Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1983November 21, 1983 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, November 21, 1983, at 1:30 o'clock P.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, William C. Wodtke, Jr. and Patrick B. Lyons. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. DISCUSSION RE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT PLAN (postponed at the meeting of 11/16/83) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/83: and synopsis of the plan dated 10/31/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 4, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners HUTCHINSON ISLAND SUBJECT: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FROM: Bob Keating, AICP a. REFERENCES: H.I. Synopsis Planning & Development Director DW:L It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on November 16, 1983. NOV 21 193 ���W �NOV 21 1993 w4 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee has com- pleted its work and has adopted a management plan for the island. Focusing upon growth and development of the island, as well as upon those issues associated with this growth, the Plan identifies existing and potential problems, and it sets forth policies to address these problems. Fora number of reasons, the Hutchinson Island Resource Manage- ment Plan is controversial. Besides restricting future growth on the island, the Plan provides for a certain amount of state oversight relating to development of the island. In addition, the Plan may affect the County in a number of other ways. As of this time, the final version of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan, incorporating all amendments to the document, has not been distributed by the state. Using the draft report as well as the approved amendments, the staff has prepared a synopsis/ analysis of the approved Plan. A copy of that staff report is attached to this memo. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The attached staff report details the Hutchinson Island Re- source Management Plan, analyzes its effects upon the County, and identifies alternatives to plan adoption. The staff report also includes a preliminary assessment of the actions which must be undertaken by the County to implement the Plan. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider the staff's synopsis/analysis of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. 2 October 31, 1983 SYNOPSIS OF THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION The Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan was adopted by the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee by a vote of 18-8 on Thursday, October 6, 1983. After review by the state Department of Community Affairs, the Plan and the Depart- ment of Community Affairs recommendation will be presented to the Governor and Cabinet at their meeting of November 29, 1983. At that time the Governor and Cabinet will decide whether or not to accept the Plan. In assessing the impacts of the committee's vote, two factors must be considered. First, the effects of the Plan upon Indian River County must be determined; that is the primary purpose of this analysis. Second, the alternatives to approving the management plan must be considered. Specifically, the actions which could and probably would have been taken had the Plan not been adopted and their effects upon Indian River County must be identified. Had the Hutchinson Island Management Plan not been adopted by the advisory committee, the Governor and Cabinet had three principal alternative actions which could have been taken. First, the Governor and Cabinet could have opted to take no action; in essence, finding that no problems exist which would warrant a critical area designation or that sufficient develop- ment controls are in place to mitigate or prevent adverse effects upon critical resources. The no action alternative probably would not have been acceptable to the Governor and Cabinet. The second and third alternatives are similar in effect, differing only in scope.- Both would have had a high probabil- ity of acceptance by the Governor and Cabinet. The second alternative would be the designation of part or parts of Hutchinson Island as an Area of Critical State Concern, while the third alternative is designation of the entire island as a critical area. Although Indian River County would probably not be designated as a critical area if only parts of the island were so designated, the effects upon the County, of it were designated a critical area under either alternative two or three, would be significant. The specific effects upon Indian River County of an Area of Critical State Concern designation cannot be determined, but the potential impacts can be identified. Put simply, an Area of Critical State Concern designative would allow the state to control development on the barrier island in Indian River County. The extent to which the state would exercise that control, however, is not known. After designating the island as a critical area, the state would have a certain period of NOV 21 1983 BEo r► �4 5 NOV 21 1993 1 5 PAEE-496 time to prepare development regulations for the area. In that interim period while the regulations were being prepared, the state would have the ability to review and challenge any development order issued by the County in the critical area even a permit for a single family residence. Once prepared, the state regulations would control development on the island, unless or until the County adopts and obtains state approval for revised development regulations for the critical area. Since the alternatives to approving the Hutchinson Island Plan have been delineated, it is now necessary to assess the impacts of the Plan upon the County. To do that, several characteris- tics will be addressed. These will include a discussion of the background and the process of plan preparation, an analysis of the content of the Plan, and a determination of the implica- tions of the Plan upon Indian River County. BACKGROUND The Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan preparation process began with the identification of a potential problem on Hutchinson Island. That problem was one of rapid growth and intensive development on at least parts of the island. Coupled with the sensitive nature of the barrier island, this growth and development raised the question, of whether not the island should be protected by the state as an area of critical state concern. To address that issue, the Governor, as empowered by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes., appointed a committee composed of both local and state representatives. The function of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee was to identify the fragile resources within the study area, determine threats to those resources, and propose a means to protect the re- sources and the viability of the barrier island system. The committee's major task was to prepare a plan to be implemented by all governments and public agencies having jurisdiction on the island which would reduce or eliminate threats to the viability of the barrier island's systems. Working with state and regional planning council personnel as staff, the committee prepared background analyses of the island, its resources, and its systems. The committee also identified major issues and problems and developed a set of policies and proposed implementation procedures. After meeting a number of times to discuss, refine, update, and amend the draft plan, the committee voted to adopt the Plan. In so_ doing, the committee established a strategy which, if imple- mented by affected governments and government agencies, will achieve the stated objectives of the Plan and eliminate the need for state control of growth and development on the island. -2- 4 PLAN The Hutchinson Island_ Resource Management Plan, itself, applies to the study area delineated by the Governor and interpreted by the committee. Comprising that part of the barrier island extending from the Sebastian Inlet in Indian River County to the St. Lucie Inlet in Martin County, the study area includes the three counties and four municipalities having jurisdiction over that part of the barrier island. The study area- also includes the Indian River to the mean high water line on the mainland. The Plan addresses four principal areas of concern within the study area. These are: (1) environmentally sensitive re- sources; (2) potable water/wastewater; (3) capital improvements programming; and (4) transportation. For each of these areas of concern, the Plan includes a statement of findings, an identification of issues and problems, and a set of policies. The policies applicable to each of these areas of concern constitute the management plan for the study area. It is this set of policies which must be taken by the local governments within the study area and incorporated within their respective sets of development regulations. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES In relation to environmentally sensitive resources, the Plan addresses three major systems. These are the Indian River estuary system, the marine turtles nesting habitat system, and the Atlantic Beach and Dune system. Within these systems, the environmentally sensitive resources identified and addressed by the Plan are as follows: wetlands, mangroves, deepwater habitats, reefs, grassbeds, beaches, the dune preservation zone, manatee and sea turtle nesting habitats, and Outstanding Florida Waters as well as Class II and III Waters. The Plan addresses these resources and -identifies a number of issues and problems relating to them. The major issues identified by the Plan in relation to environ- mentally sensitive resources include: elimination of mangrove and marsh areas, bulkheading of the river, damage to dunes and dune vegetation, impacts on water quality, reduced public beach access, inconsistent wetland definitions, impacts to marine turtle nesting areas, inadequate design and construction standards for coastal construction, and damage to worm reefs. To address these issues and problems, the Plan has established two general policies as well as a number of specific policies. The first policy states that no activity shall be allowed that results in the alteration, degradation or destruction of environmentally sensitive resources. Several exemptions to this policy are included. The second policy states that restoration or mitigation programs will be required where unavoidable damage occurs in environmentally sensitive areas. ISC 5 r, r- �N0V 211983 6C4K rAi��h� ` NOV 211983 I sx 5 5 PAP€ -8 It also states that there shall not be a net loss of wetlands. The specific policies address shoreline alteration, shoreline use, shoreline access,. beach/dune stabilization, sea turtle protection, and water quality. Generally, these policies limit allowable shoreline alteration activities, limit shoreline use to water dependent activities, promote shoreline access, and establish water quality protection measures to be undertaken. These policies also require the preparation and implementation of a long-term, multijurisdictional dune stabilization manage- ment plan, and they set criteria for beach lighting and mechan- ical beach cleaning. POTABLE WATER/WASTEWATER The Plan identifies the relationship of water and wastewater systems to growth and development on the island. Noting that the proliferation of package wastewater treatment plants on the island has increased the level of growth and development, the Plan addresses the issue of the reliability of the plants and the potential adverse impacts of those plants on water quality in the study area. The Plan establishes several policies relating to water/wastewater systems. These include a rec- ommendation that new development connect to public water and wastewater systems and a requirement that package plants meet effluent limitations of 15 mg/l BOD and 15 mg/1 TSS. For wastewater facilities, these policies also require improved permitting and inspection processes, increased minimum monitor- ing frequency, the existence of emergency power, the existence of surge tanks, and the existence of flow measuring devices. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING The Hutchinson Island Management Plan identifies the lack of adopted local capital improvement programs as an issue of concern in relation to the island. Recognizing the ability of capital improvements to control and guide growth, the Plan requires each local government to develop a capital improve- ments program for the area of its jurisdiction on the barrier island. These CIPS must include timetables and sources of finding for capital improvements, and they must be integrated into the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. .TRANSPORTATION Of the four areas of concern identified by the committee, the transportation system is the most controversial. Consisting of S.R. AlA, the seven bridges linking the island with the main- land, and the approaches to the bridges, the principal trans- portation system provides for the movement of vehicles to the island and from the island to the mainland. Because of its importance to the island's population, the principal transpor- tation system has been identified by the Plan as a limiting factor affecting the level of growth and development on the island. -4- C.1 The Plan identifies several issues or problems relating to the principal transportation system. One is the lack of relation- ship between -local transportation plans and other elements of local plans. Another issue is the lack of consistent standards employed by local governments having jurisdiction over the island's transportation system. A third issue is the .evac- uation capability of the island's principal transportation system. The transportation policy established by the Plan specifies that the distribution, location, and intensity of future development on the island shall not exceed the efficient use of the principal transportation system. The standard used to measure efficient use is Level of Service "C" on an average annual basis and Level of Service "D" for peak season traffic. According to that policy, additional residential development would not be allowed in excess of one unit per buildable acre in any traffic zone where existing and committed development exceed the capacity of the most restrictive point of the principal transportation system serving the zone, where the standard used is Level of Service "C" on an average annual basis or Level of Service "D" for peak season traffic. The four traffic zones in Indian River County are served by three bridges linking the island to the mainland. For two of the bridges, the Wabasso Bridge and the Merrill Barber Bridge, the capacities of the bridges themselves are the most restric- tive points of the principal transportation system serving their respective traffic zones. The 17th Street Bridge, however, has its capacity reduced because of the east inter- section of S.R. A1A. The Hutchinson Island Plan includes capacities for each of the segments of the principal transportation system as well as trip generation rates for both existing and committed development in each traffic zone. According to the Plan, the Wabasso Bridge has sufficient capacity to accommodate peak season traffic demand from existing and committed development in Traffic Zone 1. The excess capacity presently existing in this zone is almost 5,000 peak season trips. For Traffic Zones 2, 3, and 4, all of which are served by the Merrill Barber and 17th Street Bridge, the existing capacity is' insufficient to accommodate traffic demand from existing and committed development within the affected zones. Until that capacity is increased no residential development in excess of one unit per buildable acre would be allowed in those zones. Besides relating future development to the capacity of the transportation system, the Plan requires each local government to prepare a transportation impact study within three years of the date of plan adoption. The Plan requires that the trans- portation impact study be submitted to the state and to other affected local governments for review and comment. It requires -5- NOV 21 1983 .506K 'E5 w 4 9-- Fr- NOV 211983 � SOK " PAG€ 70 local governments in areas where excess capacity exists to submit an allocation plan to the state for that capacity within 60 days of receipt of the Plan, and until that allocation plan is approved no additional development shall be approved. The Plan also exempts single-family homes on preplatted single family lots from this provision. IMPLICATIONS The implications of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan for Indian River County are significant. Although the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and its development regulations are generally consistent with the Hutchinson Island Plan, there may be a need to modify the County's Land Use Plan, adopt new regulations or revise existing regulations, and to conduct various studies and,analyses. While all of the specific implications for Indian River County can only be determined after a detailed analysis of the Hutchinson Island Plan in relation to the County's plan and regulations, it is possible to determine general effects upon the County. Transportation, of course, is the area in which the County will be most affected. Using the capacity and the trip generation estimates in the Plan, residential development in Traffic Zones 2, 3, and 4 would have to be restricted to one unit per buildable acre until additional capacity is provided. The marginal excess capacity of the Wabasso Bridge would allow for additional development in Traffic Zone 1; however, t'ile amount of development allowed is substantially less than the densities provided in the County's Comprehensive Plan. One action which the County must take is to adjust its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the densities which correspond to the constraints of the transportation system. While this will involve a reduction in the allowable density on the island, this reduction would be generally consistent with the County's existing Comprehensive Plan. The County's Plan has as one of its objectives the maintenance of a Level of Service C or better on all major thoroughfares in the County; it specifically states that proposed projects shall not proceed if the impact of those projects would reduce the Level of Service below D on the major thoroughfare system: Therefore, development of the barrier island to the density levels allowed in the plan would be restricted by the existing County policies related to the thoroughfare system. While the roadway capacities established in the Hutchinson Island Plan will not change unless the roads are upgraded, the trip generation rates included in the Plan may change. Since the County must prepare a transportation impact analysis within three years of adoption of the Management Plan, the results of this analysis may indicate that the trip generation rates for om 0 M M 'M the barrier island in Indian River County differ from the rates employed by the Hutchinson Island study. If that analysis finds that trip generation rates are lower, this may result in excess capacity on the principal thoroughfare system and allow for more development on the island. As part of the transportation impact analysis, the County must determine what improvements to the principal thoroughfare system are needed to accommodate the proposed level of growth and development for the island. The County must then either plan for the improvements or reduce the densities currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. With the 5000 trip excess capacity for Traffic Zone 1 using peak season Level of Service D and traffic generation rates, the additional residential development which could be accommodated in this area ranges from less than 700 units to more than 1400 units - depending upon the type of unit constructed. Either way, the allowable densities for that portion of the island would have the be substantially reduced until the capacity of the system is increased. Together, the existing and committed development for Traffic Zones 2, 3, and 4 exceed the capacity of the principal thoroughfare system by almost 5,000 trips at peak season Level of Service D using traffic generation rates. Improving the east and west intersections on the 17th Street Bridge approach, however, could potentially add 36,000 trips to the system's existing capacity. Such improvements could substantially affect development in those traffic zones. Instead of restricting development to one unit per buildable area, local governments in these traffic zones (Indian River County, Vero Beach, and Indian River Shores) could then accommodate between 4,000 and 9,000 additional units - the final number dependent upon the mix of housing types. Another action which must be taken by the County is the formulation of a capital improvement program. This must address improvements proposed for the island as well as the timing and means of funding for those improvements. Specifically, the County must identify transportation improvements, water and sewer system improvements, and all other capital improvements proposed for the island. The Hutchinson Island Plan requires the preparation of erosion control, wetland preservation, stormwater management, and dune preservation ordinances. Other issues which the County must address through regulation include beach lighting, shoreline access, shoreline alteration, habitat destruction, and water/wastewater standards. With its current set of codes and regulations, the County presently addresses a number of these issues. Adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance will give the County further regulatory authority in relation to these issues. Even with its existing codes and ordinances, however, the County may need to make minor revisions to its regulations. -7- 07 N O V 2 119 3 NOCK '5PAG.E471 R OV 211983 elk U. 5 PA The County will also be required to adjust its building code to reflect the unique conditions on the barrier island. Since the County adheres to the Southern Standard Building Code, the adjustments required of the County will probably not be substantial. Finally, it is recommended that the County revise its permitting process to require impact statements for large scale developments on the island. IMPLEMENTATION Now that the Hutchinson Island Management Plan has been adopted, the County must initiate activities to implement the Plan. As discussed above, this involves preparing and revising ordinances, modifying the Comprehensive Plan, and undertaking studies and analyses. Other than the transportation impact analysis which must be completed within three years of Plan adoption, the activities to be undertaken.by local governments to implement the Hutchinson Island Plan must be accomplished by July of 1984. If by July, 1984, sufficient progress in implementing the Plan has not been made by local governments in the study area, the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee will reconvene. Based upon the committee's analysis and a recommendation by the state Department of Community Affairs, the Governor and Cabinet may then opt to designate the area or part of the study area as an Area of Critical State Concern. This, of course, would result in more state control over and development on the barrier island and a loss of local control and autonomy. RMK/ra DIS:SPOLTR 10 t BRIDGE CAPACITY I AND - 14,006TRIP GENERATION WASASSO BRIDGE C-17,000 D-19,100 INDIAN - RIVER 2 11,363 COUNTY MERRILL BARBER BRIDGE C-15,600 0-17,600 VERO BEACH 29,440 17th STREET BRIDGE 4 C-31,000 D-35,000 16,225 NORTH ISLAND CAUSEWAY k 015,200 0'17,200 FT. PIERCE LEGEND BRIDGENAME WABASSO BRIDGE LEVEL OF SERVICE C. CAPACITY (ADT) c-iro00 LEVEL OF SERVICE D CAPACITY (ADT) 0.19,1oo TRAFFIC ZONE I NUMBER OF TR I P'S 14,006 NOV 21 1983 PETER P.COBS BRIDGE C-15,600 017,600 ST. LUCIE COUNTY 5 17,173 617,894 7 I t,639 7,020 9 28,302 IOA6,S41 JENSEN BEACHBRIDG E 0-13,600 D-17,500 108 ! 6,29F3 MARTIN COUNTY STUART SEWALt:S POINT BRIDGE C-4,400 0'10,600 11 BOOK 55 FACE 473 pr - N 0 V 2 11983 rw 4l Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development reported that the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan was adopted by the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee on October 6, 1983. After review by the state Department of Community Affairs, Dr. Degrove will make a recommendation to the Governor and Cabinet on November 29, 1983. At that time the Governor and Cabinet will decide whether or not to .accept the Plan. Director Keating gave a brief summary of the synopsis he had prepared of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan, emphasizing that of the four areas of concern identified by the committee, the transportation system is the most controversial. Lengthy discussion ensued re the traffic capacity of the 17th Street Bridge. It could be increased significantly by improving the intersections at AIA on the east and Indian River Boulevard on the west. The Commissioners questioned the capacity of the intersection at Indian River Boulevard as being a constraint and felt that the bottleneck was at the intersection of 17th Street and U.S. #1. Traffic Engineer Michael Orr advised that the Plan did not extend that far west He felt that the major constraint was the intersection at AIA and believed these intersection improvements could significantly increase the capacity of the bridge. The capacity of the Merrill Barber Bridge was discussed and -Commissioner Lyons suggested that its capacity could be increased by making Royal Palm Boulevard and Royal Palm Place one-way streets. Director Keating stated that according to the traffic analysis in the Plan, the intersections of both sides of the Barber Bridge have capacities in excess of the bridge capacity, so improving the intersections would not help. However, the 17th Street 12 Bridge is unique because the bridge itself has substantially more capacity than the intersections on both ends of it due to its length and the four lanes. Commissioner Wodtke could hardly believe that 95% of all -trips generated on the barrier island resulted in off - island trips. While he could understand that one home could generate 4 trips a day, he felt that just those people going to the post office.on the beach instead of the mainland would reduce this figure considerably and pointed out that the new Catholic Church would reduce the off -island trips by 1200 on Sundays. Director Keating explained that the numbers used were based upon figures included in other studies that have been done on the barrier island, several of them in St. Lucie County. One of the latest amendments to the Plan mandates that all of the local governments having jurisdiction on the island undertake a traffic impact analysis within the next three years to redetermine the off -island trips. Administrator Wright felt that we are going to cover the transportation element with or without this plan through the road impact ordinance study, and will probably finish well ahead of the others. Commissioner Scurlock noted that it would also be covered under the Transportation Advisory Committee, and he believed that a lot of the information needed has already been generated. Administrator Wright stated that we are not going to get a true picture until we finish our traffic study, and Commissioner Wodtke agreed that these figures are questionable and pointed out that the studies show trips calculated on developments that are incomplete north of Johns Island. He further pointed out that the Sebastian Inlet Parks draw 1.7 million visits a year and that has to impact the traffic on the Wabasso Bridge. Commissioner ®V �8� 13 b@�K: 5 rw 4:75 FF - N OV 211983 BIN 55 FA 76 Wodtke felt very strongly that it was the responsibility of the State of Florida to provide transportation facilities for access to State parks. Director Keating reported that if the plan is approved by the Governor, the communities would have to accept these changes and then by the summer of 1984, the State would assess their efforts. Attorney Brandenburg reported that he had just received a call from Tallahassee, and Dr. Degrove's recommendation will be for the Governor and Cabinet to accept the Plan as written with the instruction that the Department of Community Affairs work with each one of the local government units within the Plan to help implement and monitor their implementation for the next 8 months and then report their specific findings to the Cabinet at that time. There will not be a recommendation on the agenda for the meeting of November 29th in respect to any area of critical State concern. He noted that there have been no provisions for any State funds to implement the studies of the projects. The State does fund the Department of Community Affairs, and they have individuals on their staff who can help with certains aspects of the studies. Attorney Brandenburg felt it would be to the County's best interests to adopt the resolution today as it presents the County's past position; it indicates to the Governor that the County is willing and, in fact, will follow the State law by participating in a voluntary, cooperative effort for good planning throughout the State; and it sets forth the County's interpretation of certain sections of the Plan - specifically, that we will undertake the transportation study immediately and during that time there will be no necessary, direct and immediate additional restrictions imposed on the County in respect to the transportation element. He urged that we take this to the Cabinet and get them to acknowledge that it is a cooperative M M 0 effort and let them devote their attention to other counties. Attorney Brandenburg stressed that there is nothing in this Plan that is mandatory at this point. The only alternative is that if we don't comply, possibly sometime in the future the State would say that we were not following their guidelines and would designate the County as an area of critical State concern. There is an attempt in the Legislature this year to give the State more authority along those lines, and we will have to watch that very carefully. Commissioner Lyons felt it was a good resolution and that we are only agreeing to doing the traffic impact study, which we planned on doing anyway. Chairman Bird also agreed that it was a good resolution, but just wished that the State would provide some money for the study, and Commissioner Lyons suggested that we meet with the City of Vero Beach and Indian River Shores to ask for some assistance in the traffic impact study. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman and staff to meet with officials of the cities of Vero Beach and Indian River Shores to ask for some assistance in the traffic study. Administrator Wright advised that they were planning to bring the preliminary scope before the Board for approval. N 0 V 211983 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution 83-116 which sets forth the County's position on the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. 15 POO 55 :rAct-477 - NOV 2 11983 °: sa c 55 pw 4.78 Under discussion, Director Keating advised that if the area was designated as an area of critical State concern, the State could impose a substantial amount of control over the area. They would be able to review any development order issued by the County, including building permits for single family residences. However, if they found that the Plan was an acceptable plan, they would probably use that as a basis for establishing and developing new ordinances and would require that local governments in the jurisdiction abide by that. Administrator Wright suggested that the presentation of the resolution on November 29th be combined with the trip to Tallahassee on the 30th in regard to the Save Our Coasts program. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Vero Beach Councilman Bill Cochrane did not object to the resolution and agreed that the traffic figures were pulled out of the air. He thought we would not know where we stand until we complete our own traffic study. Jeanette Lier reported that she had distributed the resolution to the officials of the Town of Orchid, and they are all in agreement that it is a good resolution. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION regarding the adoption of Resolution 83-116. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. COPY OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. 16 RESOLUTION NO. 83-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SETTING FORTH THE COUNTY'S POSITION ON THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, in the initial request from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to create a resource planning and management committee for Hutchinson Island, the proposed study area was limited to Martin County and St. Lucie County; and WHEREAS, among the reasons for expanding the study area as set forth in Secretary Heggen's memorandum to Governor Graham dated November 22, 1982 was that the presence of a third county would assist in reconciling differences between Martin County and St. Lucie County and that: ...it was felt that Indian River County's success in dealing with Barrier Island development issues would be a valuable = asset to the committee. and WHEREAS, representatives of Indian River County and landowners were also told that the Hutchinson Island study area was expanded to include Indian River County so that the local comprehensive plans and land development restrictions existing within Indian River County would serve as a.model of barrier island development for other local government jurisdictions within the Hutchinson Island study area; and WHEREAS, the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee (the "Committee") on October 6, 1983; and WHEREAS, the transportation portion of the Plan recommends that each unit of local government complete a "trans- portation impact study" and recommends development restrictions on those local governments in which the estimated off island average daily trips generated by existing and approved development exceeds the level of service "C" and "D" as calculated by the State Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the Plan provides that such development restrictions should remain until the transportation impact study N 0 V 21 i9�3 -1- 55 f A �. 479 F_ N GV 21 1983 is approved by the Department of Community Affairs; and WHEREAS, based upon the calculations contained in the Plan the off island daily trips generated by the existing and approved development within Indian River County does not exceed a "C" or "D" level of service; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County while recognizing the value of performing the trans- portation impact study as contemplated in the Plan is uncertain as to the impact of the Plan's recommendations on the transportation portion of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan and the County's growth management objectives; and WHEREAS, the local transportation study as contem- plated in the Plan provides a concentrated focus on the build -out of the approved local comprehensive plans in Indian River County and an identification of mechanisms and funding vehicles so that the principal transportation system can be expanded to accommodate the contemplated levels of local use density and character within the goal of traffic patterns not exceeding "C" and "D" levels of service; and WHEREAS, the impact of the conclusions and recommenda- tions in the transportation portion of the Plan on the approval of future development by local governments in Indian River County in conformity with the approved local comprehensive plans is uncer- tain; and WHEREAS, the other portions of the Plan provide recommendations with respect to other important aspects of the Barrier Island's development and the preservation of important resources; and WHEREAS, Section 380.045, Florida Statutes, provides that the statutory objective of a resource planning and management committee is to organize a voluntary and cooperative program to resolve existing and prevent future problems within a study area; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County by this resolution to publicly state and document its interpretation of the effects of M -2- M 1 the Plan on Indian River County and to establish.its voluntary and cooperative actions in support of the recommendations contained in the Plan as such recommendations relate to Indian River County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Indian River County hereby voluntarily complies with the recommendations of the transportation portion of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan by authorizing a traffic impact study to commence as soon as possible. 2. Indian River County shall examine all other recommendations contained in the Plan; and where such recommenda- tions will enhance the growth management policies in the Indian River County Plan, the Board shall adopt such recommendations. 3. The Board hereby interprets the transportation portion of the Plan as not recommending any development restrictions in Indian River County beyond those currently existing in the approved local comprehensive plans while such transportation impact study is being prepared. 4. Upon the completion of the transportation impact study, the Board shall review the study's conclusions and shall incorporate such changes as the Board deems appropriate in its local comprehensive plan to preserve the goal of maintaining an efficient transportation system,and shall adopt such mechanisms and funding vehicles as necessary to improve that portion of the transportation system under its jurisdiction. 5. The Department of Community Affairs and the Cabinet are hereby requested to acknowledge the success of the local comprehensive plans approved by the local governments in Indian River County to deal with Barrier Island development and to acknowledge the voluntary compliance and cooperation of local governments in Indian River County in implementing those portions of the recommendations in the Plan applicable to Barrier Island development in Indian River County. 6. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby requested to furnish a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary to the Department of Community Affairs and to the -3- 5.5 48. -- FArr- ' NOV 21 19 J �NOV 2119 83 of AEE 4 Governor of the State of Florida and to each member of the State Cabinet. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman -thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 21st day of November 1983 ti } Attest'-' FREDA WRIGHT Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND=,C�UFFE By �. BRANDENBURG. n y Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By, RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman -4- NOV 21 1983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized out -of -County travel for the Chairman and the Administrator to present the Resolution to the Governor's Cabinet in Tallahassee on November 29, 1983. Commissioner Wodtke advised that the Public Hearing scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on November 30th in Sebastian on the Jones Intercable rate increase is also the night of a meeting of the District 9 Mental Health Board, and it was agreed he would attend the Mental Health meeting. There being no further business, on Motion duly made and seconded, the Board adjourned at 2:30 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk 21 i���, Chairman I�Uo 55 F,APE_ 483 --