Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/12/1983
MM i Wednesday, October 12, 1983 Commissioner Lyons requested that a brief report on the status of the Jail and also a brief discussion of alterna- tives on the needed fourth courtroom be added to the agenda as a combined item. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani- mously 'added the above item to today's agenda. A APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Septem- ber 21, 1983. There were none. OCT 121983 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 Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of -Allegiance to the Flag, and Reverend David Lord, Trinity Episcopal Church, gave the invocation. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested that a brief report on the status of the Jail and also a brief discussion of alterna- tives on the needed fourth courtroom be added to the agenda as a combined item. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani- mously 'added the above item to today's agenda. A APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Septem- ber 21, 1983. There were none. OCT 121983 OCT 12 1983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 21, 1983, as written. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM A TO C-1 (BEACH BANK) The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ze� � �/ AM3 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in,said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. �,, Sworn to and subscribed before me thi d of A.D. 19 d (Susi s -M nager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rivef County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption :if a County Ordinance rezoning land from: A. "Agricultural District" to C-1, "Com- mercial District." The subject property, under the trusteeship of 'The Beach Bank of Vero Beach, is located at the northwest intersection of State Road 60 and 58th Avenue (King's Highway). The subject property is described as: TRACT 8, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST OF THE IN- DIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, ST LUCIE 'COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS LESS THE NORTH 509Ai FEET THEREOF. SAID LAND LYING'AND BEING IN IN- DIAN RIVER . COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORDS. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 20.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A public hearing at.which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will. be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers Of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 9:00 A.M. It any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. . Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23. Oct. 5, 1983. The Board reviewed staff recommendation, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 19, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County ZC-83-07-023 Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENC�ljBJECT: Robert M. Keating AICP Planning and Zoning Manager BEACH BANK REQUEST TO REZONE 20 ACRES FROM A, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, TO C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RS FROMRichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Beach Bank Rzng Principal Planner RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Michael O'Haire, an agent for the Beach Bank, is requesting to rezone approximately 20 acres located on the north side of State Road 60 and the west side of Kings Highway (58th Avenue) from A, Agricultural District, to C-1, Commercial District. The applicant proposes to develop this site as a shopping center and a free standing bank. On August 25, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission,voted 4-0 to approve this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS. In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. In the past, this site was used as pasture land. North of the subject property, there is an old citrus grove, and further north is Rivera Estates, a single-family subdivision. To the south of the subject property, across S.R. 60, is vacant land. South of this vacant land is a citrus grove. East of the subject property, across Kings Highway, are citrus groves. South of these groves,. across S.R. 60,.are two single-family residences on large lots. West of the subject property are old citrus groves. Future Land Use Pattern According to the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in a 140 -acre commercial node located at and southwest of the intersection of Kings Highway and State Route 60. The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. It can reasonably be -expected that the land immediately east and south of the subject property may be included in the commercial node in the future. The land north and west of the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6 units/acre) and can be developed in single or multi -family housing. OCT 121983 3. J CCT 12 1993 Roads/Traffic 04, This property has direct access to State Route 60 and Kings Highway (classified as arterial streets on the Thoroughfare Plan). The proposed project, consisting of a community shopping center and free standing bank, will generate 13,700 average `' daily trips (ADT) with 2,055 in the peak hour. The additional traffic generated by this project has been assigned equally to the two arterial streets adjacent to it. This would result in S.R. 60 adding 6,850 ADT to its existing 11,400 ADT for a total of 18,250 (capacity is 24,000 ADT). Kings Highway would also receive 6,850 ADT above its present 4,100 ADT for a total of 10,950 (capacity is 12,000 ADT). This additional traffic will require deceleration and left turn lanes along both streets and may require a left turn signal at the S.R. 60 and Kings Highway intersection. Access should be located as far from the intersection as possible with primary access on Kings Highway -desirable. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it located in a flood prone area. Utilities The subject property is not presently served by County water nor wastewater facilities, but there are plans to extend water to this area in the near future. The provision of adequate water and wastewater facilities shall be required prior to site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, including the fact that the subject property is in a designated commercial node, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENTS 1) Application 2) Location Map 3) Planning and Zoning Minutes of August 25, 1983 Attorney Michael O:Haire, acting as agent for the Beach Bank, emphasized that this piece of property was included in a Commercial node from the beginning of the Master Plan and that it -has the approval of staff and comes with the unani- mous recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Planner Shearer showed slides of the site and confirmed that it is located right at the node at the corner of Kings. Highway and SR 60._ Commissioner Bowman asked if this property eventually will go on a public water system, and Administrator Wright anticipated that a water line should pass right in front of it. Commissioner Bowman expressed concern about subdivi- sions in this vicinity which have had terrible drainage problems. 4 The Administrator reported that considerable improvements have been made in this area recently. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-31, rezoning the prop- erty as advertised from A to C-1 as requested by the Beach Bank. s OCT 12 1983 wx Kee I OCT 121983 ORDINANCE NO. 83-31 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian PAP t River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pur- suant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,.that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: TRACT 8, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS LESS THE NORTH 509.41 FEET THEREOF, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 20.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from A, Agricultural District to C-1, Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioneks.of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY .'. BY c ee��'/'z Richard N. Bird, Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 17th day of October . 1983• Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of October .1983, atll:OO A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Cotrn y Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED TO FORM AND, LEGAL SUPPICIENCY,;�' �� .-/, BY 14 M. DENBURG, Co my Attorney tcv r AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CLARIFYING MAXIMUM RESIDEN- TIAL DENSITIES IN MXD The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of - ",'P �-� in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of-,,Ld.n�, 64-- . E. !� —O 9 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; ane affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me thi day of ( A.D. 19 0_pp? !l . ( i s ac�ztger) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE -- PUBLIC NEARING TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by clarify- ing the residential development densities al- lowed in the MXD, Mixed Use Districts by: 1. Deleting reference to the maximum num- ber of dwelling units per acre allowed in Mixed -Use Districts under the general de- scription of Mixed -Use Districts on Page 27 of the Ci>mprehensive Plan; 2. Adding a statement concerning the max- imum number of dwelling units per acre al- lowed in the Gifford Mixed-Uas District under the description of the Gifford Mixed -Use Dls- #lot on Page 313 of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on. Wednesday, October 12, 1883, at 9:00 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23. Oct. 5.1983. Planner Shearer reviewed staff recommendation, as follows: 7 OCT 121983 07 I OCT 121993 TO: FROM: The'Honorable Members of the Board Of County Commissioners B � nasi DATE: September 15, 1983 FILE: DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. 'Keati;ng,,- ICP Planning & Zoning Manager Rs Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Principal Planner PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFY- ING THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES IN THE VARIOUS MIXED USE DISTRICTS Max. Res. Devlop RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS This proposal is to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to clarify the maximum residential development densities in the different MXD's, Mixed -Use Districts. In the past, there has been some confusion about the permitted residential densities in the MXD areas. The Comprehensive Plan, under the general description of Mixed -Use Districts on page 27, states: "Permitted uses include residential development up to fourteen (14) units per acre, commercial and industrial uses." This is misleading. Only the Gifford Mixed -Use District was designated as having a maximum density of 14 units/acre. The other districts have maximum densities of 6 or 3 units/acre. Under the description of the individual Mixed -Use Districts on pages 36 and 37 of the Comprehensive Plan, each individual district description (except for the Gifford MXD) contains a statement concerning the maximum number of dwelling units per acre allowed, in that specific district. The description of the Gifford MXD does not mention a maximum residential density. On August 25, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this amendment. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In order to clarify the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the ;naximum residential densities allowed in the various MXD areas, two changes are necessary which are: 1) Deleting reference to the maximum number of dwelling units per acre allowed in Mixed -Use Districts under the general description of Mixed -Use Districts on Page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Adding a statement concerning the maximum number of dwelling units per acre allowed in the Gifford Mixed -Use District under the description of the Gifford Mixed -Use District on Page 38 of the Comprehensive Plan. These two changes can be accommodated by: E] 1) deleting the words...up to fourteen (14) units per acre.." on the fifth line of page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) adding the words, "Where future residential development occurs within this Mixed -Use area, densities shall be limited to fourteen (14) units per acre.", as a new last sentence added to the description of the Gifford Mixed -Use District on page 38 of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the above two changes be approved as an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS - 1. Planning and Zoning Minutes of August 25, 1983 Mr. Shearer elaborated that all MXDs other than Gifford MXD have a lesser maximum density which conforms to the surrounding land use designations. Planning Manager Keating emphasized that the recom- mended changes do not represent a change of policy, but are strictly for clarification. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that in order to accomplish the actual change in the. Comprehensive Plan, which is an ordinance, a new ordinance will have to be advertised. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously gave conceptual approval to the staff recom- mendation in regard to rewording the text of the Comprehensive Plan regarding density in MXDs as set out in memo dated September 15, 1983. D OCT 121983 OCT CT 12 1993met AMENDMENT TO SEC. 25 W ZONING CODE - FENCE ORDINANCE The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a t in the matter of loyltL "Zll� % in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 2-A'/2-1 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me thi 2 day of _4L—t A.D. 19 03 _ A 1 • ��e (Clerk o the Circuit Court, Indian'River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of In- dian River County Florida, will conduct a pubic hearing at which parties in interst and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard on October 12. 1983, at 9:00 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF iCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25(i) OF AP- PENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO WALLS AND FENCES; PROVIDING FOR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; MATERIALS AND CON- STRUCTION; ADMINISTRATIVE AP- PROVAL PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN FENCES; APPEALS; EASEMENT PRESERVATION; REPEAL OF CON- FLICTING ORDINANCES; CODIFICA- TION,-, SEVERABILITY; AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matters, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1983. Planner Clare_Poupard reviewed the following memo setting out the recommended changes and noted that all utility providers have been informed and none have objected strenuously: 10 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: Sept. 27, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25(i) OF THE ZONING CODE, KNOWN AS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCSUBJ ECT: FENCE ORDINANCE Robert M. Keati g,,-XICP Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: REFERENCES: Clare Z. Poupard OAP Amend to Sec. 25 Planner I CLARE It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting on October 12, 1983. -DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS This draft amendment of the existing Fence Ordinance makes two major changes in the existing ordinance. First, the draft amendment allows certain types of fences, those higher than specifically permitted by the ordinance and those constructed of barbed wire, to be administratively approved. This will relieve the Planning and Zoning Commission from having to review these applications, and will also speed up the fence permitting process. This Fence Ordinance amendment does allow applicants to appeal any administratively made decisions to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The second significant change in this draft amendment is that fence construction will be permitted in easements. Applications for fence construction in easements will have to be reviewed and approved by all applicable County Divisions, as well as by any agencies which might be affected by this construction (see Attachment 1). Also, applicants for a fence permit of this type will be required to sign an agreement committing the owner to bear any expenses involved in fence removal and/or reconstruction, if it becomes necessary for work to be done in the easement (see Attachment 3). A third, less significant change, was also made in the draft ordinance. The permitted front and sideyard heights were changed. This was done to make the side and rear yard allowed heights uniform and to give applicants greater flexibility when constructing fences. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this draft ordinance at their regular meeting on August 25, 1983. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended to the Board of -County Commissioners that it adopt this amendment to the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners review this amendment to the Fence Ordinance and consider whether it addresses all necessary criteria. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this amendment to Section 25(i) of the Zoning Code, known as the Fence Ordinance. 11 OCT 12 1983 I OCT 121983 Mgt "I Mrs. Poupard noted that the fence height allowed in front yards has been raised 6", and fences in the side yard made the same height as the rear. Both the Planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval. Commissioner Lyons wished to know whether a high security fence with three strands of barbed wire on top is considered a barbed wire fence, and Planning Manager Keating stated that a fence with any barbed wire on it is considered a barbed wire fence. Chairman Bird believed we used to have something that discouraged the use of barbed wire fences in residential zoning and wished to know if that still holds true. Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman Eggert noted that in MXD districts such as on Oslo Road, for example, where there is commercial and industrial mixed in with residen- tial, there have been some very legitimate requests for fences with barbed wire on top . She did agree that as a general policy such fences should be discouraged in residential districts. Commissioner Scurlock stated that the main thing he likes about the proposed ordinance is that it starts to streamline our process by allowing some administrative action, which he felt is a step in the right direction. Commissioner Wodtke had some concern about the wording w relating to approval by an'architecturai control review ` board having authority in a particular neighborhood and discussed the possibility of a clash of opinion between the neighborhood review board and the Planning Department recommendation. Planner Poupard felt the intent was to give the Director some backup to take into consideration and weigh in his decision when an applicant decided to apply in the face of the neighborhood board's disapproval, and.Planning Manager Keating pointed out that if there are particular 12. OCT 121983 property restrictions within a particular area, it would be up to the discretion of the people of that area to enforce them. Commissioner Bowman did not see anything in the proposed ordinance dealing with the problem of front yards on corner lots, and believed that owners of corner lots still are being penalized by having not one front yard, but two. She had felt this was to be addressed in the ' ordinance, and Chairman Bird concurred. Planning Manager Keating reported that stuff did look at this problem, and Planner Poupard presented a graph setting out possible problem situations that could occur with a 6' high fence. on a corner. Discussion ensued regarding corner visibility and setbacks, and Mr. Keating informed the Board that staff would recommend that we continue on the way we have been doing, which gives the Planning & Zoning Commission the discretion to consider any deviation in the height restriction and allows this to be addressed on a case by case basis. He agreed this may be difficult, but it allows them to take into consideration the fact that visibility may be obstructed at intersections and also that this presents the potential of boxing in someone whose house fronts on a primary road by someone else whose house fronts on a secondary road yet he has a front yard on the primary road. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Planning & Zoning staff could come up with some criteria and standards which would allow them to give administrative approval in these cases, or whether they would rather not assume that burden. Mr. Keating believed they can come up with standards for corner visibility, but noted that there is still a problem as to the visibility of a house that is set back the full amount and someone else adjacent puts up a fence up to his property line. 13 � �°'► 13 I OCT 121963 I ft 55 WE 14 Discussion continued at length, and the Administrator agreed that these situations do need to be considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the additional 6" recommended for front yard fences and believed that this is not a standard fence size. Mr. Keating stated that they studied quite a few other ordinances and surprisingly 42" was the -size set out in a number of them. He believed this now has become a standard size. The Chairman asked if there were any changes to the ordinance as presented. Attorney Brandenburg requested the Board to consider making a one word change on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance where it talks about approval of the architectural control review board. He recommended that rather than saying "then such approval shall be received," it should read that "then such recommendation shall be received prior...". He pointed out that otherwise your local board would have an absolute veto power; it is possible however, that they may have anyway depending on how they set up the covenants in their deed restrictions. Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss the problem of determining front yards on a corner lot and suggested that possibly the houses should face a certain way or the owners should designate which is to be considered the front yard. Commissioner Bowman did not feel that you can tell people which way they can face their houses, and Commissioner Scurlock felt that with all the rules about septic tanks, solar heat, etc., you are telling people a -lot already.. Planning Manager Keating stated that staff will almost always recommend that a house be placed to face on the local street rather -than the collector street'. He felt to clear 14 � � r up the situation, it might be appropriate to encourage the developer to have deed restrictions for those type lots. After further discussion, it was agreed that this will have to be faced on a case by case basis. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-32 amending Section 25 (i) - Walls & Fences, including the change in wording recommended by Attorney Brandenburg. 15 OCT 12 1983 I OCT 121983 ox 55 Apt INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 83-32 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 25 (i) OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO WALLS AND FENCES; PROVIDING FOR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION; ADMINISTRA- TIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN FENCES; APPEALS; EASEMENT PRESERVATION; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDI- NANCES; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 Section 25 (i) of Appendix A to the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, known as the County Zoning Code, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: Section 25 General Provisions (i) Walls and Fences. In all districts, except agricultural districts, fences and walls shall be permitted uses subject to the following requirements: (1) Height (a) Front yard - Fences and walls not exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may be erected in the front yard. (b) Side and rear yard - Fences and walls not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be erected in the required side and rear yards, provided that no fence or wall exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may extend beyond the front of ,the house or building. (2) Materials and Construction. All fences or walls shall be constructed to comply with the applicable local building code. Erection of any fence or wall shall require prior issuance of a zoning permit and payment of the appropriate fee in accordance with this ordinance. No fence or wall shall be constructed of materials which will be hazardous to the health, safety or welfare of persons or animals except as provided herein. 16 r I I Fi__� (3) Administrative Approval Procedure for Certain Fences (a) Higher fences and walls than listed above and all barbed wire fences shall require prior administrative approval by the Planning and Development Director. Before such approval may be issued, the Planning and Development Director must first determine that the structure will be visually compatible in the area in which it is to be located and that the additional security provided by such fence is reasonably necessary given the location or use of the property. A determination as to visual compatibility shall be based upon the number, proximity, height and design of other fences or walls in the area. If mandatory approval by an architectural control or review board having authority in the neighborhood or subdivision is required, then such recommendation shall be received prior to a determination by the Planning and Development Director under this provision, and any such architectural review board decision shall be given substantial weight in the County's review process. (b) If an applicant disagrees with a determination made by the Planning and Development Director under these provisions, review shall be available to the applicant by way of written appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (4) Use of Easements -- Removal Agreement (a) No fence or wall shall be built in a utility or drainage easement without prior administrative approval from the Planning and. Development Division. The division shall contact all present or intended users of an easement within which a fence approval has been requested with respect to the application for comment thereon prior to a determination on the approval request. (b) No zoning approval shall be issued for construction of a fence or wall in a drainage or utility easement unless the owner of the underlying fee property 17 OCT 12 1983s !7 I OCT 12 1983 55, me 1-8 . shall first execute a removal agreement to be recorded among the public records, providing for preservation of the use of the easement. The removal agreement shall be in the nature of a covenant running with the land in favor of the _parties to whom the easements have been dedicated. The covenant shall bind the owner and all successors to bear the expense of any removal or relocation of the fence or wall if determined necessary to 'make use of the easement, and shall hold harmless the County or any other entity removing the fence or wall, pursuant to terms of the agreement, in order to make lawful use of the easement. The cost of recording the covenant shall be borne by the applicant. CVnMTnW 7 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 'INCORPORATION IN CODE The.provisions of this ordinance shall be ,incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not IM M M dofect the remaining porto"hereof and it shall be cons rued to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of Official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October, 1983. 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: e 6111-,ee� RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 24th day of October , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 28th ' day of October , 1983, at 11:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURES The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: Sept. 27, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURES SUBJECT: Robert M. Keats g, _1CP Planning & Zoning Manager Clare Z. Poupard 01 REFERENCES: CLARE Review Procedures FROM: Staff Planner .1110 It is requested that the following information be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at their special called meeting on October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS -The attached review procedures have been prepared as a guideline to be used by prospective subdivision developers in Indian River County. These procedures are in conformance with the County's new Subdivision & Platting Ordinance, Ordinance 83-24. They will be distributed, as a hand-out, to all persons requesting 19 OCT 12 1983 5' ��L OCT 12 1983 Owl information about the County's subdivision review process. All County Divisions having a responsibility in this subdivision review process have commented on these procedures, and the review comments have been incorporated into them. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered these procedures at their regular meeting on September 22, 1983. The revisions suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission have been incorporated into the procedures and the Commission has concurred with their use in the Planning Department. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS These procedures are being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for two reasons. First, the Planning Department wants to provide the Board with the information which will be presented to the public, before it is made publicly available. Secondly, the Board is asked to suggest any revisions which it feels might clarify, simplify, or, in any way improve, these procedures while they are still in draft form. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, after reviewing these subdivision procedures and suggesting whatever changes it considers necessary, concur with their use by both County staff responsible for reviewing subdivisions and the public. ATTACHMENT 1) Subdivision Pre -Application Form. 2) Subdivision Form 3) Subdivision Control Sheet Commissioner Scurlock wished to know the total number of days entailed in the full process as set out in the flow chart on page 20 (of the back-up material). 20 SUBDIVISION Apnlicant Renuests PRS -APPLICATION • CONFERENCE M# �1 Applicant Submits Sketch Plan Staff Reviewq aY, Conference Held SLBlTISSION Fs APPROVAL OF APPLICATION Applicant Submits Formal Application CZ# FlicicTo ation distributed Staff Staff review comments Submitted to CD Div. 5 dare Discrepancy letter sent to applicant lU days Development Review Heeti (OPTIONAL) Revised Plat Submitted Staff Recommendation Written For P F; T. 11tc. E- � Fi 7.Appraves!Disapproves F'REL141NAR`.' PLAT Jays .Appeal 'to UCC of P & 7. Decision tOPTiONAL) IAPT`LIC.AT10-, F(?R P: ISSUANCE OF LAND ..-,FVFl.0P!8E.NT PMtIT - 20•- PROCEDURE Applicant applies for land devoloomeat permit 10 days taff reviews Submitted construction plans eview comments forwarde to applicant E# lRevised plans submitted 10 days Permit Issued ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF C04PLETION Applicant Submits Documents CertifvinF Completion inal Site Inspections 10 days rtificate of Completion Issued LS MISSION & APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT Applicant submits final plat Descrepancy letter sea to applicant Revised plat submitted E;E_ — Staff Recommendation to BCC written i days ACC approvesidisapproves final plat 21 55 Ma 2 OCT 12 1983 47f .r / r OCT 12 1983 55 me 2, 2 Administrator Wright noted that the days set represent the maximum timeframes, and in addition, not all these items may occur. If you come in with a poor plan, you may run into all this, but if you come in with a good one with no problems, it will move right on through. Commissioner Scurlock believed timing is one of the biggest complaints we have had in the past and anything that will expedite getting through the process in a timely fashion should be encouraged. Planning Manager Keating stated that he wished to provide the applicant with an indication of maximum time- frames, but also wanted to be sure staff is given adequate time so they wouldn't constantly be violating the prescribed timeframe. He agreed that the procedure could be reduced substantially if everything comes in in a timely manner and is done well. Commissioner Scurlock then inquired about the minimum amount of time that would be involved, if everything went perfectly, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that depends how quickly the applicant moves. This scenario is where he files his preliminary plan, proceeds to construct all the improvements, and then comes back in for final plat approval. On the other hand, if the applicant doesn't want to construct the entire project to get final plat approval, then he comes in and bonds the project out. This would result in a substantially shorter period of time between preliminary and final plat approval. Actually the applicant can use the process to meet his construction schedule. Commissioner Lyons complimented staff on setting up the proposed procedures and working out this chart which he felt will help them understand their workload. He believed this eventually could be put on computer, and Commissioner Scurlock concurred. 22 r -- Administrator Wright informed the Board that he has been negotiating with Property Appraiser Nolte and reached a tentative agreement to use his computer and spin off of the land records base he has now to bring our Building Department and Planning records into one computerized system. He believed this should be in place this year and that it will provide a speeded up process. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how much time'it actually would take if someone took the most efficient way to go through the process. Planner Clare Poupard added up the times listed and came up with 148 days, or four to five months, to complete the five major steps with the necessary in-house review. She pointed out that the chart represents the new procedures, and the new Subdivision Ordinance includes two more steps that require staff review. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the existing process involves less or more time, and Planner Poupard believed it takes two months or so for preliminary and about the same for final, or four to five months. Commissioner Scurlock asked what problem it would create for us if staff does not meet the timeframes set out. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Ordinance does not have timeframes that are to be met by staff. He believed the projected timeframes are outside time.frames and on many occasions the time actually involved would be much less. Commissioner Scurlock felt the fact that the timeframes are set out gives the developer a legitimate cause to complain if we say it will take five days and it takes 15 and noted that it certainly puts pressure on the staff to move along. Commissioner Lyons felt it puts everyone in a better position so that they know when things should be done. 23 OCT 12 1983 56 ma 23 I OCT 12 1993 �► 4 t t Mr. Keating reported that in the preapplication conferences, they now give all of the information to the applicant in written form so there is no question as to what was discussed. They also try to set definite timeframes on this form and advise that if plans are received by a certain date, the applicant can expect his project to be addressed at a certain meeting. They are trying to do this for site plans also. Commissioner Bowman believed this is what we have been trying to get accomplished for years. Commissioner Lyons had a question re (7) on Page 7 - as to considering the impacts of projects of more than 40 gross acres. He believed that we could have projects of considerably less than 40 acres that could have a very substantial impact on traffic, etc. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have been talking about getting certain contributions from developers for impacts they create on our road system. Chairman Bird believed instead of setting a minimum based on acreage, possibly it should be based on units. Planner Poupard stated that -40 acres is the figure set out in the new Subdivision Ordinance, but noted that in new subdivisions, they do look at all the impacts. Attorney Brandenburg commented that this was a subject of considerable controversy; everyone felt the county was , requiring too much from developers re impact statements, and this was a compromise.. Commissioner Lyons emphasized that every time we issue a certificate of occupancy, we add additional responsibili- ties to the county, and this must be taken into account. Commissioner Wodtke questioned the requirement for posting security for completion of improvements in the amount of 125% of the total cost, and Attorney Brandenburg felt that had been made 115% in the Ordinance. He stated 24 that he would make sure that this figure corresponds with the one set out in the ordinance. Commissioner Lyons wished to know under Step 20 (i) (3) - "minimum standards for materials" what specific materials are being referred to. In the following discussion, it was believed this would involve any materials you have to use in order to obtain final plat approval. Mr. Keating noted that this entire section relates to the land development permit, and the criteria'will be in the permit application. Administrator Wright suggested having wording which states "minimum standards for materials used in site improvements," and the Board concurred. Chairman Bird stated that, in addition to the above change in wording, the Attorney will check to be sure that the percentage for the bond requirement is consistent with our ordinances. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that there is an additional exemption Mrs. Poupard wishes to add to those listed on Page 78 of the backup material. Planner Poupard confirmed that she had neglected to specify that you are exempt from the ordinance if you are not creating a subdivision, i.e., dividing one parcel of land into two, if that first parcel never had been previously subdivided. Attorney.Brandenburg gave the following approximate wording which would correspond to the wording in the ordinance - "if you are dividing land into two parcels from a parcel that was not the result of a previous division subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance and no easements or streets are created." 25 OCT 12 1983 r OCT 121983 1 arc rv,sg �� ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted the procedures set out on Pages 78 through 104 of the agenda backup material with amendments as discussed above. Said documents will be put on file -in the Office of the Clerk when corrected and received. (TMIS HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK) REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO LD -2 (JOHN COLE) The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA NOTICE — PUBLIC NG Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath TO AMEND THE COMPRENENISIVE LAND USE PLAN says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published Notice of hearing to consider the adoption. at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being of a County Ordinance redesignating land from: LD -1, "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- -!— (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE) TO LD -2, a UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE). AC E).SITY THEETSUBJECT PROPERTY PRESENTLY OWNED BY in the matter of JOHN COLE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58TH AVENUE, NORTH OF 49TH STREET. The subject is described —�J---- property as: TRACT 16, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND r In the Court, was pub- TRACTS 1. 7 AND 8, SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST ALL ACCORDING TO THE LAST �) Iished in said newspaper in the issues of 23 —S f��� GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE RIVER VE COMPANY ,� RER PLAT BOOK . PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore heard, will be held by the Board of County been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ida. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located ty, Florida, fora iiia of one year next preceding the first ublication of the attached co of Pe Y P 9 P PY at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm on Wednesday. October 12. 1983, at 10:00 a.m. or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this If any person decides to appeal any deci- advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. sion made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the (� Sworn to and subscribed beto is day A.D. 19 proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim a me of record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence ti upon which the appeal is based _ Indian River County (B a Manager) Board of County Commissioners By -s-Richard N Bird . a Sept 23.hairn Oct 5.1983 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rl er County, Florida) (SEAL) 26 r I Attorney Brandenburg announced that the attorney for the applicant had called and confirmed that they had received proper notice, but stated that his client had made the decision, taking into account all the factors, not to appear or be represented and requested that the Commission proceed without them being present: Principal Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorabie- Md- mbers - --�" _a ep'_embe`r` 1J6'; 1983 of the Board of County DATE. a FILE: Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keating AI Planning & Zoning Manager Richard Shearer, AICP JOHN COLE REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN ON 153 ACRES FROM LD -1, LOW-DEIVSITY.RESIDENTIAL 1 TO LD -2, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 FROM;Principal Planner REFERENCES: John. Cole WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, John Cole, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. His request is to redesig- nate approximately 153 acres located on the west side of Kings Highway and north of Lindsey Road from LD -1, Low -Density Res- idential 1 (maximum of 3 units/acre), to LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (maximum of 6 units/acre). The applicant proposes to develop the property into an executive golf course and 600 condominium units. On August 11, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to deny this request. They gave as their reasons the rural characteristics of the area, the low elevation and associated drainage problems in the area, the increased drainage problems that would be caused by the development, and the fact that Kings Highway serves as a good boundary between LD -1 and LD -2. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. 27 OCT 12 1983 5 -Dog 55 mu J OCT 12 1983 c Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. In the past it has been used primarily as pasture land, although part of the property contains groves. The area south of this property contains a pasture and residential land. Included in the residential area is Lindsey Pines Subdivision which contains houses on one -acre lots. To the west of the subject property, the land is predominantly devoted to citrus groves. However, there are several small tracts of land (five -to -ten acres each) west of the site and south of Kingsberry Road which are predomi- nantly undeveloped, although one tract has a house on it. The north relief canal borders the subject property to the north with groves north of the canal. This site has 3,765.5 linear. feet of frontage on Kings Highway, its eastern boundary. East of Kings Highway is pasture land. Future Lard Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -1 except for the property east of Kings Highway which is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6 units/acre). While redesignating the subject property to LD -2 would allow a maximum of 6 units/acre, the applicant has indicated that he would limit the density of the property to 4 units/acre. At this density, development would allow approximately 600 dwelling units on the site. The applicant feels that allowing 4 units/acre on this site would provide a buffer between the maximum of 6 units/acre allowed east of his property and.3 units/acre allowed west of his property. However, this buffer could be established on the -east side of Kings Highway without amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan describes the LD -1 and LD -2 designations. as low-density residential areas of a suburban nature. The LD -2 classification was designed for areas which are in close prox- imity to the -existing urban or built-up areas of the county and can naturally be expected to develop in the near future. The LD -1 classification was created for areas which are further from the urban parts of the county and which will be a buffer between higher density residential areas and rural residential areas. One ,of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan states that "Urban development shall be encouraged to fill in land closest to service areas to avoid 'spot development'." Development of the subject property at 4 units/acre would be spot development and will not promote the compact and orderly development of the county. Transportation Svstem This property has direct access to Kings Highway (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), Kingsberry Road (classified as a primary collector street) and Lindsey Road (classified as a secondary collector street). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment, the residential development of the property would generate 11,200 average daily trips (ADT). However, based on four condominium units/acre, this development would generate 4,345 ADT. Additional trips would be made to the golf course but it is difficult to estimate the total ADT before a site plan has been submitted. Under the existing land use designation, LD -1, this site would generate 5,600 ADT if developed to maximum density. M M M The existing traffic count on Kings Highway is approximately 3,000 ADT. An additional 4,345 ADT (3,000 + 4,345 = 7,345 ADT) would put this facility closer to its capacity of 10,000 ADT. Based on this additional traffic, the following would be required if this development were approved: 1. All development should have access via Kingsberry Road or Lindsey Road; 2. The developer would install 24 foot wide pavement on Kingsberry and Lindsey Roads adjacent to his property; 3. The developer would pay for installing left -turn lanes on Kings Highway at its intersections with Kingsberry and Lindsey Roads; 4. The developer may be required to pay for all or part of the cost of a signalized intersection next to his development; 5. Additional right-of-way dedications would be required along the arterial and collector streets. Environment 2 The subject property is not designated as environmentally Sensitive. There do not appear to be any environmental con- straints involved with the development of this property. Schools The proposed development includes 600 condominium units. This development is currently planned to include studio and two bedroom units which would probably not attract many families with children. Based on these current plans, this development should not adversely affect the County's school system. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water and wastewater facilities. The developer could, however, apply for a franchise from the County to provide his own water and waste- water facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis including the existing land use pattern of the site and surrounding areas, land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shearer displayed slides of the surrounding area and pointed out that when this was submitted as an amendment request, it was accompanied by a rezoning request, and the Planning & Zoning Commission considered it as both. The rezoning request was for R -2A, which allowed a maximum of 4 units per acre. That was denied and not appealed, and the only change being considered today is the Land Use designation change from LD -1 to LD -2, which would allow 6 units per acre rather than 3. The applicant's agents have indicated an intent to develop an executive golf course with 29 OCT 121983 'c J density developments, and staff does not feel the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding land use and recommends denial. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Donna Holland, 6255 53rd Street, stated that she is an adjacent owner and she received no notification although her neighbor did-. Planning Manager Keating stated that staff will check and see if Mrs. Holland is located within the 300' notification area. Sam Tillis informed the Board that he has lived on the corner of Kings Highway and Lindsey Road for 17 years and has managed the ranch with which this property is involved for 23 years. He did not feel this land is too low, and noted that Mr. Cole has said he would put in sanitary sewer and water facilities. Mr. Tillis did not see where that can hurt the neighborhood, but rather felt it would be an improvement. Planning Manager Keating wished to make several points. (1) Kings*.Highway was specified as a dividing line in the Land Use Plan between LD -1 and LD -2 designations, and the Planning & Zoning Commission felt that was a good boundary 6 line. (2) Staff usually looks at two criteria when looking at proposed amendments - first, is there any change in the conditions in the area from when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and second, is the property so small that it couldn't have been considered separately when the Commission was making its decision. Mr. Keating did not believe either of the criteria applied in this case, and staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission both agreed that Kings Highway is a good dividing line and that the Plan should remain as adopted. 30 OCT 12 9983:. 600 condominium units. This is a rural area with some low density developments, and staff does not feel the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding land use and recommends denial. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Donna Holland, 6255 53rd Street, stated that she is an adjacent owner and she received no notification although her neighbor did-. Planning Manager Keating stated that staff will check and see if Mrs. Holland is located within the 300' notification area. Sam Tillis informed the Board that he has lived on the corner of Kings Highway and Lindsey Road for 17 years and has managed the ranch with which this property is involved for 23 years. He did not feel this land is too low, and noted that Mr. Cole has said he would put in sanitary sewer and water facilities. Mr. Tillis did not see where that can hurt the neighborhood, but rather felt it would be an improvement. Planning Manager Keating wished to make several points. (1) Kings*.Highway was specified as a dividing line in the Land Use Plan between LD -1 and LD -2 designations, and the Planning & Zoning Commission felt that was a good boundary 6 line. (2) Staff usually looks at two criteria when looking at proposed amendments - first, is there any change in the conditions in the area from when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and second, is the property so small that it couldn't have been considered separately when the Commission was making its decision. Mr. Keating did not believe either of the criteria applied in this case, and staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission both agreed that Kings Highway is a good dividing line and that the Plan should remain as adopted. 30 Discussion followed as to the difference in density between LD -1 and LD -2, and Mr. Tillis noted that Mr. Cole is now allowed 2 units per acre. Commissioner Wodtke stated that actually it is 3 units per acre our current ordinance, however, does not have a category to cover that density. Mr. Tillis argued that at 3 units per acre Mr. Cole could put in 459 units, and he'wished to know if the Board felt 459 septic tanks would be preferable to one sewer and water plant. Commissioner Wodtke did not believe that many septic tanks would be allowed under the new health laws. Mrs. Tillis next came before the Board. She pointed out that the proposed golf course and the roads would take up a great deal of the property - over 90 acres and stressed that it is Mr. Cole's intent to develop a beautiful community with condominiums and gardens surrounding the golf course. She believed it would serve to upgrade the area and doubted there would be excessive traffic as the people who could afford to live there would be mostly retired people without young families. Mrs. Tillis noted that Mr. Cole could sell this land in acre lots, and there would be no telling what kind of community would grow up. She continued to stress that the golf course and roads would take up much of the acreage. Chairman Bird explained that the Commission must do overall planning for the whole county and establish certain areas with certain characteristics - some industrial, some rural, some commercial, etc. It was envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan that this particular area would remain in rural single family type characteristics for the foreseeable future, and to convert it to condos would really be in conflict with the surrounding area. Mrs. Tillis continued to argue that it would upgrade 31 OCT 12 1983 OCT 121983 the area and that she did not want to see the area just covered with little houses. Commissioner Wodtke believed that in the coming year when we address the new PUD ordinance, there will be another process by which Mr. Cole can address his project. In such a process possibly the 90 acres could be forever designated for a golf course, and it could be given consideration on a contractual basis. Today, however, we are being asked to make a blanket change in an area that Commissioner Wodtke did not feel is ready for it. He asked staff whether under a PUD something similar to what is being requested could occur in an LD -1 area and not be restricted only to single family. Attorney Brandenburg replied that would be the way staff will propose it, but he did not know at this point if the Board would agree to it. In each District, this type of approach would be a conditional use. Mr. Tillis also stressed that when you consider the area which will be used for roads, lakes, golf course, etc., this actually will be an open rural area. He asked whether Mr. Cole knows of the proposed PUD ordinance, and Mrs. Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, indicated that Mr. Cole is aware of it. Attorney Brandenburg felt there is some misunder- standing in regard to -the proposed density and the area subtracted for the golf course, roads, etc. He noted that if you have a project of about 600 units on 150 acres and take out 90 acres for a golf course and 10 for roads, you then would have 600 units on 50 acres, or over 10 units per acre, which certainly would not be compatible with the rural nature of this area. David Dorrall, who lives about half a mile from the subject property, stated that he agreed with Mr. Tillis in a way, but pointed out there is no law that says Mr. Cole has 32 to put that golf course in there, and once he got the rezoning, he could sell the property for low cost housing or anything he wants to. Mr. Dorrall stated he, therefore, was against the requested change. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied the request by John Cole for.amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and incorporated as justification for denial, the Planning & Zoning Minutes recommending denial and in addi- tion, cited staff presentation and the testimony heard today. With regard to the question raised earlier about notification, Mr. Keating reported that Mrs. Holland's property is 400' away and did not fall within our notification requirements. Copy of said Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes are hereby made a part of the record. ITEM#6 - JOHN COLE, OWNER/AGENT. To redesignate lbJ acres from LD -;l, Low Density Residential (up to 3 units/acre), to LD -2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre), located on the west side of 58th Avenue, north of :9th Street. To rezone the same 153 acres from A, Agricultural District, and R-1, Single -Family Residential, to R -2A, Multi -Family District. Attorney Cal Brown addressed the Commission, and stated that he was representing Mr. Cole. He introduced Mr. Cole to the Commission. Mr. Brown then introduced Mr. Les Solin to make their presentation. 33 OCT 121993 �,, .�el I OCT 12 1993 55, 34 Mr. Solin gave his address as 2206 llth Lane, Vero Beach. He stated that he was the principal of Solin & Associates, Inc., and he introduced his associate, Tom Poupard. Mr. Solin briefly described the location of property and the proposed project which is the development of an executive golf course and 600 condominium units. Attorney Brown addressed the Commission, explaining that the golf course will encompass 80-90 acres of the project. He asked the Commission to decide whether or not it was good planning to put in 3 units/acre of single-family homes with wells and septic tanks on 150 acres; or whether it would be bet -ter to put in 3-4 units/acre of cluster type housing with a golf course in the same area. Mr. Sheerer stated that the Planning Department had talked with Mr. Cole's agents on two occasions. He said that the staff felt that this property was not contiguous to any urban development of the intensity which is allowed in LD -2 areas. He pointed out that the applicant feels that allowing 4 units/acre on this site would provide a buffer -between the maximum of 6 units/acre allowed east of his property and 3 units/acre allowed west of his property. Mr'. Shearer noted that this buffer could be established on the east side of Kings Highway without amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shearer stated that, based on the fact that the staff did not feel that this property was contiguous to existing urban development, that Kings Highway is a good boundary between LD -1 and LD -2, and that a buffer between 6 units/acre east of this site and 3 units/acre west of the site could be provided on the east side of Kings Highway, the staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request, as well as denial of the rezoning request. Mr. Keating stated that neither criteria that has been established by the staff. to review proposed amendments has been 34 I met. He noted that no information that was not considered when the Comprehensive Plan was prepared has been submitted, nor have conditions changed since then. Mr. Keating said that, based upon these reasons, he does not believe a Plan amendment is warranted. Chairman Eggert read a letter into the minutes that she had received from Mr. Robert D. Sobieski which stated that he is opposed to the requested rezoning. The letter is attached to the back of these minutes. Cornelia Crawford, 6195 63rd Street, addressed the Commission and stated that she was against this development. She stated that most of her neighbors owned 5 acre parcels and thaw this development would place too much traffic in their area. Mr. David Dora., 4756 54th Avenue, stated that he lived within a mile of this proposed development and was opposed to it. Mr. Jim Wood, owner of 10 acres to the west of this proposed development,.,stated that 10 years ago he had tried to have his property rezoned. He said that on the night of his hearing two persons stood and said they were against his rezoning, and his request was denied. He asked to see a show of hands of the people in the audience who opposed this rezoning request. Approximately 20 persons raised their hands. Mr. John_D. Cole, addressed the Commission and stated that he no longer owned the property across the street, but had sold it three years ago. He said that he felt that his development would be a credit to the area and the community. Mr. Parent moved to close the public hearing. Mrs. Stanbridge seconded, and the Commission voted 4-0 to close the public hearing. Chairman Eggert stated that, when the Commission discussed this area during the Plan preparation process, a drainage problem was noted and based upon that the Commission 35 .00T 12 1983 55 wk- J acs 1 a 1,98 had designated it as LD -1. She stated that so many dwelling units in that area would have an effect, but she did not know just how much. Mrs. Stanbridge stated that she lived in this area, and she noted that it is a rural area. She noted that the area is low and stated that there is a drainage problem. Mrs. Stanbridge stated that LD -1 was the best designation for that area. She moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the John Cole request to amend the comp plan on 153 acres from LD -1, to LD -2, and to rezone from A, Ag, and R-1, Single -Family, to R -2A, Multi -Family District, be denied. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, and the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend denial. Mr. Jones stated that a line had to be drawn somewhere, and that line has been drawn on Kings Highway. ' Mrs. Stgnbridge stated that there were two unpaved roads in the area and this development would place an undue hardship on those roads. Attorney Brandenburg informed Mr. Brown that if he intends to appeal the denial of the rezoning request he must file an appeal, within 15 days to the Director of the Community Development Division. n REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - SABONJOHN The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: M � � r I VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL. Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before e thi da of dam('. A.D. 19 f� - Y , Mager) f (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian'tiiver County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoptior, of a County Ordinance redesignating lanc from: LD -2, "Low Density Residential" to C, "Commercial." The subject property presently owned by Peter Sabonjohn is located at the southeast corner of - 27th Avenue and 14th Street, S.W. Tqe subject property is described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block B. OSLO PARK, Uhit 7, according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 28, Public Records of Indian River County, Flor- ida. A public hearing at which parties in interes and citizens shall. have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County i .Commissioners of Indian River County Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County. Administration Building, located al 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,. Florida, or Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he/she wil need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence Upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman ' Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1983. I The Board reviewed staff memo as follows; 37 .00T 121993 5 �,s�37 OCT 12 1993 To- The Honorable of the Board Commissioners 55, 8 Members DATE: September 28, 1983 FILE: of County PETER SABONJOHN REQUEST DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN ON .37 ACRE FROM LD -2, P SUBJECT": LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO COMMERCIAL Robert M. Keat in CP g , �. Planning & Zoning Manager S Richard Shearer, AICP Peter-Sabonjohn FROM:principal Planner REFERENCES: RICH It is requested that the data herein consideration by the Board of County special meeting -of October 21, 1983. 00 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS presented be given formal Commissioners at their The applicant, Peter Sabonjohn, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. His request is to redesignate approximately .37 acre located on the east side of 27th Avenue and the south side of 14th Street, S.W. from LD -2, Low -Density Residential, to Commercial. The owner proposes to maintain the property as a site for mobile home and used car sales. The property is currently zoned C-1. On August 25, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to deny the applicant's request. The Board based their decision upon the facts that redesignating this land commercial would constitute spot zoning, that the parcel does not fit into the commercial node concept as outlined in the plan, and that redesignating this parcel commercial would encourage strip commercial development along 27th Avenue. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently being used for storage of mobile homes and trailers. The property immediately to the sfluth contains a mobile home with a power substation south of the mobile home. The area east of the subject property is developed in single-family residences. North of the site is a single-family subdivision with a contractor's model home facing the subject property.- The land west of 27th Avenue is devoted to single-family housing and pasture land. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -2 except for the property west of 27th Avenue which is in an LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 units/acre) area. The subject property is not in or near any commercial nodes (as M designated on the Land Use map). There is an MXD area 1/4 mile north and 1/4 mile west of this site which runs westward along Oslo Road. Commercial land uses could be accommodated in this MXD area. However, redesignating the subject property as Commercial would contribute to spot zoning of this site. Transportation System This property has direct access to 27th Avenue (classified as a Primary Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and current zoning, the development of the property would generate 416 average daily trips (ADT) with 62 trips in the peak hour. Under the current land use designation, LD -2, the subject property would generate 73 ADT with 7 trips in the peak hour. Currently, 27th Avenue carries 3,100 ADT with a capacity of 10,000 ADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any significant environ- mental problems involved in developing this property. Utilities The subject property is -not currently served by County water nor wastewater facilities. RECOMMEENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the existing land use pattern, the fact that redesignating the subject property commercial would result in spot zoning, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request. Peter Sabonjohn came before the Board and reported that he bought this property on a limited partnership in 1973 and took full ownership in 1975. He claimed that he is the oldest commercial retail sales dealer in that area and informed the Board that Coffey Construction is across the street from him; Blaze Electric is on the other corner; Florida Power & Light is in the area; Marie Simmons has some trucks on her.commercial piece; and there is Agricultural across the street. Mr. Sabonjohn continued that since 1976 the state has issued him a mobile home dealer's license, a used car license, a recreational vehicle license, and the town gave him a retail sales license. He stated that he has had his construction company located on this site since 1973, and he had plans drawn up just recently to put in a building when all of a sudden, he finds that he can't do it. 39 ma :OCT 12 1983lb .55 OCT 12 1983 Mr. Sabonjohn felt since he was there first, he should be left alone to operate his business as he has done for the last ten years. Planner Richard Shearer displayed slides of the property in question, showing that it is fenced in with a mobile home on the site. Mr. Shearer stated that this property is presently designated LD -2 and allows up to 6 units per acre, and based on the predominant surrounding uses, staff feels the best use of this property is in low density residential. Staff also feels that the subject property is not currently being used as commercial property. It has a mobile home on it with people living in it, and the property is being used for storage of trailers and other miscellaneous articles. Staff does not feel this property would have been grandfathered in when the Land Use Plan was adopted as storage is not a permitted use in the C-1 zoning district. Chairman Bird asked about the surrounding commercial uses cited by Mr. Sabonjohn, and Mr. Shearer stated that there is a contractor's model home and another mobile home and a power substation to the north. Further north on Oslo Road there is a Cumberland Farms convenience store, but staff does not feel there are commercial uses in the area of Mr. Sabonjohn's property. Planning Manager_Keating stated that this is an area the County will have to rezone in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. The areas which have existing commercial establishments in a commercial zoning district and are in conformance with the Zoning Code would be grandfathered in. Even though this property is zoned commercial, the existing uses are non -conforming with the existing zoning. As non -conformities, they can be allowed to remain as long as they have been permitted correctly, but when the administrative rezoning is undertaken, the area 40 � e r would be rezoned residential to conform with the Land Use designation. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the property under discussion is not presently before the Code Enforcement Board and has a fine in place, and Mr. Keating confirmed that is the case. Mr. Sabonjohn disagreed with staff and believed that storage is permitted in commercial property and that you can sell things from commercial property. He continued to stress the fact that he had been issued various sales licenses over the years and stated that the Zoning Department has never looked at his books. As far as the claim that someone is living in the mobile home, he believed it has to be proved they are sleeping there; he stated that he does have a watchman there at night because he has had many break-ins. Mr. Sabonjohn wished to know where you can operate a business if not on commercial property. Mr. Keating stated that you can operate a business in a commercial district, but you cannot have storage as a primary use of the area in that district. He noted that this is one of those cases where staff had to make a determination as to what the present use of the land is, i.e., whether there is an active mobile home or automobile sales on-going on the site. Commissioner Wodtke did not believe.the present use of Mr. Sabonjohn's land is the issue before the Board today; what we are addressing is a request to make a change in the Land Use Plan. Chairman Bird agreed that the Board does not want to debate the use of Mr. Sabonjohn's property. The question is should we leave him as a commercial spot in an agricultural area, which is contrary to what we have tried to accomplish in the Comprehensive Plan. He believed that it is only a matter of time until the County would have initiated a 41 OCT 12 193 OCT 12 1983 ft 55 ma 42 rezoning of this property to make it more compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Sabonjohn continued to argue that there are commercial uses in his area and that businesses such as Babcock's and Scotty's, which are in commercial areas, store materials. Mr. Keating explained that if you have a commercial business, you can have storage in relation to it. You cannot have it as a primary use, and it must be enclosed storage. Mr. Sabonjohn noted that Babcock's and Scotty's have storage areas that are not enclosed. Discussion followed as to the action taken by the Code Enforcement Board, which is requiring that the mobile home be moved, and also as to whether or not there were illegal uses of the land at the time of adoption of the Compre- hensive Plan. Further discussion ensued on the Board's efforts to eliminate strip zoning and staff's finding that while there is commercial zoning in the area, there are very few existing commercial uses. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Don Coffey of Coffey Construction informed the Board L that he is located right across the street from Mr. Sabonjohn; his property is zoned C-1; and he is grandfathered in because he was operating a legitimate business at the time of the proposed change. Mr. Coffey testified that people do live in the mobile home on the Sabonjohn property and they come and go. He agreed that C-1 does not allow storage and stated that the way the Building Department explained it to him was that it has to be either under roof or in constant usage. Mr. Coffey continued that he was neither for nor against Mr. Sabonjohn's request; he 42 did not care which way it is zoned; but he would like to see it cleaned up and operated as whatever it is designated. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. - ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted the recommendation of staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission for denial of Peter Sabonjohn's request for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING - BETTY REEVES The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 43 OCT 12 1983 8 I OCT 12 1993 1 55 ma 44 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper puolished at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1 /Ij, of 'S /Pim/ • ts", / �14-15 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before rg%this,� �y pf 2C -t A.D. 19 (SEAL) V ? JBusiness'Ma ager) (Clerk of the Circuit'Court, inMian,,R4Vef-f5Mnty Florida) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a matterin the of do, d_K/ �1 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �S CJL�.0 fd Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and. affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed befo me ,s ay of !ezl�. A.D. 19 if— i (.. 566, Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit. Court, Indian diver County, Florida) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TOAMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance redesignating land from: MD -2, "Medium Density Residential" to C. "Commercial District." The sub- ject property presently owned by Betty Reeves and Anne Davis is located on the south side of 17th Street, approxi- mately 620 feet east of U.S. Highway s1. The subject property is described as follows: BEGINNING AT THE 'NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6. BLOCK 2 OF DR. RICHARD E. BULLINGTON'S SUB- DIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FROM SAID POINT RUN EAST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 154 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF LOT 6 A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUN- TY, FLORIDA. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 10:00 A. M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he/she need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1983. NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoptio- nof a County Ordinance rezoning land from: R-2, "Multiple -Family District- to C -1A "Restricted Commercial District." The subject property presently owned by Betty Reeves and Anne Davis is lo- cated on the south side of 17th Street, approximately 620 feet east of U.S. Highway =1. The subject property is described as: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2 OF DR. RICHARD E. BULLINGTON'S SUB- DIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FROM SAID POINT RUN EAST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 154 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST 100 FEET; THEN RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF LOT 6 A DISTANCE OF 164 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY; FLORIDA. CONTAINING .24 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1963. TO: FROM: The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: The Honorable Members DATE: September 19, 1983FILE: of the Board of County ZC-83-07-027 Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: y � or Ro ert M. Keating, -;. ICP Planning & Zoning Manager RS Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Principal Planner BETTY REEVES REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN ON .24 ACRES FROM MD -2, TO COMMERCIAL, AND TO RE- ZONE FROM R-2, TO C-lA BETTY REEVES RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. _ DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Betty Reeves, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map. Her request is to redesignate approximately .24 acres located on the south side of 17th Street and 600 feet east of U.S. Highway #1 from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential, to Commercial, with a concurrent rezoning from R-2, Multiple -Family District, to C -1A, Restricted Commercial District. The applicant proposes to develop.this property into a real estate office. On August 2.5, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to approve these requests. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on stchools or environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property fronts 17th Street on the north and is currently vacant. It is surrounded by a broad mixture of heavy commercial, commercial, medium and low density residential developments. Steve Barnett Imports is directly west of this site. North of 17th Street, there is multi -family housing to the east and the new Albertsons store (under construction) and a motel to the west. East of the subject property, there is vacant land to 6th Avenue. The land east of 6th Avenue is developed in single-family residences. South of the subject property, there are some single-family residences and more vacant land. The subject property and the property east, directly south, and directly north of it are zoned R-2, Multiple -Family Residential. The land west of this site is zoned C-1, Commercial District. 45 OCT 121983 � cJ wu 5 OCT 121983 55 mot Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential (maximum of 10 units/acre). The property north, south, and east of this site is also designated as MD -2. The land west of the subject property is included in the U.S. Highway #1 commercial corridor. Based on the existing broad mixture of land uses surrounding the subject property, there are two alternatives for the future development of this site which will provide a good transition between the low-density residential development south of the subject property and east of 6th Avenue, the commercial land uses to the west, and the multi -family residences to the north. The first alternative is to leave the subject property in its existing land use designation and zoning district. A multi -family development would be a good transition between the single-family development south and east of this site and the commercial development to the west. A problem with this alternative is the small size of the subject property and the minimum lot size requirements of the R-2 zoning district. The subject property is 10,400 square feet in size. The minimum size lot in the R-2 district is 7,000 square feet for a single-family residence, 10,000 square feet for a duplex, 12,580 square feet for a triplex, and 15,160 square feet for a quadplex. Based on the size of the subject property and the minimum lot size in the R-2 district, only a single-family residence or duplex could be built on this site. Neither of these would be a good buffer between single-family residences and commercial development. The second alternative is to allow the subject property to be developed as an office. Under the Performance Standards for Commercial Uses in the Comprehensive Plan, the relationship between residential uses and offices is stated as "small complexes with low-rise building and good landscaping can serve as a buffer between residential and commercial uses." As stated earlier, the subject property should provide a buffer between residential and commercial uses, and development of the site as an office meeting these performance standards would provide for such a buffer. While the subject property is too small to be designated as a commercial node, this property is immediately adjacent to the U.S. Highway #1 commercial corridor. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan states that: "Certain parcels of land which do not conform to the policies for nodal development, but can be demonstrated to be suitable for commercial or industrial development and otherwise meet the performance standards described in this element, may receive consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for commercial or industrial zoning classification." The subject property meets the performance standards for commercial uses outlined in the Land Use Element of the Compre- hensive Plan. Transportation System This property has direct access to 17th Street (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and rezoning, development of this property as a real estate office would generate 49 average daily trips (ADT) with 7 trips in the peak hour. Under its existing land use designation (MD -2) and zoning (R-2), this property would generate 24 ADT with two trips in the peak hour. Seventeenth Street currently carries 14,000 ADT with a capacity of 24,000 ADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any significant environmental problems involved in developing this property. Utilities The subject property is served by county water facilities but not by wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the existing and future land use patterns of the area, the commercial land use policies and performance standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the need for the subject property to provide a buffer between residential and commercial uses, and the Planning and Zoning - Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Based on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval recommendation, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject property be rezoned to C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. Planner Shearer displayed slides of the subject property and surrounding area. Betty Reeves, local realtor for 13 years, came before the Board in regard to her request to amend the Comprehen- sive Plan and rezone simultaneously. She confirmed that she wants to construct a professional building to house her real estate office and presented her architect John Dean. Mr. Dean summarized the project, noting that the property is approximately 600' east.of the corner of U.S.l and 17th St. and consists of 1/4 acre. Directly behind the property is residential; directly to the east is open wooded- area; oodedarea; directly to the north are multi -family apartments; and Steve Barnett.Car Dealership is adjacent. The request is to take their corner piece of R-2, which is right next to C-1 and rezone it to C-lA. Mr. Dean wished to show the Board a design of how the land would be used, but it was pointed out that that is a site plan consideration, and the Commission did not wish to see it at this time. Mr. Dean noted the building can be at maximum 3000 sq. ft. with limited uses and handed out the following analysis: 47 OCT 121993 `` ocx 55 PA;;L 47 OCT 121983 AK M ma 48 Reeves Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan on .24 Acres from MD-?_ to Commercial, and to Re -zone from R-2 to C -1A Brief analysis summary of request compatibility with Indian River County'Comprehensive Plan: - 1. Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission did vote in support of this amendment to the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of said property. In so voting they voiced their opinion that the intent of this amendment and rezoning is in accord with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. 2. At the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission the county zoning and planning manager, Mr. Keating, and the principal planner Mr. Shearer share the view that this property is one of the small isolated.land parcels which would have been zoned commercial with the Comprehensive Plan, had it been studied thoroughly at that time. 3. The following quotes are from the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan and enforce the compatibility of the rezoning request with the comprehensive plan. a. page 26 Medium Density Residential Districts "Design Considerations. The Zoning Code shall incorporate performance standards fort ... buffering living units and outdoor recreation areas from commercial uses, industrial activities, utility plants, and.principal streets near the site." b. page 16 Land Use Objectives V2 Incompatible land uses should be separated from one another. Where they do abut, appropriate physical or natural buffers will be established.". c. page 39 Performance Standards for Commercial Uses "Highway -oriented commercial and relationship to residentail uses: physically separated or well- buffered from residential neighborhoods." "Offices and relationship to. residential uses: small complexes with low-rise building and good landscaping can serve as a buffer between resi- dential and commercial uses." "Offices and relationship to other commercial uses: Serve as a buffer between residential and commercial uses." Conclusion This request is for a single lot, in a unique position and should be considered as such. Intent of request is compatible with comprehensive plan. Intent of this request will act as a buffer which is needed between highway commercial and residential in this area. Intent- of this request will not impact area in any negative way and in fact will enhance the beauty and safety of the area. Intent of this request is in accord with all adjacent zoning. Indian River County Planning Staff, after thorough analysis, has continued to support and approve this amendment and rezoning request. The Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission,.after conducting a public hearing on this matter, and having heard p testimony on this matter has given this request their as 1.- � r � Mr. Dean continued to review the analysis in detail, emphasizing that C -1A is a less intensive use and that they are concerned about the neighbors, but do not believe they are creating a drainage problem since they will contain all their water. Regarding utilities, they will have County water and will put in their own septic tank - the building does not require more than a two bedroom house would. Mr. Dean stressed that they are talking about a single lot in the entire stretch along 17th Street. i Planner Shearer agreed that we do not want to see 17th Street strip zoned, but this is a small lot and the maximum development could be a duplex, which staff did not feel was appropriate nor an adequate buffer. C-lA is more restric- tive than C-1; Albertson's is going in across the street, and under the new State laws, Mr. Shearer was not sure you could put a duplex on this lot and have it served by a septic tank. Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission, therefore, recommend approval of the requested changes. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mrs. Charles Engle, of 645 16th Place, stated that she lives back of where this rezoning is proposed. She stated that seven years ago the Zoning Department had assured her that there were no plans for zoning changes in this area; right now they have a beautiful buffer of trees, but if this is passed, they will see a building. Mrs. Engle informed the Board that there are eight property owners in this vicinity who oppose the change. Considerable discussion ensued as to the location of the Engle property, and it was determined that it is directly behind the Audi dealer's parking space. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. 49 . `OCT 121983 OCT 121983 ON MOTION by Commissioner SCURLOCK, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-33 amending the Compre- hensive Plan from MD -2 to Commercial as re- quested by Betty Reeves, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-34 rezoning the Reeves property as advertised from R-2 to C-lA. 50 5-5 ORDINANCE NO. 83-33 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to redesignate the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THERE- FORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River•County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the.Land Use Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2 OF DR. RICHARD E. BULLINGTON'S SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FROM SAID POINT RUN EAST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 154 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF LOT 6 A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from MD -2, Medium Density Residential to C, Commercial. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Use Element. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12thday of October , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By=_ 111Isz1. RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 17th day of October , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21stday of October , 1983, atll:OQA.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County , Florida. -APPROVED AS FO LEGAL SUFFZCIENCY BY: )8RANDENBURG, CouAty Attorney KC/r� OCT 121983 c 55 ma 5 OCT 121983 55, ORDINANCE NO. 83-34 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pur- suant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2 of DR. RICHARD E. BULLINGTON'S SUBDIVISION, ACCORD- ING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FROM SAID POINT RUN EAST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 154 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST 100 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF LOT 6 A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING .24 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from R-2, Multi -Family District to C -1A, Restricted Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of. Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY Richard N. Bird, Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 17th day of October , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of October ,1983, atl1:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED O FOJ LEGAL S CIENC,31. BY /r , Coipnty Attorney COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ENCLAVES IN INDIAN RIVER SHORES The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian. River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a ZZAL &Z - in the matter of A::N"i n in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of,&J ��. �GL • ��1�� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for aperiod of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me 4�s �/ day of iC A.D. 19 ___.. 1 (Bu . s Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RIvef County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING )f0 AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance redesignating land from: LD -2, "Low Density Residential" (up to - 6 units/acre) to 13-1, "Low Density Residential" (up to 3 units/acre). The subject property consists of all Indian River County enclaves located within the Town of Indian River Shores• ex- cluding that area occupied by Pebble Bay Estates. The subject property is described as: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Southern Shores Replat No. 2 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 66 of the records of Indian River County, Florida. Said land containing 12.1 plus-minus acres.. AND ALSO Lot 4, Low's Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said land now lying and being in In- dian River County, Florida. AND ALSO The following described parcels lo- cated within Section 36, Township 31 South. Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida: The North y2 of Gov- ernment Lot 5, less and except State Road AIA highway right-of-way; the South '/x of Government Lot 6; Govern- ment Lot 7; the South '/x of Govern- ment Lots 8 and 9, including Lots 1 through 22 and Tract A. Riverside Es- tates Subdivision, as record in . Plat Book 5, Page 50, of the public recoids of Indian River County, Florida. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 11:00 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pyr- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman . Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1983. Principal Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo: 53 OCT 121983 R �� 53 OCT 121933 55 Put`5.4. TO: The Honorable Members DATE: FILE: of the Board of County September 20, 1983 Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keats g, K XP Planning & Zoning Manager COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN ON 118 ACRES FROM LD -2, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2, TO LD -1, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 FROM Ri hard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: 118 Acres Co. Principal Planner CLARE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County has initiated a request to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This request is to redesignate approximately 118 acres within several parcels, all of which are County enclaves within the Town of Indian River Shores from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (maximum of 6 units/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (maximum of 3 units/acre). The purpose of this request for redesignation is to establish a land use designation for these County enclaves which is consistent with the land use designation and zoning of the land in the Town of Indian River Shores which surrounds these enclaves. On September 8, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the County enclaves within the Town of Indian River Shores which are west of a line 400 feet west of State Road A -1-A be redesignated from LD -2 to LD -1. Included with this was a recommendation that the County enclaves which are east of a line 400 feet west of State Road A -1-A retain their LD -2 land use designation. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The County enclaves within the Town of Indian River Shores are primarily vacant, devoted to groves or single-family residences. The enclaves have been divided into two types: the beach and duneland enclaves near- the ocean and the river enclaves near the Indian River. The beach and duneland enclaves are.composed of three parcels of land (two are contiguous). All of these parcels have the ocean as an eastern boundary. The two contiguous parcels, parcels 1 and 2 (see attachment #3)) are currently vacant, as is the land in the Town of Indian River Shores that surrounds them on three sides. The third parcel is the Forman property which was considered for rezoning earlier this year (see location map). This property is vacant with the exception of an abandoned single-family house in dilapidated condition. To the west of the property, across S.R. A -1-A, is the Park Shores condominium 54 118 Acres Co. September 20, 1983 Page 2 development (multiple -family residential at 6.units/acre). Directly to the south of the property is the Island Shores Club condominium development (multiple -family residential at 8 units/acre). Directly to the north of the property is Sunny Sands Subdivision, a single-family residential development (2.56 units/acre). The river enclaves are also predominantly vacant. Parcel 3 contains a grove; the land surrounding it is vacant. Parcels 6 & 7 and the land around them are vacant. Parcel 8 contains a grove and vacant land, and it is surrounded by vacant land. Parcel 9 contains a single-family house. South of parcel 9 is a large tract of land containing two large single-family homes and a large amount of vacant land. Parcel 11 contains a single-family house. Parcel 10 contains a single-family house and groves. Parcel 12 and the land east of it are vacant. Parcels 13-22 are part of a single-family subdivision. Parcels 13, 17, and 19 contain single-family houses. The other parcels are vacant. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the enclaves as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6 units/acre). The Town of Indian River Shore's Comprehensive Plan contains three residential land use designations (see attachment #4). These designations are Moderate -Density Residential, Low -Density Residential, and Very Low -Density Residential (for environmentally sensitive lands). The designations are implemented through the Town's zoning ordinance which contains three residential zoning districts. These districts and their densities are: R -1A, Single -Family Residential District (maximum of 2.9 units/acre); R -2A, Multiple -Family Residential District (maximum of 6 units/acre); and R -2B Multiple -Family, Hotels and Motels. The beach and duneland enclaves are generally surrounded on three sides by the Town's Moderate -Density Residential land use designation and R -2A zoning district (maximum of 6 units/acre). The exception tothis is the land north of the Forman property which has a Low -Density Residential land use designation. The river enclaves are surrounded on three sides by the Town's Low -Density Residential and Very Low -Density Residential land use designations and R-lA zoning district (maximum of 2.9 units/acre). The Low -Density Residential designation covers the land near the center of the island, and the Very Low -Density Residential designation is assigned to the land along the river. Good planning principles dictate that the County enclaves surrounded by the Town of Indian River Shores have land use designations consistent with those of the surrounding areas. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the County must coordinate its land use planning activities with the municipalities in the County. Based on the Town's land use designations for the properties surrounding the enclaves and the existing land use pattern, the river enclaves should be redesignated LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (maximum of 3 units/acre), and the beach and duneland enclaves should keep their current land use designation of LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (maximum of 6 units/acre). one problem with redesignating the river enclaves LD -1 is that the existing single-family subdivision would have to be rezoned 55 55 Fd�* OCT 12 1983 I OCT 12 1983 5 PAR 5 118 Acres Co. September 20, 1983 Page 3 to R-lAA, Single -Family Residential District. The R-lAA zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 16,500 square feet and a minimum floor area of 1600 square feet. Most of the lots in this subdivision are 9205 square feet, making it difficult in some cases to meet the setback requirements of the R-lAA district while constructing a house having at least 1600 square feet of floor area. The lots could be developed under R-lAA zoning but may require variances on the size of houses or on setbacks. Roads/Traffic The beach and duneland enclaves have direct access to S.R. A -1-A (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under the existing land use designation, the development of the Forman property would generate 511 average daily trips (ADT) and the northern two parcels would generate 547 ADT. These projected ADT could be reduced by twenty percent by redesignating these enclaves to LD -1. The river enclaves can be expected to have their primary access to Jungle Trail (classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Pian). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under the existing land use designation, the development of the river enclaves would generate 7260 ADT. The ADTs could be reduced by fifty percent by redesignating these enclaves LD -1. At the present time, S.R. A -1-A could handle the additional traffic generated by the development of the beach and duneland enclaves under the current land use designations. However, Jungle Trail is a dirt road and contains mangroves on its eastern side. Jungle Trail cannot handle 7,260 ADT above its existing traffic. Jungle Trail would have to be paved and have drainage improvements made before it could handle this additional traffic. These improvements could have serious adverse effects on the mangroves between Jungle Trail and the river. Environment For the environmental analysis, the enclaves were divided into two groups, beach and duneland enclaves and river enclaves. Enclaves - Beach & Dunelands The combined beach and duneland system on the Barrier Island is the primary protective defense against coastal storms and flooding along the Atlantic shoreline. The beach system is comprised of four zones: Nearshore - The submerged beach extending seaward as far as the force of waves reaches to the bottom, often the point at which depths reach 40 to 50 feet; Bar - The offshore ridge that may emerge at low tides but is submerged at least at high tides and often permanently; Foreshore - The wet beach, lying adjacent to and below the backshore berms, and extending to the low-water mark; Backshore - The dry beach, lying dunelands that is washed by waves during normal storms and highest 56 adjacent to and below the at least once a year tides. It is made up of M I 118 Acres Co. September 20, 1983 Page 4 berms and flats formed by wave deposition of sand or gravel on the backshore. On the Barrier Island, the foreshore and backshore zones - the beach areas of greatest impact from land development and recreational activity - form a relatively narrow unvegetated strip along the coast. The two zones, commonly taken to be "the beach", range from less than 100 feet to more than 500 feet in width; in most places their combined width is less than '200 feet. The shape and slope of the beach commonly change with storm events. Most beach areas have a uniform, gentle slope to the water's edge; others have wave -built ridges with short, stronger slopes ranging to 15 percent or more. Beach soils are comprised of pale brown to light gray sand grains of uncoated quartz mixed with multi -colored, sand -sized shell fragments. Few to many coarser shell fragments occur in all parts of the soil. Depth to the water table ranges from 0 -to 6 feet or more. The duneland system begins at the landward edge of the beach backshore, identified as the annual highest tide mark. From the beach backshore it extends landward, generally including the active dunes, sand ridges, troughs and flats subject to active gain or loss of sand because of sea wave action and wind. Soils of the primary dune are dominated by Palm Beach fine sand and Canaveral fine sand; overwash areas landward of the primary dune are dominated by Canaveral fine sand. Characteristics of the two soils are as follows: Palm Beach Fine Sand: Excessively well drained; Rapid permeability; Very low available water capacity; Very low organic matter content and natural fertility; Surface layer - Grayish brown fine sand, approximately 8 inches thick; Underlying material - Pale brown fine sand in the upper 22 inches, light gray fine sand with multi- colored shell fragments below to a depth of 80 inches or more. Canaveral Fine Sand: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained; Very rapid permeability; Very low available water capacity; Very low organic matter content and natural fertility; Surface layer - Dark brown fine sand approximately 6 inches thick; Underlying material - Pale brown fine sand in the upper 28 inches; Gray fine sand with many sand - size shell fragments to a depth of 80 inches or more. Three distinct vegetation communities are characteristic of the dunelands: Vine and Grass Zone: Location - Immediately landward of the beach zone, extending up the seaward face of the primary dune. 57 0kT 121983 57 OCT I a 1983 118 Acres Co. September 20, 1983 Page 5 Typical Plant Species - Sea Oats Saltmeadow Cordgrass Dune Panic Grass Beach Bean Railroad Vine Morning Glories Sea Rocket Inkberry Sea Blite Beach Elder Dune Sunflower Camphorweed Sea Purslane Beach Croton Prickly Zone: Uniola paniculata Spartina patens Panicum amarulum Canavalia maritima Ipomoea pes-caprae Ipomoea spp. Cakile spp. Scaevola plumieri Suaeda linearis Iva imbricata Heliantrus debilis Hetrotheca subaxillaris Sesuvium portulacastrum Croton punctatus 58 Location - Landward of the vine and grass zone on the sloping back edge of the primary dune and extending onto the overwash area. Typical Plant Species - Saw Palmetto Wax Myrtle Woody Goldenrod Myrtle Oak Chapman's Oak Sea Myrtle Serenoa repens Myrica cerifera Solidago pauciflosculosa Quercus myrtifoiia Quercus chapmanii Baccharis halimifolia var. angustior As mentioned previously, the dune system on the barrier island is the primary protective defense against coastal storms and flooding. There is a great need to preserve as much vegetation on the dune line as possible. However, substantial protection can be achieved at up to six units per acre (LD -2) with existing safeguards such as the Coastal Construction Control Line and future safeguards such as dune vegetation regulations. Enclaves - River Areas The river areas consist of two natural vegetative communities: 1) Upland mixed hammock association; 2) Mangrove forest. Most of the upland mixed hammock association within the river enclaves has been destroyed or severely altered and replaced with citrus groves or -exotic vegetation. The predominant single resource feature common to all the river enclaves is Jungle Trail. This unpaved road is uniquely scenic in Indian River County. It is also one of the oldest known roads existing in the County. It is designated as a significant County -wide resource in the Comprehensive Plan. Directly to the west of Jungle Trail, is a band of mangrove trees which help stabilize the new road. There are currently several critical erosion problems associated with Jungle Trail. Since the only means of access to the river enclaves is the trail, increased traffic as the result of increased residential densities would certainly have a negative impact on the road. It should also be noted that the historical M M M M 118 Acres Co. September 20, 1983 Page 6 development of the Jungle Trail area is that of low-density single-family housing associated with agriculture, giving the area "Old Florida" character. Much of the land within the river enclaves is located in a flood hazard area (elevation 6 feet). Based upon this and the above mentioned facts, the area would be better served by a redesignation of the Comprehensive Plan from LD -2 to LD -1. Utilities The enclaves are not served by County water nor wastewater facilities. Because these parcels are enclaves surrounded by the Town of Indian River Shores, the County does not intend to provide these parcels with future services. The County recommends that the services be provided by the Town of Indian River Shores or the City of Vero Beach. However, if service is not provided by either municipality, developers of the various parcels would be able to apply for a franchise from the County to provide water and wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the land -use designations of the Town of Indian River Shores, environmental considera- tions, and the Planning -'and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the staff recommends the following: 1) All of the river enclaves (areas which are west of a line 400 feet west of and parallel to State Road A -1-A) should be redesignated from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (maximum of 6 units/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (maximum of 3 units/acre); 2) All of the beach and duneland enclaves (areas which are east of a line 400 feet west of and parallel to State Road A -1-A) should retain their existing LD -2 land use designation. Mr. Shearer confirmed that all the properties under consideration are surrounded on three sides by the Town of Indian River Shores. The Town wishes these redesignated to lower densities to conform to their zoning, and the County Commission in July did approve the County initiating an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff basically did an environmental analysis and studied existing land uses. Most of the land is vacant at the present time. A lot of the area is zoned Agricultural or R-1. The enclaves are divided into two environmental groups — those along the beach east of AlA and those on the river side. Most of the latter are on or very near to Jungle Trail. Staff is recommending that those towards the river should be redesignated to LD -1 to make them compatible with the surrounding land use designation of the Town, and further recommends that the 59 OCT 12 1983 55rpt 59 �T 2 193 OCT 1 ra beach enclaves retain their existing LD -2. It was felt through cluster development that 6 units per acre would not adversely affect the environment along the beach and it is compatible with the Town's development. Chairman Bird asked if we have any pending site plans in these properties, and was informed that we do not. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyons asked if any representative from the Town of Indian River Shores was present, and Mr. Shearer reported that a copy of this information was sent to Town Manager Dorsky and all property owners were properly notified as well as those within 3001. ON MOTION -by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the -Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-35 amending the Comprehen- sive Plan to redesignate all of the river en- claves (areas west of a line 400 feet west of and parallel to SR AlA) from LD -2 to LD -1. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed that all of the beach enclaves (areas east of a line 400 feet west of and parallel to SR AlA should retain their existing LD -2. W ORDINANCE NO. Rl-15 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to redesignate the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THERE- FORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map, be^amended as follows: i 1. That the Land Use Map be changed -in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 4, Low's Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. AND ALSO The following described parcels located within Section 36, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida: The South i of Government Lot 6; Government Lot 7; the South of Government Lots 8 and 9, including Lots 1 through 22 and Tract A, Riverside Estates Subdivision, as record in Plat Book 5, Page 50, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from LD -2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to LD -1, Low Density Residential (up to 3 units/acre). All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Use Element. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 17th day of October , 1983. OCT 12 1983 mcf, , J OCT 12 1983 '- rA Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21stday of October , 1983, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Zounty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AZ TO FO ANI LEGAL SUF4 el'ENCY BY: r I Attorney PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM C-1 AND A TO C-2 (MEOLA/ MONENSCHEIN The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Dalily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. p2 Sworn to and subscribed before thi of 1� A.D. 19 � .q (BusiiWs anager) J- y! (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indiah Aiver County, Florida) (SEAL) �OCT 12193 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance rezoning land from: C-1, "Commercial District' and A, "Agricultural District" to C-2, "Heavy Commercial District." The subject property presently owned by Gary Meola and William Monenschein is lo- cated on the south side of 85th Street, (Wabasso Road), west of the F.E.C. Railroad. The subject property is described as BEGIN AT A POINT 363 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN EAST 210 FEET, SOUTH 210 FEET, WEST 210 FEET, NORTH 210 FEET, TO POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY; SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1.012 ACRES MORE OR LESS. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street; Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 12, 1983, at 11:00 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testi- mony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 23, Oct. 5, 1983. Mr. Shearer reviewed his memo, as follows: 62 X 55 mG?1 63 OCT 12 1983 W 55 rasp 6,4 TO: 'The Honorable Members DATE: September 20, 1983 FILE: Of the Board of County Commissioners MEOLA/MONENSCHEIN REQUEST DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE 1 ACRE FROM SUBJECT: ANDA, COAGRICU TURALTDIST� TRICT, TO C-2, HEAVY COM - Robert M. Keating, P MERCIAL DISTRICT Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager KS FROM: Richard, Shearer, AICP REFERENCES:MEMORANDUM Principal Planner . RUTH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. - DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicants, Gary Meola and William Monenschein, are re- questing to rezone approximately 1 acre located on the South side of 85th Street (Wabasso Road) and 500 feet west of the F.E.C. Railroad from C-1, Commercial District, and A, Agri- cultural District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The applicants propose to develop this site for warehouses. On September 8, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the request to rezone the subject pro- perty to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN The subject property is currently vacant. The area to the south and southwest of the subject property is part of a sand mining operation and is zoned A, Agricultural District. The land immediately west of the subject property is vacant. North of the subject property, across Wabasso Road (85th Street) is an area primarily developed in residential uses. A flea market and the Franklin. Dales Company are located at 55th Avenue, but the rest of this area is developed in single-family homes and mobile home parks. East of the subject property is Graves Brothers Farm Shop. Farther east, across the F.E.C. railroad, are the Graves Brothers Company packing house and the Deerfield Groves Company packing house. The predominant land uses in this area are residential and agri-business. FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN The Comprehensive Plan designates a 150 acre Commercial/ Industrial node at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Wabasso Road (County Road 510). The subject property and the land east of it should be included in this node. The land west of the subject property is designated LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6 units/acre). 63 L_I The C-2, Heavy Commercial District, was designed to accommodate warehouses, fruit packing plants, flea markets, and other commercial uses which are more intensive in nature than offices and retail uses. Based on the existing land uses in this node, the C-2 zoning district seems to be appropriate for the subject property. ROADS/TRAFFIC The subject property has direct access to Wabasso Road (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed in developing the subject.property as warehouses, this site would generate 62 average daily trips (ADT). ENVIRONMENT The subject property is not designated as environmentally , sensitive. However, this site is on the sand ridge, an important aquifer recharge area. 3 UTILITIES The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the existing land use pattern, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda- tion, staff recommends approval. Mr. Shearer noted that this request originally was M-1, but at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of September 8th, the applicant amended his request to C-2 which is the new Heavy Commercial District. Based on that amendment, the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommended approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed.the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-36 rezoning 1 acre from C-1 and A to C-2 as requested by Meola and Monenschein. 64 OCT 121983 ax 55 Fmc� 95 OGT -1 211981 PIPE ORDINANCE NO. 83-36 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pur- suant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: BEGIN AT A POINT 363 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN EAST 210 FEET, SOUTH 210 FEET, WEST 210 FEET, NORTH 210 FEET, TO POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1.012 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District and A, Agricultural District to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY Ric and N. Bird, Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 17th day of October , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of October ,1983, at 11 A.M./p.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of C my Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVE TO FORM LEGAL S �CIENC,) i ffiw. ® ounty Attorney kk PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM C-lA TO R -2D AND R -2A - VERO BEACH OCEAN FRONT ASSOCIATES The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumai, a daily newspaper published At Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of ©C.G • 5_, . 13, 19 '$ 3 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement, and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate: commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this L� day of 0 Ck- A.D. 19 83 'PtVejs Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, India Iver County, Florida) v " net"�a3���aczDiorDg020mO*QZm41Wmm ppn5.3°•o m m07Drr�00�+TH000Dn^'>WC a0C IFN O -14y<9 r -i<� -r"1 maim ®0,1152581 +� O zm im aD<'�'mm-••�i�mm'g m�mp�IWZ r X02 DZ=7fx -T- aP,Z.m$rc 3 mmm ZiZ Z -i r" Z �� 390.3 mnm/Bm3 wDn 9• mOmaOmr'•gao O-4,cw� 05.4 wm _o w a aRm g2 s3 "nth -MO -4 Zmo ZX-mgOOD=A �mOQz-iz=�QZmZI DOim i°•a5om3m3�m2�m oag<E�CA mWoWXO>-mAm0 D90_DS� �O 3 ,pnio 3�,.ID��OD7�Qm-I{A=C -4-<i"ZD*S m •e a ~� 3 z =r> -VZ Z$A OZ -am r 1 Dr 080- s, mTmjwm3Q"r>0>O0-�r- X X_4Zr-1Q« m m m wm.E -�m� d OnmoO-�=m $O Om StA D 3 d 3� a� n iia m q 3�nx <ym DX m-IOr m 7 c CLm 0 =- ar� mo m Z �-► > .I D.n 3g 0firm *4c 33►33 0 m yatni�-mZ�X :11 In 3 0 Sa D�s Po�OZZ'CDS2N Q�SCOD I <V �3- Uzi p m mmm-4QZOmm�c)xomz-nvrt ' NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING Notice ofhearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance rezoning land from: C -1A, " --Restricted Commercial Dis- trict" to R -2A, "Multi -Family Dimrlct" (up to 4 units/acre). The sub)ect prop- eAy presently owned by Vero Beach•• Ocean Front Associates is located on ? the eau side •of S.R. AIA. North of Summerplace Subdivision. The subject property is described as: FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH UNE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY • OF STATE ROAD At RUN SOUTH 240,27' 51" EAST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY- A DISTANCE OF' 363.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE RUN NORTH 650" 32' 10" EAST A DISTANCE OF, 116.41 FEET: THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.0 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77° 26', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.92 FEET: ` THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A' . :.. CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH- EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 95.96 'FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 380 44'. AN ARC DISTANCE OF 64.38 FEET: THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH. HAVING A RADIUS .OF 30.0 FEET; A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 830 09', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 43.93 FEET: i.. • THENCE RUN NORTH . 381 54' 00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 170.8 FEET: THENCE -RUN NORTH 890, 44' 44" EAST TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER "LINE OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN: THENCE MEANDERING - THE SAID MEAN HIGH WATER UNE IN A ` SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION •A DIS- TANCE OF 202.0 FEET MORE OR LESS:. THENCE RUN SOUTH 890 44' 44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 615.25 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY. OF .SAID STATE ROAD A1A;• THENCE ;a 'RUN ' NORTH 240 27' 51" WEST :,. -ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY A DIS- TANCE OF 98.85 FEET TO.THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ALSO ...To consider rezoning a contiguous parte under the same ownership from: C -1A, "Restricted Commercial 1315- ` tnet" to R-20, MuIU-Family District" (up to 6 units/acre). rriaQZD=mm% 9Wrio F%_Cr p�nl� •fl�rSb .0 mOmDQLmo o�y30c� sr r2m +►- <0_2� Win OODQwrOD>i m mPZmm-4m�m4_ �Oz�0�7pm..ga Wm0_ y0�m. mEDOxmy r �' OQZr= tn0�<D 66 B��JK1 5-5 P.A6€ 67 OCT 121983 II OCT 121983 The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 19, 1983 FELE: of the Board of County ZC-83-03-016 Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: VERO BEACH OCEAN FRONT ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO SUBJECT: REZONE 6 ACRES FROM C-lA TO R -2D AND R -2A Y / Robert M. Keating, Ar P Planning & Zoning Mgr. RS FROMRichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: VB Ocean Front Principal Planner CLARE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 12, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Wendall Collins, an officer of Vero Beach Ocean Front Associates, is requesting to rezone approximately 6 acres located on the east side of State Road A -1-A and 3/8 mile north of County Road 510 from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to R -2D, Multiple -Family Residential District, and R -2A, Multiple -Family Residential District. This request is to rezone the north 4.7 acres of the property to R -2D (maximum of 6 units/acre) and the south l.3 acres to R -2A (maximum of 4 units/acre). The applicant proposes to develop this site as townhouse condominium residences. On September•8, 1983,the Planning and Zoning. Commission voted 5-0 to approve this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this seotion, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. The land to the north is zoned R -2D and is also vacant. The ocean is east of the subject property. There are two vacant parcels of land south of the subject property which are zoned C-lA. South of this vacant land is Summer Place, a single-family subdivision of 1/4 acre lots which are zoned -R-1, Single -Family Residential District. West of the subject property, across State Highway A -1-A, is Spring Place, a single-family subdivision of 1/2 acre lots zoned R-1, and vacant land zoned C -1A. South of Spring Place is Oceanaire Heights, a single-family subdivision zoned R-2, Multiple -Family Residential District. 67 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of six units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -2. Farther south of the subject property is the 25 acre C.R. 510 and A -1-A tourist commercial node. The applicant has requested a rezoning which is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning of the property, C-lA, does not conform to the plan. The proposed rezoning for the northern part of the -subject property (to R -2D) would be consistent with the R -2D zoning to the north. The proposed rezoning for the southern part of the property (to R -2A) would allow a lower -density development which is more consistent with the density of the single-family developmehts to the south. The applicant originally wanted to request all R -2D zoning for this site. The staff worked extensively with the applicant to ensure an adequate buffer between the R -2D zoning to the north and the undeveloped land to the south. This resulted in the applicant requesting two zoning districts for this property. The R -2A zoning for the southern part of this property would take some responsibility off the owners of the undeveloped property to the south to provide a buffer between R -2D development to the north and R-1 development to the south. Roads/Traffic -This property has direct as an arterial street on development will generate in the peak hour. These traffic on A -1-A and are which would be generated commercially. Environment access to State Road A -1-A (classified the Thoroughfare Plan). The proposed 241 average daily trips (ADT) with 24 additional trips will not hinder considerably less than the 3,705 ADT by this property if it were developed The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. However, the following policies in the Conservation/Coastal Zone Element of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the development of this property: 1) The County shall prohibit any nonessential coastal activity which threatens to destroy the natural coastal features occurring between the State Coastal Construction setback line and a point 300' seaward of the mean high water line. Such features include: a. Nearshore worm reefs; b. Archeological ruins or artifacts (shipwrecks); c. Beaches, - d. Primary dune systems. 2) The County shall require elevated dune walkovers at all new or improved points of beach access. 3) The County shall prohibit vehicular traffic within the primary dune/beach system. 4) The County shall require beachfront lighting designs which do not result in the disorientation of nesting or hatching sea turtles. A 100 foot portion of the property from the shoreline is located within a coastal high hazard zone (Zone V12, elevation 11) and a requlatory flood zone (Zone A10, elevation 9). The V12 and A10 68 OCT 12.993 r�� OCT 12 198 55` zones identify areas subject to 100 year coastal floods. The rest of the subject property is in a C zone which identifies areas which can expect minimal flooding. The applicant's survey indicates that the Coastal Construction Setback Line is between 140 and 150 feet from the approximate mean high water line. Conformance with the flood protection standards of Ordinance 82-28 will be required of all development within the V-12 and A-10 zones. Utilities The subject property is not presently served by County water nor wastewater facilities. The developer could, however, apply for a franchise from the County to provide his own water and wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning ` Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Attorney Henderson appeared representing Vero Beach Ocean Front.Associates, who own six acres north of Summerplace Subdivision. He noted that it is the northern part of that commercial enclave which is now designated LD -2 under the Master Plan. It is quite a distance from the intersection of Wabasso Causeway and AlA. Mr. Henderson did not believe it is part of the tourist commercial node. He confirmed that the applicant is seeking a dual zoning in compliance with certain desires of the Planning staff, who prefer R-2D.on the northern part and the lower density R -2A on the southern portion. Planner -Shearer felt it is important to note that the i applicants have been working with staff for quite some time to come up with an appropriate rezoning, and to be consistent, it was requested that they split the zoning on the property. Staff is very happy regarding the way the applicants have worked with them to create a reasonable transition. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-37 rezoning six acres from C-lA to R -2D and R -2A as requested by Vero Beach Ocean Front Associates. 70 OCT 121983 P1 I OCT 12 1983 gra Put 72 ORDINANCE NO. 83-37 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pur- suant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD A -1-A RUN SOUTH 24027'51" EAST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 363.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE RUN NORTH 65°32'10" EAST A DISTANCE OF 116.41 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.0 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 770261, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.92 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 95.96 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 380441, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 64.38 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.0 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 830091, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 43.93 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 38054'00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 170.8 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 89044'44" EAST TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN; THENCE MEANDERING THE SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION A DISTANCE OF 202.0 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89044'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 615.25 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID STATE ROAD A -1-A; THENCE RUN NORTH 24027'51" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 98.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Be changed from C -1A, Commercial District -to R -2A, Multi -Family District. 2. 'That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described contiguous property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to wit: THE NORTHERLY 462 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD A -1-A) OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING EAST OF SAID STATE ROAD A -1-A IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 71 COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD A -1-A AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD A -1-A A DISTANCE OF 462 FEET TO A -POINT; THENCE RUN EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 TO THE HIGH WATER LINE OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE HIGH WATER OF ATLANTIC OCEAN TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; THENCE RUN WEST ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL TO BE REZONED FROM C-lA TO R -2A. Be changed from C-lA Restricted Commercial District to R -2D, Multi -Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of October , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RRIVEERR )COUNTY -• BY Richard N. Bird, Chairman REPORT ON JUSTICE FACILITY - 4TH COURTROOM, ETC. Commissioner Lyons reported that he had received some revised numbers from the architects based on considering construction of the jail only, and they came up with a total of 8.189 million, as follows: 72 OCT 121983 86m 3� Fr OCA` Z a 1983 55rasp .74 N. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc. 200 West Welbourne Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32769 Indian River County Justice Complex (305) 628-0620 5 October 1983 Project Cost Summary: Corrections Facility $ 5,872,000 Off -Site Improvements: Water $ 90,000 Sewer 105,000 $ 195,000 Equipment and Furnishings $ 400,000 Quality Control Tests: Materials Testing $ 8,000 Soil Boring 8,000 Survey 5,000 $ 21,000 Fees and Permits (Sewer and Water Impact, DER) $ 45,000 Land (20 Acre Tract) $ 140,000 Architect's Fee $ 401,000 6.6% of Construction Plus Off -Site Sewer and Water, Only Contingency $ 300,000 TOTAL $ 7,374,000 Inflation at 0.6 a/Month to Mid -Point of Construction (9/11'85) for Construction, Off -Site Improvements, and Equipment and Furnishings $ 815,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 8,189,000 Commissioner Lyons then brought to the Board's atten- tion the concept of setting up a separate communications center, possibly combining Civil Defense and the Sheriff's communications in an attempt to obtain some funding. He reported that he.also has a meeting set up to see about the possibility of getting some other federal funding if we would agree to tape some federal prisoners now and then, and he will come back with a recommendation very shortly. Chairman Bird inquired how we stand right now with the architects, and Commissioner Lyons stated that they have been authorized to give us a master plan of the whole complex and site the buildings, and to proceed with the schematic design of the jail facility. As a result of 73 M M M meeting with the people involved with the justice system, we have agreed that we do need extra courtroom space now and that if we have to provide more space, it should be on the basis of removing the County Court from the present area. The original estimates for fixing up the second floor in the Annex were much too high to justify for something temporary so we are looking for leased space for up to 2h courtrooms as we very possibly will have an extra County Judge in the not too distant future. Commissioner Lyons noted that, in the meantime, he has sensed a feeling that the judicial system might be willing to take a look at a somewhat more basic type of courtroom on the second floor of the Annex as an interim solution to the problem. While the Administrator is looking into leasing space, Commissioner Lyons stated that he also would like to have him take another look at making the second floor of the Annex into the kind of courtroom we used to have at the 2001 Building, which was accomplished with only very minimum changes from an ordinary room. Commissioner Scurlock commented that Architect Charles Block contacted him and suggested the possibility of obtaining the Vero Beach T&D (Transmission and Distribution) Building, which is basically a shell building. He noted that actually this building has been pretty well depreciated out, and the cost of moving it would about cover the cost. It is possible that something could be worked out. Commissioner Scurlock continued that the Sheriff has been cooperative in saying that his department will go wherever they are put. He emphasized that we must present a package to the public that is acceptable, and they certainly will not vote for 14 million. Administrator Wright felt that we are looking at a not -to -exceed 9 million issue and recommended this go back 74 OCT 12 1983 $ 55 Past 75 OCT 121903W .55, Put 76 to the Finance Advisory Committee since he believed we have had more ad valorem growth than anticipated. Commissioner Scurlock reported that the committee will hear presentations from at least four bonding companies. Chairman Bird complimented the Planning staff for their efficient presentations at the public hearings held today. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk 75 Chairman