HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1986JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
PLANNING 6 ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, October 20, 1986
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning 8 Zoning
Commission of Indian River County met in Special Joint Session at
the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Monday, October 20, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M.
Present from the Board of County Commissioners were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Margaret
C. Bowman; Richard N. Bird; and William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Present from the Planning 8 Zoning Commission were John Tippin,
Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge, Vice Chairman; Claude C. Kleckner;
Daniel Richey; and John Brenner. Absent were Ben F. Bailey, III
and Daniel G. Downey, Jr. Also present were Bruce Barkett,
Assistant County Attorney; Robert Keating, Director of Planning t
Development; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC HEARING - GRAND HARBOR ESTUARINE PLAN, Continued from the
Meeting of October 14, 1986
Commissioner Lyons explained that this meeting was postponed
from October 14, 1986, because the Planning 8 Zoning Commission
did not have all the information at their meeting of September
25, 1986, nor did the Board have the time to give the matter the
full consideration it deserves.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated September 16,
1986:
(insert)
BOOK
OCT 2 0 1986 F���,� ��
OCT 2 O 1986 BOOK f'1E
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 16, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
GRAND HARBOR: ESTUARINE
Robert M. Keatipg, CP SUBJECT: PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL PRD
Planning & Development Director PLAN APPROVAL
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development 0
FROM: Stan Boling, staff *Vn FERENCES: PRD
Art Challacombe, Chief 64-� HARBOR
Environmental Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 14, 1986.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On October 25, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners issued a
development order (D.O.) for the Grand Harbor development of
regional impact (D.R.I.) project. The D.O. included an extensive
list of conditions that will control many aspects of the develop-
ment as well as the timing and construction of infrastructure
improvements needed to serve the project. The D.O., which is in
effect for 20 years, is the controlling document in regards to all
development plans within the project. The D.O. may be amended by
the County, pursuant to review by the State and regional planning
council and state regulations governing D.R.I.'s.
The entire project, located north of 45th Street and south of 53rd
Street and the North Relief Canal between U.S. #1 and the Indian
River, will consist of a. commercial marina/hotel "Harbor Center"
area, an office park, a shopping center, and a large residential
area consisting of residential units, a golf course, golf and
tennis club, and an estuarine/wetlands area. The owner/applicant,
Grand Harbor, Inc., is now requesting approval of three items:
1. the Estuarine Plan, as required in condition #8 of the D.O.;
2. an Amendment to D.O. condition #8, to allow a mitigation
proposal that is part of the Estuarine Plan; and
3. -the Conceptual PRD Plan, which covers the residential portion
of the project, including the estuarine system area.
** At their regular meeting of September 25, 1986, the Planning and
(see below) Zoning Commission unanimously approved these three items with
conditions. The following report and staff recommendation
describe and specify conditions of approval.
CONCURRENT_ REVIEWS
The proposed estuarine plan represents the major design modifi-
cations made to the project in response to D.O. conditions and
various environmental permitting agencies. In accordance with the
D.O., the estuarine plan must be approved prior to conceptual PRD
plan approval. Amendment of a D.O. standard is necessary if the
estuarine plan is to be approved, to ensure conformance of the
estuarine plan with the D.O. The proposed D.O. amendment would
allow some encroachment of development into a previously
non -exempted wetlands area in return for restoration and creation
of other wetland areas.
(See Page 8 of these
Miof September
2
Minutes for correction to the Planning & Zoning
25, 1986.
Several changes have been made to the project design since the
October 1985 D.R.I. approval. All of these changes have occurred
within the proposed estuarine system. Originally, four marina
areas were proposed. Plans now propose only one marina in the
"Harbor Center", located in the existing marina basin in the
northeast corner of the project. The conceptual PRD plan
incorporates these estuarine system modifications and provides
more detail in regards to the phasing and development of the
residential areas of the project.
ESTUARINE PLAN AND D.O. AMENDMENT
In the period since the County approved the Development Order on
October 23, 1985, the estuarine plan has undergone various revis-
ions and concept improvements. The applicant is requesting that
the County approve the design plan, mosquito management plan and
revised permit drawings, all of which represent the final
estuarine plan product. The plan (see attachment #6 & #7) pro-
poses to restore the existing marsh system from its highly altered
and degraded condition through the implementation of Open Marsh
Water Management (OMWM).
The objective of OMWM is to return the marsh area. to a more
naturally functioning estuarine ecosystem, while at the same time
eliminating mosquito habitats and breeding areas. This will be
accomplished by creating channels and rotary ditches that will
open the marsh to the Indian River. The intertidal connection
between the marsh and the River will provide ecological benefits
such as increased water circulation and fish penetration, thereby
creating nursery areas and increasing the movement of needed
nutrients. The channels and ditches created for the marsh system
will eliminate those depressional- and ponded sites within the
marsh that act as breeding areas for salt marsh mosquitos.
The proposed estuarine plan designates development and golf course
fill areas (approximately twelve acres) within the "non-exempt"
wetlands. Presently, the D.O. limits excavation and fill within
the non-exempt wetlands to what is necessary for adequate
flushing, habitat restoration and mosquito control. The plan does
nQt meet these. limitations. The applicant is proposing that a
total of sixteen wetland acres be restored in the exempt area or
created in upland areas in exchange for permission to allow twelve
acres of development in the "non-exempt" wetlands. Approval of
this scheme will require amendment of the Development Order by the
Board of County Commissioners.
County and regional planning council staff find the estuarine plan
and D.O. amendment proposal acceptable as long as certain
conditions are attached to the plan as follows:
1. a back-up mosquito control technique administered by the
I.R.C. Mosquito Control District shall be established by the
developer;
2. an estuarine waterway maintenance plan, acceptable to the
County and Regional Planning Council, shall be provided by
the developer;
3. it shall be a requirement that all site plans ensure control
of run-off into wetlands;
4. a maximum depth of -3 feet for all interior wetland system
channels with the major connecting channels tapering to -4
feet at the interface of the estuary and the Indian River be
established and channel widths shall be limited; and
5. the D.O. shall be amended to allow for development of up to.
ten acres within the "non-exempt" wetlands in exchange for an
equal number of acres restored or created in exempted areas.
3
OCT 2 0 1� BOOK � f'r��r 89
BOOK 66 90
A maximum of two additional acres within the non-exempt area
may be filled for roadway use provided that a minimum of six
acres of additional wetlands are created elsewhere as part of
the estuarine plan.
In addition to the above stated conditions, the developer will not
receive authorization to commence work on the estuarine system
until a land development permit is issued by the County and all
agency permits are obtained for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Amend the Grand Harbor development order (D.O.) condition #8
and condition #17 by adopting the attached resolution.
2. Approve tyre estuarine plan subject to the following
conditions:
a) Mosquito Control - Prior to the release of any site
plan, the applicant shall coordinate with the Indian
River Mosquito Control District and provide the District
with an operational system that will ensure that a
backup control technique will be available in the event
that OMWM does not provide adequate mosquito control
benefits. The applicant shall provide Indian River
County with all legal agreements, bonding transactions,
escrow account documentation or other arrangements that
are developed with the Mosquito District.
b) Maintenance Provisions - Prior to any site plan
approval, the applicant shall provide Indian River
County, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the
Indian River Mosquito Control District with an operation
plan for future maintenance of the estuarine waterway
and rotary ditches. The plan shall, at`'a minimum
describe the methods for detritus and vegetation re-
moval, responsibility for performing the work, marsh
protection practices during work activities in the marsh
and channels and the method for funding all maintenance
activities. The plan shall be approved by the County, the
Indian River Mosquito Control District and the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council prior to the issuance of a land
development permit -by the County.
c) Nearby Potential Pollution Sources - All site plan
applications shall demonstrate that the potential
negative effects to adjacent wetlands caused by ferti-
lizers and lawn chemicals entering through runoff will
be controlled so as not to impact those wetlands, by
means such as upland edge buffers and berms.
d) Depth & Width of the Estuarine Channels - Development of
the estuarine waterway system shall be limited to a
maximum depth of minus three (3) feet mean low water of
all interior channels within the estuarine system with
the major connecting channels tapering to minus four (4)
feet mean low water at the interface of the estuary and
the Indian River. In addition the applicant shall be
required to slope the bottom of all channels from the
deepest depth to the' shallower edges. The applicant
shall provide for channel widths that:
1. are in conformance with approved environmental
permits; and
2. contain slopes which range from 4:1 to 12:1.
[resulting in widths ranging from 24 feet to 72
feet] .
3a
Stan Boling, Staff Planner, presented the following graphic
showing the steps needed to go through the entire DRI application
procedure:
DRI APPLICATION
Adopted D.O. (conditions Modifications
PLUS
D.O. Amendment
Estuarine Plan
Conceptual PRD Plan
Prelim. PRD Plans
Mr. Challacombe presented the following chart:
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY ISSUES PROCESS
AGENCY NAME SUBMITTAL RESPONSE COMPLETENESS PROPOSED ISSUE
PERMIT TYPE DATE DATE DATE
U.S. Army
July, 1985 7/15/86
Corps of Engrs.
Wetlands Fill
Permit
DER - Dredge 8
5/17/86 5/86
Fill Permit
St. Johns River
6/86 Not
Water Managemeni
Complet
District
IRC N6t cubmittPA N/A
a) mangrove alteration
b) land clearing
c) land development
OCT0 1986
L_
Within
1-2 months
"Intent to
issue" within
1 week
11/11/86
General
Permit reed.
No permit to
be issued
until
developer
receives land
devop. permit
4 BOOK 66 [,m ,) L 91
r OCT 2 0 1986
BOOK 66 PAGE 92
Mr. Boling noted that basically, the western 2/3's of the
project is the same as it was going through the DRI process. It
- is in the areas of the estuarine plan where the modifications are
being proposed. Mr. Boling advised that he would be presenting
the Conceptual PRD later on in this meeting.
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, noted that
John Beidler and Douglas Carlson of the Mosquito Control District
and Joe Carroll from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service were in
attendance this morning. After last Tuesday's meeting, staff
contacted as many of the local jurisdictional agencies as
possible so that they could have an opportunity to listen to the
Board's thoughts on this matter, because whatever we ultimately
do with this project in terms of approvals, local jurisdictional
agencies, as well as staff, are going -to have to live with the
monitoring and overseeing the implementation of this project.
Mr. Challacombe explained that Condition 8 of the
Development Order is the key condition to the estuarine system
guidelines. The objectives.of the plan are: 1) To create a
more natural functioning marsh system. Approximately 110 acres
in the area are very altered by man's activities and fresh water
influence; and, 2) To create a system to keep the area as free
of mosquitoes as possible. He compared the modified estuarine
plan to the one the Board saw last October. No marinas are
proposed in the wetlands system in the new plan. The marine
activities will be limited to the existing basin area. In the
old plan very little high marsh was created or preserved, the
idea being that high marsh created more mosquitoes. Staff had
deep reservations about that theory and the environmental
agencies did not feel that dominance of the low marsh would be
the desirable goal of the estuarine plan. With that in mind, the
developer changed the plan to show a majority of high marsh
habitat that will be preserved or created from uplands or spoil
areas. The channel depths in the old areas were too wide and too
" deep. The developer has reduced them and increased the wetland
5
acreage, and the channel is basically closed off from the
wetlands system with the exception of a canal and 3 culverts.
Everything in the plan is to be done in the natural way and
nothing artificial as far as water movement is concerned. One
thing that has remained constant in the developer's plan is the
filling in of the non-exempt wetlands. Mr. Challacombe pointed
out the non-exempt and exempt wetland areas on the developer's
plan and emphasized that the each jurisdictional agency reviewing
this application has their own boundaries for wetland under their
permitting process.
The exempt wetlands are the ones that are highly altered and
are very difficult to restore. Basically, the developer can work
within those exempt areas with regard to fill and creating his
project. In return the developer will stay out of the non-exempt
areas. Referring to the developer's plan, he pointed out the
subject 12 acres of non-exempt wetlands. Mr. Challacombe stated
that right from the beginning the Planning staff has informed the
developer that this change is a deviation from the Development
Order and would requir.e the approval of the Board of County
Cornmissioners. `Staff is recommending that the Board amend the
.Development Order and approve the estuarine plan subject to the
conditions proposed by staff in the above memo.
Mr. Challacombe then reviewed the status on the following
issues:
D.O. Amendment -- The developer is requesting to be allowed to
fill in 10 acres of existing high marsh in the non-exempt area
for a golf course plus another 2 acres for road fill. As a
whole, the environmental benefits would be that the developer has
an incentive to spend the money to restore the total wetland
system. In addition, the owner has agreed to create an
additional 6 acres of wetlands somewhere in the lower section of
the site.
Mosquito Control -- With the development of this project, it
will be very difficult for the Indian River Mosquito Control
6
BOOK
CCT 2 0 1386
BOOK 66 r 94
District to use its present technique of spraying by fixed wing
aircraft, and they are considering using a helicopter which .is
far more costly. Staff is requiring the developer to work with
Mosquito Control to develop a bonding or escrow account to cover
the cost and implementation of whatever mosquito control
techniques are felt suitable by the Mosquito Control District.
This condition must be resolved prior to the owner receiving a
land development permit from the County.
John Beidler, Executive Director of the Indian River
Mosquito Control District, reported that the developer has been
told that despite their best efforts there will be large numbers
of mosquitoes in the area from time to time. He believed,
however, that sandflies might be a worse problem. The Mosquito
Control District recognizes that they have a great deal o- — -
responsibility in this particular area. An impoundment area was
ruined when the Army Corps of Engineers placed a great deal of
fill material in the area, and the past few years it has been
controlled only by spraying -larvicide from fixed -wing airplanes.
They feel that the implementation of an open marsh water
management technique instead of the impounding technique warrants
special attention to this particular area with the cost to be
borne by_the developer, and they worked out a tentative agreement
with the developer last Friday which basically requires that for
a number of years the developer will support mosquito breeding
inspections of this particular area and will furnish the
equipment and subsidize the salary of the inspector for the
Mosquito Control District. In addition, if it deemed
necessary, the developer has agreed to supplement the open marsh
water management with a rotary ditching technique if that is
acceptable to the DER and the DNR.- The District would have to
continue monitoring this area of small islands on a basis of 3
times a week during the breeding period and then 2 days a week
during the non -breeding period. The District will continue to
larvicide the area at the taxpayers expense, just like any other
_ 7
area, up until the time of the construction of the condos as the
FAA will not allow fixed -wing aircraft to fly over condos or
clusters of single -story buildings. They have treated this area
as many as 16 times a year, and hopefully, that will be precluded
by the open marsh system in addition to the rotary ditching
procedure.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the larvicide could be applied by
using a spraying vehicle, and Mr. Beidler stated they would try
that method in the smaller areas under the agreement that the
developer will furnish any specialized equipment.
Mr. Beidler believed that the District has all the bases
covered and stated that they have not run into any opposition as
yet.
Pollution Sources Mr. Challacombe advised that as a condition of
approval of the estuarine plan, staff is recommending, and the
developer has agreed, to construct a continuing upland edge swale
and berm system along the entire shoreline so that no run off
would be entering the estuarine system through the golf course
greens.
Planning E Zoning Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge had a
question about the DDT testing process, and Mr. Challacombe felt
that the testing and monitoring would be done by the DER. If
there appears to be a problem with DDT levels, those areas cannot
be opened up to the Indian River until such time as the developer
solves that problem. Further, a Certificate of Occupancy will
not be issued for any of the units until the estuarine system is
operational.
Commissioner Bowman asked about the effect of DDT levels
during a 100 -year storm, and Mr. Challacombe felt in that event
we would have a similar problem throughout the entire County. —
Mrs. Stanbridge pointed out that the Planning & Zoning
approval of the Development Order was not unanimous. She voted
in dissent for the reasons that the widths of the channels were
8
L -OCT 2 0 1986
OCT 2 0 1966 BOOK 66 PA sr 96
too wide; stormwater runs into these channels even during a
25 -year storm; and because the developer proposes to fill in some
of the non-exempt wetlands for a golf course.
Mr. Challacombe stressed that the developer is going to take
off 6 inches of top soil which contains most of the pesticide
residues.
Commissioner Lyons noted that Condition #9 of the
Development Order does not specify 6 inches. It just says that
soils with DDT will be removed and placed on the golf course
greens.
Chairman Scurlock felt from the developer's standpoint, we
should set a specific level of how much DDT residue will be
allowed.
Mr. Challacombe suggested that language be inserted into the
maintenance plan whereby the developer is required to address
that part of the issue.
Chairman Scurlock just wanted to make sure that it gets done
because floating numbers are very difficult to work with and keep
things fair.
Commissioner Bird wished to see staff and the developer get
together and determine a reasonable level and then bring it back
to the Board for approval.
Mr. Challacombe advised that they will be coordinating with
other agencies on this matter.
Maintenance of the Estuarine Waterway and Rotary Ditches -- A
maintenance provision is tied to the land development permit.
Basically, the network is set up so that the answers will come at
the time the land development permit is issued. The County holds
the ultimate control through that land development permit to give
the developer the go ahead. Once the developer receives all the
other permits and staff has seen that the Mosquito Control
District and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
approves and feels comfortable with the maintenance and mosquito
-. 9
r � �
agreements, then it all ties right into the land development
process.
Chairman Scurlock wanted to make sure that they don't set
artificially low rates for these maintenance services in the
beginning because he did not want to see the homeowner's
association come back to the County after the project is finished
complaining about the high maintenance bills.
Commissioner Lyons agreed and suggested possibly setting up
a municipal special taxing unit for them.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that a MSTU would be a good option
for the homeowner's association, but -pointed out that it would be
difficult to determine the initial tax billing.
Planning & Zoning Commissioner Claude Kleckner advised that
after stating his opposition to the filling in of non-exempt
wetlands at the P & Z meeting of September 25th, he since has had
time to look into this and feels the -developer is really within
his rights. For that reason he did not vote against the
mitigation plan at the P & Z meeting of September 25, 1986.
However, he certainly_is not in love with it. He expressed his
- corrcerrr-about the maintenance after it is in the hands of the
homeowner's association, and wondered who will say what the
maintenance will be and how it will be done. He suggested that a
performance bond be posted to cover maintenance of the initial
construction for 5 years or until the area is stabilized, and
then in the future establish some sort of an escrow account for
which the homeowners association would be responsible. Mr.
Kleckner believed Grand Harbor would have a very good influence
on our county and was very pleased to see the effort the
developer has made to solve the various environmental
requirements. He pointed out, however, that when money has to
be cut and push comes to shove, the first areas to be hit are the
ecological areas, and that is the main reason for his suggestion
of the performance bond. He believed that the health of the
Indian River lagoon must be our first priority.
10 BOOK 66 Ph,E 97
OCT 2 0 1986
r OCT 2 0 7986 �
BOOK 66 PAGE 98
Depths & Widths of Waterways in the Estuarine Channels
Mr. Challacombe presented the following chart:
CHANNEL PROFILE
ALTERNATES
Mr. Challacombe advised that staff is proposing Alternative
#2 as a better and natural approach to constructing the estuarine
system.
Commissioner Bird wondered if we would be creating a
maintenance problem by having the shallow channels, but Mr.
Challacombe did not believe we would. He explained that we don't
want to go too deep because we don't want it to become dead water
due to low oxygen content. In order to preserve the high marsh,
staff recommends as little alteration as possible.
Mrs. Stanbridge wished to see the widths of the channels
reduced even more, but Chairman Scurlock felt there would be a
problem with the movement of the water.
Michael Egan, attorney representing Grand Harbor,
appreciated the Board's response and consideration of this
complex matter. He advised that with respect to the DDT issues,
they have already dealt with the DER and established a background
for the Indian River soils-. They will be establishing the depth
to reach that background in these ditches, excavating that, and
then get rid of that soil. Attorney Egan suggested that the
language in paragraph 2 (d) of Condition #8 of the estuarine plan
be changed by striking the wording following the final sentence
that reads, "The applicant shall provide for channel widths
that:", and substitute: "within non-exempt wetlands, the
applicant shall provide for channel widths that are in
conformance with approved environmental permits and do not exceed
72 feet unless wider channels are necessary to remove existing
spoil banks."
Mr. Challacombe stated that staff's recommendation for
Alternate #.2 still stands along with the present wording in 2(d).
Commissioner Lyons asked the developer what the advantage
would be in having increased channel'widths, and Attorney Egan
pointed out that the permits are ready to be issued and that
change would alter the plan substantially. All they are asking
for is the flexibility to have an open water area in the central
area to establish a saltwater gradient and provide better
flushing. He emphasized that 18 different agencies were involved
in reaching this compromise solution.
Commissioner Wodtke wanted to go with whatever is the best
system for protecting the Indian River.
Dr. Christenson, Professor of Hydrologics at the University
of Florida, advised that if we want more flushing, we need to get
more energy into the water. The wind energy that goes into the
water depends on the area of the surface; therefore, he strongly
disagreed with staff on the point of narrowing the channels. He
presented a graph and explained how oxygen is taken in from the
surface and down to the bottom.
Mr. Kleckner noted that several highly esteemed experts have
written to Douglas Carlson of the Mosquito Control District, and
almost uniformly, they are recommending narrower widths. Mr.
OCT 2 0 1986 12 BOOK 66 PACE 99
_
- ;�
OCT 2 n 1986 BOOK 00 FA,t 100
.Grant Gilmore of the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution
suggested that the estuarine channels be aligned with the
p-revailing winds in order to get the maximum flushing.
Mr. Challacombe stated that he did not disagree with Dr.
Christenson in theory, but still recommended eliminating the
basin and going with channels widths at a maximum of 72 feet. He
strongly advised against taking out existing high marsh.
Richard Shaub, developer of Grand Harbor, emphasized what an
arduous task they have had in working this out with the various
agencies, and suggested a compromise on the language on the
widths in order to comply with the DER and Corps permits.
Attorney Egan suggested that at the end of Paragraph 2(d),
strike the period, substitute a comma, and state: "unless
otherwise permitted by the DER and the Army Corps of Engineers."
Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone had any objection to the
suggested language, and Mr. Challacombe reported that he had
talked with Janet Llewellyn of the DER and explained the County's
position in relation to their permitting. Mrs. Llewellyn
explained to him that if the County wishes to be more
restrictive, there should not be any problem with modifying the
DER and the other permits as long as it was in the environment's
best interests.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-89, amending the Development Order
approving the Grand Harbor Development of Regional
Impact; with the amendments to Section (8) and Section
(17) as recommended by staff.
13
RESOLUTION 86 - 89
ti �T j�a
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPRO �-- G r THS;,dAND
HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT.nent
nx
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions in Chapter 3 �Z�,'�
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian Riventy
has adopted Resolution 85-128 establishing the Development Order
approving the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact and has
adopted Resolution 86-4 amending the adopted Development Order;
and
WHEREAS, the project developer has requested certain
amendments to the Development Order to allow encroachment of
development areas within designated "non-exempt" wetland areas in
return for restoration and creation of wetland areas elsewhere on
the project site; and
WHEREAS, the amendment request has been reviewed by the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the State Department
of Community Affairs and has not been determined to constitute a
substantial deviation under Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Development Order is being amended in
conjunction with an estuarine plan required by the Development
Order; and
WHEREAS, the estuarine plan proposes the excavation and
utilization of only one marina basin area; and
WHEREAS, references to the excavation and construction of a
second marina basin shall be modified to reflect the use of one
marina basin;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the adopted
Development Order approving the Grand Harbor Development of
Regional Impact as amended, is hereby amended as follows, with
said amendments to be incorporated into the existing Development
Order:
SECTION 1
Under "HABITAT, VEGETAT.TON AND WILDLIFE" item 8 shall be amended
to read as follows:
8. Prior to County approval of any conceptual PRD plan a plan
detailing the design of the estuarine waterway and basin
system shall be submitted to Indian River County and Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council for review and approval. The
plan shall be designed to meet the following performance
standards:
a)
b)
c)
d)
CODING:
OCT Go 1986
It shall provide for adequate flushing within the
system;
It shall not include proposed marina Basins VAL4Q//4 2,
3, and 4;
It shall be constructed up to a maximum depth of -4 feet
mean low water south of marina Basin 4 1.
It may include proposals to excavate or fill any
wetlands designated as exempted wetlands in Exhibit 9 of
this report. Excavation or fill proposals in other
wetlands (non-exempt wetlands) shall be limited to those
which are necessary to provide for the following
management objectives:
Words in type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
BOOK 66 N E I®I
-
BOOK 66 F�mj�.
OCT 2 0 1996
I restoration of tidal exchange between marsh habitat
and the Indian River Lagoon;
II restoration of mosquito control functions and
public health values;
III restoration of water quality;
IV development of adequate nursery habitat for fish;
- -
and
V provision for adequate flushing.
Excavation or fill proposals in non-exempt wetlands may
a
also be permitted for golf course, development areas,
and roadways provided that:
- such non-exempt wetlands excavation and fill areas
shall not exceed a cumulative total of twelve (12)
acres for the entire project; any proposal to
exceed the cumulative twelve (12) acre total shall
constitute a substantial deviation;
- mitigation at no less a rate than 1:1 in the form
of the restoration and creation of other wetland
areas shall be provided in return for approval of
excavation and fill requests for development within
the non-exempt wetlands.
e)
It shall provide no navigable connections to the Indian
River Lagoon, other than that provided by the existing
channel. Navigable access shall be prevented either by
construction of bridges or boardwalks across flushing
connections that are structures that form low, effective
barriers to navigation; the maximum distance between the
bottom of such structures and mean low water levels
_
shall be 24 inches. The maximum width -of the connection
shall be the minimum needed to provide an adequate
flushing regime for the estuarine/waterway system.
f)
It shall provide for, and detail, all plans for
construction and management of associated wetland
habitats.
g) As a minimum, the estuarine waterway and flushing
channels shall include a fully vegetated littoral zone.
As a minimum, 30 square feet of vegetated littoral zone
shall be established per linear foot of estuarine
waterway shoreline which occurs. The littoral zone
shall consist entirely of native vegetation.
h) The waterway system south of marina Basin x 1 shall be
designed for use by canoes and small non -motorized boats
only. Signs prohibiting entrance of motorized boats
shall be posted. •
i) All waterways, basins and the access channel to the
Intracoastal Waterway shall be posted as a Manatee Area
and Idle Speed Zone.
The development plan which includes the vegetative mitigation
plan, must be approved by Indian River County and Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council in consultation with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Florida Department of Natural Resources, and the
Governor's Technical Subcommittee on Managed Salt Marshes.
No site plan approval can be considered prior to the fulfill-
ment of this condition.
CODING: Words in 44hA¢X1fXt0i4X type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
SECTION 2
Under "HABITAT,VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE" item 17 shall be amended
to read as follows:
17. Marina Development shall be restricted to existing marina
Basin .1 Avid/ ,).&,6,p,6AA4//fV4WV a(/1%4WjI/,2, as identified on page
12-20 of the ADA. Marinas 2, 3 and 4 shall not be construc-
ted. The maximum ' number of slips to be accommodated within
ZAA144 Basin 1 AIi412 shall be a total of 72 at this time. It
is recognized that the basis for this restriction is concern
for potential boating impacts upon the West Indian manatee
and negative impacts on wetlands. The developer is studying
methods to address and mitigate those impacts. Should the
developer subsequently demonstrate reasonable assurance that
additional slips would- not have a significant adverse effect
upon the manatee species, or should the marina siting plan
approved by Council identify Grand Harbor as a suitable site
for additional slips of the size and type proposed in the
Grand Harbor ADA, then the developer shall be presumed to be
entitled to construct such additional slips. However, should
additional slips (more than 72) be proposed for the site,
such slips shall be considered a substantial deviation
pursuant to Section 380.06(19), F.S. and, therefore, shall
require a review by the regional planning council.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public
hearing held on this the 20th day of October , 1986.
C_
ALX1
'eA&
-- Don C. Scur-lock, Jr., Chairman
Board of County Co 'ssioners
ATTEST:
W10
County Clerek
/�
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:.
Bruce Barkett, County Attorney
CODING: Words in At7hlt¢9/W04OX type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
T 0 1996 BOOK 6 Fa 10
OCT 2 ® 1986 BOOK 66 uu-104
MOTION WAS MADE Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the
Estuarine Plan for Grand Harbor -subject to the
conditions as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman asked if the Motion
left the language in Condition 2d as is, but Commissioner Bird
asked what the other suggested language was for 2(d).
Commissioner Bowman explained that it was "unless otherwise
permitted by the
DER and
the
Army Corps
of Engineers."
Commissioner
Bowman
felt
there is a
possibility that the DER
and the Corps may want to cut down the width of'those ditches.
COMMISSIONERS LYON'S AND BOWMAN AGREED TO INCLUDE
IN THEIR MOTION the amended language for Condition 2d
in Section 8, "unless otherwise permitted by the DER
and the Army Corps of Engineers."
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Scurlock wished to have staff come back about the
-monitoring and performance bond on the maintenance, and Mr.
Boling said they are planning to bring both back on the Consent
Agenda of a future meeting and if there are any questions, it can
be pulled off and discussed.
ESTUARINE PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CONCEPTUAL PRD PLAN APPROVAL
Planner Stan Boling reviewed the following plan analysis:
17
CONCEPTUAL PRD PLAN ANALYSIS:
The conceptual PRD plan proposes the general lay -out of the
project, which is to consist of a system of roads servicing
residential development "POD'S". The PODS are generally
surrounded by open spaces and recreation areas. This arrangement
allows for the clustering of units within PODS and the con-
servation of large open space areas. Approval of the conceptual
PRD plan is actually approval of this concept layout, and a series
of conceptual plans for traffic and pedestrian circulation,
drainage, utilities, and phasing. After conceptual plan approval,
the developer may submit site plans for the detailed development
of individual PODS and other common amenities such as the golf
club and golf course.
1. Project Size:
.Golf & Tennis Club...............................14.7 acres
Golf Course ................... .................115.0 acres
Residential PODS................................206.2-acres
Open Space/Roads................................560.7 acres
Total PRD Uplands...............................467.4 acres
PRD Estuarine System.............................93.3 acres
Total PRD Project...............................560.7 acres
NOTE: Total DRI Project (PRD & Commercial) ........ 677.7 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RM -6 (Residential Multi -Family up to
6 units/acre)
3. Land Use Designation:
MD -1 (Medium Density Residential up to 8 units/acre)
RR -2 (Rural Residential up to one unit per acre)
4. Total Proposed Units: 2,764
5. Proposed Building Density: ±4.93 units/acres (gross)
±5.9 units/acre (uplands)
No transfer of *density from environmentally sensitive areas
_ts proposed.
6. Surrounding Land Uses:
North: golf course, groves, undeveloped
South: commercial, groves, undeveloped
East: Indian River
West: commercial, groves, undeveloped
7. Landscaping and Buffering: a minimum 25' perimeter buffer
area will be provided along the PRD boundary. Only small
portions of the PRD actually abut adjacent developable
property; most of the project is bordered by roads and the
river. Landscape ordinance 84-47 wi'il be applied during
review and consideration of preliminary PRD plans (the next
step in the PRD process).
8. Traffic Circulation: Indian River Boulevard, which will run
through the western one-quarter of the project, as well as
45th Street and U.S. #1 will provide access to the project.
Internal project circulation is to be handled via a system of
boulevards and feeder roads that will service individual
"PODS" or development areas. An internal pedestrian system
will also be provided. The traffic engineer has approved the
conceptual roadway and pedestrian master plan as long as
conditions are added to the plans to provide for:
a `pede-strian crossing with pedestrian signalization at
the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and the main
entrance road; and
the closing of direct access to Indian River Boulevard
for a water tank site when alternate access becomes
available.
18
OCT 2 0 1986 Boa 66 P,1,CE 105
F r, -
OCT 2 0 1981
�1
BOOK 66 Fb.UE 116 -7
The plan proposes to waive the normal recreational vehicle
space requirement by placing a deed restriction on the land
that prohibits recreational vehicles and boats within resi-
dential areas and PODs. The planning department and attor-
ney's office have verified that the county has the authority,
pursuant to [section 25.4(H)(3)d. of the PRD ordinance, to
waive the requirement as part of PRD plan approval.
It should be noted that the D.O. provides an extensive list
of traffic improvements to be provided by the developer as
the project is built and vehicle trips are generated by the
development.
9. Drainage: The project is to be divided into five drainage
basins. Four of these basins contain interconnected
freshwater lakes. The fifth basin is located in the
estuarine waterway portion of the project. The freshwater
basins would discharge into the estuarine basin through
one-way control structures in order to maintain the fresh-
water -salt water interface. Water quality treatment would be
provided by grass swales and filtration through lake -edge
underdrains in the freshwater basins and by underground
exfiltration trenches located in the uplands portions of the
estuarine drainage basin. The developer will need to secure
a stormwater management permit and land development permit
prior to construction of any phase.
10. Utilities: Public water and wastewater service will -be
provided to the site. The county water distribution system
is to be expanded by the developer to connect into the
existing county system. Temporarily, water from the City of
Vero Beach will be utilized at the beginning of the project.
In conjunction with existing county water storage, a 500,000
gallon ground storage tank is to be constructed on the
project site to facilitate storage capacity and fire flow.
The county wastewater collection and transmission system will
be expanded by the developer, as well as an expansion of the
Gifford wastewater treatment plant, to handle the project's
effluent. The Utilities department has approved the con-
ceptual water and wastewater utilities plan. The developer
will need to secure a land development permit and utilities
permits prior to construction of any phases.
11. Recreation and Open Space: PRD open space and recreation
area requirements would be exceeded through the provision of
an estuarine area, golf course, golf and tennis club, pedes-
trian system, and common open space areas.
Recreation Area...... Required: 33.2 acres
Provided: 132.9 acres
Open Space ........... Required: 280.4 acres
Provided: 328.4 acres
12. Phasing and Densities: The project is divided into 12
phases. The phasing plan ensures that each phase or accumu-
lation of phases would be able to "stand on its own" and
would not exceed six units/acre at any time during project
build -out. The applicant proposes to develop several of the
phases and provide infrastructure throughout the project.
Secondary developers may site -plan and develop individual
PODs.
Residential densities are to be clustered on individual PODS
("A" through "T") and would range from 10 units/acre up to 18
units/acre on each POD. Some densities may be shifted
between PODs as long as infrastructure and drainage improve-_
ments are proven adequate and as long as the gross density of
the phasing plan remains at or below 6 units/acre at any
given time.
19
One 178 acre phase area, to be known as the River Club, is
not included in the conceptual PRD plan at this time.
However, this parcel, located immediately west of the
existing marina basin and north of PODs G and I, is to be
formally added to the conceptal PRD plan at a later date.
13. Gifford Dock Road Abandonment: The plan proposes to reroute
the portion of Gifford Dock Road that crosses the south-
eastern corner of the project. The re -alignment would leave
approximately 800, of the 2,000' long road intact (see
attachment #5).
Because Gifford Dock Road has historical significance, the
re -alignment plan was reviewed by the Scenic Trails Committee
at their July 23, 1986 meeting. The Committee recommended
approval of the plan subject to:
the placement of a historic marker at the river landing -
site;
the preservation of public river access via the road -and
landing site.
All utility providers and appropriate county departments have
been notified of the proposal and none objected to the
abandonment. Access to properties south of Gifford Dock Road
would be ensured.
On August 29, 1986, staff met with owners of properties
immediately south of Gifford Dock Road. The owners have no
objection to the re -alignment provided the new road segments
are in service prior to removal of the existing segment.
Formal proceedings for abandonment will be brought before the
Board at a later date. No abandonment or re-routing will be
actually approved prior to a formal right-of-way abandonment.
14. Water Access Requirement: The public water access require-
ment found in the site plan and subdivision ordinances
applies to this PRD. The ordinances require the dedication
of a 15' wide public access easement for every 600' of
shoreline for projects abutting the ocean or the river. With
4,800' of shoreline, the PRD project is required to provide
eight 15' wide easements. Staff has accepted the applicant's
proposal to dedicate fee simple ownership of property at the
Gifford Dock Road landing, including a recently constructed
108' long dock. The total park area to be dedicated would
run from the northern boundary of the Gifford Dock Road north
to include the dock and approximately 180' of shoreline; the
parcel's depth would be approximately 751. It is staff's
opinion that such a dedication would satisfy the PRD water
access requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. grant conceptual PRD plan special exception approval to Grand
Harbor, subject to the following conditions:
a) At such time that the Indian River Boulevard/Main
Entrance Road is developed, an at grade pedestrian
crossing, including pedestrian signalization, shall be
provided by the developer. The developer shall- be- V
responsible for 100% of the cost of the pedestrian
crossing and signalization and such costs shall not be
credited towards any traffic impact fees.
b) Direct access from Indian River Boulevard to the water
storage tank site shall be temporary. At such time that
another access point from the north or south becomes
available, such access shall be utilized and the direct
connection to Indian River Boulevard shall be closed.
20
BOOK 66 F'v) 07
r
OCT 2 Q 19W
BOOK 66
c) Prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy
for residential units, covenants and restrictions,
prohibiting storage of any recreational vehicles or
boats, shall be filed and placed over the residential
area involved.
d) The Board of County Commissioners will consider formal
proceedings to abandon a portion of Gifford Dock Road
that would allow for the re-routing of the road around
the project's southeastern boundary. In no case shall
any abandonment become effective nor shall the road be
removed by the developer until such time that the
developer constructs the new road segments in a manner_
acceptable to the public works director, and dedicates
sufficient right-of-way for the new road segments.
e) Prior to the release of any site plan for the project,
the developer shall dedicate to the county a parcel
running north from the eastern most tip of Gifford Dock
Road to a point 20 feet north of the existing dock.
Said parcel shall have a minimum 75' depth from the mean
high water line of the river, running west. The
developer shall also dedicate the entire existing dock
and shall place a historic marker at the Gifford Dock
Road river landing site.
Mr. Boling explained that this plan is very similar to what
was submitted to the DRI, and most of staff's concerns have been
met. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant conceptual PRD plan special exception approval to Grand
Harbor, subject to the five conditions listed in the above memo:
Commissioner Bird felt that while it is great that we are
acquiring access to the west side of the river, it is unfortunate
that the river is rather shallow in that area and will limit the
size of the boats that will.be able to go through there. He
-believed we may want to address some channel markers at some
point in the future when the areas starts being used.
ON MOTION by Commis0sioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the Conceptual PRD Plan for Grand Harbor subject to
\1-1/
the conditions outlined by staff.
21
REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND
FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 10/10/86:
BeInil orl and Asso iateS 3885 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 a (305) 562-7981
a division of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
October 10, 1986 File No. 5736.11.03
MEMO TO: Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
RE: Request for Waiver Under Section 21 1/2 -7
The following is submitted in compliance with Section 21 1/2-7(0)TI-j'—for
purposes of obtaining a waiver under such Section.
GRAND HARBOR
Request for Waiver
Grand Harbor is requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Indian
River County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance that
require "an equal volume of storage capacity must be created for any
volume of the regulatory flood that would be displaced by fill or
structure-a--belo-w- elevation 4.0 feet NGVD or the 10 year Flood elevation
which has been determined by FEMA, whichever is greater. As required by
the waiver amendment the following items are addressed.
1.) "The development project is situated in an estuarine environment."
Grand Harbor is located on the shores of the Indian River which is an
estuarine (tidal) environment.
2.) "The development project, as designed, will meet all other
requirements of the stormwater management and flood protection
ordinance."
Grand Harbor stormwater management system has been designed to meet
all other requirements of the County Stormwater Ordinance as well as the
requirements of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the St.
Johns River Water Management District. .
3.) "The project will not create a material adverse impact on flood
protection on other lands in the estuarine environment."
22
BOOK
H 100
Beinalorf and Associates
Grand Harbor
Request for Waiver
Page Two
BOOK 66
October 10, 1986
There are several conditions that can create high water- in the River
during a storm event. These would vary from a rainfall condition with
little or no wind to a storm condition with tidal surge build up at the
inlets due to wind. This latter case will cause the water to flow from
the ocean into the river creating the flood condition. The worst
condition, as verified by the FEMA maps, will be from this latter case
with wind and surge conditions at the inlets. Under this condition,
filling along the river within the flood zone would have no adverse
effect on the flood elevations. The flood elevation is controlled by many
factors including the ocean elevation, the inlets and river physical
characteristics and the river elevation (not volume). Part of the river
flooding will be created by the action of the wind on the river water
surface creating waves. The height of the wave and surge is a function of
the amount of area the wind has to act on. Filling the lands in question
would decrease the area on which the wind could act and therefor decrease
the flood wave and surge elevation. The net effect could be a very small
reduction in flood elevation.
It should be noted that the Grand Harbor project as currently planned
cannot comply with the above noted requirement of the stormwater ordinance
without the waiver and still complete the project. Any attempt to
complete the project would require dredging in the lower m areas of the
project which could endanger environmental areas and would require
additional permits. Conformance with the present ordinance will not
improve flood protection to the development.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that with the
actual amendment to the Stormwater Ordinance that was approved
last week, the applicant needs to prove that the project is
situated in an established tidal environment; that the project
meets all other requirements of the stormwater ordinance; and
does not create a material adverse impact on flood protection
of other lands in the environment. In staff's opinion, Grand
Harbor meets those requirements with the exception of the cut and
fill balance. He advised that the applicant is planning to use
646,000 cubic yards of material to fill in the existing storage
volume and another 320,000 cubic yards to fill in the excavation.
Director Davis reported that he had done a very simple analysis
as to the effect this fill would have in the flood plain area.
Using a 25 -mile length of the Indian River, approximately 11
miles wide, he figured that this amount of fill would raise the
tlood stages approximately 3/10's of an inch. Staff's
recommendation is that we go ahead and grant the waiver. He felt
it is going to be difficult to determine the cumulative effect of
23
0
the fill activity as the years progress without some type of
monitoring or staging, and that the Public Works Dept. would try
to get a handle on how much material is being placed in the
floodplain over the years. Director Davis felt the waiver is a
good provision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted
a waiver from requirements under Section 21 of the
5tormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance tz
the developer of Grand Harbor.
c.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
r
Clerk
Chairman
24 BOOK 6
OCT 2 0 1986