presently have in different areas, and Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the possibility of our ever being able to accomplish this particular goal. Commissioner Lyons believed we are going to be forced to accomplish this goal, and Commissioner Fletcher noted 32 that by addressing this now, it will be possible; if we do not address it now, it will be impossible. Mr. Davis reported that this is in line with what other cities and counties in the state are doing. Commissioner Bird asked if there is a provision for scenic trails, and Mr. Davis stated that they are addressed on Page 76, Policy Statement #2. Mr. Challacombe reported that they listed four scenic roads and assigned them a priority. He noted that this is a long involved process, and there is an existing Jungle Trail Committee. Mr. Challacombe asked the Board for recognition of the four following priorities: Jungle Trail Quay Dock Road Fellsmere Road Old Winter Beach Road The Board had no objections. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would be possible to have an index on each element or some sort of reference titles so that people will not have to read the entire document. ITEM #13 - CONSERVATION AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The Chairman asked for any questions or highlights. No one had any comments. ITEM #14 - RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Commissioner Bird reported that this has been through the Parks & Recreation Committee and they did work with staff on it. He felt more has been put in it re some capital estimates. Mr. Challacombe stated that the update of capital improvements will be done on an annual basis. He believed the Commission will get more involved next committee meeting when they will present a beach acquisition and study program: 33 AUG 10 1982 peg 50 FAcr, 906 AUG 101982 BOLA. 9 ITEM #15 - HOUSING ELEMENT Commissioner Wodtke stated that he worked on this with the staff and asked if the necessary provision was inserted to take care of the concerns of the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Challacombe stated that they do have a draft of a paragraph that has been approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission as follows: "The County will provide sites for groups with special housing needs, such as the elderly, dependent children, physically or mentally disabled, and non -dangerous mentally ill. Group housing and foster care homes will be encouraged to locate in stable residential neighbor- hoods which provide access to needed facilities and services. The special housing will be distributed throughout the county and will meet ,the standards and design criteria of that district. These sites shall not significantly adversely impact the existing neigh- borhood. Concern was expressed about the fact that it says the County will provide sites, and Mr. Challacombe felt we could strike the first sentence and just say group housing will be encouraged. Chairman Scurlock noted that they do not want to remove these people from society, and this has met with some objections in some places. Commissioner Wodtke felt the problem was that -we hadn't addressed this issue at all and need to include it in the element. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to incorporate the above paragraph in the Housing Element with the first sentence deleted. 34 ITEM #16 - UTILITY (ELECTRIC POWER) ELEMENT Chairman Scurlock felt this would not call for discussion since this is handled by the City of Vero Beach and Florida Power & Light. ITEM #17 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT There were no comments. Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additional comments from the general public. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued about the next step in adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Attorney Brandenburg noted that there were several changes made tonight which have not been included, and it was agreed all this has to be put in final form prior to the next agenda. Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board adopt the Plan tonight with all the changes they have made, the staff. to correlate all changes and the Attorney's office to advertise. Commissioner Fletcher wished to know at what time the map will be put in final form and available to the public. Considerable discussion ensued, and it was noted that colored maps could take some time. It was felt that we could just amend the official map in time for the next meeting. It was pointed out that the map printed in the newspaper did not appear in color and further noted that it will be necessary to search out and destroy the old maps. 35 Fog 50 PA(,- �a�� 1 AUG 10 198 } F Mr. King stated that he will get the Planning Department working on this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan with all changes made to date and authorized the Attorney to advertise a hearing to adopt the Plan in Ordinance form. Mr. Caldwell asked if there will be more changes made to the Plan at the time of adoption of the Ordinance. It was indicated that a great deal of time has been spent on this and it has-been pretty well thrashed out. Attorney Brandenburg.noted that there will be a public hearing which will be open to the public, and whether or.not the Board wants to listen and take any action on the suggestions made at that time is up to them. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman