Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/1985Thursday, March 28, 1985 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 Thursday, March 28, 1985, at 6:30 o'clock P.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; 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, and Attorney Brandenburg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The hour of 6:30 o'clock P.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 PrewWoumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being j a Notice in the matter of Zoning Change In the Court, was pub. lished In said newspaper In the Issues of Thursdav, March 21, 1985 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-JOUntal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newsdaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each dally and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, IM 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. Swum to and subscribed bsforeme this _ _ day A.D. 19 (Busl ass Mana VtAu�(Clerk of the Circul Cou 8 9ien-Ribs 1 ,, o t ANO CEO)F,2F0NING CHANGE 4 Theof Countp,Commissioaers of Indian River County pro-. ,. poses to: rezone all -residentlallp ;zoned land within the unincorpo- rated part of the CO «q�f A public.hearing:on 16e iezoninq will be held Thursday, March 28,,1985,- at 6:30 pim"'in -the Count Commission Chambers in the County Administration-$uitding ::located.: at ;1840 25th Street; ' Vero ' B@ach, F10Tlda.-".' :''K'• jf 4 . -, _ .. Thepurpose.of this public hearing is to consider the adoption of a. County Ordinance to convert the existing residential zoning districts to the new residential zom'ng'districts adopted on January 16, 1985. The ordinanceie Is, i "', r •ns rt. _y . °,s."v� � inrs+s't 1 .. .. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ' PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVEAMENDMENT TO, THE COUNTY'S ZONING ATLAS BY CONVERTING THE. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DEPICTED ON THE ATLAS TO NEW. DISTRICTS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, IN . ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONVERSION TABLE; REPEALING SECTION 5,14E, COUNTRY ESTATE DISTRICT, SECTION 6, R -IAA, '.SINGLE-FAMILY 'DISTRICT, SECTION 7, R -1A, SINGLE- FAMILY •.DISTRICT, ` SECTION 8, R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, _'SECTION 9, R -2W, MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 10, R-2, MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 10A, R -2A, MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 10B, R -2B, MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 10C, R -2C, MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT, SECTION 10D, R-21), 'rMULTIPLE-FAMILY DMMC7 7"SECTION" 1T,` R -3A; RETIREMENT'"• D DISTRICT, ' SECTION 12, R-3, MULTIPLE WELLING DISTRICT, SECTION 13, R -IPM, PERMANENT MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION DISTRICT, SECTION 14, R-1MP,MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT, SECTION 15, R-1TM, TRANSIENT MOBILE HOME DISTRICT, SECTION 16, R -IME, MOBILE HOME ESTATE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 17, R -IRM, RESIDENCE -MOBILE HOME'DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. I, nim 'uT'tw ��±•�et�'�aRx 'a 't1���h 11b ':'*r 1 .. " Ifany persoa`decides to appeal any decision .made*on'...' the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceed - lgo, and for such purposes, he/she may need to. ensure' at a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which: ,.' includes fostimony evidence upon which the appeal,.i> based.,_t' 4t k r BOOK Pa��� i BooK VO L E355 Chief Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the staff recommen- dation, as follows: TO. The Honorable Members DATE: March 19, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL ZONING Robert M. Kea ng, CP CONVERSION TABLE Planning & Development Director FROM: * REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Residential Zoning Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of March 28, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department has prepared an ordinance to convert the existing residential zoning districts depicted on the County's Zoning Atlas to the new residential zoning districts adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on January 16, 1985. In addition, this ordinance repeals the seventeen old residential zoning districts which will no longer appear on the zoning atlas. On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Planning Department has done a detailed analysis of the County's Zoning Atlas and prepared the conversion table to convert the old zoning districts to the new zoning districts based on the existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. All of the proposed changes are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A list of exceptions to the conversion table is included to provide appropriate zoning for parcels which may not be rezoned in accordance with the land use plan but are otherwise in conformance with the plan. These parcels include lands that were lawful conforming uses when the Plan was adopted and so are considered in conformance with the Plan. The ordinance also repeals the seventeen old residential zoning districts which will no longer appear on the Zoning Atlas. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached ordinance to convert the old zoning districts on the Zoning Atlas to the new zoning districts adopted on January 16, 1985, and repeal the old residential zoning districts. Old Zoning District(s) RESIDENTIAL ZONING CONVERSION TABLE New Zoning T1_* _L-_* _L R-1PM,R-1TM,R-2, R-lA,R-lE R-1RM,R-1MP,R-1PM, R-lME R -2W R-lTM C-1 R -2B R -2A Land Use Designation(s) AG Gifford MXD,MD-1 All U.S.1 MXD,Comm/Ind Nodes R.R.1 MD -2 LD -1 A-1 RMH-8 RM -10 CRVP RFD RM -8 RM -3 Planner Shearer believed this is something we have been waiting for since the Land Use Plan was adopted in 1982, and what is proposed at this time is to assign new zoning classifications to all residential zoning districts in the county to make them in conformance with the Land Use Plan. The commercial, industrial, and agricultural districts will follow, in a few months. The new districts under consideration tonight are the ones adopted on January 16th of this year. Planner Shearer then discussed the conversion table, noting that it is mainly a straightforward process. For example, property currently zoned R -1E Country Estate, has a minimum one acre lot size, and in most cases R -1E will be converted to RS -1, single family zoning at one unit per acre. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the case where it would not be so converted, and Planner Shearer explained that there are provisions in the Comprehensive Plan to provide for exceptions to the map since the Plan states that it is not the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to create any new non -conforming uses; all lawfully conforming uses in existence at the date of adoption of the plan, therefore, are considered to be in conformance with the Plan. Planner Shearer then cited the case of a multi -family development zoned for seven units per acre, which was in existence when the Plan was adopted. Its new Land Use designation, LD -2, would permit only six units per acre; so, it 3 MAR 28 1985 BOOK 60 PACE ?56 MAR 2 8 1985 � Boa GO Fn 57 logically would go to RM -6. However, since it was a lawful use when the Plan was adopted, and, therefore, considered in conformance with the Plan, staff would recommend it be rezoned to RM -8. In addition, we have a number of mobile home developments, which were approved and conforming, have correct zoning designations, and are in areas designated as LD -2, but the Plan when adopted stated these would be allowed only in MD -1 and MXD Land Use designations. This would not permit any future mobile home development, and for this reason, staff proposes to convert them to the appropriate mobile home zoning district. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if someone has R-1 now at 6 units per acre, but they are in LD -1, whether the R-1 will become RS -3 or RS -6, and Planner Shearer stated RS -3. Commissioner Wodtke noted that, in essence, by this action we are reducing the densities allowed, and Planner Shearer agreed this conversion table will reduce the densities allowed in the county substantially. Chairman Lyons pointed out that this makes them in conformance with the Land Use Plan, and Planner Shearer felt that, in effect, the Land Use Plan lowered a lot of densities when it was adopted in 1982. Attorney Brandenburg clarified that the zoning action contemplated does not reduce densities. The Comprehensive Plan already has done that because an individual who had zoning that exceeded the Comprehensive Plan couldn't build at that density anyway. All this does is aid him in the future development of that property by not requiring him to go through the rezoning process which would have been necessary before he could develop his property. Commissioner Scurlock believed that the Commission took extraordinary measures when developing and adopting the Comprehensive Plan, having meetings in the High School auditorium, etc., to identify that densities were to be reduced in the county. 4 0 � r � Commissioner Wodtke asked what notice was given of tonight's hearing, and Planner Shearer explained that since this involves more than 50 of the property in the County, notifying every property owner would cost thousands of dollars. Two evening public hearings before the Board are required, and the Statutes only require that a 1/4 page ad be published in the local newspaper approximately seven days before the first hearing and five days in advance of the second hearing. At the first public hearing, you must announce when the second will be held. He continued that the Planning & Zoning Commission already has held their required hearing on this change in districts, and it was advertised twice. Commissioner Wodtke asked if tonight's hearing deals only with residential, and Chairman Lyons believed there is one C-1 district included. Planner Shearer stated there are a couple - our R-1TM zoning district, which was originally set up as a kind of resi- dential zoning district, is now a commercial zoning district and is called Commercial Recreation Vehicle Park, and the other exception is a C-1 district that is being converted to RFD (Rural Fringe District). The reason for this is that this property was excluded from a rezoning to Agricultural last July with the understanding that when we had the appropriate rezoning district, the County would rezone it to RFD. Planning Director Keating explained that the RFD is a new one unit per 21 acre District. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff had received any written objections to the proposed changes from the general public, the Civic Association, the Board of Realtors, etc., and Director Keating stated that they have not had any objections, and, in fact, have had positive verbal communication about the changes. Commissioner Scurlock noted that it appears we have not had any real outpouring of objections to what is happening. 5 MAR 28 1985 BOOK C40 PAGE -358 NAR 2 8 1985 _BOOK 60 L",u 359 Commissioner Wodtke just wished to be sure that the people out there know what is happening. He expressed surprise that we only have six or seven people in the audience since basically we are doing an administrative rezoning of all the residential land in the county. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his only question was about the exceptions and that has been answered. Attorney Brandenburg wished to add some wording to Sec. 6, Severability, so that in the event that a new district were found for any reason to be inapplicable to a piece of property, the old district assigned to it still would be applicable. He recommended the following language be added at the end of that paragraph: " with the exception that should the application of the new districts to any property be held unconstitutional, inoperative or void, then such property shall be considered zoned under the old district applicable to the property as of the date of adoption of this ordinance." The Chairman asked if there were any questions about making these zoning districts conform to the densities in the Land Use Plan or any questions about any exceptions. Planner Shearer reported that staff has had a situation arise where they have discovered some properties along the Sebastian River with less than one acre units, which are presently zoned R-1, but have a Land Use designation of RR -2, which allows only one unit per acre. Staff would like them assigned to an RS -3 district rather than RS -1. They would be listed under the table of exceptions and are described as follows: 1) Lot 31, Sec. 22, Fleming Grant. 2) Lots 1-7, Sunnyfield Subdivision. Commissioner Scurlock noted that obviously we are not perfect and asked what the process would be to deal with inconsistencies that may have been overlooked. Director Keating stated that his department would have no 6 W � r � problem with administratively rezoning something that was missed. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard and if anyone had any property they were especially interested in. Neb Ryall, property owner, had questions about how this hearing was advertised. He did realize this was before the Planning & Zoning Commission earlier, but felt the proposed rezoning will have a large impact on a lot of people. Chairman Lyons explained that a 1/4 page ad was placed in the local newspaper and that we are going to have another public hearing. He further clarified that what we really are doing is bringing the zoning into conformance with the Land Use Plan which has been the law for the last three years. Previously when someone wanted to build and their zoning was inconsistent with the Plan, they had to rezone before they could use their property. We now are eliminating that necessity by bringing the property into conformance with the Plan. Mr. Ryall stated that he personally owns agricultural land, and those owning such land were told when we first went into the Land Use Plan that the people in agricultural would have the right tater on to have those parcels of land changed to other designations. He was afraid, however, that the people owning agricultural land will get locked into a situation where they can't do anything about it. Chairman Lyons emphasized that we are not changing anything to do with the agricultural districts today, and Director Keating confirmed that anything zoned agricultural anywhere in the county will stay agricultural. Mr. Ryall noted that is what he is concerned about, and he wished to know if it is the precept of the Planning and Zoning Department that agricultural lands stay agricultural. Attorney Brandenburg stated that it is not; as the commun- ity grows, those properties will be brought in and considered on 7 MAR 2 8 1985 BOOK 6 0 PAGE 36® BOOK 60 (`D-UF' a case by case basis just as they have been in the past. Commissioner Bird confirmed that anyone still has the opportunity to come in and ask for a change, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that even the nodes can be expanded. The Plan sets out an approach for the next number of years, but if we identify need, it can be changed. Chairman Lyons also assured Mr. Ryall that since the Plan was adopted, there have been agricultural lands shown as agricultural on the Land Use Map that have been rezoned to residential, and tonight's hearing does not change that process at all. Mr. Ryall appreciated the Commission's reassurances and hoped that they stand. Lucinda Eddy came before the Board to express concern about her property that has a density of 8 to the acre and now the Commission is making it six, even though the property next to her has 8 to the acre. She did not feel that is consistent, especially as she was there long before they were. Chairman Lyons noted that there are many situations where properties having densities of 15 to the acre are next to those having 6 to the acre; everything depends on timing. He pointed out that if Mrs. Eddy had moved earlier to develop this property, she could have made use of that denser zoning. We are not involved in changing the Land Use Plan tonight, but he felt what we are trying to do makes it a little easier for Mrs. Eddy because her property will become consistent with the plan, and she will not have to go through a rezoning in order to use it. Mrs. Eddy asked if that means she will have six to the acre and it will not be changed,.and the Chairman stated that she will have six to the acre and he did not contemplate it will be changed; although, he cannot guarantee it. The Chairman determined that no one in the audience had any further questions. Attorney Brandenburg had a problem with including the C-1 8 rezoning on the list of exceptions and asked staff to explain their rationale for this once more. Planner Shearer again explained that last July a rezoning from C-1 to Agricultural came before the Board involving property west of the City of Fellsmere, which property is designated RR -1 on the Plan. This was the County's attempt to rezone the commercial to a more appropriate zoning district, and at that time Agricultural was the most appropriate. Two of the property owners asked to be excluded at that time, and it was agreed that at the appropriate time, we would consent to having their property rezoned to one unit per 21 acres, i.e., Rural Fringe Area District. Attorney Brandenburg stated that his difficulty is that our published ad mentions only "all residentially zoned land." He asked if Planning had a letter from the involved property owners saying they agree to this rezoning and that they waive all procedural defects. Planner Shearer stated that they do have letters from both property owners from last July saying they would be amenable, but possibly the letter may not be in the correct legal form. Attorney Brandenburg asked if staff could do a county - initiated rezoning on these particular parcels and exclude them from this list, and Planner Shearer stated that it could be done that way or they could wait and include these when staff converts the commercial districts. Director Keating noted that actually there are two C -is included, and the other one relates to a commercial recreational vehicle park. One is shown under the conversion table and one under the list of exceptions. should be excluded. It was agreed both of these Commissioner Wodtke felt the conversion table could be interpreted to read that al -1 C-1 is going to be changed to RFD. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that it says all C-1 that is in the RR -1 Land Use designation goes to RFD. He asked if 9 MAR 2 8 1985 BOOK 60 P4;, 369 NEAR 2 8 1985 BOOK � � 0 1 FuE383 383 to Section 2 there is only one such piece of property in the RR -1 Land Use designation, and Planner Shearer reported that there were two. Attorney Brandenburg felt these should be done when staff does the commercial changeover, and the Board agreed. The County Attorney continued that the idea for the list of exceptions is to assure that properties that either had submitted site plans, approved site plans, or were built prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, remain conforming. If there is no other basis for these exceptions, he recommended that this be laid out specifically in the preamble to Section 2 so that in future years it would be made plain just why these exceptions were adopted. Commissioner Wodtke noted that on the top of the third page of the proposed Resolution, there are headings, i.e., Old Zoning Districts - Land Use Designations - New Zoning Districts, and he asked if those same headings shouldn't be set out under Section 1 on Page 2. Director Keating confirmed they should and that they will be included in the ordinance. Commissioner Wodtke continued to question the Conversion Table, noting that it says everything designated Agricultural will now be A-1. He brought up R-1PM, which is Permanent Mobile Home Park zoning, and stated that he did not have any problem with one specific piece of property, but it appears we are talking about all R-1PM being in A-1. Planner Shearer clarified that this would only relate to the R-1PM that is designated Agricultural, and he believed there is a good chance that there is only one property zoned R-1PM and designated Agricultural on the Land Use Map. This would involve property that was zoned for R-1PM, but never developed. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the density in RFD, and Director Keating stated that the Rural Fringe Development District is one unit per 21 acres. 10 W l The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Scurlock believed the direction we have, at least at this point, is that we are going to make several modifications: 1) We are going to take the two commercial situations completely out and address them later on; 2) We are going to include the reason for the exceptions in a preamble to Section 2, as suggested by the County Attorney. 3) We are going to put headings at the beginning of the Conversion Table under Section 1; and 4) We are going to add the language in the Severability clause as suggested by the County Attorney. Attorney Brandenburg inquired if the Commission desired any special treatment of the ad for the second public hearing, and the Chairman suggested it be made a half page instead of a quarter page. Attorney Brandenburg commented that one -of the things the Board might consider would be sending out individual notices for each of the exceptions listed. Planner Shearer noted that would require a great many notices. Chairman Lyons felt we should just stay with the ad, but asked if we could reproduce the whole ordinance in the ad, including the conversion table. Commissioner Wodtke concurred that we should have either a half page or full page ad a-nd should state this is bringing the zoning in compliance with the Plan and it will have the effect of a density change. He felt that basically we are rezoning 11 MAR 2 81985 60 wn 364 J BOOK 60 NA, GE 365 property, and he believed this will change the way the Property Appraiser determines how he values property. Commissioner Scurlock believed the Property Appraiser has been looking at the Comprehensive Plan since it was adopted. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned the meeting at 7:15 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 12