HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/15/1986Tuesday, July 15, 1986
The Board.of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
July 15, 1986, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and
William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent were Patrick B. Lyons, Vice
Chairman and L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator.
Also present were Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, announced that it
was for the purpose of considering amendments to the County's
Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the rules of procedure to be
followed during the public hearing. -He reported that the
Commission has received over 500 letters opposing Vista
Properties request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone
7.4 acres to Limited Commercial and he requested that they have
representatives speak for them to try to limit repetition.
i'he hour of 5:01 o'clock P.M. having passed the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached,
to -wit:
BOOK 65 PAGE 01
Fr-JUL 15 1986
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
3UNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
:vs that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Joumal, a daily newspaper published
Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter
In the
shed in said newspaper in the issues of dk.
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
ero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore -
een continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
ntered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
:. 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
:r corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
tovertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
3womto and subscri bef me day of
,gjL,
Busin a er)
QSJ
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Wunty, Florida)
SEAL)
1 -
09 BOOK ina,r ,�•
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tri t�''"' s ; ,� i R• b . s
TO CONSIDER THE
.ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE-..
AMENDING THE COUNTYIS # ;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . �, j
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the bard of County Commissioners of Ind
Rifler'County, Florida, shall
*,. Wd•a public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens stroll have an opportunity to be beard,. in the
County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 184025th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 15, 1986, at 5:01 p.m. to consider the adoption of an.Ordiname entitledr ,'
Y,.., .. „
-' N`.ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFANDIAN RIVER COUNTY "' :
1,FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF -THE COUNTY'S _
` COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR ENLARGING THE 50 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT.C.R.
510 AND C.R. 512 TO 85 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 75 ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE
tOCATED AT ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. 1 TO 120 ACRES AND AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF.
^'`N?THE NODE; DELETING THE 25 ACRE TOURIST/COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE NORTH COUNTY
w a ` BOUNDARY ON U.S. 1; CREATING A 15 ACRE INDUSTRIAL NODE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GIBSON
" 1`'' ;'STREET IN ROSELAND; DELETING INDUSTRIAL FROM THE TITLE OF THE 40 ACRE
,':'i' COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED ON U.S. I AT THE SOUTH SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS;
^' REDUCING THE 150 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT,C.R 510 AND U.S. 1 i0 100
ACRES; ENLARGING THE 240 ACRE COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 512 AND 1-95 TO
1;,-^-;`9,000 ACRES; DELETING INDUSTRIAL FROM THE TITLE OF THE U.S. 1 AND HOBART ROAD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE; CREATING A 5 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF WABASSO ROAD BETWEEN 62ND AND 64TH AVENUES; ENLARGING THE 85 ACRE
�,`' COMMERCIAL NODE AT NORTH GIFFORD ROAD AND U.S. 1 TO 90 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 550
^' ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT S.R. 60 AND 1-95 TO 650 ACRES; CREATING A 15
f. ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT 43 .AVENUE AND IST STREET SW; CREATING A 10 ACRE
^'COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE FAST SIDE OF U.S. 1 AT VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD; ENLARGING
THE 230 ACRE COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF 74TH AVENUE AND
OSLO ROAD TO 450 ACRES; CREATING A 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON 27TH AVENUE TO
THE SOUTH COUNTY BOUNDARY; ENLARGING THE OSLO ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND
INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM 3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 6
"DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ON SPECIFIC
PROPERTIES; AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP BY DELETING 61ST STREET; 73RD
t H STREET AND 81ST STREET BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND 58TH STREET. AND --
y REDESIGNATING 77TH STREET AS A PRIMARY COLLECTOR STREET, AMENDING THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND DESIGN CAPACITY SECTIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION
,:,ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING. PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION.- _
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE r. i;°r € •`
VJ*AkD*t6 'consider the following proposal to amend The' Land Use Element of the Compreherxhis 'p(o6 by
redesignoting land from: AG, Agriculture to RR -2 Rural Residential 2 (up to, I unit/dere).
The subled property is described as:
THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF'TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF -TRACT 10 LYING ST"'
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE''_
38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING,IN INDIAN RIVER'b
COUNTY FLORIDA. CONTAINING 30.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS. e Y
AND to consider the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan bi
redesignating land from: AG, Agriculture, to RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre).
The subject property is described as:
ALL OF TRACT 9, AND THOSE PARTS OF TRACTS, 10, 15 AND 16 LYING EAST OF INTERSTATE 95,
IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL
PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN PLATBOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST: LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF '
TRACT 10 LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 IN SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 600 FEET OF TRACT
16, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38:EAST. INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY ; •,
SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA F_
Anyone who may with to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that o
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
based.
Indian River County
Board of County Comissionen
B" -Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
7/8/86
Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 9, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
a.SUBJECT: JANUARY 19$6 COMPRE-
Robert M. Keataing,/A�ICP HENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Director, Planning-& Development APPLICATIONS
95
FROWchard Shearer REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning CPA App. Memo
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
special meetings of July 15 and 29, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning and Development Division received six Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications in January of 1986 and initiated
fifteen amendment applications at the request "of the Board of
County Commissioners, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or one
of the Administrative Divisions under the direction of the Board
of County Commissioners.
The staff has reviewed these twenty-one amendment applications and
made recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission who
reviewed them on March 13, 1986. After the Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed these applications, all of•the applications
were forwarded to the State Department of Community Affairs and
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for a required 90 day.
review period. The comments from the State and the regional
planning council are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
A recommendation for each of the amendment applications is
included in the enclosed agenda item for each application.
J U L15 196 BOOK 65 FnUF 03
JUL 15 1966
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
BOOK 65 PnE 04 -7
A F F A I RS
2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST O TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
BOB GRAHAM TOM LEWIS, JR.
Governor Secretary
June 3, 1987
Cn
'0 G
Mr. Richard Sh �'
Chief, Long Rang�e� lanai"! �v
1840 25th Street4,>„�
Vero Beach, Floridar-:i3��a.'
Dear Mr. Shearer:
Pursuant to s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, the Department of
Community Affairs has reviewed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications submitted by Indian River County on March 26, 1986.
Our review has indicated that the amendments are consistent
with statutory requirements; however, several comments are
enclosed for your consideration. Comment from the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council are also enclosed for your
consideration.
It is requested that once the amendments are adopted, copies
be provided to the Department as required by s.163.3187(2), F.S.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mme. Ralph
Hook at (904) 487-4545.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Kessler, Chief
Bureau of Local Resource
Planning
COMMENTS ON.LAND USE AMENDMENTS
TO THE INDIAN RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. The request to redesignate 50 acres from agriculture (up to
.2 dwelling units/acre) to medium -density residential (up to
8 dwelling units/acre) proposed in LPA059 appears to be an
excessive density increase for an*area not served by potable
water and sewer facilities. Consideration should also be
given to limiting density under the flight path for the
approaches associated with the aerodrome airfield.
2. Although most staff analyses discussed traffic impacts
associated with request for density increases, there was no
discussion of the cumulative effects where more than one
amendment could effect the same roadway i.e., LPA058 and
LPA059.
4
st. lude
71m3
I
t I
May 19, 1986
L/ti4. :• a reg iona I //�/'���� fns `�,, •.
planning
C
41.1iry
councl
Mr. Ralph K. Hook
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Resource Planning
2571 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Subject: Local Government Comprenensive Plan Documents
Dear Mr. Hook:
Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed Indian River County land
use amendments and the Traffic Circulation Element to the State Department
of Community Affairs at its regular meeting on May 16, 1986.
The following comments were approved by Council for transmittal to the
State Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Sections 163.3184(1)(c)
and (2), Florida Statues, for consideration by the County prior to adoption
of the document.
�= Land Use Element Amendments
Evaluation
,4
;» The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element have been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
Council's review procedures, and Council's adopted plans and policies. The
following comments are offered as a result of that review:
The proposed amendments are not in conflict with or
inconsistent with adopted council plans or policies.
Traffic Circulation Element Amendments
Evaluation
The proposed amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element have been
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Chapter 163, 'Florida
Statues, Council's review procedures, and Council's adopted plans and
policies. The following comment is offered as a result of that review.
The proposed amendments are not in conflict with or
inconsistent with adopted council plans or policies.
If you need additional
hesitate to call me.
anceZM.Cary
uaniel
Executive Director
information or have any questions, please do not
5
�� F
JUL 15 1986 Boa A0�
UL
6
L!
Item #
DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL MEETING
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
JULY 15, 1986
3. Vista Properties request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to rezone 7.4
acres to CL, Limited Commercial District
(Memorandum dated 7/2/86)
(NOTE* 548 letters received opposing the
rezoning on file in Commission office)
4. County -initiated request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the
Oslo Road/ 74th Avenue Commercial/
Industrial Node from 230 acres to
450 acres
5.
6.
Indian River Aerodrome, Inc. request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
rezone 30 acres
Hilltop Trust request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to rezone
66.5 acres
7. Miller & Hamilton request to amend
the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone
34 acres from A-1, Agricultural
District to General Commercial
District
Page 1
Applications
STAFF RECOND4ENDATION
Based upon the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and preferred zoning district, staff
recommends that a 10'acre commercial node be established for the
subject property and that the subject property be rezoned to CL,
Limited Commercial District.
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this node be
enlarged to 450 acres.
Based on the above analysis, including the facts that thi
sl
property abuts the Aerodrome Subdivision, that this area is
experiencing more development pressure than when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this property
be redesignated from AG to RR -2 and be rezoned from A-1 to RS -1.
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that, if the Oslo
Road/74th Avenue commercial/ industrial node is enlarged to 450
acres, the south 16.5 acres of the subject property be rezoned to-
CG. Moreover, the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the north 50 acres of the subject property be
changed to RR -2 on the Land Use Plan and be rezoned to RS -1.
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning.
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this
Comprehensive Plan amendment request be denied. Based on this
recommendation and the staff's previous recommendation for the
boundaries for this node which would not include the subject
property, staff recommends that this rezoning request be denied.
u
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applications
Item :`
DESCRIPTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
8.
County -initiated request to amend
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate
Commission's recommendation, the fact that all of the land within
,
the Hobart Road/US#1 Node from
the node is zoned CL, and that none of the industrial property in
w
Commercial/Industrial to a Commercial
this area is located near the node, staff recommends that the
Node
Hobart Road/U.S. Highway #1 Commercial/Industrial Node be changed
to a Commercial Node.
9.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
CD
m
Comprehensive Plan to combine the Roseland
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the
Commercial and Hospital Commercial Nodes
Tourist/Commercial and Hospital/Commercial Node be combined and
and enlarge the Com-ined Node by 20 acres
enlarged by 20 acres to form a 120 acre Hospital Commercial Node
at Roseland Road and U.S. #1.
10.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the
Comprehensive Plan to establish a 15 acre
Industrial Node
fact that the Board of County Commissioners designated the land
on Gibson Street in Roseland
in the area of the proposed node as industrial; that the existing
uses in this area are industrial in nature; and that the area is
zoned IL, Light Industrial District, staff recommends that a 15
acre Industrial Node be established on Gibson Street to
accommodate the existing uses which meet the performance.
standards for industrial designations described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
11.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and
Comprehensive Plan to enlarge the North
Gifford Road/US#1
Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that
Commercial Node from 85
to 90 acres
the North Gifford Road/U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Node be
enlarged from 85 to 90 acres.
12.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan by establishing a
Commercial
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board
Node at CR -510 between 62nd
of
County Commissioners establish a 5 acre Commercial Node
and 64th Avenues
on the
south side of County Road 510 between 62nd and 64th Avenues.
W
co
13.
County -initiated request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to create a 15 acre
Based on the above, analysis, and the Planning and Zoning
C"
19
Commercial Node at the intersection of
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners
.
1st Street and 43rd Avenue
establish a 15 acre commercial node at the
intersection of 43rd Avenue and lst Street.
rNage
Comprehensive
Plan Amdnement Applications
Item #
DESCRIPTION
STAFF RECWNENDATION
14.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the above analysis, the alternatives examined, and the
Comprehensive Plan by establishing a
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff
Commercial Node at 27th Avenue and the
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners establish a
County line
ten (10) acre commercial node at the intersection of 27th
Avenue and the south County Line Canal.
0 15.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating the
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
Sebastian City Limits/US Hwy.#1 Node
County Commissioners redesignate the Sebastian U.S. #1 Node from
from a Commercial/Industrial to a
a Commercial/Industrial node to a Commercial node.
Commercial Node
16.
County -initiated request to decrease the
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
size of the CR-510/US#1 Commercial/Industrial
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
Node from 150 acres to 100 acres
County Commissioners reduce the 15.0 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1
commercial/industrial node from 150 acres to 100 acres.
17.
County -initiated request to amend the
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the
node be increased to 1000 acres, the staff, based on the above
I-95iCR-512 Commercial/Industrial
analysis, recommends that the C.R. 512/I-95 Commercial/Industrial
Node from 240 acres to up to 1000 acres
node be enlarged from 240 to 400 acres. The staff feels that the
proposed 400 acre node will fulfill the commercial and industrial
needs of this area throughout the twenty-year life of the
comprehensive plan based on the limited amount of existing
commercial and industrial development in this area.
18.
County -initiated request to amend the
Based upon the above description and conditions, including the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends
Plan to include a recommended long-range
that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Transportation
major street and highway program for
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the recommended
Indian River County
Long -Range Major Street and Highway Improvement Program.
CO
Cn
L
Item #
19.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications
DESCRIPTION
Proposed amendments to Thoroughfare Plan
20. County -initiated request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating
5 acres from LD -1, Low-density Residential 1
to MXD, Mixed-use District
21. County -initiated request to enlarge the I-95
and SR -60 Commercial/Industrial Node from
550 to 650 acres
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
C�
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning `�
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends to the Board of
County Commissioners that 81st Street between the Florida East
Ln
Coast Railway and 58th Avenue, 61st Street between the F'loridar-0
East Coast Railroad and the Lateral "G" canal, and 73rd Street
between Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue be deleted from the
County's Thoroughfare Plan, and that 77th Street be upgraded from o
a secondary to a primary collector. cc
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
redesignating approximately five acres located on the north side
of Oslo Road and approximately 600 feet west of 27th Avenue from
LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 .(up to 3 units/acre), to MXD,
Mixed -Use District, and to increase the permitted residential
densities in the west part of the Oslo Road MXD area from th-
units per acre to six units per acre.
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the
commercial/industrial node at I-95 and State Road 60 be enlarged
from 550 acres to 650 acres.
I..
LO
r -•I
F71UL 15 1986
BOOK 65 Pu. 10
Planner Shearer noted that most of the County -initiated
amendments are housekeeping matters. In regard to the comments
made by the state, he advised that one of these has been taken
care of because one of the original applications, which had
requested a medium density residential classification, amended
their request to RR -2. He advised that this is a preliminary
public hearing, and there will be another one two weeks from
tonight. No official action will be taken tonight but recom-
mendations will be made so that the public will have an idea as
to what will transpire at the final hearing.
ITEM #3 - Vista_ Properties_ request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by creating_a 10 acre commercial node on the east side of
U.S.2 at the intersection of U.S.1 and Vista Royale Boulevard and
to rezone 7.4 acres to limited commercial.
Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo, noting that
there is a discrepancy between the agenda item and the actual
acreage; the acreage to be changed to CL should be 5.535 acres:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 2, 1986 FILE
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati g, AVCP
Planning & Development Director
VISTA PROPERTIES
REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND TO REZONE
7.4 ACRES TO CL,
LIMITED COMMERCIAL
FROM: fS REFERENCES: DISTRICT
Richard Shearer VISTA REQUEST
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Vista Properties and Barnett Bank, the owners, are requesting to
amend the Comprehensive Plan by creating a ten (10) acre
commercial node on the East side of U.S. 1 at the intersection of
U.S. 1 and Vista Royale Boulevard and to rezone 5.69 acres from
OCR, Office Commercial Residential District, and 1.735 acres from
RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District, to CL, Limited
Commercial District.
10
On September 21, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners denied a
request to redesignate the South part of the property and some
additional property to the East to commercial. However, the
Board stated that they would like the staff to look at this
request again at a later date for possible reconsideration.
On March 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend that a 10 acre commercial node be established
at U.S. 1 and Vista Royale Boulevard. However, the Commission
voted 5 -to -0 to deny the request to rezone 7.4 acres to CG
because they felt that the CG district allowed a broad range of
commercial uses that included uses imcompatible with the land
uses adjacent to the subject property. The Commission did
indicate that they felt some commercial uses would be appropriate
at this location and suggested the CL district as an alternative
to the requested CG district. Since the applicants would not
amend their request to CL at the public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission denied the
rezoning request. The applicants appealed this decision and then
amended their application to request the CL zoning district.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existinq Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. Immediately West of the
subject property is Florida Federal Savings and Loan. Further
" West, across U.S. 1, is undeveloped land zoned CH, Heavy.
Commercial District. North of the subject property is a water
treatment plant and part of the golf course zoned RM -10. East of
the subject property is the golf course and clubhouse zoned
RM -10. South of the subject property is a golf area and
condominiums zoned RM -10.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property -and the
land North, South, and East of it as MD -2, Medium -Density
Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). The land to the West,
across U.S. 1, is designated as part of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use
Corridor (up to 6 units/acre).
The applicant originally intended to have 18 acres of commercial
property at this location when the Vista Royale property wa-s
being planned and throughout its development. After the County
considered this area in 1983, the applicant reappraised this area
and is now proposing to have -approximately 10 acres of the total
18 acres available for commercial development. The remaining
property will retain its RM -10 zoning and be available for
residential development.
The subject property includes the Vista Royale sales office on
the East and the land between the sales office and the Florida
Federal Savings office on the West. Based on the the fact that
the subject property is located between these commerical uses and
abuts a water treatment plant to the north, it does seem more
reasonable to designate this property as commercial than
residential. When the staff recommended denial of a similar
request to redesignate property south of the subject property to
commercial in 1983, that recommendation was based largely on the
anticipated traffic impacts on U.S. 1. While this proposed
commercial development would have a similar traffic impact, the
County has revised its capacity figures for U.S. 1 based on the
traffic consultant's recent reports. These figures indicate that
11
J U L 15 1986 BOOK r � �
LZ
J U L 15 1996
BOOK 65 vg. 12
U.S. 1 could still maintain level -of -service "C" if this property
was rezoned to commercial. While the staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission feel that the CL zoning district would be
appropriate for this area, the Board could consider a less
intense commercial zoning district such as the CN, Neighborhood
Commercial District, or the OCR, Office, Commercial and
Residential District.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to U.S. 1 (classified as
an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum
development of the subject property under the proposed CL zoning
could generate up to 4,615 average annual daily trips (AADT).
Currently, U.S. 1 carries 23,900 AADT at level -of -service "B".
The additional trips would lower this level -of -service to "C"
based on a level -of -service "C" capacity of 31,000 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as enviornmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are available.
RECOMMENDATION _
Based upon the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and preferred zoning district, staff
recommends that a 10'acre commercial node be established for the
subject property and that the subject property be rezoned to CL,
Limited Commercial District.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if the CL was °v3ted on by
the Planning & Zoning Commission, and Planner Shearer explained
that it was not an official vote; it was basically just an
indication of their preference.
Commissioner Bird inquired as to the difference in the per-
mitted uses in CG and CL, and Planner Shearer advised that CG
allows more intensive uses than CL, which is more oriented toward
retail type uses, and would permit such things as commercial
marinas, new and used car lots, and fruit and vegetable
packinghouses.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know the differences between
CL and OCR districts, and Planner Shearer explained that OCR is
oriented more towards office type uses and closely associated
accessory uses. It also allows single family and multi family
residences and a very limited range of commercial use outside of
offices. CG is a very broad range of commercial use; CL is a
12
M M M
limited commercial district providing for most retail uses as
well as office uses; and OCR is primarily offices.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if OCR permits boutiques,
and Planner Shearer advised that any retail use would have to be
accessory to an office use. The Zoning Code states; "Any
authorized accessory retail use shall be permitted providing that
no such use is free standing and that all such uses combined
comprise no more than 200 of the ground floor area of the
structure in which they are located." Uses listed are carry -out
restaurants, limited retail sales, and personal services.
Chief Planner Shearer then gave the history of the subject
property, noting that in 1957 it had a 600 ft. strip of commer-
cial zoning on U.S.I which was in place for years until Vista
Properties came in with their plan. They developed based on a
master plan (something like we do with PBDs today) and rezoned
the property leaving two commercial areas for all their frontage
on U.S.I. Planner Shearer continued to review his memo, noting
that the Planning & Zoning Commission and Planning staff both
telt this particular area would be suitable for a neighborhood
commercial node type activity.
Chairman Scurlock asked if any representative or individual
wished to be heard. He noted that the applicant has said they
would prefer to make their presentation last.
Attorney Vitunac felt it would be more appropriate if the
applicant made his case first to give the public something to
discuss and rebut.
Attorney Henderson, representing Vista Properties, did not
object to that procedure, but asked to have an opportunity to
rebut later. He informed the Board that he is representing Vista
Properties as to parcels 1, 2 and 4 and Barnett Bank is parcel 3.
These parcels combined comprise about 51 acres, and he believed
there has been some contusion about this. The request only goes
to 5.5 acres, which is a little less than halfway in on Vista
Royale Boulevard.
13
JUL 15 1996 BOOK 65 PACE 13
l
JUL 15 1986 BOOK 65 Fut 14
Attorney Henderson then addressed the vesting issue and
believed his client has some good vested zoning rights that might
extend to as much as 20 acres even though they have applied for
the commercial only for 5.5 acres. In regard to the vesting
issue, Attorney Henderson felt a lot of elements of fair play are
involved. The Vista Royale project was one of the first PRDs in
the county; he realized the county did not have the PRD Ordinance
at that time, but this development was done according to a master
plan that was filed with the late Planning Director Val Brennan.
Attorney Henderson then reviewed the following sequence of events
and submitted newspaper article showing City Planner Brennan
reviewing the Vista Properties development map:
14
M M M
;, ,•;.. "t ;.' �' :..'' •t' it ,. ',r.a„ ll::r<,:'f''t;, J
Vista, Properties., �islrLas`,:,'Li►eiiei�ry Cl�unyes,1•x,.:;w,� ,•'; :x,..
fir 1ki/� 4+1Y..J,y
O -#
1. .• 1 til:i .i', � ' '7�,., )'��� 'x!,.11, ''4 'ltiYt:»'�t1+' ,•;
ea.r.,in,
• , i 1 �,., ,.' �,.'�;` ,�, !K': i {�.� t3 wrla'1': r ta:.b' ��r:: .f,.1• ,.
D kv
e. ulo, men......."tl."
Fla •!�j
' h .t ,•r'' j�rrpkr,J �;�4t � 1� � ` .`�• d..�.'f,�(,;1rp :^.
By. PI 11L LONG
r
Indian River Bureau Chbf;� E'f �4> 1 SS•
VERO BEACH -- The In- t, a i•
dian River County "Zoning 1 r
Commission, Thursday, will
hear preliminary plans on a s
340 acre residential develops, F # *_ �• k`� sem:-• L • .
ment complete with a golf', r`�^
course fronting on south U.S.>.
According to plans submit-
ted to County -City Planner
Valentvne Brennan, Vista
Properties will develop the
land which is . now moskly •-
grove. ; • a , l .
In doing so: the company s
will reduce the amount
commercial development �...,...
presently allowed, improve • JJ1„ti�
the residential zoning to a
stricter code and build an 18•
hole golf course. In addition. -
the development leaves more
than 30 acres of environmen-
tally critical mangrove un- r'•y
touched.
the tract in question lies
south of McKee Jungle Gar. `� 4
cjens fronting 4,700 feet on
1 "s u u. t h-• uearly to
,•y
Horne's ReslaKant. It will be
one of the largest residential
developments on the main-
land Side and will include
condominium and fam-
ily
le : s r tt rs, t. she r"iF"err yr'
g
_..
fly residences. •' ;• ` '„� �'r�,., ,>> ��,. f �•. .' I'
TILE LAND is now divided
into two zones, commercial
and single family residential,
Developers will ask the
Zoning Commission for per-
mission to reduce the total
commercial zoning from 60
acres to a 20 acre commer-
cial plot in the center of the
development. Presently, U.S.
I is zoned to allow Commer-
cial development 600 feet
deep the entire length of the
highway through the pro-
posed develapmrnl. .
The land is known locally
as the Oslo Hammack land,
owned by tate Olso-Hammock
Corporation, a group of cit-
rusmen, for the most part.
The land is presently in
groves and natural habitat.
The commission will also
be asked to tighten zoning;
restrictions on about 30 per
cent of the residential, in-
creasing' lot size require-
ments from the 7,000 square
foot allowance in R-1 to
10,000 square feet in R -IA.
THE COMMISSION will
also be asked to rezone part
of the residential land to R-2- ?
multi family residence, which i
w i I 1 allow condominiums
with a density of up to 15
•r
JUL 15 1986
14 A
BOOK 65 15
-
•• •.11Y,, •,' j ; ,--'1ar1W slap Photo_bY'PMIL (.UN{'i
Ct Plattner Valent ne; Brennan . � f
i Y y Cl><et:ka De�►elopment ••11Iap:'r.� .., •;: •. •
_ , .
:.. • carnduih4rlituiia;.-g911-arse ;arcs iatlte�I��Jor'�3f10•ncre
living units per acre.
ronmental Design' Group; for'; , Royal• Palm Blvd., , near* the;` •r
Included in the plans Is a
Vista Properties. Vista Prop- ' Qwest"'' edge • of the' Indian
1;t0 -arse, I8 -hole. Half course.
erlieat 1a •elan the develop- River,` f• '•• '' ' ' ' 1. °
Two majur fairways will
'ment firm for Vista Del, Mar, °-1•; Ac:cording•'to' the plans
front U.S. I, according to
, a condominium -residential aubmlttod -to 1 Brennan',"' the
preliminary plans.
,
area near the ocean oeA-1-A .I.:Peri development will require
The plan presented to
• and Vista Harbour, a condo- no additional cuts in the U.S...
Brennan • was done by, )rnvi.
minium • pQmplexi". nortk o of 1 ,1 median strip.y ,
14 A
BOOK 65 15
COM1ERCIAL ZONING - VISTA ROYALE
HISTORICAL SEQUENCE
BOOK 6 PA,E ? 6
EARLY 1972: Master Development Plan of Rezoning Requests
submitted to County.
JULY, 1972: County approves zoning in conformity with Master
Development Plan. Existing Commercial zoning of over 60
acres was reduced and concentrated into a 22 acre "node".
LATE 1973: Development of Vista Royale commences.
1981: Comprehensive Land -Use Plan adopted by County. Plan
fails to recognize Vista Commercial Node and, therefore,
existing C-1 zoning voided by Plan.
MID 1983: Vista Properties seeks CLUP change to allow for
10.25 acres of commercial use.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1983: County Commission tables VISTA's request
Commercial & Neighborhood Node workshops.
EARLY 1986: Land "administratively" rezoned - from C-1 to OCR,
north of Boulevard, and C-1 to RM -10 on South.
JANUARY 27, 1986: VISTA files new request for CLUP change (create
node) and rezoning to CG affecting 5.5 acres.
MARCH 13, 1986: County Planning & Zoning unanimously recommends
10 -acre commercial node and rezoning to CL.
APRIL, 1986: VISTA amends application to request C.L. zoning.
Attorney Henderson emphasized that when the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted in 1981, it, in essence, wiped out their C-1
zoning. He then compared the Vista property with The Moorings,
which was another early PRDtype development developed by an
overall master plan, noting that The Moorings had a commercial
piece on AIA and they were awarded a 10 acre node to develop that
piece.
Chairman Scurlock clarified that Attorney Henderson was
referring to Vista's master plan, not the County's Master Plan,
and further noted that no one from Vista Properties reported that
there was a problem when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
15
Ron Ewing, President of Vista Properties, stated that they
objected, but were told by staff at that time not to worry about
it because they were vested.
The Chairman asked if they had actual written documentation
of that statement, and Mr. Ewing did not believe so.
Attorney Henderson felt that everyone realizes there was a
great deal of confusion at that time with the nodal concept, and
many owners were not aware their zoning had been voided. He also
believed there was a strong indication in former Minutes that the
Commissioners felt a neighborhood node was appropriate for this
parcel but since then the nodes have been changed, not only in
size but by a new separation rule.
The Chairman pointed out that since that time a new Commis-
sion has been elected, and a lot of things in the Comprehensive
Plan have been amended significantly in a downward direction in
terms of density, etc.
Attorney Vitunac wanted the Board to understand the legal
posture of the case. He felt it should be considered without
regard to any vesting issue as he did not believe that one has
been established, and this, therefore, should be treated the same
as any other request to change the Comprehensive Plan. He asked
if the Planning staff agreed, and Planning Director Keating
indicated that they did.
Attorney Henderson stated that he was not arguing the
vesting issue, but just brought it up to illustrate the features
of fairness and unfairness. He continued,to review the sequence
of events stressing that in 1986 the Planning & Zoning Commission
unanimously recommended the rezoning to CL.
Chairman Scurlock commented that, as he saw it, the density
question in County has been changing considerably through that
period of time; he believed even the density Vista is developing
at has been changed downward and felt the reason we didn't rezone
them back is we were still trying to finalize in our minds how
intensive a use this area should receive.
16
BOOK 65 PAGE 17
FrJUL 15 7986
Boa 65 FAcc 1S
Director Keating agreed and noted that back then staff hada
negative recommendation on the node. Staff's position now.
however, is that the concept of a neighborhood node, but a little
different from that the concept which was developed, would be
acceptable there because of the existing commercial development
and the planning for limited commercial there all during the
development of the project. Also, this request is for much fess
acreage than in 1983.
Attorney Henderson continued to emphasize that the project
was developed by Vista Properties in reliance on this node; the
20 acres was buffered on each side by the golf course, and with a
different development scheme, they might have developed differ-
ently, located the water plant, etc., accordingly. So, in a
sense, they gave up something in that regard. He claimed that
there has been consistency on the part of the developer all along
that that area was to be for commercial use and passed out the
following excerpt from their promotional literature to demon-
strate his point:
17
1
G
Vista Royale is a woodland golfront community
situated in 340 -acres of natural Florida beauty,
and the charm of this unique setting has been
preserved for those who seek intimate community
living and spacious serenity. The Woodlands Golf
Course provides a magnificent backdrop for the
superbly crafted one and two bedroom apart-
ments strategically placed within and around its
full-size 18 -holes. Fairways wind amid statuesque
royal palms, enchanting oaks and other choice
Florida landscape features. Residents of Vista
Royale have easy access to any of four spacious
recreation centers designed for their community
social functions or private parties. In addition, all
residents are eligible for play at the Woodlands
Golf Club. Memberships also are available.
Your new view of Florida living is further en-
hanced by Woodland Village, a delightfully styled
and compact convenience shopping village lo-
cated just inside the main entrance to Vista
Royale.
Life at Vista Royale is a fulfilling and exciting
experience marked by some of the rare attributes
of select community sociability.
- "i, ^*'P ,. -- ,� ''N T•tlm ,.,�, f .,< n v:,r,,+t> a+.q, r•.m ,p• I,r:?�I,."•r
'0 1;..
Condominium craftsmanship at its fin -
;t... lush living at its best... Naturally,
s Vista Royale. Here, nestled among the
stling palms and swaying pines, apart-
ent living is a refreshing way of life. Sip
cooling drink on your very own screened
porch, watch your neighbor sink a putt
i the nearby golf green, relax in the
)zy comfort of your totally modern scene.
easantly coordinated condominium units
end beautifully with the wooded country -
de, give that at-home touch to apartment °
ring. Enjoy the convenience of town...
e serenity of country .living. Your _new
sta World includes its own shopping, its
vn recreational activities, with churches,
:hoofs, and community happenings just
short jaunt away. Live where the river
,eezes never end ... in Vista Royale.
CO
NO
0
0
m
J
JUL 15 1996 BOOK 65 PAGE 20
Attorney Henderson continued to stress that their request
for commercial is greatly reduced not only from their original
request but from the 1983 request. In regard to traffic impact,
he felt staff has set out a worst case scenario and also felt the•
various services that would be available in the proposed center
would limit the traffic to some extent as the residents wouldn't
need to go outside for these services. He further noted that due
to the input from the previous public hearing, where many were
opposing the CG and expressing a preference for CL, Vista
Properties changed their request, but it now appears the
residents have found some undesirable features in the CL. In
trying to find a way to overcome the residents' fears, Vista
Properties has had prepared and recorded a Declaration of
Restrictions on the subject property which would prohibit the
following uses:
A. Motion picture theaters
B. Self-service laundries
C. Commercial parking facilities
D. Coin-operated amusement establishments
E. Automobile parts stores
F. Skating rinks
G. Bars and lounges
H. Billiard halls
I. Hotels and motels
J. Bowling alleys
K. Time-share developments
Commissioner Bowman believed "take-out" and "eat -in" restau-
rants are permitted, and this was confirmed but it was noted that
drive-through restaurants would not be permitted.
Attorney Henderson realized theirs is not a popular request,
but he pointed out that the applicant is not really asking for a
new commercial zone, but merely requesting that they be given
back part of the zoning that was taken away from them in 1981.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if the OCR zoning does not allow
what Vista Properties wants to develop, and Attorney Henderson
explained that OCR zoning is already intact on the property
adjacent to the existing sales office which is a sizeable parcel,
and they intend office uses there. On the south side there is a
very large tract which is not included in this application, and
19
M M M
they are reserving the RM -10 zoning on that. On the 5 acres that
they have left, he felt they intend quality commercial develop-
ment and stressed the car dealership is out.
Chairman Scurlock discussed development processes over the
years where the commercial is developed last, and Attorney
Henderson noted that Vista Properties has been in business here
for many years and he did not believe there have been complaints.
Chairman Scurlock agreed, but felt they did the development
at Vista Plantation better because they put the commercial in
first where everyone could see it before they bought there. The
Chairman pointed out that there is some risk over the years when
you don't move ahead to use your zoning and Commissions and
Comprehensive Plans change. He felt developers should be aware
that if they don't exercise their rights within a reasonable
amount of time, the game plan may change.
Commissioner Bird stated that it would appear from the
letters he has read that OCR would be more compatible for the
residents, but apparently the developer does not feel that is
extensive enough for what he needs and, therefore, in trying to
expand from the OCR and go to an even more limited CL, they have
come up with the other restrictions listed by Attorney Henderson.
Attorney Henderson concurred that they tried to hit a middle
ground, and they would take the OCR if it allowed retail uses,
but it doesn't except as a very minor accessory use.
Attorney Jerome Quinn came before the Board representing the
Vista Royale Property Protection Committee, and stated that the
group he represents consists of about 1,000 residents. In
response to Attorney Henderson's information re the list of
restrictions that had been put on the property to help alleviate
the residents' concerns, he felt it would have been helpful if
such a gesture had been made when this was up before the Planning
& Zoning Commission. Nevertheless, he felt it is an effort that
could be appreciated once all the ramifications are reviewed;
however, all they can go on this evening is what they know.
20 B
BOOK 65 i,,AU,F..
J U L 15 1986
L
J U L
15
19 6BOOK
65
Full
Attorney Quinn's first concern was that
the discussion
this
evening seems to have centered about a 5 acre rezoning and not
the applicant's request for a 10 acre commercial node at the
entranceway. Attorney Quinn agreed that the developer has
enjoyed a good reputation over the years, but did not believe
that is reason enough in itself for granting a commercial node
nor did he feel the statements re the developer's intention over
the years of developing this commercially or the reduction of the
size of their request are sufficient reason to entitle the
developer to a 10 acre node.
As to the discussion re vesting, Attorney Quinn noted that
the County is presented with a constant parade of conceptual
plans of beautiful tuture developments, and if the County were
legally bound by every developer's conceptual plan, we would not
be living in the county or city we have today. He agreed with
the Chairman that this is a matter of timing and not a question
of what the developer could have done, but what is proper or
appropriate under today's rules. Attorney Quinn stated that he
had seen nothing presented that would come close to making the
vesting a legitimate argument. As to the argument that the
property is not appropriate for residential use, he noted the
County Commission is not in business to make sure that every
developer gets the highest and best use out of his property.
Ordinances becomes contiscatory only when they preclude all
"reasonable" use of the property.
Attorney Quinn then addressed the criteria set out for
determining the most valid basis for establishment of a
commercial node and quoted from the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as follows: "All areas of commercial
development shall be located in a compact manner to discourage
strip development patterns which negatively affect the aesthetic
quality, safety, land use patterns and traffic handling capacity
of the transportation system." He noted that another element
speaks of the commercial and industrial growth which has
21
M
historically has occurred along the U.S.I corridor resulting in
strips and causing traffic and safety problems, inadequate
parking facilities, proliferation of signs, etc. Attorney Quinn
stressed the statement under Nodal Requirements that "All nodes
shall be permitted to develop on a basis of service needs" and
inquired if the applicant had furnished information on the
marketing needs of the area.
The Chairman asked if staff has been provided information re
a demonstrated need, and Planner Shearer reported that they have
had information from a number of people who have been interested
in establishing businesses in that area.
Attorney Quinn had some very strong disagreements with the
way the Planning Department has approached this particular case.
He noted that in 1983 when a 10 acre commercial node was re-
quested by the same applicant on the south side of Vista Royale
Boulevard but in the same general location, staff's memo noted
that the Land Use Element discourages strip commercial develop-
ment along U.S.I and expressed the opinion that if commercial
uses were needed, that part of the county could be accommodated
in the commercial node at Olso Road and U.S.[ or by the U.S, I
commercial corridor. Attorney Quinn emphasized this property was
not considered appropriate for a node when the Comprehensive Plan
was being developed and conditions have not changed since then.
Chairman Scurlock asked staff what has happened since that
recommendation was made in 1981, and Director Keating believed at
that time staff did not feel the total acreage they were
requesting was appropriate, but because there are some existing
commercial uses, staff feels a limited type node, but larger than
the current 3 acre neighborhood node, would be appropriate for
this particular area.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that in 1983 neighborhood nodes
were 8 acres, and he also believed we have only had the OCR
designation for a year or two; so, there have been a lot of
changes.
22
�JUL 15 1986
BOOK 65
I
F7
JUL 15 196
BOOK 65 PAGE 94
Chairman Scurlock felt a neighborhood node would be more
appropriate as he did not see why we would want to attract more
traffic to a limited access point.
Director Keating explained that staff is looking at it from
the standpoint that the applicant is asking for less; that the
major arterial has the capacity for the trips that would be
attracted; and they would be looking at decel lanes, signaliza-
tion, etc.
Chairman Scurlock asked if he was saying this all could be
mitigated by signalization, etc., and that it won't be a problem,
and Director Keating explained that he was saying those are the
characteristics staff would look at at site plan time, and if the
problems could not be mitigated, it would not be developed.
Attorney Quinn continued to present his arguments against
Vista Properties' request at length and to emphasize that in
comparing staff's previous recommendation and the current recom-
mendation, there are great disparities in reaching conclusions.
He then noted that in 1983 this same developer came before the
Commission on another request for a 20 acre commercial node on
property lying just north of the South Relief Canal. Attorney
Gordon Johnston was representing the developer at that time, and
in the Minutes of that meeting the following points were made:
"Vista plans to establish an attractive commercial area much like
the Village Shops in Indian River Shores." Attorney Quinn noted
that he does not see anything resembling the Village Shops by the
South Relief Canal and further noted that Vista Properties own
attorney stated that "the South Relief Canal is a natural cut off
point for commercial on U.S.I." Attorney Quinn then referred to
the bad traffic situation on South U.S.I . He felt there are
enough commercial nodes along there already and expressed the
belief that existing commercial areas should be allowed a chance
to develop before new nodes are created.
Chairman Scurlock agreed there is a tremendous amount of
23
unoccupied commercial space available and wished to know if there
is a demonstrated need that has to be proved or not.
Director Keating believed Mr. Quinn has been referring to an
old provision in the Zoning Code where neighborhood nodes needed
a marketing analysis, but that was repealed and is not required
under the current ordinance.
Attorney Quinn stated that he would wrap up his presentation
by moving to the rezoning request. He appreciated that the
developers want to address the serious concern the residents have
about the uses they consider unsuitable and inappropriate, and if
they are going to consider retail, etc., in a development that is
completely surrounded by residential uses, he believed that OCR
is the answer. Attorney Quinn pointed out that the residents
might not have bought their units, or bought them at the same
price, if they had been presented with a commercial entrance
instead of the most beautiful entranceway in the county. He
urged the Board to deny the applicant's request for a 10 acre
node, and if they should decide to grant it, not to consider any
rezoning other than OCR. Attorney Quinn then advised that he has
asked the group he represents to limit their speakers to three.
Rosario (Sam) Alia, chairman of the Vista Royale Property
Protection Committee, came before the Board and referred to the
following petition, which was signed by approximately 500
residents (Said petition is on file in the Office of Clerk to
the Board):
24
BOOK 65 F',.IJr E?5
JUL 15 1986 BOOT F► E �
May 21, 1986
We, the undersigned, area residents of Vista Royale, do hereby petition
the Commissioners of Indian River County to deny the application of
Vista Properties, requesting a zoning change of their properties bor—
dering on ll. S. Highway l and the Main Entrance to Vista Royale, from
designated land use MD -2 to Commercial Limited, for the following
reasons:
1. As per Ordinance No. 85-63 - Section 19A C.L.: Limited
Commercial
A. Purpose and Intent
The land use activities allowed within the C.L. district
are intended to accommodate the convenience, retail and
service needs of area residents, while minimizing the
impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas.
As area residents, we do not see the need for commercial type
stores allowed under Commercial Limited (i.e. the more than
half empty stores in the recently constructed Village Gardens
Complex; also half empty Luria's Shopping Center on U. S. 1,
and the same possible situation with the Oslo Road Complex
now under construction, 1/4 of a mile south of Vista Royale).
2. This zoning,change in our Main Entrance will increase the
traffic flow, endangering our ingress and egress, increasing
our present problem here. (RE: Meeting of 5/13/86 — Vista
Royale Residents, County Commissioners and Transportation
Planning'Commission, Indian River County Sheriff's Dept.; Lt.
Jim Attkisson said, "I'm afraid if we don't decrease the speed
limit or help (the residents) in some way, we're going to have
some serious problems with injury or deaths. I suggest you do
this as soon as possible").
3. We were told by the Vista Properties sales people when purchasing
our condominiums that there would be village—type stores constructed
in the future, to blend with the Vista Royale Complex decor on this
property. (RE: Florida Federal Savings building and the Vista Sale
and Leasing offices).
We appeal to you, the Commissioners of Indian River County, to heed the
concern of the people of Vista Royale for the protection of our residents
and the preservation and enhancement of our area. Deny any zoning change
in the present County Comprehensive Plan. Leave it at O.C.R., Office, Com—
mercial, Residential).
Thank you.
Rosario M. Alia
Bldg. 47, Apt. 102
25
Mr. Alia emphasized the traffic stress this would create and
quoted an editorial from the PRESS JOURNAL urging denial of the
Vista Properties request for a zoning change.
Raymond Cox spoke next representing residents of Vista
Royale and focused his comments entirely on the traffic impact on
Vista Royale Boulevard. He noted that in 1983 they were told the
road capacity was 24,000, and now in 1986 suddenly there is the
capacity to handle additional daily trips, which he could not
comprehend. Mr. Cox did not believe U.S.I has changed except
that it is more hazardous than it was earlier. He further
believed the Planning staff completely disregarded impacts on the
main entrance and have told them that this simply becomes a site
plan question. Mr. Cox stressed that the only and main access
to these sites would be Vista Royale Boulevard; their community
has neither sidewalks nor bicycle paths and golt carts are driven
throughout the community; and it will be extremely hazardous for
the traffic impact to be increased. He urged the Board to deny
the application.
Harold Putnam, resident of Vista Royale and member of the
Florida Bar, noted that Vista Properties came in at the last
minute with some additional suggestions of uses they are willing
to prohibit, and he felt this should go back to the Planning
staff before the final decision is reached. He did not believe,
however, that their suggestions would prohibit either a gas
stati.on, a used car lot, or a convenience store, and he felt they
should accept these additional prohibitions . Mr.Putnam noted
that the Village Shops in Indian River Shores are limited to no
nighttime operation, and he believed whatever goes in this area
should have the same limitation.
Attorney Henderson explained that what they have done with
the restrictions is prohibit most of the uses they thought the
residents would object to, but they did reserve restaurants and
fuel service establishments. He felt everyone must remember that
there is no requirement that this entire 20 acres remain an
26
JUL � � 19�� BOOK 65 F�1G� 27
J U L 15 1986 Bou65
entranceway forever, and anything in there will create some
traffic impact. The developer is willing to go along with any
reasonable request for traffic control, including bicycle paths.
Attorney Henderson then listed uses that would not be permitted
in an OCR district but are permitted in CL, including book
stores, florist, gift and specialty shops. He further advised
that there is in existence an association that is designed to
control this 20 acre area, essentially a property owners
association; it has some architectural control rights; and these
are on record. He explained that the 10 acre node came up
because it was intended to include the OCR zoning that was
administratively awarded, and they would have no objection if the
node was limited to 5.5 acres as the node is not needed for the
OCR area. Attorney Henderson agreed there is empty commercial
space in some areas, which he believed is due to its location,
but tremendous interest has been shown in the subject property
and he did not feel it would create a strip situation because
there is an existing separation.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to close the
public hearing at this point.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to make his position known to
those present. He advised that he serves as a Director of the
Barnett Bank. He does not receive a salary, but he does receive
a Director's fee, and he has asked the Attorney if he has the
right to vote on this matter.
Chairman Scurlock asked Commissioner Wodtke whether, acting
in his capacity as a Director of the Barnett Bank, he could make
a decision or recommendation on loan applications relating to a
use on the subject property, and he confirmed that he could.
Attorney Vitunac quoted from Sec. 112.3143 Fla. Stat. as
follows: "prohibits a public officer from voting on any measure
which enures to a special private gain or upon any measure which
enures to the special gain of any principals by whom he is
27
W M M
r
retained....." He noted that there is some connection between
this matter and the Barnett Bank of which Commissioner Wodtke is
a Director, and while he does receive some remuneration, there is
no special private gain.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the Board will not vote on this
matter for two weeks, and stated he would like to fulfill his
duties as a:Commissioner and vote if he is allowed, but will
refrain if he is not.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he will seek an opinion from
the State Commission on Ethics before the next meeting.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if, in the meantime, the Board
,felt he should give any of his thoughts on this matter or
refrain, and Chairman Scurlock felt that he should refrain until
we get that opinion. The Chairman continued that he personally
has not changed from his thinking in 1983 that -there will be an
intense impact and while there may be some need for some
services, he felt they would have to be of a very limited and
small nature, even less than five acres. There is a significant
traffic problem, and it seems the Oslo Shopping Center is back on
track, and also Perkins Restaurant is already in the vicinity.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her opinion that a commercial
node is not needed and inappropriate.
Commissioner Bird believed it might be in the best interests
of everyone if some amicable development of this property could
be worked out between the residents and the developer to
eliminate any cloud or doubt about how the property is to be
developed. He did agree it would be premature to grant the
limited commercial, but hoped in the next two weeks we can work
out something on a very limited basis to allow some type of uses
there in keeping with the neighborhood which will act as a
support and an amenity to the neighborhood and not a big traffic
attractor to the outside.
The Chairman announced that a decision will be reached at
the July 29th meeting when he hoped a full Board will be present.
28
J U L 15 1996 Boor, 6 5far
L
r JUL 15 1986
BOOK 65 P" E 30 1
The Board recessed briefly before continuing with the
remainder of the agenda.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened with the same
members present, Commissioner Lyons being absent, and Chairman
Scurlock noted that the staff recommendation on the various items
on the agenda are all outlined, and he suggested that the
procedure be that the Board just accept those recommendations
unless they have some objection, and anyone present who wishes to
speak regarding a particular item may do so.
Attorney George "Joe" Collins advised that he wished to
speak regarding Items #4 and #5.
Attorney Michael O'Haire wished to address Items #4, #5, #6
and #17.
Roland Miller wished to be heard re Item V.
Eric Fischer indicated that he wished to speak on Items #7
and #17.
Mary Jane Goetzfried, representing CCL Consultants, asked to
be heard on Item#16.
No one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman inquired
if any Commissioner wished to discuss any of the remaining items
or would just accept the staff recommendation on Items #8 - 9 -
10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 18 - 19 - 20 and 21. No discussion
was requested and no objection was expressed to staff's
recommendation for those items.
ITEM #4 _ County -initiated request to enlarge the OSLO Rd./74th
Ave.Corrmercial/Industrial Node from 230 to 450 acres.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to
this item, and Attorneys O'Haire and Collins both indicated that
they would go along with the staff recommendation to enlarge the
node to 450 acres.
29
ITEM #5__ Indian River Aerodrome ,Inc., request to_amend _the
Comprehensive Plan and rezone 30 acres
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to
the above item, and Attorneys O'Haire and Collins again indicated
their concurrence with staff's recommendation to redesignate this
area to RR -2 and rezone the 30 acres abutting Aerodrome Subdivi-
sion from A-1 to RS -1.
ITEM #6 - Hilltop Trust request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and to rezone 66.5 acres
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to
Item #6, and Attorney O'Haire advised that he agreed with staff's
recommendation to rezone the south 16.5 acres proposed to be
included in the Oslo Road/74th Ave. commercial/industrial node to
CG and to amend the Comprehensive Plan redesignating the north 50
acres of the subject property RR -2 and to rezone same to RS -1.
ITEM #7 - Miller & Hamilton request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and to rezone 34 acres to General Commercial
Roland Miller came before the Board to appeal the Planning &
Zoning Commission's denial of his rezoning request and staff's
recommendation of denial as set out in the following memo and
map:
30
L_ JUL 15 1986 Boos 65 31
I JUL 15 1986
BOOK 61
FADE 32
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 3, 1986, 1986FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
,,,_ SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keatilopmt
ng, A� P
Planning & Dev Director
MILLER & HAMILTON RE-
QUEST TO AMEND THE COMP-
REHENSIVE PLAN AND TO
REZONE 34 ACRES FROM
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIST!_
RICT TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
FROM: � REFERENCES:
MILLER & HAMILTON
Richard Shearer RICH
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Roland B. Miller and S. Thomas Hamilton, Jr., the owners, are
requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the 50
acre C.R. 510 and C.R. 512 commercial node to 85 acres, and to
rezone 33.88 acres from A-1, Agricultural District, to CG,
General Commercial District.
On March, 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to deny the' request to enlarge the 50 acre C.R. 510 and
C.R. 512 commercial node because there was only one commercial
establishment in this area and there were 49 acres of land zoned
CL available for commercial development. Based on this
recommendation the Commission also voted 5 -to -0 to deny the
request to rezone 34 acres to commercial. The applicants have
appealed this decision to the Board.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of abandoned railroad right-of-way,
agricultural and vacant lands zoned A-1, Agricultural District.
North of the subject property is pasture land zoned A-1. East of
the subject property is a cemetery and abandoned railroad
right-of-way zoned A-1 and vacant land zoned CL, Limited
Commercial District. South of the subject property is a
convenience store and vacant land zoned CL on the North side of
County Road 512, and vacant land and mobile homes on the south
side of C.R. 512, zoned A-1 and CL. West of the subject property
is the Sebastain River Middle School zoned A-1.
Future"Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property
and all of the land North, East and West of it as AG,
Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre). The land south of the
subject property is designated as LD -1, Low Density Residential 1
(up to 3 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan
designates a fifty acre commercial node at the intersection of
County Road 510 and County Road 512. Currently, there are 50
acres of land at this intersection which are zoned CL.
31
On November 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of boundaries for this node which
would have followed the boundaries of the existing CL zoning in
this area. On December 18, 1985, the Board of County
Commissioners tabled action on setting boundaries for this node
pending further staff analysis.
After analyzing potential boundaries for this node and reviewing
the proposed enlargement of the node and rezoning of the subject..
property, staff has compiled the following findings:
1. The current commercial node allows for up to 50 acres
of commercial land)and there are 50 acres of land
distributed around the intersection zoned commercial;
2. There is only one commercial use in this area being a
convenience store occupying approximately one acre of
land;
3. There has been no commercial development in this area
since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982;
4. The subject property is situated between a school and a
cemetary which is not an appropriate place for
commercial development.
Based on these findings, particularly the amount of existing
commercial development and the lack of commercial development
since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there does not appear
to be sufficient grounds to enlarge the node. In order to rezone
the subject property to CG, either the node will have to be
enlarged or the subject property must be considered within the
node which would require that 34 acres of land zoned CL in this
area be deleted from the node and rezoned to a residential or
agricultural zoning district.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to County Road 512
(classified as an arterial street on the county's Thoroughfare.
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under CG
zoning could generate up to 15,836 average annual daily trips.
Environment
The subject property is not
sensitive nor is it in a
characteristics for the subject
and poor drainage.
Utilities
designated as environmentally
flood -prone area. The soil
property include severe wetness
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the
subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation,- staff recommends that this
Comprehensive Plan amendment request be denied. Based on this
recommendation and the staff's previous recommendation for the
boundaries for this node which would not include the subject
property, staff recommends that this rezoning request be denied.
W
BOOK 65 ;,� E 3.3
JUL 15 1966
QLD -1
BOOK 6 5 FAGS 34
RR -1
Mr. Miller believed there has been some misrepresentation
about this property. He then reviewed the history of how he gave
the school some property and then bought the railroad right-of-
way and later sold that to the county. He noted that he was ill
when this request came before the Zoning Board, and the Planning
Department recommended that the Zoning Board turn down their
request on account of the school and also because the property
was too low. Mr. Miller noted that the Ansin property is.just on
the other side of the road from his property, and even though he
believed Mr. Ansin had not been cooperative, the Planning
Department recommended he get all the zoning. On the north side
33
r
of the road, they didn't get any, and this just rendered his
property useless..
Considerable discussion ensued about Mr. Miller's dealings
with the School Board as evidenced by the following letters from
Mr. Bolinger, former Chairman of the School Board:
GRICHARD"'A.9BOLINGE A.
Gig. cAssociate;S
` j abhlWjed 1963
A Professional Association of
Certified Public Accountants
RICHARD A. BOLINGER, C.P.A.
July 15, 1986
Mr. Roland Miller
and
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Florida
Dear Mr. Miller & County Commissioners:
BARBARA L. WALTERS, C.P.A.
I am writing this letter to clarify the negotiations that took place between
Mr. Miller and myself, as former chairman of the Indian River County School
Board, in regard to the exchange of certain parcels of land in the Sebastian
area. The exchange was to facilitate the construction of Sebastian Elementary
School and obtain full access to Sebastian Middle School.
I agreed that the School Board would not object to the rezoning of contiguous
property at both schools as long as it did not include heavy commercial or
industrial.
Very truly yours,
0��%
Richard A. inger
Certified Public Accountant
RAB/njp
3003 CARDINAL DRIVE - P.O. BOX 369 - VERO BEACH, FL 32961 - (305) 234-4141
34
BOOK 65 PAGE e35
L_ JUL 15 1986
7
I JUL 15 1986
Bou 65 P36
Telephone (305) 567-7165 SUNCOM No. 465. 1011 SCHOOL BOARD
SCtiCCIL IDISIVICT Cr INCIA% LIVE L f rt. %I 'W* RICHARD A.BOLINGER
Chairman
RUTH R. BARNES
1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vice -Chairman
JUDSON P. BARKER, JR.
JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent JOE N. IDLETTE, JR.
DOROTHY A.TALBERT
June 4, 1984
Mr. Roland Miller
946 Roland Miller Drive
Indian River Shores, FL, 32963
Dear Mr. Miller:
This letter is to place on record understandings reached during our
j negotiations over the Highway 512 property swap. The Board will raise
no objection to commercial use of the property on your part. It is
I
our understanding that no heavy industrial use would be contemplated
I
on your part:.
r
Sincerely,
' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
0-"Z'7��
Richard A. Bol 4erintendent
s A. Burns
Chairman and Secretary
Mr. Miller stated that Planner. Shearer called him and told
him the School Board did not approve Middle School out there, and
Planner Shearer explained what he was trying to indicate to Mr.
Miller after receipt of the letter of June 4th was that he was
trying to determine whether it applied to both Sebastian
Elementary School and Sebastian Middle School. He was advised by
Mr. Bolinger that it did and by Dr. Burns that it did not.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel any deal that the School
Board may have made with Mr. Miller has anything to do with the
zoning issue. He asked if we have any official objection from
the School Board, and Planner Shearer advised that we do not.
35
Commissioner Wodtke referred to the statement in the Minutes
of the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of March 13, 1986, re
the Miller rezoning request wherein Planner Shearer indicated
that he didn't think anything had changed on the subject property
in the last three years. He felt we are all aware that Mr.
Miller owns Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and also the strip in back of
them, which was the old railroad right-of-way, and he cannot
envision what that property could ever be used for if it was not
at least allowed to be included in with Mr. Miller's other
property. Also, in the meantime, the County purchased that
right-of-way up to the section line at 510/512 so all that
property on the north side of CR 512 south of the cemetery now is
owned by Mr. Miller, and Commissioner Wodtke believed that is a
significant change from 3 years ago.
Planner Shearer felt what staff was indicating at that time
was that there had been no additiona•I commercial acreage
developed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Obviously
the ownership situation has changed in the last 21 years.
Mr. Miller noted that the railroad property was not zoned,
and he is asking that it be zoned.
Chairman Scurlock believed that the Planning & Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to deny both requests.
Mr. Miller felt they didn't know about his agreement with
the School Board, and he further noted that they said his
property was too low but it is the same as the property on the
other side of CR 512.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired what staff's reason was to
have the zoning on other side of the road and not the same side
as Mr. Miller's property.
Planner Shearer explained that there was 50 acres of
commercial zoning at this location and a 50 acre node, and based
on county policy over the last ten years, that was pretty much
what had been envisioned when the Plan was adopted. Also there
were a number of rezonings in the late 70's in this area, and
36
BOOK 65 I rhGC P� /
J U L �. 5 19�
�UL 15
196
BOOK 65 FF,;E
38
this configuration had been left intact.
He did not see this
as
a reason to take some commercial zoning from one individual to
give it to someone else.
In regard to the CL on the Ansin property, Commissioner
Bird pointed out that hundreds of acres of commercial property
were taken away from Mr. Ansin when we eliminated that strip
zoning out there and created the node, and he believed some of
the reasoning why so much of it was left on that side of the road
was as a sort of trade-off or compromise. -
Planner Keating commented that this conformed with the
policy which was to encourage nodes to be developed on all
quadrants of an intersection, and we generally would not put
commercial besides a school and a cemetery; it was more
appropriate to put the node where it was shown.
Eric Fischer came before the Board and read a statement
from Henry Fischer, owner of an 105 acre residential subdivision
adjacent to the subject property, opposing the requested zoning
change. Dr. Fischer believed there is no need for this much
commercial in this location and felt property adjacent to a
school is a poor location for any commercial zoning.
In further discussion re the location oftheFischer
property, it was determined that it is within 600' of the subject
property. Mr. Miller noted what they are asking for doesn't
touch the Fischer property and he did not feel it would affect
it.
Discussion continued re the Board's feelings about this
request, and the Chairman and Commissioner Bowman indicated they
would vote to deny.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there are 50 acres in the CL
right now, and Planner Shearer advised that there are 34 acres of
undeveloped commercially zoned land in this 50 acre node.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that apparently in order to create
any additional, we would have to increase the size of the node as
the only other alternative is to take it away from somebody else,
37
i
and he wished to know what we would expect anyone to do with the
100' strip in the back.
Director Keating believed the road that Dr. Fischer is
putting in is going to eliminate some of the commercial property
so that we would have enough acreage left in the node to take
care of that strip..
Discussion continued re filling in that little strip, and
the Chairman asked if that is the intent of the Commission.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that is a logical place to
include since you have commercial on one side, and he would hope
that we would not encourage separating it that much at that
intersection especially with the curve of the road.
Commissioner Bird believed that as the property in the node
is used and there is need for additional, the subject property
certainly would be a prime consideration, but he felt for the
time being we could include the little strip.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he is hearing the Board
indicate that little strip could be included in the node and
maybe later there might be some consideration for expanding the
node.
Commissioner Wodtke discussed the node boundaries, and
Planner Shearer advised that the boundary has not been set as
yet. We have 50 acres CL, but we have been treating that as the
tentative boundary. The actual boundaries will be set on July
29th when the Board determines how big the node will be.
Mr. Miller was informed that this will be considered again
at the July 29th meeting.
ITEM #16 — COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST to decrease the CR 510/US#1
Commercial/Industrial Node from 150 to 100 acres
Staff memo and recommendation is as follows:
38
JUL 15 1996
BOOK ' �'"'A o��
I
Fr
JUL 15 196
BOOK 65 F.g E
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 8, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF
SUBJECT: THE C.R. 510 AND U.S.
HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL
Robert M. Ke t ng, CP INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 150•.
Planning & Dev lop nt Director ACRES TO 100 ACRES
�jTHROUGH: Richard Shearer
FRIOIVFhief, Long -Range Planning
REFERENCES:
Robert G. Melsom CO Initiated U.S. 1
Staff Planner, Long Range Planning ROBERT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
special meetings of July 15 and 29, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to decrease the
size of the 150 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1
commercial/industrial node to 100 acres.
During 1985, the planning staff reviewed the size of this
commercial/industrial node and determined that based on the
existing development pattern, past development trends, and recent
development proposals, that this node was too large.
On March 13, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0
to recommend approval of this request. Subsequently, the staff
has received a request from Hobart Ridge Properties to reduce the
size of this node to 130 acres rather than 100 acres in order to
include 30 acres of their property in this node. Based on the
existing commercial and industrial zoning and development in this
area, the node would have to be a 130 acre node in order to
accomodate this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the
size of the node.are offered.
Existing Land Use Pattern
All of the existing commercial uses in the general area of the
node can be included within the proposed 100 acre node boundary.
These existing uses include the Golf Doctor, Massey Supply, the
Animal Medical Clinic, Wabasso Tackle Shop, J.R. Motor's, White's
Doll House, Fran's Market, B's Yarn & Crafts, the KOA
Campground, the Franklin- Dales Company, The White Barn, mini
warehouses and a body shop under construction. In addition, the
proposed node boundary will include all of the property currently
zoned commercial and industrial in the general vicinity of the
node.
The proposed node boundary is surrounded by undeveloped land,
single-family residences, and citrus groves to the east;
single-family residences and undeveloped land to the south;
residential development and undeveloped land to the west, and
commercial and residentially developed land to the north located
in the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor.
39
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN
The comprehensive plan generally designates the land to the
north, south, east and west of the node as LD -2, Low Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), except that the U.S. Highway
1 MXD mixed use corridor transects the node area. The
comprehensive plan states "that commercial and industrial land
uses are anticipated to utilize the majority of land in this
corridor." The MXD area will provide additional area for
commercial and industrial development outside of the node area,
Recently the County approved -the John's Island Club request to
down -zone 50 acres from Light Industrial to RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District in the area of the Node. This rezoning
removed approximately 50 acres from the proposed C.R 510 and U.S.
Highway #1 Ccmmercial/Industrial node area. Based on this and
the existing and committed commercial development in the area,
the staff feels. that the node should be decreased from 150 acres
to 100 acres in size.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
All of the parcels of land located in the area of the proposed
node either have primary or secondary access to U.S. Highway #1
or C.R. 510 (both roads are designated as arterials on the
Thoroughfare Plan).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners reduce the 150 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1
commercial/industrial node from 150 acres to 100 acres.
Mary Jane Goetzfried of CCL Consultants came before the
Board representing Hobart Ridge, Inc., to oppose the reduction of
the node to 100 acres for the reasons set out in her letter:
40
JUL 15 1986 BOOK 65 F UE 41
r
AL 15 198
X001( 65 V -I i
CCL CONSULTANTS, INC
nr s.
'a+
Consulting Engineers .
i Surveyors
Planners
2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD., N, SUITE 100, POMPANO BEACH, FLA. 33064, (305) 974-2200
664 AZALEA LANE, VERO BEACH, FLA. 32963, (305) 231-4127
June 16, 1986
Mr. Richard Shearer
Chief, Long Range Planning
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Hobart Ridge Properties
Engineer's Project #2393
Dear Richard:
Please consider this a formal request of the Board of County
Commissioners to decrease the size of the C.R. 510/U.S. Hwy
1 Commercial/Industrial node from 150 acres to 130 acres, -as
opposed to 100 acres which was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in March of this year.
The basis for this request is that Hobart Ridge Inc. is in
the process of master planning a residential golf course
community for the property located between Hobart Road and
C.R. 510, immediately west of the F.E.C. RY. It is
essential that a sufficient area be provided to adequately
buffer the proposed development from existing and future
commercial/industrial land uses along Wabasso Rd. It is the
opinion of the land planners involved with the project that
this may best be accomplished by designating a commercial
area along the south side of C.R.510, this would afford the
owers of Hobart Ridge the opportunity to design and control
the type of commercial development that may occur
immediately adjacent to the residential golf course
community.
The attached map depicts the additional area that would, if
included, comprise the 130 acre commercial/industrial node.
As shown, the area would run parallel to Wabasso Road for a
distance of 660' from the center line of the road, extending
from the existing CH District boundary to Kings Highway.
Clearly, the altered configuration of the node on the south
side of Wabasso Road would correspond to the proposed node
boundaries north of the County road, thereby creating a
consolidated area where commercial development may take
place.
If I.may provide any additional information that may assist
the Board while considering this request, please contact me
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
CCL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Senior Planner
41
a.R..31O/U.3.1.1
1 ,a �
IiNlauxmW I A Li�a e
a,". :
RM -6
SEE ENLA11GE0 114
SECTIOIf
tf
1
Mrs. Goetzfried emphasized that they feel it is essential to
establish a transition area between their development and the
existing commercial uses in this area. They would like to see
the commercial area designated in the initial phases of their
project, and believe it would not be appropriate for the frontage
of the property on CR 510 to be developed residentially consider-
ing it is an arterial that connects the barrier island to 1-95.
Planner Shearer reported that staff looked at this area last
fall. In January after we went through the zoning conversion
based on the rezoning activity in this area, there was 100 acres
of commercial/industrial zoning left so that's what they felt the
node should be. This request was just submitted in June.
Instead of the,Board reducing the size of the node to 100 acres
42
JUL 15 1986
BOOK FAGEQ
Fr'- 'I
J U L 15 1966 Boa 65 uu 44
and then having the applicant come in again and ask for an
additional 30 acres, staff thought the Board could consider this
request along with the agenda item, but staff still recommends
100 acres as they did originally. After 5 months staff hates to
go back on their original recommendation.
Board members pointed out that staff now has new informa-
tion, and Chairman Scurlock inquired if staff were considering
this now and had the right timeframe whether they would be in
favor of the request.
Planner Shearer felt they might be for some of it, but he
did not know about 30 acres.
Commissioner Bird did not feel if the applicant were in here
with their overall development plan that we would force them to
put a golf course residential community right up to Wabasso Board
but that we would be looking for some kind of transition area.
The Board suggested that staff meet with the applicant and
go over this again to see what can be worked out before any final
action is taken.
ITEM #17 — COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST_to.enlarge the 1-95/CR 512
Commercial/Industrial Node to 1000 acres
Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared representing owners on the
south side of CR 512 and stated that any of the alternatives for
increasing the node proposed by staff in the following memo are
fine with them.
43
- W W
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�c., SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
Robert M. Keati g, tYr P TO AMEND THE COMPRE-
Planning & Development Director HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING
THE I-95/C.R. 512 COM -
THROUGH: Richard Shearer MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM 240 ACRES TO UP TO
FROKobert G. Melsom
REFERENCES:000 ACRES
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by increasing the size of the I-95/C.R. 512
commercial/ industrial node from 240 acres to up to 1,000 acres.
On January 15, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
the boundaries for the 240 acre node. At that meeting, the Board
instructed the staff to explore the possibilities of enlarging
the node up to 1000 acres.
On March 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -2 to recommend that this node be enlarged to 1,000 acres.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In analyzing this request, staff prepared four alternatives to
the existing 240 acre node. The first alternative would
encompass 400 acres, the second alternative would encompass 600
acres, the third alternative would encompass 800 acres, and the
fourth alternative would encompass 1000 acres.
Existina Land Use Pattern
The current 240 acre node boundary includes the following
commercial and industrial uses: Wayfara Travel Center (Gulf
Service Station and Dairy Queen), a recreational vehicle park
under construction, and the Sebastian Lakes Sales Center. In
addition, the node boundary includes the Hetra Corporation
property, upon which a computer manufacturing facility is under
construction. This node is surrounded by undeveloped land to the
north, south, east and west.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the land to the southeast of
the proposed -enlarged node as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up
to 3 units/acre), and the land to the north, west and south as
AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre).
The staff has prepared four alternatives based on the Board of
County Commissioners' direction to analyze the possibility of
enlarging the node up to 1,000 acres. A brief analysis including
the advantages and disadvantages will be offered.
Each of the four alternatives involves increasing the size of the
node. Based upon the staff's analysis of the availability of
large industrial tracts in the County which are available for
development, a defficiency in the amount of that type of land was
noted. Coupled with the County's recent efforts to attract more
industry, this represents a change in policy and need since the
Comprehensive Plan was first adopted. Given those factors and an
44
JUL 15 1986 Boa 65 PnE 45
JUL 15 1996
BOOK 65 PAGE 46 7
analysis of
vacant land
appropriate for
industrial development,
the staff
determined that expansion of this node .would be
appropriate
to provide
for more larger
tracts available for
industrial
which the node
development.
The major issue
then is the extent to
should be
enlarged. One
alternative is to keep
the node at
240 acres.
The second alternative would increase the node by 160 acres which
would provide for some additional commercial or industrial
development. The advantages of this alternative are that it
would enlarge the node to include the 100 acre parcel of land
between I-95 and the Hetra Corporation's property, square off the
node in the southwestern quadrant, and include property fronting
on County Road 512 which is located in Vero Lake Estates and Pine
Lake Estates Subdivision. The disadvantages of this alternative
are that the 100 acre parcel and the property in the southwestern
quadrant of the node do not have good access to the
transportation system.
Alternative 3 would include all of the property in alternative 2
and a 200 acre parcel in the northeastern quadrant of the node.
The advantages of this alternative are that it would provide a
large area for commercial and industrial development. The
disadvantage is that this additional parcel does not have direct
access to the transportation system.
Alternative 4 would add a 100 acre parcel in the northwest
quadrant of the node and a 32 acre parcel in the northeast
quadrant of the node to the property proposed in alternative
three. The advantages of this alternative are that it would
include more land in this area for commercial and industrial
development. The disadvantage is that these parcels do not have
access to the transportation system.
Alternative 5 would expand the node to 1,000 acres. 140 acres
would be included in the northwestern quadrant of the node, and
60 acres would be included in the northeastern quadrant of the
node in addition to the land proposed in alternative four. The
advantages of this proposal are that it would provide additional
land for commercial and industrial development, and access is
provided to parcels north and south of C.R. 512 in the western
portion of the node.
Transportation System
All of the parcels of land located in the vicinity of the
I-95/C.R. 512 Commercial/ Industrial node have either primary of
secondary access to County Road 512 (designated as an arterial on
the Thoroughfare Plan). The existing interchange at County Road
512 and I-95 provides access to the major north -south
transportation system for the State of Florida.
RECOMMENDATION
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
node be increased to 1000 acres, the staff, based on the above
analysis, recommends that the C.R. 512/I-95 Commercial/Industrial
node be enlarged from 240 to 400 acres. The staff feels that the
proposed 400 acre node will fulfill the commercial and industrial
needs of this area throughout the twenty-year life of the
comprehensive plan based on the limited amount of existing
commercial and industrial development in this area.
45
M M M
Commissioner Bird did not understand how we got up to 1000
acres as he had not felt that was a serious suggestion.
Commissioner Bowman commented that Commissioner Lyons had
felt strongly that a really large amount of this type acreage
would be needed if we wished to attract a quality industrial park
type development.
Planner Shearer advised that the Planning & Zoning
Commission voted 3 to 2 in favor of increasing the node to 1000
acres. The two dissenting felt more comfortable with 400 acres.
Eric Fischer read a statement from Henry Fischer indicating
his support of increasing the node to 400 acres which he felt
would be more than adequate for the demand.
It was generally indicated the Board favored 400 acres.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 7:50 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
L-JUL15 1986
46
oil
BOOK D FAli