Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/21/1989SPECIAL MEETING Monday, August 21, 1989 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday, August 21, 1989, at 6:00 o'clock P.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF FINAL DRAFT OF IRC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The hour of 6:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: AUG 211999 64 AUG 2 1.190 • VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Dolly Vero Beach, indion 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 daily newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; lhal,the attached copy of adverlisement, being a Notice of C of Land Use t inthemallerol__Indian River rotin*V In the _ .. _ _. Court, was pub. llshed In said newspaper in the issues of Monday • Auo to ji, la , T q pq Vero Beach Press Journal Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and hist the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Brach, in said Indian River Coun. ly, Florida. for a period of one year next preceding lire first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and alliant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement lot publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ _ _ _ y of A.D. 19 V (Business Marlag`tlrj:�'7 i ;4_, (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) _ '�QilelMalpp�gJlleop tftfl POOK l ( PAGE 400 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida will consider a proposal to adopt an ordinance to approve the compre- hensive plan and to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown on the map in this advertise- ment. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Monday, August 21, 1989 at 6:00 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commis- sioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of the County's Com- prehensive Plan to the State Department of Community Affairs for their review. The proposed ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRAFFIC CIR- CULATION; MASS TRANSIT; PORTS, AVIATION AND RE- LATED FACILITIES; HOUSING; SANITARY SEWERS; POTABLE WATER; SOLID WASTE; DRAINAGE; AQUIFER RE- CHARGE; COASTAL MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION; REC- REATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; ECONOMIC - DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing re- garding the proposed Comprehensive,Plan Amendment. The plan may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel- opment Department offices located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- ida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The plan may also be inspected during regular hours at the Fellsmere, Sebastian and Vero Beach public libraries. Copies of the plan map and policies are available to the public at the Community Development Department. This public hearing will be continued on Wednesday, August 23, 1989 at 9:00 a.m. and may be continued to Thursday, August 24, 1989 at 9:00 a.m. and Friday, August 25, 1989 at 9:00 a.m. if necessary. 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 proceed- ing is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Chairman Wheeler explained that the intent of tonight's meeting is a brief review of the final draft of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. There was a feeling, on the part of at least one individual, that there had not been enough public access to the process, and we scheduled tonight's evening meeting for anyone who wished to be heard who could not necessarily make it during the daytime meetings later this week. Staff has distributed copies of revisions made after the hearings by the Planning 8 Zoning Commission. The blue pages are revisions to Goals, Objectives & Policies, and the white pages are revisions to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight we will review rather rapidly the individual elements and discuss the ones that the public is here to discuss and will not spend time on those elements that individuals from the public are not here to discuss. The Board will go through the document page by page at the Public Hearings scheduled for Wednesday, August 23, 1989, between 9:00 o'clock A.M. and 5:00 o'clock P.M., and, if necessary, during those hours on August 24th and 25th. Chairman Wheeler advised that.there have been 5 requests for changes in the land use map since the Planning & Zoning Commission public hearings were held. REQUESTED CHANGES TO LAND USE MAP t REQUEST PROPERTY LOCATION L DESCRIPTION SIZE EXISTING PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF RECOMMENDATION LAND USE LAMD USE LAND JSE r Schlitt/Ed 12th ST(south) bet 58th 8 66th Av 64.7 RR -1 (.1) R-2 (1) 2 units/A Maintain R-2 (1/acre) as proposed. Density 26 units 64 units 124 units increased to permit reasonable development Within flood prone area. Gaidry 8th ST(south) bet 66th 5 72nd Av 117.6 A8 (.21 L-1 (3) 24 units R-2 (1) 146 units Bet lst,6 4th Sts and 304 AG (.2) L -I (3) 74th & 82nd Av 60 units 412 units Caldwell 26th St(north) bet 66th 5 74th Av Knight 30th St (north) A UG 2 - 1989 L-1 (3) Maintain as proposed. (L-1 and R-2) Portion increased to L-1 (3/acre). 352 units Remainder within flood prone area. L-2 (6) Maintain as proposed. (L-1) 1824 units Density increased 3 units/acre. - Provides step down density. Aeple supply of land for higher densities. 20 RR -1 (.4) L-1 (3) L-2 (6) 8 units 60 units 120 units 3.8 LD -1 (3) L -I (3) L-2 (6) 11 units 11 units 22 units 3 Extend L-2 west to 74th Ave, 1/4 rile north of 26th St. Property to south developed at 6 units/acre. Provide additional transitio Maintain as proposed. (L-1) Development to north and east confoning RS -3 subs. Higher density to west, buffere from this area. Staff opposed to increase unless It includes larger area. EUC1K j f'�,�r. AUG _j„�J EOOK ( 650 Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked those who wished to speak on any of the individual elements to please come to the podium at the time those elements come up for discussion. VOLUME 1 INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT No comments. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Nancy Offutt advised that she has been monitoring the process of the Comp Plan on behalf of the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Indian River Arts Council, and while she would be attending the public hearings later this week, she wished to read aloud the following concerns and observations that these organizations would like the Board to consider; 1. The number of proposed commission -appointed committees j and advisory boards which may usurp authority of elected officials. 2. The trend to purchase/acquire private property for public use. 3. The extent to which private property will be impacted by conservation restrictions, easements, and landscape require- ments. 4. The level of service standards expected for infra- structure, government services, etc. which require -,concurrency to avoid moratorium. i 5. The reliance upon impact fees to fund infrastructure, to the extent of recreation and "hurricane evacuation facilties.” 6. The increased costs of development due to required studies and analyses for traffic, environment, etc. 7. Ramifications of a proposed Historical Preservation Ordinance and Historic Commission. 8.. Increased requirements for road right of way. 9. Reductions in densities 10Expressed commitment by County to maintaining agri- cultural production. 4 Mrs. Offutt stated that she would not go into any of the specifics of these particular points at this time, but would have further elaboration and examples of what they are speaking of when the Board goes through the proposed plan element by element at the public hearings later this week. Mrs. Offutt understood that once this process is adopted later this week, the next step would be the adoption of implemen- tation ordinances sometime after January, 1990. Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, explained that this week's public hearings are for the purpose of determining what will be transmitted to the State by the September 1st deadline. After comments are received from the State after a 90 -day review period, the County will have 60 days to address those comments. A final public hearing and a final decision on the whole Comp Plan probably will be held sometime in February, 1990, but the plan can be constantly changed until that time. Mrs. Offutt explained that her question stems from their concern that property owners may have density and other changes made to their land without them understanding the ramifications, and they wouldn't want that to happen as they have tried very hard to get the word out. Continuing with the review of the Future Land Use Element, Commissioner Eggert questioned Policy 1.15. She recalled that when Judge Vocelle was looking for areas to locate a secured substance abuse hospital, half -way house or facility, it came up that the only place we were going to find was in commercial. She noted that on the top of page 107, where it is talking about commercial nodes, it states that residential facilities may be permitted at the appropriate locations in commercial nodes. However, there is nothing in Policy 1.15 that gives her the feeling that it might be the policy under special situations that residential treatment centers would be allowed in commercial. AUG 21 X9®9 5 �UCiK 16 AUG 2 11989 my 77 PAGE 652 Unless her fellow Commissioners object to that, she would like to be sure that is allowed. Commissioner Scurlock asked where those uses would be allowed, and Commissioner Eggert stated that they would be allowed in residential and possibly in some commercial areas, especially border commercial to residential. Commissioner Scurlock understood they would be allowed as a, special exception then, but Director Keating wasn't sure how they would do it. Commissioner Eggert advised that they are finding out more and more that this is what they have to do, especially if they are secured facilities. Since the people can't go out into the community, there is no real point in having them in residential. She just wanted to be sure that we are looking at all our land uses and thinking that this may be a problem we may face in the future. Director Keating explained that is the intent in Policy 1.15, and that staff would go back and make it more specific so it does not seem to preclude it. Michael Keifer, 1943 Charlotte Avenue, suggested that we take another look at the land use designations of the residential properties along the SR -60 corridor to make sure that the land use changes from low density and medium density are appropriate. He pointed out that some of the existing neighborhoods are substantially built out and have developed at lower densities than called for, such as Sixty Oaks, which is 6 upa. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the zonings would hold it as it is. Mr. Keifer also wished to comment that he didn't feel that the map that was included in the newspaper advertisement of this public hearing showed any changes from the 1982 Comp Plan map. Sasan Rohani, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained that the map that was included in the newspaper advertisement shows the boundaries of Indian River County, and the notice stated that 6 r � r land use changes were in the entire unincorporated part of the county. No specific changes were delineated. Getting back to the SR -60 corridor, Chairman Wheeler stated that he would be more comfortable with 8 upa instead of 10 upa, and would like to see that changed if there is no objection. Commissioner Eggert felt one area where she would struggle with that is when we get into affordable housing; that, and the fact that zoning really can control it. Ed Schlitt, 4745 Pebble Bay Circle, was concerned about the the area where he had purchased land along the south side of 12th I. Street, west of Kings Highway, about one mile from Ryanwood Shopping Center. He pointed out that just 1/4 mile south of this area is where the proposed land use plan changes the densities from 10 upa to 1 upa, and he would like to see that area immediately to the south down to about 4th or 5th Streets designated as either 2 or 3 upa. He did not know if the County has a 2-upa land use designation, but would encourage the County to have one because one unit per acre is no longer practical. One unit per acre is considered estate type development, and most people are no longer interested in building on that large a site because of lawn maintenance, etc. There is some feeling that 3 upa might be a greater density than what the County would want, and he believed that 2 upa would be best for that area. Mr. Schlitt was also concerned about the proposed 1 upa land designation for approximately 120 acres west of Pinetree Park off of 8th Street between 66th and 72nd Avenues. He felt that 2 or 3 upa would be more practical. Commissioner Bird noted that while we don't have a Comp Plan land use designation of 2 upa, we do have a zoning category of 2 upa that we could give to the property even if there is an LD -1 up to 3 upa. Mr. Schlitt emphasized that the problem is the land use versus zoning, and as he understands it, you have to have the 7 AUS 1 198 9 I _I AUG 2 11 1989 ROOK / F'1GE 65 maximum of 3 upa density in order to be able to get 2 upa zoning. He felt that LD -1 for 3 upa and zoning for 2 upa would be a good number to work with along 12th Street and that LD -1 and zoning of 2-3 upa would be good for the 8th Street area just west of Pinetree Park. Commissioner Scurlock understood then that if it is an LD -1, you could go to 2 upa by having the proper zoning, but Commissioner Eggert pointed out that you can't do that with RR -1, which is the problem confronting Mr. Schlitt. Director Keating emphasized that the big kicker is that Public Works Director Jim Davis just couldn't justify more than 1 upa in that area because of the drainage situation. Commissioner Scurlock asked how the availability of water and sewer impacts that area compared to having to go to septic tanks, and Director Davis explained that the 1-upa land use designation is needed in that large area because both federal and local studies have shown that the land in that area will be under 2 or 3 feet of water when the canals overflow their banks during a 10 -year storm situation. This is an inherited situation that we have with the drainage district, and what we are looking at is floodplain storage to some degree. The thinking was to protect that area and the homes that have developed in that area, and we are going to have to reduce the amount of fill and do something to compensate for that fill. Chairman Wheeler asked if there would be a way to do that property at 2 or 3 upa through a PRD where they would go in and do the drainage and storage, and Director Davis believed that you could go multi -story and leave a large protected area for stormwater management, but he didn't know how practical that would be for a developer. 8 Mr. Schlitt felt his was a modest request and didn't understand why that one particular spot was designated at 1 upa when it is in between two areas designated at 6 upa. Planner Ron Loeper explained that part of the reason for that was the existence of Pinetree Park. In the past Pinetree Park was zoned at RS -6 and was in a land use that permitted 1 unit per 5 acres, and the decision was made to legitimize that subdivision and change the land use to reflect the actual development. In conclusion, Mr. Schlitt respectfully asked the Board to consider his requests for changes in the land use designations. Commissioner Scurlock felt the Board should just receive these comments tonight and take some time to consider these requests before the next public hearing on Wednesday, August 23, 1989, and Commissioner Bird asked staff it it was possible to prepare an overlay of this area by Wednesday. Commissioner Eggert understood that it is staff's intention over the long haul to remove the 14 upa density, but keep 10 upa, 8 upa, etc. Director Keating stated that was correct, and explained that there are some policies in the plan that allow those to be exceeded under certain conditions, such as a density transfer or certain incentives for additional densities for low-cost housing. Commissioner Eggert was not concerned about bringing it down to 8 upa along SR -60, but was worried about bringing it from 10 to 8 upa in some of the more northern areas with regard to building affordable housing. Director Keating advised that staff would recommend that it stay at 10 upa along the U.S. #1 corridor in the Gifford area but agrees that 8 upa would be more appropriate along the SR -60 corridor. The Commissions indicated that they approved of the land use designation of 8 upa along the SR -60 corridor. AUG 21 `1 9 HOF `��' Fac 6�� L AUG 2 11989 RUor 77 F,�13l 656 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about Policy 1.1 on page 59 which states that "new development within the Indian River County Utilities Department service area shall continue to be approved only when capacity is available to provide needed sanitary sewer service." He emphasized that we have to make sure that what we are saying and what we are doing is the same thing, because convenants for the bonding of both sanitary sewer and potable water projects require mandatory hookup. At this point, however, we have not required mandatory hookup except in health situations, and we have done that based on capacity not being available and that the only capacity in both our water and.sewer plants is that capacity which has been paid for through impact fees and reserves. We have taken the position that our plants, although not on actual usage, are at capacity. He believed we have to be very, very careful when we talk about mandatory service, and what we really mean when we talk about available capacity and what we really mean in terms of our bond convenants when we say the ordinance is on the books and we follow it. Commissioner Scurlock just felt there is a lack of clarity and some inconsistencies regarding these matters. Director Keating noted that the service areas are defined and that the connection matrix on page 71.1 identifies under what circumstances, for example, a single family home in an existing subdivision, would have to connect. Otherwise, it would be considered that there would be available capacity for wastewater if a septic tank were provided. Chairman Scurlock asked how we would justify our county ordinance that says anyone within 200 feet has to hook up. Mr. Rohani advised that the ordinance is mentioned under Policy 6.1 on page 63, and we are saying that any new development has to connect if they are within 200 feet of the line. 10 Commissioner Eggert asked if corrections of deficiencies would handle that, and Commissioner Scurlock felt there is clearly an attempt to do that. However, while intent is wonderful, the question is whether or not it is clear enough for our Planning staff to work with. Commissioner Eggert understood that the Comp Plan could be reviewed twice a year and amended if necessary. Commissioner Scurlock asked if this means that any development along the SR -60 corridor has to hook up to both water and sewer service. Mr. Rohani explained that they would have to if they are within 200 feet of the service, but of course, we can only enforce it with new development. We already have Ordinance 84-18 for the existing development, but the County does not enforce it. Commissioner Scurlock noted that just recently we were at capacity for wastewater along the SR -60 corridor, not plant capacity but effluent disposal capacity, and probably should have had a moratorium in that area this year. He again wanted to make sure that we have clarity so that when we talk about the concurrency issue, we don't get ourselves in a bind. Director Keating understood his concern, and Mr. Rohani felt that would be taken care of under Policy 5.3 on Page 62: "Design for additional capacity for regional facilities shall begin when a facility is at 750 of its capacity, and construction of additional capacity shall begin when a facility is at 800 of its capacity in order to guarantee provision of more than the minimum level of service. All future expansions will be based on the committed and projected future demand." Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the percentages in Policy 5.3 be changed from 75% and 80o to 50o and 65%. He stressed how necessary it is to design water and sewer systems for peak demand, not average daily flow. The plants must be designed to service the months when everybody is here and flushing, and it is not raining. AUG 2 1 -I AUG 2 11989 MOK % The Board indicated their approval of the changes in percentages in Policy 5.3. Potable Water Sub -Element Same comments as under Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. Solid Waste Element No Comments, Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge No Comments. Drainage Sub -Element Ed Schlitt, 4745 Pebble Bay Circle, stated that he understood that his drainage problems would have to be addressed at Wednesday's meeting. Commissioner Scurlock felt that at some point we need to get with the Drainage District and the City and see if we cannot have a collective effort to try some things that would make some sense, and Commissioner Bowman noted that Orlando just created a 1200 -acre marsh. Commissioner Bird agreed that we may have to do something like that out in the area east of 1-95. Traffic Circulation Element Director Keating advised that this element has been constantly under revision, and staff is hoping to get further revisions to the Board by tomorrow in order to give the Board time to review them before Wednesday's meeting. He noted that the traffic consultant will be here for Wednesday's meeting to answer any questions the Board may have. Commissioner Bird asked if there is any way we could modify the transportation impact fees to accommodate the construction of 12 — M M bikeways in those areas where we don't have a road improvement scheduled in the near future. Attorney Vitunac felt we would have to redo the entire traffic impact fee study, since bikeways were not a factor that was used to define the fee and the structure. However, it could be done now through a MSTU or a special improvement district. Director Keating advised that the master bikeway/pedestrian plan is adopted in the policies. Mass Transit No comments. Port, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element No comments. VOLUME 2 Housing Element Commissioner Eggert questioned the need for the number of commissions and committees that are called for in this element or the Historical Commission in the Future Land Use Element. She would like to do away with these committees and commissions because she felt we have a marvelous workshop system under the Planning Dept. She even has a problem with the word "commission" because a commission seems to take on a life of its own, and the next thing you know it wants to be funded and it is out on its own. She had a problem in establishing a Commission on Housing and Neighborhoods, as set out in Policy 1.3 on page 44. Director Keating asked if it would be acceptable if they were called advisory committees, but Commissioner Scurlock suggested that it say that advisory committees should be appointed from time to time, as necessary, by a majority of the Board of County Commissioners. 13 ":. AUG I �a,r6� AUG 2 j 1989 Commissioner Eggert wanted "commissions" changed to "advisory committees," and have i, reworded to state that these advisory committees would be appointed from time to time instead of saying that we shall have them by such and such a date. In addition, she wanted it to say that these committees would be "sunsetted" after achieving their goals. She felt this is reflected in Policy 1.4 where it states that the Board will be presented a program by 1992. Commissioner Eggert requested a change in Policy 2.2 on page 45. Where it says that Indian River County shall provide for adequate lands for residential land uses, she would like it to read: "Indian River County shall designate adequate lands for residential land uses." She understood that staff is working on a definition of "affordable housing" so that there would be a cap to it. Commissioner Eggert next referred to Policy 3.3 on page 46. She wanted very much for us to support our housing agency and the community development committees or corporations in the sense of helping them get grants, etc., but had a problem saying that we shall form a Community Redevelopment Agency by 1992. She felt there are a lot of levels of things we could do to help with redevelopment before getting into what she considers a very tight structure. Director Keating felt that could be easily eliminated, but explained that the reason staff put it in was that the redevelopment agency has more discretion in acquiring property and disposing of property, etc. Commissioner Bird suggested that we say that we are just going to address it somehow and not create an agency. Commissioner Eggert requested that it state "that the County shall support the Housing Authority and community development corporations and other projects within the county and, if necessary in the future, form a redevelopment agency." The Housing Authority has a problem in getting grants because the 14 _ M M median income is so high in this county, and she felt we need to find ways to move around that so we can help out in that situation and get the kind of grants we need and want along with other sources of funding. Commissioner Scurlock felt that we really are missing the boat on some of the alternatives to provide assistance to low-income families especially by not using our tax exempt status in issuing bonds. Policy 4.3 calls for a Housing Trust Fund of $200,000 from general fund ad valorem tax revenues to provide below-market interest rate financing, which in his opinion is a bunch of baloney. He noted that while the Housing Authority has participated in some programs, the County Commission itself can participate and issue bonds that are available for loans on a fixed rate. By taking advantage of this, we would be able to provide different payment type schedules for low-income families at a fixed rate versus a variable rate. He didn't want to establish a trust fund using ad valorem tax dollars. He didn't know where that idea came from, but requested a rewording of Policy 4.3. Director Keating explained that the housing consultant initially came in with a generic Housing Element, and staff requested that they come up with more alternatives. Staff picked through what they submitted and chose some of those alternatives. The Commissioners indicated that they would like to see Policy 4.3 either reworded or deleted. Commissioner Eggert had a problem with Policy 4.6 on page 47, and asked if we can say that the County shall promote neighborhood revitalization without establishing a Neighborhood Housing Services Program by 1992. Director Keating felt that ideally the plan should set a policy framework for what you are going to do, and eliminating that would be part of it. p 15 `�`� AUG 2 1989 POOF ,c i� r AUG�1 ac��K 77 68"' Herndon Williams, 3524 Ocean Drive, wanted to ask questions on Policy 3.3 but had the impression that these would be addressed in detail on Wednesday and Thursday. However, it appears that some of these questions are being addressed in detail now. Chairman Wheeler explained that we are going to be going through the document page by page on Wednesday, and if necessary on Thursday and Friday. What we are attempting to do tonight is hear from those individuals who find it hard to attend the daytime meetings. Conservation Element Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Policy 5.5 on the blue revision page establishes a land acquisition committee. Again, she objected to establishing yet another committee, as she sees this as being a staff function. Commissioner Scurlock believed the basic goal is to eliminate all the committees and commissions except for those to be appointed from time to time as we see a need. Commissioner Bird felt that the committee could work like the committee we put together to buy the beachfront property a few years ago. It was a committee of some expertise and they made recommendations, we bought the land, and they are gone. Commissioner Eggert also pointed out that Policy 5.5 refers to Policy 6.5, which says that the County shall establish a land acquisition advisory committee. Director Keating suggested that Policy 6.5 be reworded to say that "staff shall make recommendations semi-annually to the Board of County Commissioners." Nancy Offutt agreed that these committees should be '_ appointed as needed, especially this committee. However, they question why a land acquisition committee is under the Conservation Element instead of the Capital Improvements Element. 16 - M M - M M They feel that acquisition of lands should be considered in the context of all the elements and not strictly under conservation. They would also suggest that land acquisition should not be one of the first remedies to consider, which seems to be the trend throughout the plan. They are concerned about that. Commissioner Bowman hoped that somewhere in this element is the suggestion that we find a funding source for conservation acquisitions. We need some funding source so that we can start a fund and keep building it so that the money is available when the opportunity arises. She suggested a tax on documentary stamps, but Attorney Vitunac advised that at the moment it is not legal for a county to do that. Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, pointed out that the sub -sections under Policy 6.5 bring. out the very same questions that the Board is raising as far as a guide being developed to address and analyze the situation before going to acquisition. Commissioner Eggert's problem was establishing committees that are not needed at the time, and Chairman Wheeler felt everyone understands what we need to do on committees. Coastal Management Element No comments. Recreation and Open Space_Element Commissioner Bowman didn't feel we have enough passive parks and felt that is something we will have to talk about when this element comes up on Wednesday or Thursday. Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that they are incorporating some passive areas in the new South County Regional Park off of Oslo Road and are getting some input from the environmental planners as to what areas to protect in our parks. AUG o", 1 M9 17 11 �j �y HFIr j7 ��'uCV�I PF_ AUG 211969 �ucr 77 Commissioner Bowman emphasized that we better protect some of our pine flat woods because it is going to be gone pretty soon. It is already extinct in Dade County. Economic_ Development Element No comments. Capital Improvements Element Commissioner Scurlock understood that this draft has not been updated as yet to reflect everything that was discussed at the Finance Advisory Committee, and felt those comments would be incorporated into the text. There weren't any significant problems with the overall objectives. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that under Expenditures on Table 13.18 shown on page 44, it should be "Libraries, Main & Branch". Intergovernmental Coordination Element Commissioner Eggert noted that Policy 1.2 on page 39 mentions the Tri -County Council, but it is the Quad -County Council now since they added Okeechobee County. Chairman Wheeler asked if there was anyone in attendance who would like to speak on any item we haven't touched on. Cliff Reuter, 570 Camelia Lane, wished to comment because he wouldn't be able to attend the public hearings on Wednesday and Thursday. He was pleased at the direction we are taking on this in keeping the plan a little flexible and not mandating all the various things that were first included. He agreed with eliminating some of the committees and commissions. Mike Keifer mentioned that he attended a workshop last week in Orlando regarding water speed zones and manatee protection areas, but didn't know whether the County was represented. 18 Commissioner Bowman advised that she did not attend that particular workshop, but they did have a representative in Tallahassee a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Keifer pointed out that there are some items in the management plan that the Governor and Cabinet are going to hear on Sept. 14th that he was particularly concerned about, especially some policies on having one boat slip or one parking space at boat ramps for every hundred linear feet of shoreline. He felt that could put a real damper on the extension of your boat ramps and any future boat ramps, because those policies would be in place until the county develops marina siting criteria and manatee protection plans. Unfortunately, the State has not given us the tools or the guidelines to do that yet. Attorney Vitunac introduced Warren Dill, an attorney he had worked with in Palm Beach County, and explained that Attorney Dill was responsible for writing the first traffic impact fee ordinance in the state. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 8:10 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk AUG 2 11989 19 Chairman