Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/17/1987Tuesday, February 17, 1987 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 17, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director, sitting in for Administrator Charles Balczun, who was out of state on county business; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting -to order. Reverend Don Crosby of Forest Park Baptist Church gave the invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Eggert wished to add the following two items under her matters: 1) Discussion dealing with finding a site for a Drug Rehabilita- tion Center, and 2) Securing trees from the Urban Revitalization Program. Chairman Scurlock asked that an item be added as requested by the OMB Director in regard to reducing retainage to make payments on Phase I of the Jail. OMB Director Baird also wished to add to today's agenda an item in regard to purchasing used equipment for Sandridge Golf Course. Commissioner Bird advised that he would make a brief report on the Park 8 Recreation Committee meeting. FEB BOOK 1? 98 r FEB 17 1937 ti BOOK 6 7 Fv�,;,. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added items as described above to today's agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 2, 1987. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 2, 1987, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Bird requested that Item F (Bid #337, Golf Course Equipment) be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed along with the item added re purchasing used golf course equipment. A. Application for Pistol Permit The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Balczun: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 30, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT:PISTOL PERMIT - NEW FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES: County Administrator The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new pistol permit: John Michael Willis All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order. 2 I ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED.by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Application for Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm for John Michael Willis. B. Reports The following was received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, Months of January, 1987. C. Sebastian's Appointment to Treasure CoastReg. Planning Council The Board reviewed letter received from Gene Harris, Mayor of Sebastian: 06' Of Sebavdan L. Gene Harris POST OFFICE BOX 127�-O-SEBASTIAN,.FLORIDA 32958-0127 Kathryn M. Benjamin Mayor TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 City clork � FEB ,g87 =February 5, 1987 %%RD CO �� COMNi�1t]NERS �� - r Mr. Dan Carey - Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 3228 S.W. Martin Downs, Suite #205 Palm City, Fl. 33490 Dear Mr. Carey: , This is to advise that effective this date, I have re&ppointed Mr. Robert McCarthy to serve as the City of Sebastian's representative on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. As_in. the past, you can expect our continuing interest and participation. Sincerely� L. Gene Harris Mayor 3 BOOK V f',au. ? , FEB Y? 1987 1 t'?'V) 3 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously acknowledged the appointment of Robert McCarthy as the City of Sebastian's representative on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. D. Cert. of Public Conven. - I.R.Memorial Hosp. (ALS Service) ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved renewal of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Memorial Hospital to provide ALS Services and authorized the signature of the Chairman. E. Site Plan Extension - Moose Lodge The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner J. W. McCoy: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 6, 1987 FILE: the Board of County -Commissioners _-- DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, CP SUBJECT: MOOSE LODGE REQUEST FOR Planning & Development Director SITE PLAN EXTENSION THROUGH: Stan Boling 1/•13.. Chief, Current Development FROM: J.W. McCoy'.�'V/K REFERENCES: moose lodge Staff Planner JOHN2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND•CONDITIONS: On February 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a minor site plan application submitted by the Moose Lodge. Approval was given to construct a 1,750 sq. ft. addition to their existing facility at 226 43rd Avenue. Due to financial constraints the Moose Lodge has been unable to commence construction prior to the expiration of the approved site plan. However, if no construction has begun by February 13, 1987 the site plan approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners. 4 Pursuant to the provisions of section (23.1(G)(2)], Appendix A of the zoning code, the Moose Lodge is requesting the full 1 year extension of the approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Moose Lodge's. request for a 1 year extension of their approved site plan; the new expiration date to.be February 13, 1988. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the request of the Moose Lodge for a one year ex- tension of their site plan, the new expiration date to be February 13, 1988. F. Bid #337 - Golf Course Golf Course Equipment uipment C Discuss Purchase of Used Memos from Purchasing Manager Goodrich and Golf Pro Komarinetz are as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb. 16, 1987 FILE: t � THRU: Joseph Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #337 -Golf Course Equipment Director, Budget Office L.S. "Tommy" Thomas Intergovernmental Coor inator FROM: REFERENCES: Carolynoodrich, Manager Purchas ng Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, January 22, 1987 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #337 -Golf Course Equipment. 8 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bidders are as follows: LESCO, INC. * #1. Greensmower, Triplex $7900.00 X #2. Vertical Mower Reel for above 1425.00 DEBRA TURF EQUIPMENT #3• Turf Groomer Attachment (only bid) $7650.00 A. Mower, Triplex, 84" 6660.00 5 FEB 17 `S87 BOOK FEB 17 19G7 #5. Three Point Hitch Blower 2279.94 A. Top Dresser, self-propelled (only bid)4195.00 #7. Sand Trap Rake 5390.00 #8. Spiker Attachment 1430.00 #9. Aerifier (Salsco) 5695.00 #11. 4 -Wheel Self -Propelled Utility Vehicle W/Top Dresser & Spreader 7497.00 Optional Cargo Box for above 585.00 HECTOR TURF & GARDEN #10. Turf Utility Vehicle W/Utility Box (2) 7970.00 BOOK PF Items 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are the only pieces of equipment needed. Other provisions have been made for the rest of the equipment. 3. Recommendation and Funding Staff recommendation is to award Items #1 and 2 to the low bidder, Lesco, Inc., Items 7, 8 and 11 to the low bidder, Debra Turf Equipment. The bids on Item #9. - Aerifier are being reviewed by staff and will be brought back to the Board at a later date. Staff also recommends Items #3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 be rejected. Total amount of Items 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11, is $24,227.00. Funds are available in Account #418-000-166-002.00. TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: February 16, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Tommy Thomas'• Intergovernmental Coordinator FROM: Bob Komarinetz Golf Pro 1 SUBJECT: Golf Course Equipment Johns Island Club, Inc. proposes to sell to Indian River County Sandridge Golf Course the following used equipment at a cost of $32,000. To purchase the equipment new would be ap— proximately $92,500. (See Attached New Equipment Schedule) _ Allis Chalmers 5050 Tractor with Loader Attachments 72" Turf—Cat Rotaries (2) Cushman Trucksters (2) Turf—King Tri—Plex Reel Mowers (2) 500 Gallon Injection Tank Rogers Fairway Aerifier Lely Spreader Spray Hawk FMC 100 Gallon Spray Tank 6 � _ r Cyclone Spreader Complete Set Lesco Tee Markers RECOMMENDATION The Golf Course staff recommends that we purchase the used equipment from John's Island Club, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $32,000. Golf Pro Komarinetz went over the items proposed to be purchased from John's Island Club and explained that buying this equipment would eliminate the necessity to buy each of the items bid on in Bid #337. Commissioner Eggert wished to know exactly which items would be eliminated from Bid #337, and Purchasing Manager Goodrich advised that #'s 3,4,5, 6 and 10, would not be needed. Chairman Scurlock felt two Motions would be needed, the first to accept staff's recommendation which awards the bid on some items and deletes some items, and then a second Motion to accept the recommendation on the John's. Island equipment. FEB 17 1987 L_ ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the award of Items #1 (Greensmower, Triplex) and #2 (Vertical Mower Reel) to the low bidder, Lesco, Inc., in the amounts of $7,900 and $1,425 respectively; approved the award of Items#7 (Sand Trap Rake), #8 (Spiker Attach- ment), and #11 (4 -Wheel Self -Propelled Utility Vehicle w/Top Dresser 6 Spreader, plus Cargo Box to the low bidder, Debra Turf Equipment, in the amounts of $5,390, $1,430, and $7,497 plus $585 respectively; and rejected the bids on Items #3,4, 5, 6 and 10, as recommended by staff. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted staff recommendation to purchase the used equipment from BOOK G,7 P"k"E. ?�J6 J FEB 17 1987 BOOK 6 F'A1,JE 297 John's Island Club as listed in memo from Golf Pro Komarinetz dated 2/16/87 at a cost not to exceed $32,000. G. Bid #338_- Mid Size Station Wagon for Agric. Extension Serv. The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb, 10, 1987 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #338 -One (1) Director, Budget Office New Mid Size Station Wagon FROM. REFERENCES: Carolyn Podrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, February 5, 1987 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #338 -One (1) New Mid Size Station Wagon for the Agricultural Extension Service. 2. Alternatives and Analysis. The low bid was submitted by Bill Schultz Chevrolet for a Celebrity in the amount of $11,073.78. The equivalent vehicle can be purchased from the State Contract for $9530.96. 3. Recommendation and Funding Staff recommends that IRC #338 be rejected and the automobile be purchased from the State Contract. Funds are budgeted in account #001-212-537-066.42. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously rejected Bid #338 and approved the purchase of one New Mid Size Station Wagon for the Agricultural Extension Service from State Contract as recommended by staff. H. Budget Amendment - Transfer of Funds from Petition_Pavinq_to Engineering The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird: 8 TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: February 11, 1987 Commissioners FROM: JosefthA�.Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Budget Amendment to Transfer Funds from Petition Paving to Engi- neering Increase Decrease Expense 703-214-541-035.39 Other Road Matrl/Supp 5,000 703-214-541-099.21 Fund Transfers Out 5,000 Revenue 111-000-381-020.00 Fund Transfers In 5,000 Expense 111-244-541-011.14 Overtime 5,000 Explanation Engineering department has been using their surveyors on the petition paving program. The above budget amendment is necessary to reimburse the Engineering department for the ad- ditional overtime expense which they -have incurred because of the petition paving projects. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recommended by the OMB Director. COMPREHENSIVE -PLAN AMENDMENTS The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: (Said Notice covers all the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be considered today.) FEB 1? 1937 9 BOOK 67 WUL "Pi I r -r E B 7 1i� VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida =OUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of� in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of✓� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County,_ Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the�urpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me_this aA ,,, day ofA.D. Z% Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAQ AND to -consider 'the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan by redesignating land from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2, to Commercial.. - The subject property is described as: _. Schedule A, Legal Description The North half of the East half of Lot 6 of Block 2, of Dr. Richard E. Bullington Subdivision, which. plat was filed May 25, -" 1912, and recorded in Plat Book 2, page 5, public records of. St Lucie County, , Florida, said land now lying and being n Indian River County, Florida. Except the right-of-way over the North 50 feet of th above described property conveyed to the City of Vero Beach for a street; and except street right-of-way as In Official Record Book 73, page 226, public records of Indian River County, Florida. Less and except the last 35 feet thereof.. The North 160.5 feet of the West half of Lot 6, Block 2, Dr: Richard E. Bullingto Subdivibion, according to plat filed May 25, 1912, and recorded in plat book 2, page 5, public records of St. Lucie Couri- ty, Florida; said land now lying and being In Indian River County, Florida. Except however, the west 100 feet of the above described property and except the north 50 feet of the above described property conveyed to the City, of Vero Beach for road right-of-way. Being In Indian River County, Florida, to wit: The east 371/2 feet• of the following de- scribed property: Commencing at the Southeast comer of the west half of Lot 6, Block 2, according to Map or Plat of Dr. Richard E. Bulling - ton's Subdivision, according to plat filed In plat book 2, page 5, St. Lucie County, Florida, records and running north 325 feet to the point of beginning. From said point of beginning, run north 165 feet and from thence run west 149.75 feet, and from thence run south 165 feet, and from thence run east 149.75 feet, to said point of beginning; said land lying and being in Indian RiverCounty. Florida. Or. Richard E. Bullington Subdivision re- corded in plat book 2, page 5, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida: the south 14.5 feet of the north 175 feet of the east 149.75 feet of the west one-half of Lot 6, Block 2. 4 Subject to easements, restrictions, reser- vations, and rights-of-way of public d record. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence ; upon which the appeal is based. J Indian River County Board of County Commissioners - 9Don C. Scuri an Jan. 28,, 1 18887 BOOK 6 7 ['+uc ? 99 NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY G PN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a preliminary public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Adminis- tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. February 17, j 1987 at 9:05 a.m, to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE ' OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE, DRAINAGE, AND TRANS- PORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND .CREATING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR ENLARGING THE 50 ACRE COM- MERCIAL NODE AT OSLO.ROAD.AND, 27tH AVENUE TO 58 ACRES. INCREAS-'L "SibIES. IN SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS FOR. PROPERTIES DE- TACHED,FROM THE.TOWN OF OR- CHID; ENACTING A COMPREHENSIVE 'AMENDMENT TO THE DRAINAGE ELE- MENT, AND AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SECTIO OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. AND to consider the'foltowing proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan by redesignating land from LD -2, Low - Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to LD- 1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The subject property is. located In the - Winter Beach area and is described as: The south 650 feet of the west 550 feet, and the south 445 feet of the -east 210 feet of the west 760 feet of the Southwest '',7 "1. of the Southwest 'A of Section 3, TrxNnshi1 32 South, Range'39 East; The south 650 feet of the Southeast'/. of the Southeast, 1/4 of Section 4; Township 32 South, Range 39 East;.,. b, .., The South 360 feet of Tract 28, Section 4, Township 32 South, Range 39 East; The South 360 feet of the East 70 feet of Tract 27, Section 4, Township 32 South, Range 39 East-, Lots 1 thru 4. incl"4 , Brumley Acres Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 8,-. Page 79, Indian River County. Florida; _ That part of Tract 6 lying South of Lat- eral "G" Canal, Tracts 7 and 8, inclusive, Tracts 10 thru 21, inclusive, and Tracts I, 25 thru *27, inclusive, and that part of Tract 28 lying South of the -Lateral "G" Cana, located In the North 1/2 of Section i 9. Township 32 South, Range 39 East; Winter Beach Park Subdivision as re- corded in Plat Book 10, page 7, Indian River County, Florida: Winter Beach Highlands Subdivision es ' recorded in Plat Book 6, page 58, Indian I River County, Florida; ' ,. . ; . Reece Subdivision as recorded In Plat I Book 10, page 32, Indian River.County," , Florida; All Land Lying and being In Indian River - County. Florida, and containing approxi- mately 250 acres more or less. AND to consider the following- proposal to. amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan by designating land as LD -2; Low -fin- ally Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre).. The subject property was located in the Town of Orchid and is described as: Government lot 4, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, said land now ng and being in Indian River County, lorida. That part of Government lot 1.. Section 27, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,' tying south of County Road 510; said land now lying and being' In Indian River County, Florida. AND to consider the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan by redesignating land from AG, Agri- cultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to LD -1, Low -Den- sity Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The subject property is described as: Tracts 3, 4, 5, and 6, Section 14, Town- ship 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the In- dian River Farms Company filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St Lucie County, Florida. Said lands " now lying and being In Indian River County, Florida. Subject to all existing canals, ditches and rights-of-way of record. AND to consider the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehen- sive Pian, by redesignating land from MD -1, '. Medium -Density Residential 1, to Commercial. The subject property is described as: The North 600 feet of the East 10 acres of the West 15 acres of Tract 9, Section f 1. Township 33 South, Range 38 East, i according to the last genera plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Com- pany filed in plat book 2 at page 25, pub- lic records of St. Lucie County, Florida; , said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Chief Planner Shearer informed the Board that there are nine Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be considered this morning. The Board looked at these in October; they then went to the state for ninety days review; and they now are back for action. Some rezonings are involved also. There will be one ordinance to cover all the Comprehensive Plan changes that are approved, and separate ordinances for each of the rezonings approved. 1.) CP AMEND. 8 REZONING W. OF 82ND AVE. S. OF 8TH ST.(Beuttell) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with -Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the ,L� Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of f`�z�i�uc�i,yo" Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the qurpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /I Sworn to and subscribed before m%this day of A.D. (SEAL) lif (Clerk of the Circuit Manager) River County, Florida) 11 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing fo consider the adoption of } _a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1, Agricultural District, tc-RS-3. Single -Family Resi denthal District. The subject propeRy.s presently 'owned by Isabelle M Beuttell and Is located east i of 90th Avenue, north of 4th Street and south a#=� 8th Street is described as: The subject properly { Tracts 3, 4, 5 and 8 Section 14, Towh- rc� to the fas33 t general Range al t o Elands of�e� f than River Farms Company filed in the " i office of the Clerk of the Clrcut Court of :St. Lucie County, Florida Said lands ;.now lyingg and b, nng in Indian Ryarrtegr. County, Florida. end rights-ot-weY ° f I ..Oct to all canals. ditches i , record. A public hearing at which parties M ingest and citizens shall have an opportunity to 08 heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County. Florida. in the i County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 184 F 25th i Street, Vero Beach; Florida on Tuesday.. N7,1gal, at 9:05 am. - e Board of County Commissioners may aP" than the dis-, ufoteequested proviss intense ded iitt. is within Same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decisir►i which may be made.at this meeting will reed to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings; Is made, which -includes testimony arta evidence. upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioms By: -a- Don C. Scurlock. Jr. - t Chairman Jan. 28,1987 rF8 17' 1937 BOOK 6 7 WAGE 301 7 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation recom- mending approval of the redesignation and the rezoning: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: • SUBJECT: BEUTTELL REQUEST TO AMEND Robert M. Kea ng, CP THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning & De elopment Director FOR 150 ACRES FROM: Richard Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS George Beuttell, an agent for Isabelle Beuttell, the owner, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 150 acres located south of 8th Street, one-half mile west of 82nd Avenue, north of 4th Street, and east of 90th Avenue from AG, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre) , and to rezone this: property from A-1, Agricultural District to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). On September 11, 1986, the Planning- and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. However, the DCA made no comment on this application. 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 being used as a sod farm. North of the subject property, across 8th Street, is undeveloped land zoned A-1. East of the subject property is the West County Sub -Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and citrus groves zoned A-1. South of the subject property, across 4th Street is a citrus grove zoned A-1. West of the subject property is a single-family residence and vacant land zoned A-1 and I-95. 12 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land east, south and west of it as AG, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The land north of`, the subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982, there have been significant changes in this area. Since 1982 the County has constructed a wastewater treatment plant adjacent to the subject property to service the State Road 60 corridor. Moreover, in July of 1986, the County amended the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 80 acres of land located one mile,l south of the subject property from AG to RR -2, Rural -Aesident-ial 2"(up'to l unit/acre). Based on these changes and the fact that the land north of the subject property is designated as MD -1, the AG land use designation is no longer appropriate for the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 90th Avenue and 8th Street' (classified as secondary collector streets on the yr y t�iorough�a"re'" plan) ; and0 4h-�Staet - (crassified- collector street). The maximum development of the subject property under RS -3 zoning could generate up to 3,150 average annual daily trips. Environment The"--subject-_property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities A County watermain is located at the northeast corner of the subject property. County wastewater service will be -available- under phase 2 of the wastewater treatment plant if the applicants reserve capacity by paying the necessary impact fees. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that conditions in this area have changed significantly since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982, and considering the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject property be redesignated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 and be rezoned to RS -3. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There being none, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved redesigna- tion of the subject property to LD -1, (said Comprehensive Plan amendment to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes are dealt with), and adopted Ordinance 87-16 rezoning to RS -3 as requested by George Beuttell. 13 '�_ BOOK. � 6 F'�.UE@�� LZ- -- - -- Fr­ FEB 16i BOOK 67 F+Eich ORDINANCE NO. 87- 16 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts 3, 4, 5 and 6, Section 14, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River -Farms Company -filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Subject to all existing canals, ditches and rights-of-way of record. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County - Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 17th day of February, 1987• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By Don Scu ock, Jr., hairman 14 2.) CP AMEND. 6 REZONING 2.5 ACRES S. OF 17TH ST. W. OF 6TH AVE.(Zambataro/Baratta) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: t VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being tel, l a - -- in the matter of in the h aa Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �be Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for thepkrpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. �/ Sworn to and subscribed (SEAL) ►.�l:ft' ' (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) } NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -10. Multiple -Fatuity Residential District to CL Lim- ited Commercial District. The property is pre- sently owned by Frank Baratta and is located at the, southwest comer of 417th St(eet and,6th Ave- . nue. The.subject property is described as: Schedule A; Legal Description The North half of the East half of Lot 6 of Block 2, of Dr. -Richard E. Buliington Subdivision, which plat was filedMay 25, 1912, and recorded in, Plat Book 2, page ,5, public records of St. Lucie County, .Florida, said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida . Except the right-of-way over the North 50 feet of the above described property - conveyed to the City of Vero Beach for a street; .and except street right-of-way'as In Official Record Book 73, page 22% public records of Indian River: County, Florida tESS,AND'EXCEPT the Last 35 feet thereof. ' - d The North 160.5 feet of the West half of Lot 6, Block 2, Dr. Richard E. Bullington Subdivision, according to plat filed May 25, 1912, and recorded in Plat Book 2, ;.,.I:page 5, public records of SL Lucie County, Florida; said land now lying and .being in Indian River County, Florida , EXCEPT HOWEVER, the West 100 feet of the above described property and ex- -';cept the North 50 feet of the above de- scribed property conveyed to the City of ;Vero Beach for road right-of-way. naa To Being in Indian. River g:;Che East.37yr feet of the following de- . 'scribed properly . Commencing at the $outheastcorner of .the. West half of Lot 6, Block 2, accord - to Map or. Plat of Dr: Richard E. Bull- ington's Subdivision,'accordingg to plat filed in Plat Book 2, .page 5,.St Lucie County, Florida, records and running .North 325 feet to the point of beginning. From said point of.beginning,,run North 165 feet and from thence run West '.149.75 feet, and from thence run South 165 'feet, and from thence run East 149.75 feet, to said point of beginning; said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. - Or. Richard E. Bullington Subdivision re- corded in Plat Book 2, page 5, public records of St.' Lucie County, Florida, said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida;' the South 14.5 feet of the North 175 feet of the East 149.75 feet of the West one-half of Lot 6, Block 2..• ' Subject to. easements,' restriction% reservations, and rights-of-way of public record. A public -bearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have- an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Can- -j missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, Febru- ary 17, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners may ap- prove a less intense zoning district than the dis- trict requested provided it is within the same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision . which may be made at this meeting win need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. . Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Don C. Scurlock. Jr. Chairman Jan. 28, 1987 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: FEB 17 X987 15 BOOK 67 F,A, i-`'3JJ4 r FEB 17 1987 BOOK 6 7 u,� TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: ZAMBATARO REQUEST TO Robert M. Keat ng, ICP AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE Planning & Development Director PLAN AND TO REZONE 2.5 ACRES FROM RM -10 TO CL FROM: Richard Shearer, REFERENCES: . Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Dennis Zambataro, an agent for Frank Baratta, the owner, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 2.5 acres located on the south side of 17th Street and the west side of 6th Avenue from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), to Commercial. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend that this request be denied. They indicated that they did not feel that this area is suitable for commercial development but is suitable for -professional offices. They indicated that the County may need to consider a new professional office zoning district. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The DCA's comments on this request are as follows: "CPA -077 through CPA -079: These applications to redesignate existing land uses to commercial use, as discussed in the staff comments, may well establish spot zoning and commercial strip development precedents not compatible with the County's established commercial node areas. However, if sufficient pressure for commercial expansion is there, the properties in question could perhaps be accomodated as commercial sites if adequate buffering, infrastructure, and access routes are provided for." On January 13, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the PRO, Professional Office zoning district. The staff has - identified the.area around the subject property as an area that could be rezoned to the PRO district. However, the PRO district contains a provision requiring a minimum of five acres for the establishment of a PRO district and the subject property contains only 2.5 acres. 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. 16 Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject property, across 17th Street, are multiple -family residences zoned RM -10. West of the subject property are three single-family residences zoned RM -10, an office building zoned OCR,,, Office Commercial and._ Residential District (up to 6 units%acre),-an a new car sales facility, service station and motel zoned CG, General Commercial District. South of the subject property are single-family residences zoned RM -10. East of the subject property, across 6th Avenue, are single-family residences zoned RM -10. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property an�c, ai'I of - the�larid"aroiinctit- as-MD=2; �Meditlm=-Deirsitg Residenti�- 2 (up to 10 units/acre). However, in 1985 the County amended the definition of the U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor. Originally anticipated to extend exactly 600 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 1, the revised definition states that the eastern boundary of the corridor is flexible being roughly 600 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 1. Moreover, this_fidmerit allowed the boundary,to be extended up to 800 feet east of U.S. 1 if the property could meet one of three conditions. One of those conditions was if the property abutted commercially -zoned property and had frontage on an arterial street. The subject property does abut commercially -zoned property to the west and has frontage on an arterial street (17th Street). However, only the west 100 feet of the subject property - lies within 800 feet of U.S. 1. The Planning Department is concerned with the increasing pressure to strip zone arterial streets in the County for commercial development which is contrary to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and°damages the effectiveness of the arterial streets in moving traffic. While this pressure has been evident along U.S. 1, State Road 60, and Oslo Road in the past, the County will see considerable interest in strip commercial development along 17th Street and the Indian River Boulevard Extensions with spillovers onto 12th street and 8th Street in the near future. This pressure resulted in property on the south side of 17th Street approximately one-quarter mile east of the subject property being annexed by the City of Vero Beach and being rezoned to the City's Professional Office District. As an alternative to strip commercial zoning this property could be included with other surrounding properties in a request to rezone this area to the new PRO district. The applicants have expressed an interest in this zoning -district. However, when the Board of County Commissioners decided to send this proposed zoning district back to the planning department for further study on July 23rd, 1986, the applicants decided to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the subject property. While the planning staff would be amenable to professional office development of the subject property, the proposed CL zoning district would allow a broad range of retail uses which could encourage further strip commercial development along 17th Street and 6th Avenue. Transportation System The subject property has frontage on 17th Street (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), 6th Avenue (classified as a secondary collector street) , and to 16th Place (classified as a local street). The maximum development of the subject property under CL zoning could generate up to 2,318 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). Currently, 6th Avenue carries 12,700 AADT at level -of -service "E", and 17th Street carries 22,700 AADT at level -of -service "A". This additional traffic would cause severe problems on 6th Avenue which is already below the desired level -of -service "C". FES ���7 17 BOOK F.� L_ Environment BOOK 61 r 307 The subject property -is -not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.- - Utilities A :6. --inch watermain is located -on 6th Avenue. County wastewater -facilities are not currently available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that granting this request_would_encourage further strip commercial development along 17th Street and 6th Avenue, and considering the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to redesignate --this property as commercial. However, staff recommends that the subject property be. --.-included in a county initiated request to rezone property. in this -area to the new.PRO district. Chief Planner Shearer stressed that staff has consistently recommended against Commercial zoning along 17th St., but they could go along with PRO. Discussion ensued re the possibility of denying the commer- cial and directing staff to move ahead with a county -initiated rezoning to PRO, but Commissioner Bird felt that would change some existing commercial uses. Chief Planner Shearer advised there is only one existing use in OCR, and the proposed PRO district would go right'up to the old car dealership. They now have a site plan proposing to convert that into retail shops. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the advantage of PRO over OCR, and Planner Shearer advised that it has a little narrower range of uses, and OCR also requires a commercial Land Use designation. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing the applicant. He felt staff's approach ignores the basic economics in the area in that there is a glut of office space and lack of good commercial space. He believed 17th is a unique boulevard and you do not find many causeways zoned residential. They are asking either for an extension of the node at U.S.1, which he felt was indicated to be flexible, or for a 2.5 acre 18 commercial node at 6th Avenue and the Causeway. Attorney Henderson emphasized that the parcel in question is unique in that it has road frontage on three sides; however, it seems the approach has been to stop commercial development in the middle of the block, which they feel ignores certain principles established by the Land Use Plan re the use of certain natural boundaries such as roads, canals, etc. Attorney Henderson argued that any traffic problem on 6th Avenue will be alleviated by the extension of Indian River Boulevard south and he did not understand the argument that it would be spot zoning as it would be an natural extension of the existing commercial uses. He admitted there is existing residential which would call for some tough buffering require- ments, but the applicant is agreeable to that. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that the applicant already has recorded a Declaration of Restrictions on this property in an attempt to create a sort of hybrid zone which would have some very limited uses. The Declaration contains the following restrictions and provisions: 1. Restriction on Use: The Property shall not be used for any of the following uses or purposes: A. Motion picture theaters. B. Self-service laundries. C. Commercial parking facilities r; C3— D. Coin-operated amusement establishments. r;:Xr E. Automobile parts stores. .3 C3 F. Skating rinks. o 0 G. Bars and lounges. <i :p H. Billiard halls. o_ I. _Hotel and motels. - J. Bowling alleys. o f: CJ coo y K. Time-share developments. �'�`� C L. Gasoline service stations. T M. Automobive fuel sales. N. Self-service laundry and/or pick-up facilities. O. Automotive parts stores. P. Commercial parking facilities. Q. Carry -out restaurants. 2. Effectiveness of Restrictions: These restrictions shall become effective and shall apply with respect to the Property only if Indian River County rezones the Property to a commercial use category known as CL (Limited Commercial) prior to April 1, 1987. In the event that said property is not rezoned, then the recording of an Affidavit 19 ��16,,�J7 BOOK 6 S r SEB 1? 1987 ' e f BOOK FATE=iJ executed by declarant shall constitute record proof that said rezoning was not effected. 3. Term of Restrictions: These restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all parties claiming under them for a period of fifty years from the date these restrictions are recorded. 4. Enforcement: Enforcement shall be by action against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any of the covenants herein, either to restrain violation or to recover damages. The party bringing the action shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the court may adjudge to be reasonable for attorney's fees. Indian River County and all owners of fee simple title to property which is contiguous to the property described on Exhibit A are hereby declared to have standing (in addition to any other proper parties) to enforce the restrictions contained herein. County Attorney Vitunac stated that this would be zoning by contract; it is not legally enforceable by us; and we have never given someone a zone in reliance on this. Discussion continued regarding how the restrictions could be enforced and whether this would represent contract zoning. Commissioner Wheeler felt that it is contract zoning as the way it is written the restrictions are conditional on its being rezoned, but Attorney Henderson argued that it is not contract zoning because the restrictions are already recorded. Dennis Zambataro, agent for the owner, stated that the only impact he could see on adjoining owners is a positive one as he felt the requested change would increase property values. What they are planning is an upscale commercial development on the order of the Village Shops in Indian River Shores., and they are self-limiting themselves. Mr. Zambataro expressed his dismay over the mobile homes in the 6th Avenue area and the high density apartments on the north side of 17th St. which he felt are more a blight on the area than what they are proposing. The subject property is zoned RM -10 and could have those same uses, but as a long time county resident, that is not acceptable to him as he felt it would be a misuse of a beautiful piece of real estate. Mr. Zambataro felt that 17th Street is a key corridor and continued to argue the benefits of limited commercial use. He 20 � � r noted the county can either have something that will grace the causeway or blight it, and the choice is the Commission's. Commissioner Eggert expressed concern about 6th Ave. and asked if there is any room for it to be widened in the area where it meets 17th St. It was noted that we do not have very much right-of-way in that location, and Commissioner Bird believed some of the right- of-way lines on 6th Avenue cut back practically to people's porches. Chairman Scurlock did not feel the extension of the Boulevard will eliminate the stress of 6th Avenue but just alleviate it some. Commissioner Bird asked how we would approach it if we should want to go commercial, i.e., by a node? Planner Shearer felt the way to approach this would be to provide more flexibility to the U.S.I corridor, which generally runs 600' deep'; we could say that could run all the way to 6th Avenue and could put a condition on it that would limit it to the property on 17th Street. Discussion continued re OCR instead of commercial, and Chairman Scurlock stated that given the constraints of only 2.5 acres, he personally felt OCR is a better approach than commercial as it is a less intense use. Commissioner Eggert commented that if you eliminate the uses listed in their Declaration of Restrictions, she did not know what they cannot do under OCR that they would want to do. Attorney Henderson explained that the Restrictions are in- tended to eliminate about all commercial uses except retail sales and service uses, and under OCR those would only be allowed as an accessory use in a limited space. Planner Shearer confirmed OCR would only allow accessory retail use, and that use could not be free standing; however, it does allow "carry -out only" restaurants, for instance, so you basically could have 20% of the first floor of your building as a 21 BOOK � FEB 17 1987 FE— 17 1987 BOOK 67 FacfH311 restaurant or a separate business. In other words, it could be an office building that had 200 of the space retail. Ruth Chapman, resident of 5th Avenue, advised that she is completely against anything that will bring more traffic onto 17th St. and to 6th Avenue. Rockridge is one of the county's oldest communities and the residents have reached a point where they feel they are being completely ignored. Mrs. Chapman felt that what is proposed will have an adverse affect not only on traffic, but on drainage which is a major problem in the area. Mrs. Chapman realized this is not pertinent to the issue, but advised that there is a tree in the median at 17th St. and 3rd Court which cuts off the visibility of those approaching from the east. Chairman Scurlock directed the Public Works Director to look into this. Dennis Zambataro, with all due respect to the Rockridge residents, wished to point out that they are not asking for commercial to pave the path of progress; he believed that occurred when the 17th Street Bridge was put in. He did not see why office space is superior to a well-planned commercial project, and continued to argue the positive impact of such a project for the area residents both monetarily as well as aesthetically. Mr. Zambataro pointed out that there already is a sewage plant and an electric plant in this area. Charles Engel, 645 16th Place., noted that his property is directly across from the property in question. He failed to see how commercial and residential will mix and serve to increase his property value or benefit his life style. Mr. Engel opposed any commercial development; citing traffic and drainage problems. William Koolage, 815 26th Ave., interested citizen, pointed out that the proposed project would not increase the value of a homesite unless that property were to become commercial. As to the comment that when the bridge was put in obviously the decision already had been made to go commercial, he felt that in 22 the future when the county starts talking about doing expansion of roadways, possibly they should take some of that property right then, reimburse the owners, and put it to the cost of the project. Mr. Koolage noted that he has been in the county many years and while he realizes we can't stay as we were forever, he sees more and more commercial. He believed developers always argue that the highest and best use is commercial, but we must not forget what this does to the nearby property owner. Don Reams, 621 16th Place, advised that he owns 1-2/3 acres directly south of the 2.5 acres under consideration. He enjoys living in that area, but it is becoming more untenable because of the traffic; in fact, it is now impossible to make a lefthand turn off of his street onto 6th Avenue. Mr. Reams was not opposed to the Planning people considering some 13 acres in this area as a possibility for professional offices, but in his opinion, the southwest corner of this intersection is being considered for spot rezoning, and there.are many accidents at that intersection. He wished to know how far to the south the 13 acres staff referred to would extend. Chief Planner Shearer stated that it would go only one property to the south because of the requirement of the ordinance that all PRO property have frontage on an arterial road. On the west side of 6th Avenue, it would include most of the property down to 16th Place because that property runs all the way through. Mr. Reams noted that we really don't know just what the applicant is planning for that property other than possibly selling it for a profit when it is rezoned, and he would only accept staff's recommendation for professional buildings. Floyd Grimm informed the Board that he owns the Plantation Apartments across the street from the subject property. He could not see how commercial property in that location would enhance the value of his property or of any other property in the area, 23 L_ FED 17 1987 A6 BOOK r. '1 1987 BOOK 6 7, G � �'. 313 and he did not see the need for.it. Mr. Grimm pointed out that when Mrs. Reeves obtained rezoning to put her office building in this area, the reason for allowing it was that it would be a buffer between the automobile agency and the residential area. He stated that he did not object to Mrs. Reeves' building, and if the rest could be developed like that, he would not object. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the subject area to commercial.and also to deny the request for rezoning to CL because of the problems with 6th Avenue and also 16th Place and because the subject property is too small to really take care of the drainage problem. Commissioner Bird asked where that leaves the property as far as future potential is concerned, and Chief Planner Shearer noted that it is currently RM -10, but this would not close the door on professional offices, which staff is considering for the area. Commissioner Bird noted that he generally looks at the property owner's rights and then tries to see what adverse effects they would have. In this case, he felt there is a gray area, and he also had some questions re the difference between limited commercial and professional offices. Commissioner Bird did feel there is more of a demand for commercial retail space than office space. The corridor to the Merrill Barber Bridge is solid commercial on both sides and there is rarely ever a vacancy; 17th St. is an area in transition, and there will be constant requests coming before the Board to utilize this property which he did not feel will ever be used as residential. 24 Commissioner Eggert clarified that her Motion does not include anything but the fact that it return to its current zoning. She stated that strangely she would be more sympathetic to a commercial situation if a larger piece of property were being considered. She emphasized that this is just a very difficult piece of property sitting in a very difficult place. Chairman Scurlock did think we have to realize that the Rockridge area is changing, and he believed that even the resi- dents have noticed this. Some of the housing units are changing into rental units, and he personally felt the officetype buffer suits this type of property. The Chairman did not think we should get into market considerations of whether there is too much office space or commercial space; he believed there is too much of both available at this time, but that will change as we grow. He noted we are going to be asked very soon to look at The Promenade project which is before the' City of Vero Beach. Projects can be designed to deal with drainage, and he felt we would be wise to start acquiring additional right-of-way to make 6th Avenue a wider road. If the size of the property being considered were larger, he might feel a little differently about it, but otherwise, he will support the Motion. Commissioner Bowman felt that 2.5 acres is much too small a parcel to allow for a retention pond. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that they would like to be allowed to amend their application, and Attorney Vitunac advised the Board that it is legal to hear what Attorney Henderson has to say, if they wish to. Board members had questions as to whether they could enter- tain an amendment to OCR or PRO because it was not advertised, and Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to hear what Attorney Henderson has to offer and then ask the County Attorney if we can consider it. In discussion, Commissioner Wheeler stated that he also would like to hear what Attorney Henderson has to say. A- 2 5 BOOK 67 fxu "31 u FEB 1 ? 1987 FEB 17 1987 7 7 � P}{; BOOK 6 r '.3, o,15 Commissioners Eggert and Bowman and Chairman Scurlock indicated that they did not wish to consider an amendment of the application at this time. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion for denial. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bird voting in opposition. Commissioner Wheeler stated that if staff is going to go back and look at a PRO district, he felt it should be looked at not as a 2.5 acre parcel but as a front end on 17th Street and a buffer into a residential area and not have it quite so deep. Commissioner Eggert stated that her feeling and the reason she didn't want to entertain any difference in her Motion is that she would have trouble with any commercial and 2.5 acres is extremely difficult to work with. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed staff to look at a PRO District for the area as discussed today and bring a recommendation to the Board. 3.) CP AMEND. & REZONING OSLO ROAD/27TH AVE. COMMERCIAL NODE (Chauncey Hatch) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 26 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the A Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the urpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me this day of A.D., usiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE -- PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezonir� and from: RM4. Multiple Family Residential District, to CL, Llm- Ited Commercial District. The subject property is presently owned by Chauncey R. Hatch, Jr., and is located south. of 5th Street S.W. ,and east of 27th Avenue: Thesub property is described as: A parcel of land situate in Tract 12, Sec- tion 23, Township 33 South Range 39 East, according to Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, -as recorded in -Plat Book 2, .Page 25, of the Public- Records of St Lucie County. Florida; said lands now" and being in Indian River. County. Florida more particularly j described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Tract 12, proceed S 00° 00' W' E { along the west fine of Tract 12 a dis- tance of 30.06 feet; thence N 89° 48' 13" E along the south right of way line for In - 'than River Farms Drainage District Canal E-7 30'. wide) a distance of 25.00 feet to i the Point of Beginning; thence proceed = r E..along Indian River Farms Drainage District Canal E-7 south right of way line adistance of 304.96 feet; thence S 00° 00, 07" E a distance of 1299.25 feet to a point on the south line of. Tract 12; thence S 89° 45' 48" w - along.the, south firm of Tract 12 a Cris - tante of 305.00_ feet to a point on the ,.east right of way line of 27th Avenue; .'thence N 00° 00' 00" E along said east "';i(;rlght of way One a distance of 1229.46 feet to the Point of Beginning; less tlm ;north 285.64 feet thereof:- Containing 7.097 acres t A public hearing at which parties -in interest and citizens shaft have an opportunity to be - heard, will be field by the Board of County Com- _ missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida on Tuesday. Fetxu- ary 17,1987, at 9:05 am. The Board of County Commissioners may ap- provdis- ttricteequested provided ia low Intense zoninitt withidistrict nnNe�same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may to made at this meebng will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and. evidence I upon which the appeal Is based- - d Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -a- Don C Scurlock, Chairman Jen. 28.1987 Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation: BOOK 316 27 FEB 18 1987 FE B 1 ?, 1937 BOOK 6 !Y rAlu-F. r � TO: The Honorable Members ®ANTE: January 20, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: HATCH REQUEST TO ENLARGE Robert M. Keatig, ATHE OSLO ROAD/27TH AVENUE Planning & Deve opme t Director COMMERCIAL NODE BY REDES-.. IGNATING 7.1 ACRES FROM n� THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP LD -2 TO COMMERCIAL AND TO 1� Chief, Long -Range Planning REZONE FROM RM -6 TO CL. FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet REFERENCES: Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning Hatch Memo It is requested that the data herein presented e given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Mr. Chauncy R. Hatch, Jr. is requesting to enlarge the Oslo Road/27th Avenue Commercial Node from 50 acres to 57 acres by redesignating approximately 7.1 acres from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial and to rezone the subject property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to CL, Limited Commercial District. The subject property is located south of 5th Street S.W. and east of 27th Avenue. On September 11, 1986, the Planning- and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend denial of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize staff to transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State for review. The Board also indicated that they would look favorably on the proposed amendment to enlarge the Oslo Road 27th Avenue Commercial Node to 57 acres. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. These comments follow: CPA -077 through CPA -079: These applications to redesignate existing land uses to commercial use, as discussed in the staff comments, may well establish spot zoning and commercial strip development precedents not compatible with the county's established commercial node areas. However, if sufficient pressure for commercial expansion is.there, the properties in question could perhaps be accomodated as commercial sites if adequate buffering, ,infrastructure, and access routes are provided for." 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 is presently undeveloped. There is vacant land and a Cumberland Farms convenience store, zoned CL, located south of the subject property at the northeast corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue. There are also several retail establishments and vacant land, zoned CL, located west of the 28 subject property. Several" single-family residences, also zoned CL, are located south of the subject property on the west side of 27th Avenue. North of the subject property is undeveloped property zoned RM -6. The property to the east of the subject site is also undeveloped and zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). Approximately 15 acres of the node are presently, being utilized for commercial activities which represents less than 1/3 of the acreage allocated to this node. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property is._,_ presently designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 --(up_ to 6 units/acre) on the Comprehensive Plan and is located adjacent to the Oslo Road/27th Avenue Commercial Node. The property to the south and west of --tfie "subject` property - is" 'Vart­-'of —the--Osza--Ro-ad-t27th---Averu-e----- Commercial Node. The land located west of the node is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land to the north and east of the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The County created a 50 acre Commercial Node at Oslo Road and 27th Avenue in 1984 to recognize the existing commercial uses and to allow properties situated between existing commercial uses to be developed for commercial use. Transportation System The subject property has direct access from 27th Avenue,_ classified as an Arterial on the County's Thoroughfare Plan. - Maximum development of the site based on the proposed commercial land use designation and Limited Commercial zoning could generate up to 3,121 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). This additional traffic would not alter the level -of -service "A" that presently exists along 27th Avenue. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities A County watermain runs along the north side of Oslo Road. No wastewater facilities are available at the present time. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Commercial land use designation and Limited Commercial zoning for the subject property is consistent with the commercial zoning to the south and west of the subject property and would neither extend the boundaries of the node mores northerly than they already are nor encroach on any existing residential development. However, no commercial site plan applications have been submitted within the area of the existing node boundaries since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982, and there has been very little interest in this area for further commercial development since the Commercial Node was created in 1984. Due to the fact that the node is less than 1/3 developed, an increase in the amount of commercially zoned land in this area does not seem -to be justified at this time. RECOMMENDATION Based on the fact that less than 1/3 of the node is developed commercially at this time, the fact that no commercial development has been approved in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982, and considering the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning applications be denied. 29 Boo7 F� U. 31 FB I'? r, � M FEB I'd BOOK 6 E � Oslo Rd. 7th Avenue Commercial Node _5th ST SW RS --6 nSI_n RD CR 606 .- Node Boundary 30 M ST SM Imm Commissioner Wheeler had questions about the original appli- cation, and Chief Planner Shearer advised that the original application is just as we see it today; the applicant had talked about the possibility of going all the way to 5th St. S.W. but agreed to leave the north two acres residential. Question arose as to when the node was created and if the borders have been set, and Planner Shearer advised that the node was created in 1984, and the borders which were set in the fall of 1985 follow the existing limited commercial zoning. Chairman Scurlock discussed staff's comment that it doesn't appear there is a demand for commercial at this time. He asked if we shouldn't be looking at the size of the node based on potential future demand rather than today. Planner Shearer pointed out that when the Comprehensive Plan was set up originally, it was on the premise that it had adequate commercial for the life of the twenty year plan. Staff, there- fore, is just looking to see if there are additional needs that were not anticipated. If there are, then we generally enlarge nodes, but basically we have enough for twenty years. Chairman Scurlock believed a portion of the property in the node is owned by an individual who does not plan to do anything with it for a long time, but Planner Shearer advised that the attorney for that owner has indicated they want to keep the commercial zoning and do intend to develop it in the future. They did sell the property where the convenience store is now. Chairman Scurlock noted that what Mr. Hatch is requesting does square off the boundaries, and Commissioner Bird agreed. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Chauncey Hatch, owner of the property in question, advised that his property is 40 acres and what they are talking about is the front 3301. He pointed out that his is one of the few properties that always had commercial zoning and that is why he purchased it. The zoning was changed when he wasn't even at the meeting, and it was said he was there and had no objection, which 31I�� FEB 1? 1037 BOOK 6 FFS east side of 7 not commercial, and is not correct. Mr. Hatch noted that the Planning & Zoning away Commission base their objection on the fact that only 1/3 of the node has been utilized up to now, and the reason for this is that the property next to his is owned by Mr. Ansin who has no plans to do anything with it. He further noted that the residences across the road from his property were rezoned to limited commercial, and they are in a good position and can just wait for a large offer. Mr. Hatch continued to emphasize that he was the only one who was originally zoned commercial; that he is the only one on the east side of 27th not commercial, and that this zoning was taken away from him. He stated that he does have some plans for stores and went on to argue that the boundary line of the node should go to Rebel Road (5th St. SW) as it does on the west side of 27th Ave. Commissioner Bowman noted that Mr. Hatches' proposal does not go all the way to Rebel Road, and he confirmed that he left it out but at a County Commission meeting in October of 1986, the Board agreed that it should go to 5th St. SW. Mr. Hatch argued that the way his property is zoned now represents spot zoning rather than what he is requesting. Commissioner Eggert informed Mr. Hatch that based on the advertisement, it is impossible to include the property all the way to Rebel Road today, and Attorney Vitunac agreed. It was determined that no further wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved enlargement of the Oslo Road/ 27th Avenue Node by redesignating 7.1 acres from LD -2 to Commercial, (Said Comprehensive Plan amendment to be incorpo- rated in Ordinance adopted when all changes are dealt with), and adopted Ordinance 87-17 rezoning the said property to CL as requested by Chauncey Hatch. 32 ORDINANCE NO. 87-17 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held -a public hearing ___ and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and - WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated -in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: A parcel of land situate in Tract 12, Section 23, Township 33 South Range 39 East, according to Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Tract 12, proceed S 00000100" E along the west line of Tract 1.2 a distance of 30.06 feet; thence N 89°48113" E along the south right of way line for Indian River Farms Drainage District Canal E-7 (30' wide) a distance of 25.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence proceed N 89148113" E along Indian River Farms Drainage District Canal E-7 south right of way line a distance of 304.96 feet; thence S 00000107" E a distance of 1299.25 feet to a point on the south line of Tract 12; thence S 89045148" W along the south line of Tract 12 a distance of 305.00 feet to a point on the east right of way line of 27th Avenue; thence N 00°00100" E along said east right of way line a distance of 1229.46 feet to the Point of Beginning; less the north 285.64 feet thereof. Containing 7.097 acres. Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CL, Limited Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. 33 L_ FEB 17 19(17 BOOK 67 ��� E.'.3 -?2 FEB 17 92-1 BOOK 67 F:, E Approved and adopted by•the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 17th day of February , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By / Don C. Scurlock, J V, Chairman The Board recessed briefly at 10:15 o'clock A.M. and reconvened at 10:30 A.M. with all members present except Commissioner Bowman, who was temporarily delayed. 4.) CP AMEND, & REZONING 5 ACRES W. OF 74TH AVE. S. OF SR60 (Bernard Grail) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of L Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero _Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /I Swom to and subscribed before me (SEAL) U � J,'1z, Qha(� ess Manager) 4 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) 34 It NOTICE— pUBUC HEARING.:'.'.' Notice of headng to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -B, Multiple Family Rdential District, to OCR, Of-' five Commercial and Residential District. The subject property is presently owned by Bernard, F. �rall, Jr., and Is located south, of 20th Street (S.R. 60) and east of 75th Court. The subject pr rty Is described as The North 8� feet of the East 10 acres' of the West 15 acres of Tract 9, Section 1, Townshlp•33 South, Range 38 Eestr„•.,+,:. according to the last General .Plat :of: River Forms ;.:';. a: Lands filed In Indian alt Book 2. at Page 25, Publyic Records of SL Lucie County Flor- ids; said lands now Ding and being In le - dein River County_ F ollda, A'public hearing at which partle8'fn Interest ", heard iwIII heens ed by ll the Board of Coyn y Com missionera of Indian River County, FlorldoA! the 4dministration Building, located at 1 640 Street; Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. Febru- arrYY 17, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. The Board of County Commissloners may ap- prove a leas intense zoningg district than the die trict requested provided it Is vilthM than same , general use categoty, � • P,-•:.r:nN T�r Anyone who may wish to appeal an deolslo A '- which may be made at this meeting w II need td',,. ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 4 is made, which includes testimony and evidence,_; upon which the appeal Is based. g Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 8y-.. -s-Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairmen . > Jan. '28;'1987 � � s Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE: _ of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: GRALL REQUEST TO AMEND Robert M. K a ng, CP THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning & Dev lopment Director FROM: �i Rchard Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning Grall Memo It is requested that the data herein presented be given formai consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Bernard and Margaret Grall, the owners, are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating approximately 5 acres located 700 feet west of 74th Avenue on the South side of State Road 60 from MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), to Commercial, and to rezone this property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to -6 units/ acre) ,_ to OCR, Office, Commercial and Residential District. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of both -of these requests. The applicants are proposing to develop this property for a professional office complex. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The DCA's comments on this request are as follows: "CPA -077 through CPA -079: This application to redesignate existing land uses to commercial use, as discussed in the staff comments,'may well establish spot zoning and commercial strip development precedents not compatible with the county's established commercial node areas. However, if sufficient pressure for commercial expansion is there, the properties in question could perhaps be accomodated as commercial sites if adequate buffering, infrastructure, and access routes are provided for." On January 13, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the PRO, Professional Office zoning district. The PRO district could be utilized for the subject property without amending the Comprehensive Plan. 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. 35 _ gym, FEB 12 1987 BOOK 6 7 F'A;E Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is part of a 10 acre parcel which contains a single-family house on the south 5 acres zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 units/5 acres), and vacant land on the north 5 acres zoned RM -6. North of the subject property, across State Rpad, 60, is a citrus grove_ zoned RM -6 and a life care facility" `zonedd "-RM-8, "Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), and CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned RM -6, CN, and A-1. South of the subject property is a single-family house zoned A-1. Further south is a single-family subdivision zoned RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 units/acre). West of the subject property are single-family dwellings zoned RM -6 and A-1. -�aFuture Land IIse Pattern" " — - -- "-' - The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as MD -P1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). There are two neighborhood commercial nodes on the west side of 74th Avenue on either side of State Road 60 which are zoned CN. The Planning Department is concerned with the increasing pressure to strip zone arterial streets in the County for commercial development. Strip commercial development is contrary to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and damages the effectiveness of the arterial streets in moving traffic. Staff feels that this pressure will continue on State Road 60. As an alternative to strip commercial zoning, the Board could consider rezoning this property to the new PRO, Professional Office zoning district. The applicants have expressed an interest in this zoning district. However, when the Board of County Commissioners decided to send this zoning district back to the planning department for further study on July 23rd, 1986, the applicants decided to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (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 4,171 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities A County watermain runs along the north side of State Road 60. A wastewatermain runs along the south side of State Road 60. RECOMMENDATION The planning staff respects the Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion, but, based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that this request would encourage further strip commercial development along State Road 60 which is contrary to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the subject property to commercial be denied. The Board could, however, rezone the subject property to the new PRO, Professional Office District. 36 Chief Planner Shearer advised that Mr. Grail wished to address the Board before the public hearing was opened. Bernard Grail came before the Board representing himself and his wife. He noted that he lives on a 10 acre tract across from Indian River Estates. He purchased the property approximately 5 years ago with the intention of using the front 5 acres for his office. When he started this endeavor, he contacted staff and went through several workshops and requested that a PRO district be established. This failed at that time, and that is why he went to a request for commercial. Subsequently, the PRO District was established, and he now would like to request that his property be zoned PRO and that the Board consider that as opposed to OCR or Commercial. In discussion, it was noted that this would eliminate the need to amend the Comprehensive Pian, and Attorney Vitunac advised that since the PRO is lesser -than the OCR District which was advertised, it can be considered. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bowman being tempo- rarily delayed, the Board unanimously (4-0) denied the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and adopted Ordinance 87-18 rezoning the subject property to PRO as requested by Bernard Grail. 37 L_ FEB 1 B00K d F;UL 3U..; FES � BOOK 67 F,,v ? ORDINANCE NO. 87- i8 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of ,! the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The North 600 feet of the East 10 acres of the West 15 acres of Tract 9, Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last General Plat of Lands of the Indian River Farms Company filed in Plat Book 2 at Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District, to PRO, Professional Office District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 17th day of February, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By i Don . Scurlock, Jr., hairman 38 5.) CP AMENDMENT TO UPDATE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMP. PROGRAM Chief Planner*Shearer reviewed the following memo recommending approval: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners - DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND - Robert M. KeatLng,&XICP MENT TO UPDATE TRANSPORT - Planning & Development Director ATION CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENTS PROGRAM FROK Richard Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the_r regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Public Works Division has requested a comprehensive amendment to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amendment includes very minor changes to the existing projects listed in the transportation capital improvements program but organizes the projects by five-year increments and provides a new section on revenue sources to pay for these_ proposed amendments. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The DCA's comments on this request.are as follows: "CPA -075, CPA -076, and CPA -082: These three proposed amendments appear to be useful improvements and additions to the existing comprehensive plan. We commend your efforts to maintain, current, enhanced information within the plan document." ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing this proposed amendment, the planning staff has determined the changes have little effect on the existing project listing in the transportation capital improvements program. However, the proposed amendments would more clearly establish priorities in the capital improvements program and specify the sources of revenue to pay for these improvements. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. 39 � L_ FEE 17 �,,3 BOOK. 67 `'D �'t o�28 FEB 1? 1987 BOOK 67 P,E �� " Planner Shearer advised that basically this is just updating the capital improvements program prepared by Barton Aschmann that was adopted last July. Chairman Scurlock asked at what point in time we would readdress the impact fees, and Planner Shearer noted that there will be a yearly report on the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and how it is working, the revenues, etc. Then we will have a bi-annual report and must look at amending the ordinance every two years. A. M. Commissioner Bowman entered the meeting at 10:40 o'clock The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan updating the Transportation Capital Improvements Program. (Said amendment to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes to the Comprehensive Plan are dealt with.) 6.) AMENDMENTS TO DRAINAGE ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the staff memo recommending approval: 40 I TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FIL1S.- _ of the Board of County " Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJiC I . PROPOSED AMENDIRENTS TO Robert X. Keatting,, i/ ICP DRAINAGE ELEMENT OF Planning & Development Director PREHENSIVE PLAN FROM:5 +=� _ Richard Shearer, RE, ERENCPS: Chief, Long -Range Planning Drainage Element Memo It is requested that the data herein presented be given fori;:al consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the=r regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Public Works Division has requested several minor changes to the Drainage Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include information that was unavailable in 1982 when the Comprehensive Plan was prepared. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted -_ 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal 'of this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planninq Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The DCA's comments on this request are as follows: " CPA -075, CPA -076, and CPA -082: These three proposed amendments appear to be useful improvements and additions to the existing comprehensive plan. We commend your efforts to maintain, current, en_:anc6d information within the plan document." ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing these proposed changes, the planning staff has noticed that studies have been completed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted which need to be reflected in the Drainage Element and that amendments to the Stormwater Management Ordinance have been adopted which are reflected in these proposed changes. It is important that #the Stormwater Management Ordinance be consistent with the Drainage Element since the Stormwater Management Ordinance is designed to assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the attached minor changes to the Drainage Element. 41 BOOK 67 Fv) 3 F E B 17 1997 E;OOK 67 PrIJE -331 Commissioner Eggert expressed concern that some of the fig- ures quoted dated back to 1976 and wished to know if that date was correct. Planner Shearer confirmed that they are 11 years old. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the proposed amendments to the Drainage Element of the Comprehensive Plan with the request that staff supply updated figures wherever possible. (Said amendments to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes to the Comprehensive Plan are dealt with.) 7.) AMEND CP TO ESTABLISH -AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation: TC: The Honorable Members of DATE: E: February 3, 1987 FILE: the Board of County i Ccrmnis sioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ,�,� SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST Robert M.ea ing, ICP TO AMEND THE COMPRE- Planning & De elont Director HENSIVE PLAN TO ESTABLISH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT G-, THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP ELEMENT �J Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet REFERENCES: memo Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning CIDG It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: This is a County -initiated request to establish an Economic Development Element in the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County. In June, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) for Indian River County _ and submitted the OEDP to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 42 On July 31, 1985, the EDA designated Indian River County as a title IV redevelopment area which qualified the County to apply for federal funds to assist with economic development projects. In June, 1986, the OEDP Committee met and conducted the required annual review of the OEDP. This evaluation consisted of updating the statistical data, documenting progress in implementing the OEDP, and reevaluating the objectives, strategies, and priorities in the OEDP. The Annual OEDP Report was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 25, 1986. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize staff to transmit the proposed amendment to the State for review. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. These comments follow: "CPA -080: The proposed Economic Development Element to the comprehensive plan is a valuable addition, and has clearly been professionally developed. Our only recommendation would be to "beef up" some of the objectives and many of the strategies/policies to make them as specific and measurable as possible. While the Implementation Matrix is an excellent method of assigning task responsibility and prioritization, it may be valuable to reflect some of these tasking and timing criteria in -the verbiage of the objective and policy statements themselves. In general, however, we feel that the proposed element is extremely well done." ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The purpose of establishing an Economic Development Element in Comprehensive Plan is to aid the implementation of the goals F.nd objectives of the Overall Economic Development Plan. ;�v establishing the Economic Development Element as part of to Comprehensive Plan, all new -development and rezoning propos,::=s "will be reviewed in conjunction with economic development pot=.cv as well as with those policies outlined in the other element: Ci- the ;fthe Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Economic Development Element is a synopsis of~� Overall Economic Development Plan. The element is divided into - two sections. The first "section is an analysis of exist=.n. conditions. This analysis includes a discussion of the role the transportation system in economic development,, and a revie:•r of the role of" --^-the `labor ""force;"""-"emploe characteristics of the County. The analysis also outlines the .potentials and constraints for economic development and z -- relationship between the Land Use Element and the proposed .Economic Development Element. The second section consists of the goals, objectives and policies which were formulated based on she potentials and constraints within Indian River County for econcnic devel*opment:" ­ The goals and objectives are accompanied by an implementation matrix. which outlines these statements and their priority,. besides identifying the agency which is responsible for implementation of each of the strategies. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, _including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed Economic Development Element, as presented, be established as part of Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. FEB 17 X9.37 43 BOOK E'�a FEB 7 98 BnOK � 9 F�,E.33 Planner Shearer informed the Board that the Economic Devel- opment Council is reviewing this proposed element. They have not approved it formally as yet, but all the members contacted have had no objections. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to establish an Economic Development Element with the request that staff supply updated figures wherever possible. (Said amendment to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes to the Comprehensive Plan are dealt with.) 8.) AMEND CP TO ESTABLISH LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY DETACHED FROM TOWN OF ORCHID Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff memo and recommenda- tion, as follows: TO: The Honorable idembers DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ­' SUBJECT: : COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST Robert i�l. Keat1 , A�rQP TO ESTABLISH A LAND USE Planning & Deve opmedit Director DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY DETACHED FROM TOWN OF ORCHID Richard Shearer, r . FROM: .��� � Chief, Long -Range Planni�pr �t�E1�lCes. Land Use Memo riche It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the :Board of County Commissioners at the.r regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish a land use designation for 44 approximately 40 acres of land detached from the Town of Orchid during the Spring of 1986. The subject property is located on the south side of County Road 510 and the east side of the Indian River. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to authorize transmittal of. this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period. On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the DCA relative to these Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The DCA's comments on this request are as follows: "CPA -075, CPA -076, and CPA -082: These three proposed amendments appear to be useful improvements and additions to the existing comprehensive plan. We commend your efforts to maintain, current, -enhanced information within the plan document." ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Comprehensive Plan designates the land south and east of the subject property as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Because of the small size of the subject property (approximately 40 acres) and the fact that all of the land in the unincorporated part of the County surrounding the subject property is designated as LD -2, Staff feels that the subject property should also be designated as LD -2. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject property be designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up'to 6 units/acre). The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Mrs. Jeannette Lier, owner of acreage detached from the Town of Orchid, wished to know how designating the subject property LD -2 would affect the zoning. At the present time her acreage is zoned Agricultural, and she would like it to remain so. Commissioner Eggert assumed it would remain the same, and Planner Shearer confirmed that the zoning ordinance provides that any property not assigned to a zoning district is assigned to the agricultural district. This property will be considered Agricultural based on that, and if the Liers wish to rezone at any time, they can come in and apply. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. 45 BOOK v °j4 FEB 1? 1987 FEB BOOK 67 F.�6E 335 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved amendment of the Comprehensive Plan designating the L/ property detached from the Town of Orchid LD -2. (Said amendment to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes to the Comprehensive Plan are dealt with.) 9.) AMEND CP TO REDESIGNATE 250 ACRES IN WINTER BEACH LD -1 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE; January 21, 1987 FILE: _ of the Board of County Commissioners COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REDESIGNATE 250 ACRES LOCATED IN WINTER BEACH ����C�iT; FROM LD -2 TO LD -1. Rooart M. Kedtling,6AICP Planning & Development Director ,(zV1k5THROUGH: Richard M. Shearer, AICP Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet 2R� RFFER`NCEES: 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 regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County originally requested to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 466 acres, located between 71st Street (Cemetery Road) and 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road) from 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) to 600 feet west of the F.E.C. Railroad from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2_ (up to 6 units/acre) to LD -1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up- to 3- units/acre) . _units/acre). The County also requested to rezone approximately 457 acres (in the area described above) from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 'units/acre), and to rezone approximately 35.4 acres, located adjacent to the west side of the South Winter Beach Road Industrial Node, from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). On July 23, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to approve Resolution No. 86-48 which amended the Winter Beach Precise Land Use Map to provide more detailed land use policies for the subject property. The Board resolved that the area located between 71st Street (Cemetery Road) and 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road) from 58th Avenue(Kings Highway) to 600 feet west of the F.E.C.R.R. should be limited to single-family residential development with a maximum density of 3 units/acre (see Figure 1). 46 M i M On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -1 to recommend approval of the original land use amendment and the rezoning requests. On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to rezone approximately 250 acres located between 65t:. Street and 69th Street from the Lateral G Canal to 58th Avenue, and a 600 foot deep strip of land located on the north side of-- 69th f69th Street on the east side of the Lateral G Canal from RS -6 to RS -3. The Board also rezoned 35.4 acres, located adjacent to the west side of the South Winter Beach Road Industrial Node, fro:a RS -6 to RM -6. The Board also amended the original land use plan amendment application to coincide with the area which was down -zoned from RS -6 to RS -3 (see Figure 3). On January 12, 1987, the Planning Department received comments from the State of Florida Department of Community Affiars pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statues. These comments follow: "CPA -081: We have noted the comparatively controversial nature of this application regarding the redesignation o- residential acreage in the Winter Beach area. The various issues of the controversy - impacts on the Sandridge____`_ recharge capability, lack of specific plans for water and. sewer service to the area, home -owner concerns for property values, etc. - have been widely discussed and debated in public hearings and workshops, and citizen participation i. the process has been commendable. In reviewing the me=-ts of the application,_ however, we find no statutcr:: _-requirements nor comprehensive plan specifications which would favor one solution over another in the Winter Beac:: proposal. That being the case, it would seem that the Bc:-r of County Commissioners has proposed an acceptable compromise in its decision of October 23 to amendte application. The amended application, in our vi..e=.Y, accomodates both the _Winter Beach Progressive Leagu='s desire for RS -3 down_zoning and the planning stf = a's original recommendation to retain the LD -2 designation in the entire area. -r'- With regard`to 'acfual� development o"the"red�nt.--- areas, it sould be pointed out that, irrespective of the Boards final decision, existing environmental rules may .preclude building up to the maximum allowable density unless adequate sewer systems are in place." 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 envir--n- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property, zoned RS= -3, currently consists of undeveloped land and a number of single-family residences situated throughout the area, with most of the homes located along 69th Street, 51st Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. The homes along. 69th Street are situated on lots which range in size frcm I acre to 10 acres. The homes located along 51st and 52nd Avenues are on lots which range from J acre to 1 acre in size. East of the subject property, across the Lateral G Canal is vacant land and several single-family residences zoned RS -6. Further east is an industrial node with several light industrial uses, zoned IL, located on South Winter Beach Road. The property to the south is primarily vacant and zoned RS -6. There ,,is also a residenti-al FEB 17 '907 47 BOOK 1F BOOK 67 P��,E 337 ' ' subdivision made up of .15 acre lots located on the south side of 65th Street along 48th Avenue. The Bent Pine Golf Club, zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre) is located further south. The land to the north contains Kiwanis-Hobart Park, vacant land, and a mining operation zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The land west of the subject property, zoned RS -3, is primarily vacant with a single-family subdivision located south of 65th Street. Ciba-Geigy, zoned A-1, is located west of the subject property and north of 69th Street. Future Land -Use Pattern The subject property is currently designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) on the County's Comprehensive Plan. Approximately 20 acres of land to the north is designated as LD -2 with -the remaining land designated as PARK. The property to the south is designated LD -2. The property. to the east, between the Lateral G Canal and the 100 acre South Winter Beach Road Industrial Node is designated LD -2. The U.S. #1 Mixed Use Corridor also runs to a point 300 feet west of the Florida East Coast Railroad. The property located to the west of 58th Avenue is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The LD -2 land use designation is a general category which allows residential development up to a maximum of 6 units/acre with 17 - public water and sewer facilities. The .County can provide less intense zoning, such as RS -3, in areas with.the LD-2.designation. The present situation (absence of both public water and wastewater facilities) will not allow development at 6 units/acre. However, County water is scheduled to be supplied to the Winter Beach area between 1988 and 1992, which would make it possible to attain the maximum density that the LD -2 land ,:se designation allows. -. Transnortation Svstem The subject property is served by several roadways which vary- in functional classification. The north section of the area is served by 69th Street (North Winter Beach Road) which is classified as a primary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. 63th Street (South Winter Beach Road) serves the southern section of the subject property and is classified as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. Both of - these roads intersect with 58th Avenue (Kings Highway), designated as an Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan, on the west side of the subject property. North and South Winter Beach roads also intersect with Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1 to the east of the subject property. Old Dixie Highway is .designated as a.Secondary Collector and U.S. 1 is designated as an Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. All of these roads.are currently rated at a level -of -service "A" thr-oughout the year. The.. -proposal to redesignate the subject property from a maximum of 6 units/acre to 3 units/acre would decrease the total number of trips generated under build -out conditions..__.__ _ _ Environment Approximately 800 of the subject property, located on the east side of the Lateral G Canal, consists of excessively drained soils and is considered to be located in the coastal sand ridge primary, aquifer recharge area. The remainder of the subject property consists of fine sandy poorly drained soils. A low depressional area which is seasonally flooded is located north of South Winter Beach Road between 52nd Avenue and 57th Court. This area is located in zone "A", a 100 year flood plain. 48 r7+•11;4-,-� The subject property is not currently served by County water or wastewater facilities. However, County water is scheduled to be supplied to the area between 1988 and 1992. CONCLUSIONS _. Due -to the fact that the subject property is surrounded on three (3) sides by the LD -2 land use designation, is located less than --- J-. mile .-from U _S...__1, . is located on a primary collector, and is scheduled to be supplied with County water facilities by 1992, the existing LD -.2 land use. designation. is more appropriate than the.LD-1. land use designation. RECOMMENDATION _.• Based on the policies which were established by the Board of County Commissioners on July 23, 1986, when they adopted the revisions to the Winter Beach Precise Land Use Map, the Planning Department intiated the request to redesignate the subject property from LD -2 to LD -1 and to rezone it from RS -6 to RS -3. On September 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of the County -initiated requests to redesignate 466 acres located in Winter Beach from LD -2 to LD -1, to rezone 457 acres from RS -6 to RS -3, and to rezone 35.4 acres- - adjacent to the South Winter Beach Industrial Node from RS -6 to - RM -6. Although the planning staff respects the policies established by the -Board and the recommendations made by the Planning and Zoni^g Commission, the staff still feels that its original proposal for this area was correct and continues -to recommend that the subject property retain its LD -2 -land use designation. Planner Shearer advised that the rezoning for the 250 acres was accomplished on October 21st and none is needed today. Commissioner Eggert had a lot of trouble with the fact that the area rezoned to RS -3 where people have built on minimum 1/2 acre and much larger lots is completely surrounded by RS -6. She did not feel we have done a thing to protect this neighborhood but rather have ended up entrapping it. She stated that she personally would like to look at the whole 466 acres again as a part -of the rezoning. Commissioner Wheeler was in full agreement. Chairman Scurlock felt that could be taken up separately, and that after we conduct the advertised public hearing, we could have a vote for the staff to readdress the whole area. Commissioner Eggert noted that it will make a difference in how she votes now because if we were to change this to LD -1 now, we entrap certain people up there in an area that is all LD -2, l ��� 49 BOOK FEB 1'' 1937 BOOK 67 FA,E 339 and she would rather deny the LD -1 until we look at the whole thing. Discussion and debate continued at length as to how to proceed. Commissioner Bird felt that because of the way it was advertised, we must take it one step at a time and consider the 250 acres first. Commissioner Eggert asked if this can be tabled until we can consider the other 216 acres, and Attorney Vitunac asked if that would be a rezoning and not a Comprehensive Plan change. Chief Planner Shearer referred to the following chart: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 250 ACRES FROM LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre) TO LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre) Figure 3 I.. VVintel Dench 7 1 b t S t. `� _ I hi t�m-�.Lt.l 1wllll MA!!-' .Y.I 71� �\`I �'J. � t41 t4• I - ••`•-r RS46 RS -8 II 7 I CH ig RS -3 IL iii.i I ( - RM -6 m f� -: ! RS -6 O! • L...... 1 C L �fP'� 1f L�3L..�.` q g'# 6 5thSi.t . M-6 S's +Y xef i .+� a m7 .t'�'�I n'r+. iq r +y �� .f• . I'n,'q f '.� ` — , C L IL iL "N71 ~ 1•. ' j .7 'r .— wttr 117 �a-V 7u TI r�• '•' RL, 14 I I I. I' ' I;RM4 \' �i: -6 Ir .1 t'r`� . l,�l l OI w 11M11 COLtt"CL • I \• i \\ I j �.\ t T •\\ ' 50 Planner Shearer clarified that what we are looking at today is changing the Land Use Designation only on the 250 acres which are shaded, and what Commissioner Eggert is looking at in addition to that is the 216 acres deleted from this request in October, which she thinks should be reconsidered. He noted that as an interim step, the Board could direct staff to initiate downzoning that property to RS -3 and set the process in motion to look at the other proposal to change the Land Use designation on it to LD -1. Commissioner Eggert is concerned that if the shaded area is changed to LD -1 now, these people would be surrounded by RS -6 with a Land Use designation of LD -2, and she is wondering if you would consider her request before you consider locking these people in. Chairman Scurlock believed Commissioner Eggert's problem is that there may be a time delay and conceivably people could go ahead and vest themselves at the higher density. Commissioner Bird felt we are leaving the people more in jeopardy by not taking action than by entrapping them. Commissioner Wheeler believed there are three votes that agree with Commissioner Eggert's position. Discussion ensued regarding the length of time required for a rezoning. Chairman Scurlock noted that the request we are considering today is taking the 250 acres from LD -2 to LD -1 and the zoning remains the same (RS -3). He felt the proper action today would be to go ahead and take the subject property to LD -1, take our chances for that period of time, and then see what the majority wants to do in regard to rezoning of the other acreage. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing the Winter Beach Progressive League. He noted that this really all started because of the concern of those living in the area as to how their area would be developed. They agree with Commissioner Eggert and would like the whole 466 acres to be addressed again so there is a complete picture out there. The residents support FEB17 1987 51 BOOK, .140 FEB 1 1937 Boa 5 7 F,,, C. 341 the redesignation of the 250 acres to LD -1 but want the other 216 acres looked at also as RS -3 and hopefully LD -1. Lynn Kirk of North Winter Beach Road stated that the residents have worked long and hard on this issue for over a year, and he has presented two petitions with over 230 signatures supporting the lower density LD -1 corridor of about 460 acres. Mr. Kirk reviewed the history of the situation, noting that two Commissioners who are no longer on this Board took a meat axe and went after their LD -1 corridor; they took out the undeveloped 216 acres and left it RS -6 under LD -2; and that is the whole piece they were really concerned about for protecting their neighbor- hood and maintaining its character, protecting the environmen- tally sensitive sand ridge, the aquifer recharge, etc. Mr. Kirk further noted that all that happened after the public hearing was closed; then the 250 acre piece was sent to the state for review; and now the people are back here today discussing something they only like in part. They do not want to be surrounded by RS -6 and LD -2, and they do not want to go through with the LD -1 proposed now and take a chance on what will happen across the road. Rebecca Hampton, President of the Winter Beach Progressive League, emphasized that many residents are not able to attend meetings held during the daytime. She echoed Mr. Kirk's senti- ments and advised that they will continue to fight for what they think is right. W. R. Broocke, 6185 S. Winter Beach Road, commented that the proceedings are beginning to sound like a broken record. The same arguments are presented time after time and they keep getting different actions. Staff keeps trying to defeat the people who have invested their money and their lives there, and he felt the Commission has a wonderful opportunity here to help the people keep what they have. Ted Herzog spoke on behalf of George Williams, part owner of an 102 acre tract just west of the industrial node and the largest identifiable parcel in the 250 acres being discussed. 52 He wished to emphasize that they still support the staff's recommendations for all the reasons already in the records of the various hearings and believe a density;of 6, which actually equates to something much less than that, should be maintained. While the Winter Beach League has many participants who are owners of small lots, Mr. Herzog wanted the Board to consider that in the 250 acre area about 900 of the property owners have submitted letters in support of having the density level maintained at 6. Planner Shearer believed Mr. Herzog is referring to the 216 acres that was deleted, and Commissioner Eggert noted that really isn't under consideration today. She asked if Mr. Herzog was opposing the change to LD -1 on the subject 250 acres. Mr. Herzog stated they have no opposition to the change for the area outlined on the map; they are not concerned about the area west of Lateral G. James Taylor, 69th St., Winter Beach, spoke for residents of the area who cannot be here today. He noted that the plan being discussed is not the one originally drawn up for the Winter Beach area. He stressed that there are too many unanswered questions concerning the fate of their community, and the corridor as originally presented is the major question. Mr. Taylor believed the residents' investments represent a far greater investment and potential for loss should the complexion of the neighborhood change radically, and he again asked the Commission to act on the proposal as originally developed. Mrs. Ida Kirk informed the Board that they do not want the proposal as it is today, which is LD -1 just for their property, and if it comes to voting it down, so be it. They want the LD -1 for all the acreage originally proposed. It was determined no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. 53 M FEB 17 981 �oo� Gg c� FED 17 1937 Boogie 67 u JLF 43 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved amendment of the Comprehensive Plan redesignating the subject 250 acres located in Winter Beach to LD -1. (Said amendment to be incorporated in Ordinance adopted when all changes to the Compre- hensive Plan are dealt with.) MOTION ­WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to direct staff to reexamine with all due speed the 216 acres deleted from the original proposal with the idea of moving ahead with rezoning to RS -3 and to resubmit the Compre- hensive Plan change in July. Commissioner Wheeler inquired if there is something we can do to prevent those with vested rights from developing at RS -6, and Attorney Vitunac advised that a moratorium would take the same amount of time as a rezoning. Commissioner Bowman inquired about how long it would take to rezone this to RS -3, and Planner Shearer estimated two to three months for the process but stated they will try to get it back within 21 months. Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote for the Motion even though the facts that caused him to cut the 216 acres out of the LD -1 corridor were that 980 of the property owners in that 216 acres said they wanted the LD -2, and it was mainly people who didn't live in that area who were opposed to it. He believed this will come out again at the next hearing, but stated he is willing to go through more hearings and keep an open mind. Commissioner Eggert noted that her position remains the same because of no sewer and water and because of the sand ridge, and Commissioner Bowman stated that she is much more concerned about 54 the people who Five in the neighborhood than the people who buy up property and don't live in the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-19 including all the foregoing Comprehensive Plan amendments approved by the Board today. ORDINANCE NO. 87-19 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE, DRAINAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND CREATING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR ENLARGING THE 50 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT OSLO ROAD AND 27TH AVENUE TO 58 ACRES, INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, DECREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IN THE WINTER BEACH AREA, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL FOR SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, ESTABLISHING LAND USE DESIG- NATIONS FOR PROPERITES DETACHED FROM THE TOWN OF ORCHID, ENACTING A COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE DRAINAGE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, requires that local governments prepare and adopt -Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Florida -Statutes provide for the amendment of Comprehensive Plans twice per calender year; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, has held public hearings and made recommendations concerning these amendments; and ORDINANCE 87-19 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 5 5 POGO. Ff�uC FES c� E" r FEB 1' �' BOOK 6 f���E 345 APPEAL OF QUEEN'S TERRACE PRELIMINARY PLAT DENIAL Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, made the staff presentation: i TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: February 6, 1987 F1LE: Board of County Commissioners q DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: l Robert M. Keating(;' P v T: APPEAL OF QUEEN'S TERRACE Planning & Development Director PRELIMINARY PLAT DENIAL FROM•Stan Boling 0�- 5' REFERENCC: queens terrace Chief, Current Development STAN3 It is requested that the data herein presented be given forr-al consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. NOTE: (Copies of approved January 22, 1987 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes, relative to this item, will be made available to Board members on February 13, 1987] DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Queen's Terrace is,a proposed 69 lot subdivision of a ±26.235 acre parcel located on the north side of 16th Street at-King.'s Highway (Ralmar/Coventry Park PRD site). The subject property is zoned- RS-3 onedRS-3 (Residential Single Family up to 3 units/acre) and has an LD -2 (Low Density Residential up to 6 units/acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is 2.63 units/acre. A conceptual PRD plan application for developing the site was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 11, 1986. The PRD was considered by the Board of County Commissioners on January 13, 1986 and was approved with conditions that were not acceptable to the owner/applicant (Ralmar Associates, Inc.). Ralmar Associates has formally withdrawn the PRD application and revoked the conditional conceptual PRD approval. Therefore, no PRD approval is in effect for the site, and no PRD application or review is pending. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Queen's Terrace preliminary plat application at their regular meeting of January 22, 1987. At that meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to deny the application pursuant to section 7(d)(8) of the subdivision ordinance, wherein one of the preliminary plat review standards states that no preliminary plat shall be approved, if it "...adversely affects the community or neighbor- hood in which the project is located". The applicant, Ralmar Associates, Inc., is appealing the pre- liminary plat application denial and is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission decision be overturned and that preliminary plat approval be granted. ANALYSIS: Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant preliminary plat approval for Queen's Terrace subdivision (see attachment #1) because the application met or exceeded all zoning and subdivision regulations applicable to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff's analysis of the subdivision's impact is as follows: 56 1. Utilities: positive impact due to the provision of water and wastewater for all lots, including expansion and introduction of wastewater facilities into the neighborhood. 2. Transportation: no negative impact from the proposed 69 lczz- according to the applicant's own 'traffic analysis and revi,::•r by the County traffic engineer; positive impact due to a 16th Street right-of-way dedication and provision of a sidewalk along 16th Street (north side). 3. Drainage: no negative impact due to stormwater managere_= requirements applied during review of construction drawi c- (land development permit). 4. Lot Sizes: no negative impacts due to provision of to meeting and exceeding the RS -3 minimum lot size requirem--::- of 12,000 sq. ft. with -.,:the smallest lots (12,000 sq. ft.; located in the rear of the subdivision along the Main Re— I--'----Canal. right-of-way. Lot sizes meet or exceed the siLas currently allowed in the rest of the neighborhood. Based on the foregoing analysis it is staff's opinion that proposed preliminary plat application does not adversely af`:,--- the neighborhood in which the project is located. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners overtii_z the Planning and Zoning Commission denial and grant preliminary plat approval for the Queen's Terrace subdivision. Chief Planner Boling believed the lot size is a point of controversy for the area, but the lots both meet and exceed the zoning requirements. Chairman Scurlock asked the legal opinion of the County Attorney as to the lot size being adequate under the ordinance. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that the hearing today is a "de novo" hearing, and in such a hearing the Commission does not sit as a review board looking over the facts presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission, but makes an independent judgment based on the facts presented today by both sides. The Attorney then quoted from the Zoning Code the following criteria upon which the Board must base its decision: 57 BOOK 67 F `3 4 6 FEB I `� e� F" - FEB FEB I ? i 37 BOOK (8) Criteria for review of preliminary plat by county staff, the planning and zoning commission and the board of county commissioners, if Appealed a. No preliminary plat shall be approved if it: 1. Fails to comply with all ordinances of Indian River County, including but not limited to the compre- hensive plan, the zoning regulations, this ordinance, the storm water management and flood protection ordinance and the Indian River County Standard Design Specifications; 2. Adversely affects the community or neighborhood in which the project is located; 3. Fails to provide adequate street connectors with the existing street network to insure free access and circulation or creates a traffic impact that lowers the level of service on any existing street below level of service C (see section 10(a)); 4. Fails to comply with state law or regulation of rules established by other governmental agencied with jurisdiction over any aspect of the project. 01 a uC 4 Attorney Vitunac noted that staff has indicated the plat complies with at least 1, 3 and 4. The only criteria it possibly does not meet is #2 "adversely affects the community......." Commissioner Bowman inquired about traffic impact, and Planner Boling advised that they looked at the roadway, and this project would not lower the present level of service, which is level "A". To go all the way down to "C" which is the lowest acceptable standard, there could be over 1,200 units; so staff feels there is excessive capacity. Commissioner Bowman argued that this does not take into consideration build -out to the west, north and south of the area, and she further noted that you can't widen 16th St. Commissioner Bird felt you have to take things one at a time and just consider what this project does. He believed the plan as presented is in compliance with the existing zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements of our Subdivision Ordinance, and this was confirmed by staff. Planning Director Keating stated that they have looked at build -out because concurrently with this there is a request to. rezone the entire area to;RS-2, and they do not feel the road would have a problem accommodating all the units at build -out. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 58 M Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Ralmar Associates. He noted that the Board has staff's report which recommends overturning of the denial and believed it has been said several times that the applicant has met all requirements for this standard subdivision as established by the Commission. Attorney Block was not sure that any subdivision has been turned down before when it has met all the minimum requirements. He commented that "de novo" means this is a brand new hearing, and the Board must listen and see if the project meets the criteria cited. If the subdivision meets all the criteria, it was his opinion that the Commission has to exercise its duty and approve it. Mr. Block continued that the Planning & Zoning Commission last Thursday rezoned this area to RS -2, including this piece even though the applicant asked them not to. He noted that the whole issue started because they bought a piece of property, and they have filed a PRD and a subdivision application, and they felt they should not have been included in the rezoning. Under the Comprehensive Plan this property is LD -2, which allows up to 6 units per acre. In September of 1986, the Board changed this property from Agricultural to RS -3, and the applicant met the requirements for their subdivision at RS -3 which was the existing zoning when they filed the plat and it still is. Attorney Block agreed that lot size is a concern, but the applicant didn't set it as 12,000 sq. ft., the County Commission did that. He pointed out that this subdivision will bring county -backed water and sewer to this area, which is a positive effect; there is no environmentally sensitive land involved; and studies were done by both their engineers and the County's engineers wherein it was determined there is no adverse traffic impact. Mr. Block stressed they meet all criteria, but the Planning Board picked out the one area that is subjective and can only be argued emotionally. He further noted that they are only asking for 69 lots there; they wanted two entrances, but the 59 E00r. 7 UE 348 6h,__ F E B 17 19 GG 7 FEB 1V BOOK 67 F,�-UE .3 4 9 county wouldn't allow that because of the bridge. Mr. Block pointed out that they now are here on a appeal because even though the county agrees they have done everything that was asked of them, it seems they still adversely affect the neighborhood. He argued that there are at least three subdivisions along 16th Street not even counting Tropicolony which backs up to it. In addition, their project is not in the middle of 16th Street; it is at the end. If the people want RS -2 on their properties, he felt that is fine, but urged that the Board not impose it on the applicant's property. Tom Holman, resident of Rosewood Rd. for 35 years, believed the neighborhood has been the victim of inadequate zoning. All the developers who have moved in so far have gone along with the type of development that has been there for years. In the whole 310 acres, there are 10 lots that do not meet RS -2, none of them being on Rosewood Rd., and all ten of them would add up to less than 5 acres out of the 310 acre neighborhood. What is proposed now is completely out of character with the neighborhood, and the people who have lived there for years need protection. Mr. Holman believed there is no reason the project couldn't be devel- oped at RS -2 except that RS -3 would make more money. Miles Mank of Rosewood Rd. agreed with Mr. Holman, and as to the professional studies done in regard to traffic impact, he believed you can always find a study that will back up either side. Mr. Mank did feel traffic is a problem. Attorney Robin Lloyd came to speak on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Ames who own property immediately adjoining the subject property on the east and also own property and live across the street. Mr. Lloyd realized the applicant has stated they do meet minimum requirements, but it is easy to look at a plat without looking at the community, and that's what they are asking the Board to do. For instance, there is a road that runs to the east into nothing except into his client's property, and there is no road that adjoins to it. As to meeting minimum requirements, Attorney 60 Lloyd believed there is nothing else in Rosewood that has tried to meet just "minimum" requirements. He further noted this plat originally was used as a threat to show what the developer would do it the community didn't support their PRD project. As to the Planning 6 Zoning Commission just recently downzoning the property, Mr. Lloyd pointed out that the developer originally bought the property as agricultural. He contended that if it is left at RS -3 and developed with 90' lots, it will make his client's property practically unusable because no one will want to buy a lot which backs up to one a good deal smaller. This definitely will affect the neighborhood adversely, and he felt there is no basis to say that the subject property cannot be developed at a low density with larger lots. Tom Schlitt, 47th Terrace, suggested that this is a unique area that needs to be considered based on the time it has taken to develop. This neighborhood just does not warrant larger densities. There are several trees that encroach on 16th St. now, and as Jungle Trail has its uniqueness and should be protected, there are areas on the west of the river that have their own uniqueness and should be protected also. Elmer Barker, Rosewood Rd., noted that he has 550' frontage and two houses on five acres, and he concurs with all that has been said about the area having a distinct character. He would seriously urge the Board to keep it in the RS -2 range. Mr. Barker felt there other places for project of this nature - the concept is good, but the location is bad. Dr. Robert Vinson, resident of Rosewood Rd. for over 26 years, advised that he chose this community to settle in and raise a family because of the quality of the community, and he took pride in its development and its "snob"'appeal. He emphasized that the people in this area have been very active in doing constructive work in the county, and they do not want minimal standards. He believed the people are happy with RS -2, but felt even that is a minimal standard. 61 BOOK 57 FEB V FEB 17 1987 BOOK 6~� rvjF.. 351 Architect Charles Block informed the Board that he was involved in the PRD project, but not in this plat. In regard to minimum standards, he believed the standards in this county rank very high in the state and are very restrictive. Mr. Block doubted he had ever come before the Board in any of the several hundred projects in which he has been involved in this county exceeding anything but the minimum standards because they are so restrictive, and he further believed that probably all the projects that have gone to Planning & Zoning and come before the Board have met minimum standards. He believed those standards are good standards and are protective of the community. George Beuttell, 5480 Rosewood Rd., submitted that well over 900 of the ownership on the road by acreage wants this zoned as RS -2, which he felt is the same situation earlier referred to by Commissioner Bird in Winter Beach. Commissioner Bird advised that the main difference there would be that the people Mr. Beuttell is talking about on Rosewood Road don't own this particular piece of property. In Winter Beach 950 of the people who owned the particular piece of property we were talking about wanted it zoned LD -2, and it was the people who lived a mile or two away who wanted it zoned something less. Mr. Beuttell submitted.that the people on Rosewood don't live a mile or so away. He stated that he owns two acres abutting the subject property, and he has one house on a one acre piece of property. If three houses are built on the west side of his property line, he did not see how anyone could say that would not affect his property value adversely. He believed when Ralmar bought the property, they knew full well what they were facing and they blatantly ignored the property owners and went ahead and purchased anyway. Mr. Beuttell believed the entire Commission admits the zoning is wrong for the neighborhood; he did not feel Ralmar has the right to develop any piece of property inconsis- tent with the character of the neighborhood; and he felt there is 62 no question that what is proposed will adversely affect him and the entire neighborhood. Frank Kahn, 7000 20th St., questioned just what comprises a community, how large is it, and whether the community should dictate what should happen in the entire area. If they didn't want this developer to come in, why didn't they just buy the property? He agreed there are beautiful estates there, but did not feel the proposed site plan will affect them at all. Mr. Kahn felt we need growth in the county. Lee Emerick, 48th Avenue, noted that the Rosewood area is one of the most desirable in that part of the county, and there are many other areas more suitable for the proposed type of development. The fact that they meet the minimum requirements overlooks the fact that they will affect the community adversely, and Mr. Emerick felt the issue is whether the area is to be downgraded or maintained as highly desirable as it is. He requested that the county accept the P&Z Commission's finding that this is adverse to the best interests of the community and deny the application. Fred Young of 50th Court wished the Board to know that there are people who live off Rosewood Rd, who are just as opposed to RS -3. Mr. Young believed one walled community in the area could lead to a series of walled communities and asked if the Board is concerned for the losses of the individual owners or the loss for the developer. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like to move for denial of the subdivision because he did believe it adversely affects the neighborhood. He felt the county made a mistake sometime ago when this was rezoned to RS -6; there was a loophole; and the developer saw an opportunity. Commissioner Wheeler also felt the traffic is a problem, especially with Ryanwood Shopping Center now on 58th Avenue and the other potential growth in the 63 NOOK 6 7E.r`3-.7' FEB 17 1907 BOOK ! r area. He felt build -out should be kept to a minimum on 16th St. because other traffic than just the neighborhood uses that street and has for years, even more now that it is paved. He agreed that the Rosewood neighborhood is a unique one and believed the proposed subdivision is anything but unique. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to deny preliminary plat approval ' for Queen's Terrace Subdivision. ✓ Commissioner Eggert advised that she recommended denial because she believed there is a difference between minimum standards for the county and minimum standards for an individual community. When you get small lots backing up to large estate lots, you get a whole different type of community; there is a difference in the way the neighborhood will be used; and you can have nothing but an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Chairman Scurlock believed the Commission has been committed to looking at the entire area trying to bring the densities down. He obviously had some concern about potential litigation, but felt we should just make the best record we can as to how we feel the community is being adversely affected as that seems to be the key. The Chairman did feel there is some legitimate concern about the transportation network, and, in fact, our own county engineer refused to design that roadway because of the constriction caused by the trees that were preserved along the road, and there is further constriction due to the bridge over the main canal. It would be tremendously expensive to construct a new bridge, and the Chairman did not believe we want to remove the trees. These factors make expansion of the roadway extremely difficult, if not impossible, and he, therefore, felt the traffic element is a major concern. He was not sure what adverse effect to a community means to different people, but he was sure if any of us 64 lived there, we would consider it an adverse impact. The Chair- man believed we will have to take our chances in a court of law, if that is where it goes, and stated he will support the motion. Commissioner Bird advised that he planned to support the motion although he has some mixed feelings. The reason he will support it is that what has happened is exactly what he was afraid was going to happen when he very unpopularly supported the PRD. He did not feel the PRD would have adversely affected the neighborhood, and now we are presented with this plat, and next they probably will come up with the same type subdivision at RS -2. Commissioner Bird continued that what does bother him, especially after six years on the Planning & Zoning Commission, is that he feels when someone comes in and plays by the rules, we must use our powers very carefully and in a very concerned manner. He did not want to set a precedent where it is felt the Commission is not going to take the rules we do have very seriously; if we don't like the rules, we should change them. Commissioner Bowman expressed her opinion that the proposed project definitely adversely affects the entire community on the basis of incompatibility if nothing else and felt it certainly will depreciate property values. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:30 P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M. with the same members present, except Commissioner Bird who was temporarily delayed. CONDEMNATION OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE - HILLCREST SUBDIVISION Building Director Ester Rymer reviewed the following memo and confirmed that there has been proper notice: 65 POGr� �� FEB 1 `-1 1907 � FEB 17 1937 BOOK TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: February 6, 1987 FILE: - Board of County Commissioners THRJ: Charles Balczun SUBJEE0 is Condemnation of Unsafe Structure County Administrator Lot 5, Blk. 7, Hillcrest S/D Location - North side of 4305 26th Ave::ue FROM: Ester L. Rymer �q REF IEREjNCES: Building Dire t41 / It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consider- ation by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS: Subject structure has been condemned and ordered removed. The property is recorded under the ownership of Abraham and Mazelle Collins. After I recently discovered that Abraham and Mazelle are deceased, new pro- ceedings were started with Joyce Collins, Personal Representative. I notified Ms. Collins and her attorney of the unsafe, dilapidated con- dition of this structure. I have received no cooperation from Ms. Collins and according to her attorney, she has no plans to comply with the con- demnation order. The structure has suffered extensive fire damage and is beyond repair. The following information is the result of an on-site inspection: 1) Structure is approximately 90% burned and structurally unsound (including roof). 2) Electrical system completely destroyed. 3) Plumbing system completely destroyed. 4) No heat. 5) Lot completely covered with trash and debris. 6) Periodically used by vagrants. RECOMMENDATION: I request the Board of County Commissioners to declare said unsafe structure a nuisance and order the building demolished by the County Road and Bridge Department if men and equipment are available. After removal, in accordance with Section 4-21, Code of Ordinances, Indian River County, the Board will cause a lien to be filed of record for the costs of removal against the owner or person in charge. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com - missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (4-0) declared the unsafe 66 The Chairman asked if there was anyone present to represent Ms. Collins, and there was not. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com - missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (4-0) declared the unsafe 66 structure on Lot 5,.Blk. 7, Hillcrest Subdivision, a nuisance, ordered the building demolished by the County Road & Bridge Department if men and equipment are available, and a lien to be filed for costs of removal. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RE DRAINAGE S. OF 8TH ST. E. OF OLD DIXIE County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: February 11, 1987 Ft L E. - Board of Countv Commissioners THROUGH: Charles Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT:' Developer s Agreement Regarding Drainage South cf 8th Street and East of Old Dimie High ,lay Ria FROM: r ^ ERI�C�: _ 'James W. Davis, P.Charles A. �'ulii��an, Sr Public Works Director to James Davis dated 2/=x!87 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As authorized by the Board of County Commissioners Jan. 15, 1986, tea _ Public Tbrks staff has been acquiring by donation, drainage rightof-uay and easements along the FEC right-of-way between 12th Street and 4th Street to implement a special assessment drainage system. A majority of the right-of-way needed is located south of 8th Street along property mored by Stevens/Bailey/Sullivan. Recently, this property was filled without a Stormwater Management Permit. Also, a small parcel in the area recently received Site Plan Approval, pending the County abandonment of a small'_ parcel of right-of-way east of Old Dixie Highway and the availability of a legal positive outfall. At this time, the developers/owners propose th-e attached developers agreement which acccxmplishes the following: 1) Provides for drainage right -of --way donation and developer construction of the drainage facility along the owners property. 2)_ Allows the developer to use the drainage ditch fill on his remaining property, and requests the County to waive the acquisition of a Tyke "A" Stormwater Permit. 3) Obligates the County to abandon an unopen right-of-way named Palmettc Place located east of Old Dixie Highway (see attached map). 4) Obligates the County to proceed with the Drainage System within 18 months. 5) Allows the developer to use the drainage facility. There are other drainage conditions included. 6) The County will discharge the Code Enforcement violation recently issued for the illegal fill placed on the property. This issue IS scheduled for Feb. 23, 1987 Code Enforcement Board action. 67 FEB 7 1907" G,., 'J, r �E B I (-` .,,x`33 7 BOOK b 7 o,,. J 7 ALTEP,NATIVES AND ANALYSIS After lengthy negotiations, this agreement is in the best interest of all parties if the master drainage plan is implemented. RL'CC.'—N=ATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the attached developers agreement be approved with the following revisions: 1) The fill that is placed will not harm or obstruct the drainage of existing abutting property owners. Perimeter swales may be required. The Public Works staff will assist the owner in a grading plan. 2) The County must acquire state, regional, and local permits to con- struct the drainage system. The agreement should reflect this L -i paragraph 5. 3) Paragraph 6 should Be amended to include the following statement. "The developer shall have the .right to discharge sto ater runoff (which exceeds the first 1" of runoff) into the legal positive outfa-11 to be constructed. The first 1" of runoff must be retained on si:3 prior to discharge, as required by State and Regicnal agencies." The one sentence of paragraph 6 should be revised as follows: "that the property to be conveyed to the County by the Developer may be used by the Developer as a legal positive outfall for the 25 year -24 hour rainfall event after the first 1" of runoff is retained on site. If the County is not successful in permitting and construct- ing the outfall, the Developer can use the area as on-site retention." The drainage construction project will be by Special Assessment fundLng. A Public Hearing will be scheduled soon. Attorney Vitunac advised that Public Works Director Davis has been working for over a year on an assessment program to drain the area. Before it was all finished, a site plan was approved on Old Dixie, and it is being held up because of lack of a positive drainage outfall; this special assessment would resolve that. Planning Director Keating confirmed that he has been working on aspects of this with Public Works Director Davis, and the right-of-way staff is recommending for abandonment is part of a site plan that has been tentatively approved on the condition that the R/W be -abandoned. Chairman Scurlock inquired if there is any problem with that from the utility standpoint, and Director Keating noted that they have not been through the entire process yet, and as part of that process that aspect would be checked out. 68 Commissioner Bird entered the meeting at 1:40 P.M. Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that Assist- ant County Attorney Barkett had a few concerns on this item. Basically he was concerned with waiving the stormwater permit, and felt in lieu of waiving it, we should help the applicant in complying with it. Chairman Scurlock had a problem with waiving the permit, even if we could do so, and felt we should follow the required procedures. Board members concurred. In discussion Director Davis noted that, in other words, staff is to work up the application for Mr. Sullivan and do the engineering, and the Chairman agreed. Director Davis advised that another of Attorney Barkett's concerns was with the wording in regard to abandonment to "the abutting property owners." He felt it should read that there just be an abandonment and the rest of the language omitted. Attorney Vitunac clarified that in our standard abandonment rather than doing a title.search and naming anyone, we just abandon and let them do the search. Director Davis noted that staff has been working to imple- ment a major drainage system for this area for quite a time and is getting down to the last easements required. An assessment project is anticipated, and we are subject to getting permits from the Drainage Districts and all agencies involved. If we can't get the permits, we can't do the project, in which case Mr. Sullivan would still use this area for storm water management. Commissioner Bird commended Director Davis for his work. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Developer's Agreement A with the revisions recommended by staff and with the modifications discussed above. (SAID AGREEMENT TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD WHEN RECEIVED.) 69 L_FES I "d '�07 FEBr- -1 V; BOOK b 0 F.u-, 359 REDUCE RETAINAGE ON PHASE I OF JAIL OMB Director Baird reviewed the following memo: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: February 16, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Sonny Dean,ector General SerAc s FROM: Josep A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Reduce R.S.H. Constructors Retainage on Phase I of Jail Indian River County has received requests for payment on Phase I of the Jail from Rinker ($13,219.45), Electronic Systems ($4,328.42) and R.S.H. Constructors ($24,589.00). In order to pay these requests the County will have to reduce R.S.H. Con- structors retainage balance. Currently, R.S.H. Constructors contract is $3,776,223.00 and the County is holding a retain- age of $206,710. Sonny Dean, project manager for Phase I of the Jail has reviewed the requests and feels the retainage can be reduced by $42,136.87 since the project is substantially complete. Director Baird explained that the invoice was to the County in order to save on sales tax. Chairman Scurlock commented that it seems there are a few items where the architect is going to go back and negotiate with the contractor. One of these was the sound system in regard to some feedback and control switches. The Chairman wished to be sure by approving this payment we are not putting the architect at a disadvantage in negotiating. General Services Director Dean stated that is not covered in this, and the problem is that it has not been defined as to who is responsible - one is pointing at the other. He did not know of any outstanding problems the architect has indicated to the contractor. There is an outstanding change order that will involve about $7,000, but we have sufficient retainage to cover this. Commissioner Bird asked if we have background from R.S.H. Constructors that these amounts are due and payable, and Director Dean explained that the procedure since the beginning of the 70 project has been that all the materials are purchased by the county, and we pay after we.have evidence that they have been delivered on the job site. Commissioner Bird wished to know why this instance is different, and Director Dean clarified that it is because we have to go into retainage to pay the bills. OMB Director Baird confirmed that before he would pay anything out of retainage, he wanted the Board to be aware of what is occurring. Commissioner Bird inquired if the penalty clause was invoked, and Director Dean advised that it had been, but the penalty has since been terminated because the project has reached substantial completion. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the reduction of R.S.H. Constructors retainage balance by $42,136.87 to pay the following bills: Rinker $13,219.45 Electronic Systems $ 4,328.42 R.S.H. Constructors $24,589.00 WINTER BEACH CEMETERY PROPERTY DEDICATION County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo, noting that it is intended to bring the Board up to date on what is occurring: FEB 17 1987 f FEB 17 190 BOOK �rl F,AUC 10: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Winter Beach Cemetery Property Dedication FROM: Bruce Barkett`� Assistant County Attorney At its January 13, 1987 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to obtain further information concerning the property on Oslo Road and 20th Avenue which is under consideration for purchase by the County. Specifically the Board wanted to know whether such property would satisfy the State and Federal Agencies involved with regard to transfer -ring the recreation reverter clause presently encumbering the 19 acres the County has dedicated to the Winter Beach Cemetery Association. The Board requested an update after one month. On Monday, February 9th, Mr. H. Jon Hornquist, of Mayes, Sudderth S Etheredge, Inc., Engineers, - Architects & Planners, reported to staff and. Commissioner Bird that his study of the 40 -acre parcel at Oslo Road and 20th Avenue was incomplete, and that he needed further details before he could complete his study for the uses of said property. The application to DNR must contain a legal description of the _specific property to be encumbered by the recreation reverter clause, an appraisal of the property to be substituted, a physical description of the property to be _ substituted, including topography, geological features, and species diversity. Until the design study is completed, we cannot make application to DNR because we cannot specifically describe which portion of the 40 acres will be dedicated to recreation or obtain the required information on the specific portion. It is recommended that this matter be continued until such time as the requisite information is available to staff. Commissioner Eggert asked if we didn't have to put up some land that wasn't recreational against the swap for the cemetery property, and it was explained that the property is going to be acquired for recreational purposes to replace the other; it is not recreational yet. Commissioner Bird believed it would qualify for a substitu- tion - he clarified that we can't.take something we already have in recreation and trade it, but we can take something newly acquired. Chairman Scurlock felt we should indicate to the Winter Beach Cemetery Association in writing that this process is going 72 to take some time, possibly three to four months, and Attorney Vitunac requested that we also warn them not to bury anyone in the 19 acres presently encumbered by the recreation reverter until this is resolved. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed Attorney Vitunac to write the Winter Beach Cemetery Association as above, indicating a time period of 120 days. HOWELL-CHAPMAN RESOLUTION Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo, noting that the Resolution is needed to take this to court: TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Howell -Chapman Resolution FROM: Bruce Barkett� Assistant County Attorney On May 26, 1983 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 83-39 authorizing the County Attorney to acquire by purchase, donation or eminent domain proceedings five oceanfront parcels of property deemed necessary for public recreational purposes. Four of the parcels (Bell Road, Erdo, Golden Sands, and Stanny) have been acquired by the County. In addition, the State has purchased three other parcels (Morris, Perlini, and Number Eleven Corporation). The only parcel mentioned in Resolution No. 83-39 which has not been acquired by the County is the "Howell and Chapman' parcel. On December 10, 1986 this Board authorized me to offer the seller $2.7 million fo-r the property, $2.5 million of which were to come from the Save Our Coast fund. Our offer expired on January 9, 1987, and even though I received a letter from the seller on February 4th which indicated he was still considering our offer, 1 request permission to proceed with condemnation proceedings. The Howell and Chapman parcel, consisting of 1459 feet along the oceanfront (19.7 acres), lies between two tracts purchased by the State and two tracts purchased by the County. _ Acquisition of the parcel would give County residents access to a continuous stretch of oceanfront property approximately 3,700 feet long. 73 EB f' oo7 BOOK FEB I? �M BOOB 67 rvu,1, 3 Attached for the Board's perusal is a copy of the April 25, 1986 Beach Access and Development Plan Update which shows a present deficit of 1.28 miles of public beach frontage, based upon calculations considering resource and' facility requirements for present and expected population growth within Indian River County. I have also attached a map which shows the relationship of the Howell and Chapman tract •- with the other oceanfront parcels acquired by the State or the County. The County Attorney's Office requests that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed resolution to authorize condemnation of the subject property. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu- tion 87-20 declaring the acquisition of certain oceanfront property for recreational purposes to be a public necessity and authorizing filing of eminent domain proceedings. d RESOLUTION NO. 87-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CERTAIN PARCELS OF PROPERTY ALONG THE ATLANTIC OCEAN LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF APPRAISERS, NEGOTIATION FOR ACQUISITION, AND THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has conducted a study of the park and recreational needs of the residents of Indian River County, - present and future; and WHEREAS, the study addresses the amount of oceanfront property necessary to meet current needs and future needs; and WHEREAS, the study ind-icates that the County must acquire additional beachfront property to meet current and future park and recreational. needs; and WHEREAS, Indian River County is situated along the Treasure Coast of Florida, which has been experiencing a dramatic increase in -population and attendant development during the last several years; and 74 WHEREAS, the County Commission has proposed and the voters of Indian River County have approved a referendum calling for the sale of five million dollars of general obligation bonds to be used for the acquisition of oceanfront property to meet the County's current needs; and WHEREAS, Indian River County and the State of Florida have begun a joint program utilizing the Save Our Coast funds and the aforementioned general obligation bonds to acquire oceanfront property to meet the County's current l' and future park and,; recreational goals and needs; and WHEREAS, historically land suitable for use for - recreational purposes is also the land with the highest potential for development along the oceanfront; and WHEREAS, oceanfront property will continue to escalate in value and be consumed by development, thereby making it necessary and essential and in the public's best interest to acquire needed oceanfront property now for the current and future use of the citizens of Indian River County and of the State; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this day of February, 1987 that: 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted and ratified. - 2. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to proceed to take the necessary steps for Indian River County to acquire fee simple title in the name of Indian River County by donation, purchase, or eminent domain proceedings, the real property described in Exhibit "A", and to have prepared in the name of Indian River County all papers, pleadings, and other instruments required for those purposes, and to hire real estate appraisers, experts, or other witnesses, and to follow through and see that all eminent domain, proceedings a -re prosecuted to judgment. The Board of County Commissioners specifically finds and 75 7 �_ FEB I'd BOOK F .3S5 determines that the acquisition of fee simple title to the ' above-described property is necessary for the stated public purpose of establishing a public beachfront park or recreational facility and that there are no conditions precedent which must be performed prior to exercise of eminent domain powers. 3. The County Attorney and the County Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all action reasonably required to fully accomplish the purposes set forth herein. R. The property acquired pursuant to this resolution shall be used for the public purpose of providing oceanfront access for the park and recreational needs of the citizens of Indian River County. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote, - the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ate, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of February 1987. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOAR© OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By c on . Scurloc Jr , hairman 76 JEXHIBIT_"A's DESCR I PT I ON All of Government Lot 5 in Section 10 Township 31 South, Range 39 East Indian River County, Florida, lying East of the East Right-of-way line of State Road A -I -A. All of Government Lot 4 in Section 10 Township 31 South, Range 39 East Indian River County, Florida, lying East of the East Right-of-way line of State Road A -I -A. Together with All of said Government Lot 5 lying West of the West Right-of-way line of State Road A -I -A. Less however The North 100.00 feet of said Government Lot 4 lying East of the East Right-of-way line of State Road A -I -A and the following described parcel of land. A parcel of land described as: from a point of beginning at the N.E. corner of Government Lot 4, 10-31-39 which said point of.beginning lies on the west boundary line of Government Lot 5, 10-31-39, run south along west boundary line of Government Lot 5, a distance. of 100.00 feet; Thence run east parallel to the north boundary line of said Government Lot 4, to the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean; Thence run northwesterly along the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean to Its intersection with the west boundary line of said Government Lot 5; Thence run south along the west boundary line of said Government Lot 5 to the point of beginning. PARKS 8—RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT A. Mud—Bogging at Fairgrounds Commissioner Bird informed the Board that Mike Loudermilk, who operates the mud bogging operation at the Fairgrounds would like to renew his lease for another year, and he has suggested that the price be reduced to $500 per day as his records indicate he is losing money. Commissioner Bird noted that at the time we came up with the $750 per day charge, we had not really estab- lished a fee structure. Since that time, $500 a day is the fee that has been charged generally; so, Mr. Loudermilk's request to have his fee lowered would be justified. We did take in $7,000 or $8,000 in revenue from this operation, and Parks S Recreation recommends changing the fee to $500 per day and allowing Mr. Loudermilk to continue his mud bogging operation for one more year. 77 BOOK 67 r'f.��.D FEB I? 19 FF B JJ 6 u a; BOOK `},.. E _387 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved renewing lease with Michael Loudermilk for one more year for his mud bogging operation at the Fairgrounds at a charge of $500 per day, said lease to be subject to the approval of the County Attorney. B. Countywide Recreation System Commissioner Bird advised that they had a joint meeting with North County Recreation and the possibility of moving toward a county -wide recreation system was brought up. He believed North County Recreation is in favor of a countywide system, keeping in mind that they don't want to see their programs diminished by this. C. South County Park Status Commissioner Bird reported that our consultant is presently working on a conceptual development plan for the proposed South County recreational facility within the area of 20th Ave. and Oslo Road. This site would perhaps encompass a potential library site as well as a wellfield expansion and recreational facility. The consultant's preliminary survey indicated we need 35-40 acres, and he is in the process of developing a preliminary design that would encompass about 40 acres. We have a willing seller in Mr. Ansin, and the Parks & Recreation Committee recommends we order an appraisal on the property to establish value so we can negotiate and explore the funds that would be needed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to authorize staff to proceed to have an appraisal of the Ansin property as dis- cussed. 78 Commissioner Bird felt that perhaps we can do the appraisal in-house, and Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas believed Right -of -Way Agent Don Finney can do the preliminary appraisal, and then, if necessary, we will go outside. Commissioner Wheeler asked if this would in.any way affect the swap of land for the recreational reverter for Winter Beach Cemetery, and it was felt that it would have a positive affect. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. D. Old Landfill off Old Dixie Chairman Scurlock commented that he has noticed that bikers are using the old landfill area off Old Dixie; the weeds are pretty high there and he felt it is a dangerous situation. He believed this would be a nice location for a jogging type facility and wondered if it would make.sense to clear and level the land and put a jogging facility and naturetype trail there, which he felt would not only provide additional recreation, but also limit our liability. Director Thomas advised that he investigated this during the last year and there was some possibility of an exchange with Mr. Mustapick. It appears there is about 8 acres that is not used; some is leased for the towers. The big advantage is that you have direct paved access already from 3rd and 2nd Streets by putting in a couple hundred feet of paving, and it is not a high traffic area. He believed this does warrant looking into. STATUS OF LIBRARIAN AT LAW LIBRARY Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following letter received from Attorney John Power: 79 BOOK 6 FA'F 68 FEB 17 1987 1428 21ST STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 February 2, 198 JOHN H. POWER ATTORNEY AT LAW FEB 19187 REer--W D 8MRD CCUMY COMMISSIONERS Mrs. Carolyn Eggert 1840 - 25th Street County Commissioner's Office Vero Beach, FL 32960 In Re: Recent Committe meeting Dear Carolyn: BOOK� FSr- DISTRIBUTION LIST f TELEPHONE Commissioners C- ' Ge 305-569-6940 Administrator Attorney - Personnel Public Works Community Dev. Utilities I want to once again express my appreciation for the interest that you have showed in our Law Library situation. A Law Library is a benefit to all the members in the community and I'm sure that you recognize that fact. The purpose of this letter is just to confirm the matters that we discussed which are as follows: 1. Law Librarian's salary - Our Law Librarian, Cindy, currently is employed in a dual part-time status. She works from 8:30 to 10:00 at the County library, from 10:00 to 4:00 at our Law Library, and from 4:00 to 5:00 back at the County library. She receives two checks and is classified as a part-time employee. Her rate of pay is at $4.50 an hour for her Law Library work and $5.42 an hour for her County library work. I would propose that she be raised to $6.00 an hour and be designated a full-time County employee. We would further request that she work 9:00 to 5:00 in the Law Library so that she can, among other things, try to curb the theft problem that occasionally presents itself and also to assist non -lawyer members of the community that come in to use our Law Library. In the event that we cannot succeed in having her placed on a 40 hour a week status, then the second ..alternative would be for her to continue to follow the same approximate schedule that she currently does in regard to the division of her duties. 2. The purchase of a typewriter. At this point, the Law Library has no typewriter. On several occasions, I have had to take my typewriter over to Cindy so that she could type the necessary correspondence to book companies and other such business entities. We would request that, as permitted under the County ordinance, the County Commission requisition $200-$300 so that we can purchase a typewriter. In the alternative, we would request that the County Commission determine if there is a typewriter somewhere within the system_that is currently not being used that could be placed in the County Law Library. In closing, let me again state that in the event that the Board wishes for me to appear before them on behalf of our Bar Associa- tion, I will be more than happy to do so. I recollect also that Judge Vocelle stated that he would be happy to appear before the County Commission and answer any questions that they might have. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Si4c ely, 80 John Power Commissioner Eggert believed there is a need for a full time law librarian, and nothing seems to be written as to how we would pay for one. Until last year part of the filing fees were given to the Law Library as set out in memo from OMB Director Baird: TO: Carolyn Eggert DATE: February 16, 1987 Commissioner W Z4'S FROM: ose h A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Law Library Below is information you requested. COST ANALYSIS OF FULL-TIME LAW LIBRARIAN Budget Cost of Amount of Approved Full -Time Budget 1986/87 Librarian . Increase Salary 69,062 11,700 5,638 Benefits: Full -Time Social Security 434 837 403 Florida Retirement 743 1,538 795 Workers Compensation 35 50 15 Health & Life Insurance 0 921 921 TOTAL 7,274 15,046 7,772 The $7,772 short -fall will have to be appropriated from General Fund: Contingency. JAB/e w too FEB 17 1987 81 BOOK 67 F_ FEB 17 1987 BOOK 67 Commissioner Eggert noted that the cost of the required books has risen so high it has taken up all the fees, and she would like to propose that we make the present law librarian full time, pay her $5.42 an hour the same as she gets for her public library work and give her full benefits, and then check into see- ing if we can get a raise in filing fees or find some other way to pay back at least 250 of this since 750 of her time is spent with the public and 25% with the attorneys. The other alterna- tive to make her full time from this time on would be to go to General Fund Contingency for the funds needed. Chairman Scurlock believed we are going to have a law library at the new jail facility, or at least make one available, and wondered if we could coordinate that activity with this. County Attorney Vitunac did not see why this couldn't be worked out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to make the present law librarian full time, pay her $5.42 an hour plus full benefits, and check into seeing if filing fees can be raised to pay back at least 250 of this. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a typewriter. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved an appro- priation of $200 for a typewriter for the Law Librarian. Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote for this after we have exhausted a search throughout the county offices to find a surplus typewriter. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 82 � � i DISCUSSION RE DRUG REHABILITATION CENTER Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert DATE: February 16, 1987 SUBJECT: Drug Rehabilitation Center On Friday, February 13, 1987, I met with Warren Winchester of Subdistrict 9 of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council (on which I also sit); Dick Mills, IRCMHC Executive Director; Bob Keating and Richard Shearer, IRC Planning and Development Department and two others. We discussed the problems in finding a site for a drug rehabilitation center. Last year, the Board of County Commissioners gave Judge Vocelle and this group permission to take over the old jail for this purpose. However, that has proven too costly --over $300,000. The group has diligently investigated available land - and buildings in the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -10 zoning areas. Nothing suitable has been found. Money has been designated to Indian River County to remodel a building, or begin a building, before June 30, 1987. Action must be taken quickly. This secure treatment facility treating in -patients is not a typical group home but more like a nursing home or hospital. This type of center for drug rehabilitation is not best served by RM zoning. I would like the permission of the Board of County Commissioners to amend the zoning ordinance to allow this type of residential center in the CG, General •:Commercial District, with appropriate special criteria. Commissioner Bird inquired who mane the decision that it was too costly to renovate the old jail for this purpose, and Chair- man Scurlock advised it was the Judges. They had all intentions of using that building and when they contracted for services to remodel, they learned that they could build a new structure for less than it would cost to renovate the old jail. The Chairman believed the Administrator has some interest in using that building for storage of some materials, files, etc., and it was the Chairman's opinion that we should either find a reasonable use for the building or have it torn down. c- ads 83 6001( FEE 1Y' FEB 1? 1987 Boa j i� 67 F"!",r r. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know if there is a reason that this drug rehabilitation center has to be in a particular area, and Commissioner Eggert explained that there is because it is considered a group home, which would have to be in either RM -6, RM -8 or RM -10. She is saying that it isn't really a group home, that it is a residential center and with the Board's permission could be in a general commercial area with proper buffering, etc. Chairman Scurlock noted that there is some additional land adjacent to the new jail that we have been pursuing as something we have to do in the future. Perhaps we should look into acquir- ing that 20 acres now, and possibly it could be considered for this type facility. MXD. Director Keating believed that acreage is in the Gifford Commissioner Eggert felt what they really would like to get is a building that they can remodel. Discussion ensued re the building needed, type, size, etc., and it was noted that it would need to accommodate 20-30 people; the people would live there and staff would come in. John Turnbull, consultant with the Mental Health Associa- tion, informed the Board that they have been looking all over for a facility. They have to do something, and it is mandated that it be located in Indian River County and that some action must be taken before the end of June. That is why the emergency exists. Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of building another building on the old jail site, and Director Keating noted that land is in the City. Betty Goins, Associate Director responsible for drug and alcohol and in-patient programs, explained that this facility is for people who have been detoxed or dried out, and this is the next step in their treatment, both for drug users and alcoholics. Commissioner Wheeler asked it this ties in with Alco -Hope, and Ms. Goins stated that Alco -Hope is part of their system, but 84 there is a waiting list - they are bursting at the seams. The same is true of their crisis unit. Commissioner Eggert advised that they have asked about property adjacent to Alco -Hope. She noted that it is very hard to find a suitable location, especially as most people are not enthusiastic about having such a facility in their neighborhood. Commissioner Bowman felt we must be careful about getting something large enough because she believed we will have it outgrown in a hurry. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously requested the Planning Department to present to the Board as quickly as possible an amendment to the General Commercial District allowing this type residential center as a special exception. TREES FROM URBAN_ REVITALIZATION PROGRAM Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following memo: MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert 4 DATE: February 16, 1987 SUBJECT: Trees from Urban Revitalization Program I would like to request that we apply for these trees to be held for use at the Gifford Community Center and, if needed, the Douglas School Center. I would order Wax Myrtle especially. The Urban Forester should look at site and see if others would help. FEB N% 85 EOOK � � Ff� �F •��� FEB 1 ~e 1987 BOOK 6 7 F,Au. 37 5 Commissioner Eggert explained that the Urban Revitalization Program is designed to provide Florida communities with up to 50 trees for landscaping blighted urban area, and she stressed that we need to get our application in to Tallahassee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized application for trees from the'Urban Revitaliza- tion Program. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 2:15 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 86 / 111111 A