Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/1989Tuesday, August 23, 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 Wednesday, August 23, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.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; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Wheeler announced that the Special Meeting is called for the purpose of considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that is to be approved for submittal to the DCA for their review. The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: AUG 23 1989 BOOK f ��r' fa L J AUG 2 3 1989 Booz �7 L727 VERO BEACH PRESS-JOUkNAL Published Daily Vora Beach, Indian River Cotinty, 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 Bearh in Indian River County, Florida; thal,the attached copy of advertisement, being a Notice of GHange of Land ttco In the matter of Indian Rimerramt+ntys _ In the _ _. .. _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the Issues of Monday: August, 1 9 , 19 89 Vero Beach Press Journal Allianl further says that the said Vero Reach Press-Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper hes 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 Beach. In said Indian River Coun• ty, Florida. for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid not promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication In the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me this _ .__ _ y of i ' (Business a ag ^ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Fforida) (SEAL) K-o" "it, &Cft W t$uMa '�/R1'ttt�stos � Jree'Jp, tiCi7 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY It NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE A 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 believed a lot of questions were addressed and answered at Monday night's meeting. He informed those present that this is a review of the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan, and staff has submitted revisions to the Goals, Objective and Policies on the blue sheets and revisions to the text on the white sheet. He announced that he will go through the Comprehensive Plan element by element and read each goal and objective in the order indexed. If there are any comments or questions regarding any objective or policy, we will discuss them on an as -needed basis. Chairman Wheeler then proceeded to read aloud the goals and objectives of each element, as follows: FUTURE LAND USE Goal Land development in Indian River County will occur in an orderly and controlled manner which ensures balanced growth that maxi- mizes the potential for economic development, provides for the efficient use of facilities and services and ensures the protection of the county's rich and varied environmental resources. OBJECTIVE I COMPACT, LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT Indian River County will have an efficient and compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl, while maintaining the overall low density character of the county, and ensuring adequate land for utility facilities necessary to support development. Nancy Offutt came before the Board speaking on behalf of the Board of Realtors and expressed concern about Policy 1.23 and Policy 1.24 in this element, which are now proposed as follows: POLICY 1.23: Nodes with less than 70% of the land area (less riga-it's-of-way) developed or approved for development shall not be approved for expansion unless the node area is reduced an amount comparable to the expansion. Prior to expanding such a node, the County Commission shall adjust node boundaries so that the change does not result in the creation of additional node acreage. POLICY 1.24: Commercial and industrial land use designations a`pprovea—Tn—response to a land use plan map amendment request by an applicant shall revert to their former designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners. AUG 2 3 1989 3 �,� � 2 199 Boos `7AUG Pt,�� 72 Mrs. Offutt advised that these policies were referred to at the Planning S Zoning Commission meetings as the "Use or Lose It" philosophy whereby if you expand a node a certain amount, someone loses the same amount of acreage in that node, or if you don't use your property within 2 years, it reverts to its previous zoning. Discussion ensued as to just how this works, and the example was brought up of Shopco going through the DRI process. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if someone assembles a very large tract and is going to do a DRI, which very likely will take a minimum of 2 years and very likely has different zonings within that property, what assurances they would have as they go through the whole process that they will not be led down the primrose path and that when they finally get to the end of the process, they will be able to build what their development plan intended. Director Keating felt that is covered in Policy 1.24 by the wording "unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners." Commissioner Scurlock did not mind taking a conservative stance, but just wanted to be sure we are consistent so everyone knows the game plan. Commissioner Bird felt Mrs. Offutt makes a good point regarding the "Use or Lose It" situation. He felt nodes should be large enough to accommodate future needs. If we have too little in the node, it drives the price of that land out of sight, and if someone wants to expand a node, and the county wanted to take his part away to make up for that increase, he personally would go to court about it. He believed that the applicant must make a convincing argument to have the node expanded to include his property, but did not feel we should take someone else's away. Community Development Director Keating advised that we have done a commercial land use analysis, which shows that we have substantially more than is needed; so, he did not believe we have 4 any problem with not having enough. He felt the big issue is to set the standards by which you make a decision as to when you are going to expand a node, and the decision should be made now as to what that criteria will be so that we can be consistent. Commissioner Bird continued to stress that the burden should be on the applicant who wants the node expanded and we should not take someone else's away. Chairman Wheeler agreed partially, but pointed out that there is a lot of land speculation involved in nodes and he did not think it should be locked in the way it was in the past. There are those who buy the property and just sit on it, and he did not feel we should continue just to protect a speculator. Attorney Michael O'Haire made the point that just looking at the SR60/1-95 Node, there must be 400/600 owners out there, and are they going to have to come in to protect themselves from loosing what they have got every time a node is expanded. Secondly, he asked what is wrong with investing in real estate. Chairman Wheeler felt it is fine if you want to take the risks, and he did not feel what is proposed is as flexible as Attorney O'Haire is making it appear. Commissioner Bird asked how you choose who loses, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the question is who runs the show. The marketplace should not run the whole show. We should create nodes that are of sufficient size to allow some competition, but design them based on the services available, roads, utilities, etc. We should identify those nodes, and he believed that we have done that based on services and impact on the surrounding areas. Commissioner Eggert did not have a problem with Policy 1.24 regarding reverting of the zoning, but did have a problem with setting special criteria for identifying what piece of property comes off a node when another one goes on. Question arose about not considering expansion unless a node is 70o utilized, and Director Keating clarified that if it is 70% AUG23 1 �ooK 77 �►,.,�. 730 AUG 2 31989 BOOK .7 7 7:3 1 used, nothing has to be removed when you add, but if you are going to add to the node when the 70o isn't met, then something would have to be removed. In discussion it was noted that the criteria we have had has been working so far, and Mrs. Offutt asked if she could suggest that the Board leave the system the way it is. Commissioner Bird suggested the possibility of coming up with a percentage that works the other way, i.e., until a node is Xo developed, it is very unlikely we will allow expansion. Mrs. Offutt felt by setting these percentages and adopting them in the Plan, the Board is preempting the normal workshop process that is usually followed to develop such things. She suggested that the Board not be that specific in setting these percentages now, but do that through an ordinance rather than have it in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scurlock believed that if the Board does not do enough here, the Plan won't be accepted by the state. In further discussion, Commissioner Eggert commented that her understanding is that if you go out specifically to rezone for a special purpose, for instance, residential to commercial, and then you do nothing for 2 years, the zoning will revert, but something that is just sitting there now in that node that is commercial, can just sit there and nothing will happen to it. Commissioner Scurlock felt for good planning, the nodes should be designed in some specific shape, rectangles, squares, etc., and that is it. Commissioner Bird stated that he would suggest removing Policy 1.23 unless we can find a satisfactory way to modify it. Several suggestions were made, and Planner Sasan Rohani referred the Board to Policy 1.23 as set out on the earlier white page, which simply reads: "No Node should be considered for expansion unless 700 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development." 6 Doug Kindler, attorney from the law firm of Owens 8 Storch, in Daytona Beach, came before the Board representing the WW Ranch, which consists of approximately 8,000 acres west of Sebastian and has a triangular section that is commercial. He contended that the 70% figure sounds arbitrary and wished to know how it was decided upon - why is it not 68.50; why is it not 750? Director Keating commented that he would agree that whether it is between 68.5% and 70% might be arbitrary, but the general reason for 70% was to answer when is the area beginning to be used up and needs to be expanded so the normal market forces can prevail. We needed a number; it was felt that number was somewhere between 50% and 100%, and 70% was picked. Staff cannot stake their reputation on the exact number. Attorney Kindler brought up a hypothetical example of someone having a signed agreement stating that they have an industry up north that is going to move down here with 1,000 employees, and they need to begin the first phase of the project within that commercial node. He felt it is only reasonable that there be a way to come in front of the Board and not have to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process to change the node around. Commissioner Eggert felt the statement "or otherwise war- ranted by the proposed development," which is contained in the policy we are considering going back to, would take care of Mr. Kindler's problem. Attorney Kindler agreed, but believed that presents the question of what is the burden of proof that is required. He felt this is the time to state the criteria for that "difficult burden of proof," and noted that is why courts have different standards of "strict scrutiny, reasonableness, etc." Commissioner Bird did not know that we can develop that criteria here today, but felt at some time it should be more definitive. AUG 2 3 1989 7 boar 77 tri L- AUG 23 `989 BOOK 77 FAi'jE r�c� County Attorney Vitunac advised that the County Commission always uses the preponderance of evidence. We don't use "strict scrutiny." That is a criminal law concept. Attorney Kindler again wished to know exactly what the county means by difficult burden of proof, and Attorney Vitunac believed it means the burden of going forward is on the applicant, not the county. Peter Robinson, local builder and developer, believed what is happening is that in many of these designated node areas, someone in that area likes growing citrus and doesn't allow his property to be developed; then the County's plan is held hostage to his wishes. He believed that a lot of people you don't see here today are those who don't care what you do because that is how they intend to continue to use their land, and he contended that by creating these nodes, the County has created monopolies. Commissioner Bird noted that if he were trying to get the node expanded, he would present that information and use it as part of his argument. Commissioner Scurlock believed we had quite a problem with "blob" nodes and went ahead and set more definitive lines so people could identify their property. Mr. Robinson continued his argument about people sitting on their property in nodes and not using it. Chairman Wheeler commented that if someone is not using their property for the node's designated purpose, he did not have a problem with downzoning that property back to agricultural use, etc., but he thought the Plan gives us leverage to look at cir- cumstances and adjust it. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to go with Policy 1.23 as set out on the white sheet, which reads: "No Node should be considered for expansion unless 700 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development." 8 OBJECTIVE 2 URBAN SERVICE AREAS All future development including residential densities greater than 2 units/acre, commercial and industrial development will occur in Urban Service Areas which contain the infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development. Mrs. Offutt wished to know if the county's interpretation of "containing the infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development" is saying this must be in place or planned for and bonded and capable of being met within the next 5 years. Director Keating advised that criteria is specified within the Capital Improvements Element in the concurrency management plan section, and it is based heavily on DCA rules. It is quite complicated and there are different criteria for different improvements. Commissioner Eggert asked if any of that criteria says it has to be in place physically, and Director Keating confirmed that some does. Commissioner Scurlock believed the real problem is in transportation, not water and sewer. Mrs. Offutt felt there should be reference made to the DCA criteria used, and Director Keating advised that we do have a cross reference to the concurrency management plan in the Capital Improvements Element set out in Objective 3 LEVELS OF SERVICE, Policy 3.2. Commissioner Bird believed Objective 2 is a pretty strong statement regarding urban service areas. He asked if, for instance, a developer wants to develop an industrial complex in the 1-95/512 Node prior to us putting in a county system to service it, can he provide his own package system. Director Keating confirmed that he can. This doesn't specifically say the county has to provide this. AUG 23 1989 9 moK L Ll AUG 2 3 1989 BOOK OBJECTIVE 3 LEVELS OF SERVICE All future development will be consistent with the levels of service established in this plan for public services and infra- structure. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 EFFICIENT MIX OF USES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMAND Indian River County will provide for the location of employment, commercial and other activity centers near residential areas to reduce the number and length of trips on county roadways - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 _DIVERSITY OF DEVELOPMENT Indian River County will provide for a mix of land uses which permit and encourage a variety of development patterns and densities to accommodate a diversity of lifestyles. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION Indian River County will ensure that adequate land will be set aside for agricultural production and protected from encroachment by other uses. Mrs. Offutt noted that she can certainly agree that agriculture and citrus are stalwarts of our economy. However, what is "adequate" land for that purpose, who determines what it is, and how does the County decide this is an industry we will protect? Commissioner Eggert believed it always has been the county's policy to protect the agricultural lands that were there. Mrs. Offutt could understand protection, but questioned how you say you will "ensure that adequate land will be set aside for agricultural production....." Director Keating noted that if you look at the policies and the map, you will see that the primary concern is to protect the agriculturally designated land on the map, all of which is located west of 1-95. Commissioner Bird noted that actually thousands of acres of the most productive groves in this county are still east of 1-95, and Director Keating advised that is where you get the trade-off; 10 9& we are encouraging "in -fill" development east of 1-95 and mainly protecting the agricultural to the west of 1-95. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if you assigned a higher density to all agricultural lands, you wouldn't have enough services in the county to accommodate it all. Jeannette Lier, 1 Michael Drive, Orchid Island, also ques- tioned the statement that the county "will ensure that adequate land will be set aside for agricultural production....." Commissioner Eggert pointed out that on the new blue sheet OBJECTIVE 6 has been changed to read: Indian River County will ensure that adequate land will be designated for agricultural uses and protected from encroachment by otfier uses. Mrs. Offutt commented that maybe this objective is to pro- tect agriculture, but it is also locking them in, and she did not know that they really want that kind of help. She referred to POLICY 6.2 which mentions incentives, including public purchase or transfer of development rights, and stated that she did not understand what is meant by "public purchase." She wished to remind the Board that public purchase takes this property off the tax rolls. Commissioner Bird did not understand why "public purchase" is in there either as he did not understand how that would work on agriculture, and Director Keating explained that it probably won't be used. It was just identified as one mechanism that could be used. Most likely transfer of development rights would be used, if even that is used. Discussion ensued regarding transfer of development rights, and Commissioner Scurlock asked how we are addressing that in this plan. Director Keating explained that we said we will get into more detail when we do the development regulations and the exact ordinance. We are setting the general policy in this plan. AUG 3 BOOK, it fFd,.:l. j•�d' AUG 2 3 1999 BOOK .77 FADE 73 l Commissioner Bird referred to POLICY 6.1 and wished to know if by "agriculturally designated lands," staff means just those west of 1-95, and Director Keating explained that it still is fully the intent to have agricultural zoning east of 1-95, and this will not have any affect on that, but on the latest map the agriculturally designated lands are all west of 1-95. Commissioner Bird stressed that he still wants there to be the potential ability to develop some of that agriculturally designated land without being in conflict with the plan. Director Keating stated that right now, you would be in conflict with the plan except for the 1-95/512 Node. The plan is based heavily on the urban service area concept, and if at sometime in the future you want to expand your urban service areas, then you can change the land use designation. Pat Corrigan, ranch owner, wished to speak regarding Objective 6. As he understands it, the policies under that objective will determine what happens to agricultural land, and he felt that statement is scary. His family owns a lot of agricultural land and they want to stay in it, but would like to have the right to do something else with it at some future time when the population move would necessitate it. They don't want to be zoned agricultural forever and would like to be able to determine the use of their property as much as possible. This is the United States where people are supposed to control their own property, and Mr. Corrigan felt POLICY 6.1 is sort of discriminating against agricultural property. Commissioner Bird noted that the big problem is balancing out how to protect agricultural land from encroachment but allow it to be changed sometime in the future. Director Keating believed we have a Plan that has an open time horizon, and it is urban service area driven. The Board must now make the decision as to whether we want compact urban development, but there is nothing that says 5 years or so down the road it can't be changed. 12 M s Mr. Corrigan asked if this is a county decision or state mandate, and Director Keating advised that we relied on the state plan which is heavily into eliminating urban sprawl. Commissioner Scurlock believed that the Plan is saying that for the short term, the county is taking the position of not developing the agriculturally designated lands into residential uses and are concentrating all our services pretty much to the east, and that change can occur when we have the ability to expand our services to the west. Mr. Corrigan agreed with that concept, and noted that he just wished to express their concern. Warren Dill, local attorney, 70 Royal Palm Blvd., stated that he is in favor of protecting agricultural land, but realizes it is a tough balance to represent the concerns of all the citizens yet take into account the property rights of the indi- vidual land owners. It has been mentioned that two ways to solve these problems would be possibly by TDRs and by government acqui- sition, but he believed TDRs are highly impractical when you are dealing with the quantity of acreage that you have out there and advised that in Virginia a TDR ordinance has been declared unconstitutional. He believed in the Comp Plan, the County could consider some type of zoning for large lot areas - not rezone it, but just recognize that times change and circumstances change so that at some time some development might occur there and that large lot rezoning might be appropriate. Director Keating pointed out that we already have density provisions in the Agricultural area at 1 unit per 10 acres. County Attorney Vitunac commented re the purchase aspect that one of the purchasing methods is for the government to purchase the development rights and keep it in agriculture. You don't have to purchase the entire land. Commissioner Scurlock believed in the future you will see additional needs in Utilities for effluent disposal, and possibly in the agricultural lands this can be used for irrigation AUG 2 3 13 BOOK I,7 f'AGc 3 AUG 2 0 1989 B00K � fat 739 purposes. This could be one vehicle for allowing someone continuing in the agricultural business to get some beneficial use of their land without having to have it converted to residential, commercial, etc. Mrs. Offutt wished to point out that a property owner who applies for redesignation of agriculture to something else loses his "Greenbelt" exemption just by asking for it. Commissioner Bowman stated that it bothers her to see the agricultural land converted because Indian River County is known to be some of the best in the world. Commissioner Bird believed the record will show that agri- cultural lands in the county are on the increase and that we have more in production now then we did some years ago. OBJECTIVE 7 PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES Indian River County will have a land use pattern which comple- ments the natural features of the land including soils and topography, and ensures the protection of natural features, resources and systems. Jeannette Lier referred to Policy 7.3. She noted that when the U.S. Department of Interior was trying to decide if North Orchid Island was developed or undeveloped, they considered citrus as development, and she wanted to know if in the county policy, citrus is considered development. Director Keating stated that it is not and felt that is a good point. Mrs. Offutt had questions about the environmental survey that is required under POLICY 7.3 - what is required in that survey, the cost associated with it, and whether once it is done, the county will maintain that survey for use by others. Director Keating confirmed that it will be maintained and will be on the record and available to the public just like traffic impact analyses. 14 M s Mrs. Offutt noted that we talk about environmentally "sensitive" and now are are talking about environmentally "important." She wished to know the difference. Director Keating advised that something can be important but not sensitive, and Planner Sasan Rohani believed sensitive refers to the wetland and important refers to the upland. Director Keating clarified that we had designated as environmentally sensitive not only all the wetlands area, but also some upland areas, such as sand pine habitat, and the problem we ran into is that our ES policy recommendations are very strict in relation to wetland areas, and we needed to differentiate that for some of the upland areas that may be perfect for development but are environmentally important because a certain amount of them should be saved. That is why changed it so environmentally important is the more encompassing, and it includes not only wetlands but certain upland areas. out. Commissioner Eggert felt there should be a definition set Commissioner Bird asked about any size criteria incorporated in this, and Mrs. Offutt noted that POLICY 7.3 sets out that any development activity beyond single-family home construction shall require an environmental survey. Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois advised that within the Conservation Element, environmentally important is referred to under the policies with reference to upland sensitive commun- ities. Environmentally sensitive is under the wetlands section. The reason for the distinction between the two is the recognition that the restrictions which would normally apply to environmentally sensitive are more restrictive in development, and it did not seem reasonable to apply them to uplands as well as wetlands. In discussion, Commissioners Bowman and Eggert felt it should say sensitive/important, and that was generally agreed. AUG 2 1989 ' S BOOK �' c 74' AUG 2 0 BOOP( 17 FAGS. 741 Mrs. Offutt argued that by coming up with a new designation of sensitive/important, you are overlaying more restrictive development criteria on top of something that did not have it in the past. She asked if that Is correct. Planner DeBlois stated that actually the intent was not more restrictive but to allow more flexibility and incentives for protection, such as cluster development and density transfer, which now for the most part only applies to wetlands. This would allow for density transfers on upland areas deemed environmentally important/sensitive. Mrs. Offutt continued to argue that you are adding another new designation of important above sensitive. Planner DeBlois noted there is a section in the Conservation Element that does call for a percentage of protection of significant upland communities on the larger tracts, but it states that this would only apply provided it would not render a site unbuildable or overly restricted.. Director Keating emphasized that the Board today has to decide what their objective is, and is it to save some of the scrub area without precluding all development rights on it and is it to save wetlands area. The big change between sensitive and important is that environmentally sensitive sets strict density limits of 1 unit for 5 acres and staff does not feel that is needed on environmentally important areas, but that a survey does need to be done. Mrs. Lier wished to know if that 5 acre figure applies to agricultural and citrus. She noted that you can't have cluster development and transfer of density when you are planting a citrus grove. Planner DeBlois believed it is more directed at scrub communities and coastal tropical hammocks, but it does not distinguish from agricultural. Director Keating confirmed that it does apply to agricul- tural lands, and he believed Mrs. Lier is saying she may have 16 some coastal tropical hammocks that may be taken out to put in citrus groves, and other people may be on the sand ridge where there are scrub communities they may want to take out. The Board agreed there seems to be some conflict in this policy with regard to agriculture. Planner DeBlois felt the wording in Policy 6.12 in the Conservation Element does provide flexibility where it says "unless such set aside areas would not be feasible given site specific characteristics." Commissioner Bird wished to know what kind of cost is involved in an environmental survey, and Planner DeBlois advised that it would be mostly an identification of vegetation in conjunction with staff and he did not believe it is much beyond what is presently required. Commissioner Bird asked if these areas will be actually designated on a map and property owners involved will have an opportunity to contend whether they should or should not be included in that designation. Planner DeBlois advised that eventually we are hoping to have such an inventory on file, and Director Keating noted that we have very general maps of the environmentally important areas in the Conservation Element. Mrs. Offutt asked about a threshhold for requiring the survey and wished to know once you have the survey what you are restricted from doing to the environmentally important species you find there.. Director Keating answered that POLICY 6.12 in the Conser- vation Element identifies a 25% set-aside, and there are certain incentive ordinances that will be developed. In regard to the threshhold, he believed it is now 5 acres and felt that is a reasonable amount. Mrs. Offutt asked if Policy 7.3 could include a statement excluding anything below 5 acres. ,AUG 2 3 1989 17 Fca L_ AUS �9�9 Boa 77 Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Policy 7.3 in the new blue sheet refers to "environmentally important as defined in policies 5.4 and 6.11 of the Conservation Element," and Director Keating confirmed that staff tried to eliminate too much dupli- cation by cross referencing. Mrs. Offutt again wished to stress that it is important to keep the cost factor of providing all this information in mind. Carol Johnson, representing Citizens for Progressive Action, applauded staff for putting in the references to Policies 5.4 and 6.11, and also urged that we do not consider "sensitive" and "important" as interchangeable. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that is why we have decided we are going to "sensitive/ important." Mrs. Johnson felt that is fine; that it will give you more flexibility and will give more control of a larger area, but the control she felt will be more flexible rather than having it all encompassing under sensitive. Director Keating confirmed that it is much less stringent. OBJECTIVE 8 PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Indian River County will provide for the preservation and protection of historic and archaeologically significant sites, and structures. Commissioner Bird referred to POLICY 8.1, noting that we have the Historical Society, and he did not see why we have to have an Historical Commission also. It was explained that staff has submitted a new white page dated 8/22/89 with POLICY 8.1 to be as follows: POLICY 8.1 A committee on Historic Resources shall be appointed as necessary to provide guidance and advise the Board of County Commissioners on matters concerning historic and archaeological preservation. Committee members should represent a broad base of county interests and have interest in and knowledge of historic matters. 18 M s Mrs. Offutt suggested that POLICY 8.2 should state that the County "will consider" adopting a Historic Preservation Ordinance by 1992 rather than state that it will adopt such an ordinance. Commissioner Bowman believed that our present policy is not working as evidenced by the fact that fossils were found on the Oslo commercial center site and no one blew the whistle to try to stop the contractor and protect them. ft was agreed that there would be no change in the new white page submitted by staff dated 8/22/89. OBJECTIVE 9 PROMOTE AESTHETIC DEVELOPMENT Indian River County will continue to enhance the aesthetic quality of the community through land development regulations that include landscape design requirements, regulate the usage of signs, provide for traffic and parking control and incorporate the use of natural buffers. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 NON -CONFORMING USES AND BLIGHTED AREAS Indian River County will reduce the number of uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map and will provide for the redevelopment of blighted areas. Michael Keifer, 1943 Charlotte Avenue, noted that POLICY 10.5 refers to the automatic or proposed zoning for the Land Use changes, and he believed it was indicated at Monday night's meeting that the only changes that would be made would be from high density to lower density uses, but he did not see where it says that. Commissioner Eggert explained that you conform to Land Use designation if your zoning is less; you just don't conform, if it is more, i.e., Agricultural zoning still conforms to a Land Use designation of 6 upa. Mr. Keifer stated that he was ignorant of the process of rezoning and asked if the Board would go back and automatically rezone properties if the Land Use change has been made. Commissioner Eggert advised that would occur only if the zoning density is too high for the designation. 19 W-$ M 41 AUG 2 3 1989 AUG 2 3 `���� BOOK 77 PA.GE74tt Mr. Keifer had another question about notice to property owners and also about the map in the advertised notice, which he pointed out was simply a map of the entire county. Attorney Vitunac agreed he did not know how helpful a map of the whole county was, but what they were saying was that there are substantial changes to everything and you need to be aware of what is going on. Director Keating advised that we have complied with the state mandated requirements for public notice, and the state recognizes that we cannot send notices to 80,000 people in the county with return receipts requested. Mr. Keifer believed that other counties have been putting notices of Land Use changes in the newspaper,'and Commissioner Eggert noted that we can do that before the final adoption in February, if desired. OBJECTIVE 11 COORDINATED PLANNING Indian River County will coordinate with the resource planning and management activities of the state and ensure that all future development will be consistent with approved management plans including the Hutchinson Island Management Plan. Commissioner Bird inquired about the "hurricane vul'nerabil- ity zone," and did not recall seeing that on a map. Director Keating advised that it is in the Coastal Zone Element. He further explained that we have two different areas - one where we talk about a coastal high hazard area, which is primarily just seaward of the coastal construction line. The hurricane vulnerability zone encompasses a lot more area. Chairman Wheeler wished to know how you define "intense development," and Director Keating commented that is one of the "weasel" words they put in. We do not have a specific definition for it. Basically the low density residential districts are not considered intense, and what is shown on the map now for those areas is considered non -intense. Page 43.1 of the Coastal 941 s Management Element has a map of the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone, and Director Keating explained that is for a Category 3 hurri- cane; so, the area would be somewhat less for a Category 1 storm. Commissioner Eggert believed that, relative to development statewide, nothing in this county would be considered intense development, and Director Keating noted that we are just trying to set a policy that is adequate in this regard. Mrs. Johnson referred to Policies 11.1 and 11.2 which cite a Category 1 hurricane and believed that at the P&Z level there was discussion about changing this to Category 3. Staff confirmed that it has been changed to Category 3. Mrs. Offutt referred to POLICY 11.4 and asked what is meant by "hurricane evacuation facilities" - a road or a bridge or a building? Director Keating felt probably a building; he believed we are talking shelter facilities. Mrs. Offutt questioned the use of impact fees at all for that type of thing and also wished to know how you assess the impact of new development on emergency evacuation. She felt it certainly would not be based on L.O.S. standards. Director Keating stated that it would be comparable because you have to determine the capacity of the roadway to accommodate traffic. You are not looking at typical L.O.S. standards re "C" and "D," but at the maximum number of cars that can go in one direction, plus some other factors. This is referenced more in the Coastal Zone Element under the evacuation section as to exactly what is involved. Mrs. Offutt asked if the language could be changed so that it doesn't sound like we are providing new structures, but can use existing structures. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this says what is going to happen if we run out of existing structures. Commissioner Bird referred back to POLICY 11.2 which says 21 `� t 4' G AUG 2 �oorc l F�,, AUG 2 3 1989 BooK 77 P,,IjE 747 the County shall maintain or reduce densities within the hurri- cane vulnerability zone through such means as transfer of development rights and public acquisition of property. He noted that to him -this says zero development. Commissioner Eggert felt it only says "if necessary," and Director Keating agreed that "if necessary" is what is implied. Chairman Wheeler believed we don't have to do anything unless we want to increase the densities. OBJECTIVE 12 LOCAL PLANNING Indian River County will coordinate land use planning activities, the provision of facilities and services, and the funding and implementation of programs with other local governments and regional agencies. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 13 PLAN AMENDMENT AND REVIEW Indian River County will provide a mechanism for the review and amendment of the land use element and the other components of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Eggert had a question regarding the wording of the second sentence in POLICY 13.1, and it was clarified that applications for amendment may be submitted by the owner, by the Planning staff, or by the Board of County Commissioners. OBJECTIVE 14 PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Indian River County will ensure that land use regulatory activity will be consistent with the protection of private property rights. Attorney Doug Kindler referred to the conservation area designated in the middle of the following map located on Page 103.3 and wished to know if that area is all state or county owned property or does it go into some private property: 22 LAND l CONSERI AGRICUL RURAL -1 RURAL -9 LOW -1 Low -2 MEDIUM RECREA PUBLIC Director Keating stated that, in the western part of the county, that is all state owned. Attorney Kindler advised that in the WW Ranch, they have hundreds of acres designated conservation and asked if the county has plans for any compensation for those hundreds of acres. Director Keating believed a lot of those properties are under consideration for acquisition under either the CARL Program or by the U. S. Fish 6 Wildlife Commission for manatee protection. Attorney Kindler pointed out that the CARL Plan can take many years, and a majority of the lands designated on that plan are not purchased by the state. He wished to know if the county has any plans to purchase those lands because he -felt that the CARL Plan is simply a wish list of 60 properties that the state would like to purchase if the funds are available. Director Keating believed that this has been ranked very highly in the latest round, and we are proposing those be 23 BOOK ( /� r'4ur. i AUG 2 0 '689 BOOK 17 P, _{.�rE 49 designated as areas the county will look at to work with the state and feds for acquisition. Attorney Kindler wished to make a formal objection to the conservation designation on any of the privately owned properties of the WW Ranch because at this time there are no concrete plans for the purchase of the property, and it will deprive the owners of reasonable use of that property. Commissioner Bird believed the main reason for the proposed purchase is for protection of manatees, and how far out of the water do you have to go for that, but Planner DeBlois believed they are also coordinating with the Fish & Game Commission which has identified the western bank as a significant mosaic of different valuable communities. Planner Loeper pointed out that under the existing Land Use Map, that portion would have a density of 1 unit per 5 acres, and on this plan, it is actually 1 unit per acre in the conservation designation east of 1-95; so, in a sense, that area has increased in density. Warren Dill informed the Board that he and his wife own some property off of Roseland Road that has been proposed as conserva- tion area. He did not know if that creates a problem for them. He noted that most of the property west of Roseland and east of the river is already developed in that area. Those lots are 700/ 800' deep, and the conservation designation goes all the way back to Roseland Road, which seems a little bit far. Commissioner Bird believed that the CARL Program is concen- trating on large tracts and willing sellers. Mr. Dill believed that the CARL Program is only on the west side of the branch of the Sebastian River, and he just wanted to know what the development regulations will be. Director Keating advised those have not been formulated yet, and our current regulations apply right now. Mr. Dill stated that his only concern is that the conservation zoning goes all the way back to Roseland Road 800' 24 from the river, and it is not exactly a conservation area right off the road. Director Keating believed one reason is that is part of the aquatic preserve, and the objective is not to have intense development in that area and also to have an even tighter control over storm waters than we do on other properties. He believed those concerns will be the basis of regulations for developing in that area. ****** END OF REVIEW OF LAND USE ELEMENT ****** Director Keating asked if the Board wished to consider any changes of the Land Use Map, i.e., the ones requested by five property owners on Monday night, as follows: REQUESTED CHANGES TO LAND USE MAP REQUEST PROPERTY LOCATION 1r DESCRIPTION SIZE EXISTING PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF RECOMMENDATION • LAND USE LAND USE LAND JSE r Schlitt/Ed 12th ST(south) bet 58th 6 66th Av 64.7 RR -I (.4) R-2 (1) 2 units/A Maintain R-2 (1/acre) as proposed. Density 26 units 64 units 129 units increased to permit reasonable development Within flood prone area. 8th ST(south) bet 66th 6 72nd Av 117.6 AS (.2) L-1 (3) L-1 (3) Maintain as proposed. (L-1 and R-2) 24 units R-2 (1) Portion increased to L-1 (3/acre). 196 units 352 units Remainder within flood prone area. Gaidry let 1st,b 4th Sts and 304 AS (.2) L-1 (3) L-2 (6) Maintain as proposed. 1L-11 74th 6 82nd Av 60 units 912 units 1824 units Density increased 3 units/acre. Provides step down density. Ample supply o- • land for higher densities. Caldwell 26th St(north) bet 66th 5 74th Av 20 RR -1 (.4) L-1 (3) L-2 (6) Extend L-2 west to 74th Ave, 1/4 mile north • 8 units 60 units 120 units of 26th St. Property to south developed at 6 units/acre. Provide additional transitio Knight 30th St (north) 3.8 LO -1 (3) L -I (3) L-2 (6) Maintain as proposed. IL-11 11 units 11 units 22 units Development to north and east confor2ing RS -3 subs. Higher density to west, buffere from this area. Staff opposed to increase unless it includes larger area. AUG 2 3 1989 25 AUG 2 8 1989 p''' ,7 eoo� l � Questions arose as to whether the Board should wait to address these until the owners are present, and Director Keating advised that they were all notified of this meeting. He believed they feel they are already on record and have stated their case. Commissioner Bird believed they are relying on the Board to make a decision about what they presented. Board members asked if Director Keating had any recommen- dations, and his only comment was that in reference to the question raised about the Schlitt 64 acre parcel where the drainage is a major problem, he would suggest keeping it the way it is now. He pointed out that we can make a final decision on this one in February, and we can pursue the drainage aspect more closely until that time. Commissioner Bird wished to be assured that we can still amend the map in February. This was confirmed, and all members supported the Planning Director's suggestion. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted the staff's recommendations on the requested changes to the Land Use Map as presented Monday night as listed subject to the review, if necessary, before the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in February, 1990. The Chairman recessed the meeting at 11:30 o'clock A.M. for lunch, and the Board reconvened at 1:00 o'clock P.M. with all members present except Commissioner Bowman. Chairman Wheeler resumed his review of the goals and objec- tives of each element of the Comprehensive Plan. 26 � � r r � r SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to have an efficient system of sanitary sewer disposal to prevent degradation of existing resources, promote orderly growth within the county service area, and to meet existing and projected demands. OBJECTIVE 1 SERVICE CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT By 1991, the county will have adopted land development regulations requiring sanitary sewer service to be provided concurrent with development. OBJECTIVE 2 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES By 1995, 400 of the existing residential units and 600 of the existing non-residential units within the 1995 wastewater service area shown in Figure 3.A.9 of the sub -element will be connected to a regional sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Bird referred back to OBJECTIVE 1 and wanted an explanation as to the year 1991 and also how this relates to existing subdivisions presently on septic tanks. Director Keating explained that there is a difference between objectives and policies. Objectives are what you are trying to get to; policies are what you have to enforce. The first objective is just to have regulations in place, and they will be based on the connection matrix. We will work closely with Utilities on that. Basically what this objective says is that those will be incorporated within ordinances in that time. Discussion ensued regarding the Water & Wastewater Connection Matrix on Page 71.1, which is as follows: AUG3 1989 27 AUG 2 3 1989 ,,. BOOK 1 P'j ;L j Table 3.A.1.6 WATER 6 WASTERATER CONNECTION MATRIX FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT X = The development is required to connect as a condition for acuiring the building permit. A = Rural residential areas with a lot size of 1/2 acre or more. B = The following single family residential units and developments can obtain a permit fran Indian River County to operate on a private system with an agreement to connect to the regional system when available. Permits shall be conditioned upon demonstration of compliance with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. As a requirement, developer must construct a dry line at the time of construction. The final determination for the type of commercial establishment which can obtain a permit shall be at the discretion of the county. I Single Family Residential ° Subdivisions with less than 25 units ° Small retail establishments with less than 5,000 sq. ft. * System Availibility = When a line and lift station exist in a public easement or right-of-way and the plant has sufficient capacity. * Distance Determination = Lot or subdivision shall have accessibility through public easement or public right-of-way. ** The county has the option to allow a small industrial development to be on a septic tank or private treatment plant, if it meets all requirements, constructs dry line and agrees to connect to the county system when available. 71.1 28 OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING INSIDE OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SERVICE AREA BUT ILITIES SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE 2010 SERVICE AREA CONNECT NOT CONNECT CONNECT NOT CONNECT u:gle Family: Within 200' of sys.* Outside of 200' of sys. X X A;B A,B Subdivisions: Within i mi. of the sys. More than 25 units X X Less than 25 units X B Outside of } mi. of sys. More than 25 units X X Less than 25 units B B PRD Development Within i mi. of sys. X X Outside of ! mi. of sys. X X Commercial Establishmnt: Within } mi. of sys. Greater than 5,000 sq. X X ft. less than 5,000 sq. ft. X B Outside of } mi. of sys. Greater than 5,000 sq. X X ft. Less than 5,000 sq. ft. B 8 Industrial Establishmnt** Within } mi. of sys. X X Outside of I mi_ of sys. X X X = The development is required to connect as a condition for acuiring the building permit. A = Rural residential areas with a lot size of 1/2 acre or more. B = The following single family residential units and developments can obtain a permit fran Indian River County to operate on a private system with an agreement to connect to the regional system when available. Permits shall be conditioned upon demonstration of compliance with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. As a requirement, developer must construct a dry line at the time of construction. The final determination for the type of commercial establishment which can obtain a permit shall be at the discretion of the county. I Single Family Residential ° Subdivisions with less than 25 units ° Small retail establishments with less than 5,000 sq. ft. * System Availibility = When a line and lift station exist in a public easement or right-of-way and the plant has sufficient capacity. * Distance Determination = Lot or subdivision shall have accessibility through public easement or public right-of-way. ** The county has the option to allow a small industrial development to be on a septic tank or private treatment plant, if it meets all requirements, constructs dry line and agrees to connect to the county system when available. 71.1 28 Director Keating further clarified that when a subdivision is within a urban service area and within 1/4 mile of a system, it has to connect. If it is outside 1/4 mile and has more than 25 units, it has to connect. If it has less than 25 units, it has to put in dry lines. Commissioner Scurlock believed almost everything will be within 1/4 of a mile, and Planner Rohani noted that this will encourage in -fill. Commissioner Bird asked how long it will be before we have county sewer available where we have water available. He be- lieved most residential developments are going in along the corridors, and he wished to know how many years it will be before we have wastewater service along Kings Highway to Route 60. Commissioner Scurlock advised that it is almost available now and could happen very quickly. The water and sewer situation is very dynamic; when the main trunks are in, it is just a matter of running laterals. Commissioner Bowman entered the meeting at 1:15 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the issue of mandatory con- nection versus voluntary is a large issue. Commissioner Bird hoped by doing this, we are not precluding the possibility of the developing of some small very attractive single family subdivisions. It was noted that the Planning Department's goal is to concentrate development in areas where it is feasible. Commissioner Scurlock reviewed the present plants and areas of service and the projected plants that are to service the north county, the mid county, and another in the south county area. He pointed out that one major line opens up a large area for development and brought up the example of the Polo Club and Orchid Associates working together to obtain utilities, pre - .paying impact fees, etc. He did feel that the Utilities A "11999 29 tp_� - - BOOK. I I AUG 2 S 1999 BOOK / mu '755 Department is going to have to take a more aggressive role in determining that certain areas need to be opened up for economic opportunities. Development cannot happen without water and sewer, and we need to take the lead. Commissioner Bird continued to express concern that we don't create a situation where only very large scale residential developments will occur because they are the only ones who can afford the expensive infrastructure, and we end up losing the charm of some of the smaller subdivisions. Commissioner Scurlock believed that POLICIES 2.1 and 2.2 offer some flexibility and alleviate what Commissioner Bird is concerned about. Planner Rohani also did not believe there is need for concern. The Utilities Department is growing very fast, and also, if you have 112 acre lots, they can have a septic tank. Commissioner Bird thought it was said you couldn't go on septic tanks, but it was noted that related to a subdivision of 25 units or more. Chairman Wheeler questioned the figure of 25 units and felt it was arbitrary. He argued that instead of developing a 50 unit subdivision, they would build two subdivisions of 24 units each. Discussion ensued at length, and Commissioner Scurlock believed what Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Bird are looking for is some vehicle based on the right combination of soil characteristics and lot size that will identify whether or not a subdivision could be developed without having to hook up to a central water and sewer system. Chairman Wheeler continued to stress that he did not feel that picking a number of 25 is the answer. Planner Rohan! explained the reason for the figure of 25 is that it seems most PRDs that come in have about a 10 acre tract and based on the average of 2.5 upa, that works out to 25 units. 30 - M Commissioner Scurlock believed the point is that Planning is trying to encourage development where you have the services available. He felt the real answer is that the Utilities Department has the ability to expand service in a very rapid fashion, and if the Commission desires at any point in time to open up an area for service, that can be accomplished easily. Utilities Engineering Operations Manager Fred Merkel stated that he personally did not believe that the number of 25 is really viable. He can see requiring connection for a subdivi- sion of 10. If there is a facility available, it isn't going to be that much for the developer to tie in a 10 unit subdivision. Commissioner Bird felt there would be a considerable cost if they have to run 1/2 a mile to the trunk line, but Mr. Merkel contended that the cost is not prohibitive. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that in many areas when you have a septic tank, it could require an expenditure of $3,000 or more just for fill, and that is a cost to be considered also. Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone wished to make any changes. Commissioner Scurlock did feel that we should have enough flexibility to take advantage of some interim situations, i.e., some vehicle to allow development to start occurring that might possibly be a bit premature in the sense that we may not actually have our lines on line at the time they start their process. He gave the industrial area out on Oslo as an example. Director Keating pointed out that the county has the option to allow a small industrial development to be on a septic tank or private treatment plant if it meets all requirements, constructs dry lines, and agrees to connect to the county system when available, and a comparable footnote could be included for some other situations if the Board desires. Commissioner Scurlock did not want to open Pandora's box, but felt we should have an option where, if we feel it will be good development and we want it to occur but it is not tracking exactly, we can allow it to happen. AUG 2 3 31 nor. Alit 2 3 1989 BOOK i l F,,UL 57 Director Keating noted if staff is given that direction, they will coordinate with Mr. Merkel of Utilities and put in such a footnote. Mr. Merkel informed the Board that we already have a very small subdivision where we -are mandating they put in water and sewer, and Commissioner Scurlock gave an example of the Schlitt property where it is absolutely essential that they have public water and sewer service because of their drainage problem. OBJECTIVE 3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY By 1992, the county in coordination with the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health as part of the permitting process, will have a set of adopted requirements governing the use of septic tanks and package treatment plants to protect surface water and groundwater quality. Commissioner Scurlock commented that in relation to this you are talking about mandatory maintenance of septic tanks, and Mr. Merkel stated that he personally would strongly urge the removal of all septic tanks. OBJECTIVE 4 WATER CONSERVATION By 1995, the county will reuse a minimum of 90 of its wastewater by spray irrigation in locations approved by regulatory agencies as identified in the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS By 1995, the county will have completed improvements to the sanitary sewer facilities as outlined in Table 3.A.12 of the sanitary sewer sub -element. The county will also have completed the additional expansion to the collection network as identified in the sub -element. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM By 1992, the county will have a set of mandatory requirements for inspections, operation and maintenance of on-site wastewater 32 treatment systems, in order to maximize the use of existing county facilities and discourage urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT (SEE LATER DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS OBJECTIVE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVE 6 OF THE POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT AND RECOMMENDED CHANGE OF LANGUAGE.) OBJECTIVE 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establish a regular coordination mechan- ism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of wastewater management. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT ***** POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to -have an efficient system of potable water provision to prevent degradation of existing resources, promote orderly growth within the county service area, and to meet existing and projected demands. OBJECTIVE 1 SERVICE CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT By 1991, the county will have adopted land development regulations requiring potable water service to be provided concurrent with development. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES By 1995, 30% of the existing residential units and 50% of the existing non-residential establishments within the 1995 potable water service area shown in Figure 3.13.8 of the sub -element will be connected to a regional potable water system. Commissioner Bird asked how you determine who gets con- nected, and Director Keating explained that is an objective. The policies will take care of that. AUG 2 319 9 33 BOOK T 'r 75v AUG 2 S 1989 BOOK 1.6 PAGE 75s OBJECTIVE 3 POTABLE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY By 1992, the county as part of the permitting process, will have a set of adopted requirement governing the use of potable water and groundwater, to ensure the compliance with federal and state laws and regulation. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 WATER CONSERVATION By 1995, the county will have a program in place for reduction of water use consistent with federal, state and regional policy plan goals and regulations. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS by 1995, the county will have completed improvements to the potable water facilities as outlined in Figure 3.13.6 of the potable water sub -element. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC PLANTS AND PRIVATE WELLS By 1992, the county will have a set of mandatory requirements for inspections, operation and maintenance of on-site water treatment systems, in order to maximize the use of existing county facilities and discourage urban sprawl. Commissioner Bird asked if by on-site water treatment system we are talking about a home purification unit on a shallow well on a single family residence, and Planner Rohani stated we are not. It is a franchise plant that is providing water to a subdivison or a PRD. Commissioner Bird believed on the one hand we are saying that if you have a septic tank at your home, you have to have it inspected on some periodic basis, but if you have a shallow well at the same home and a water treatment system on the shallow well, you don't have to have it inspected. Is that right? Commissioner Scurlock felt that is because the wastewater may be polluting the water supply. Chairman Wheeler believed Commissioner Bird has an interesting point, and agreed it should be made very clear that this is talking about systems serving subdivisions, shopping plazas, etc. He did not feel that is clear. 34 Planner Rohani noted that on-site plant means franchise plants. Commissioner Bowman felt it should say franchise, and Chairman Wheeler agreed it should be clarified. Discussion continued re possible changes in wording, and Director Keating felt to make this objective better, we could take out the words "for inspections, operation and maintenance" and then by 1992, the county will have a set of mandatory requirements for on-site water treatment systems because the policies relate to some requirements as to when private on-site wells can be used. Mr. Merkel suggested saying the "county shall have a set of mandatory requirements for permitted potable water systems." Discussion ensued, and Attorney Vitunac suggested it would be better to say "water systems for which a permit is required." It was agreed that was fine. Commissioner Scurlock then referred back to the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element objective which speaks of a set of mandatory requirements for inspections, operation and maintenance of on-site wastewater treatment systems and asked how this mechanism for countywide mandatory periodic inspection of septic tanks is ever going to become a reality. Director Keating advised that staff worked with Environmen- tal Health on that, and he believed they are going to that very shortly. Commissioner Bird wondered what we will be putting people through with that requirement and whether there really is that much potential health hazard. Director Keating believed the intent was to get the per- mitting program to ensure that septic tanks will be pumped on a regular basis, and Utilities Engineering Manager Merkel confirmed that it is very important that a septic tank for a single family residence be pumped out a minimum of every 36 months to ensure that the leaching field will continue to operate properly. F�-IM=O 3 5 txOGK B/ [11"3 7 u AUG 2 3 BOCK / �/ PAGE r r� Discussion followed at considerable length regarding the problems that would be associated with requiring these inspec- tions and pump -outs, the cost to the home owner, the additional personnel that would be needed, the paperwork necessary to keep track of it all, etc., and Commissioner Bird continued to question whether all this is really necessary and if it actually does constitute that much of a threat to the public. Commissioner Scurlock further noted that our potable supply of water comes from the deep aquifer, and actually the reliable source for potable water in Indian River County is going to be deep water with reverse osmosis. Director Keating believed what happened here is that we tried to put too much in one policy because he felt what Environmental Health actually wanted was permits required from both private septic systems and package plants. He believed they want package plants to do the testing and that the on-site private permit was just to make sure that every 36 months the septic tank is pumped out, not do the testing.. Commissioner Scurlock felt the future cost of a pump out probably would be in the $300/500 range, and Commissioner Bird believed attrition will take care of a lot of these septic tanks anyway. Commissioner Bowman noted that Policy 6.5 on page 51 says the county in coordination with Environmental Health shall establish public education programs on the proper use, inspection requirements, maintenance and abandonment of private wells, and she felt that is about as far as we can go. Commissioner Eggert believed Commissioner Bowman is sug- gesting that everything be thrown out except Policy 6.5. Commissioner Bird stated that under Objective 6 re mandatory requirements for inspection of on-site wastewater treatment systems, he wanted to be sure that doesn't include individual septic tank systems. 36 - M W Some confusion ensued, and it was established that we are now talking about Page 63 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, Objective 6. Director Keating stated that we could put the same language in that Objective 6 for sewer as we did for water, and it was felt that was fine. Planner Rohani suggested that we could just say "single family homes exempted," and that was agreed on. OBJECTIVE 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establish a regular coordination mechanism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of potable water provision. - NO COMMENT. ***** END OF POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT ***** SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to have an efficient and environmentally sound solid and hazardous waste management system to prevent spread of disease, to promote orderly growth within the county, and to meet existing and projected demand for management and disposal of waste. OBJECTIVE 1 SERVICE_ CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT By 1989, the county will have and will continue to have an active segment of the landfill which will have an adequate capacity concurrent with development. Mrs. Offutt noted the county will be looking at a SWDD Reso- lution during budget hearings in which some of the categories, such as hotels, are defined as "good," "average," and "cheap," and restaurants have classification of "tiny," and "Mom & Pop." .She hoped further attention will be given to those definitions. 37 AUG � L��� ,.., BOOK IA -a T�+� BOOK 6'' AUG 23J, 09 OBJECTIVE 2 SPECIAL WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE By 1992, the county will have appropriate equipment and sufficient capacity for the management and disposal of special wastes and hazardous waste. There will be a 50% decrease in the number of cases of improperly managed and illegally disposed of hazardous waste in the county. Commissioner Scurlock thought we were regionalizing to take care of these wastes and that we were just a collection center. He noted that we do not plan to dispose of the hazardous waste within this county, and this objective says "management and disposal." After some discussion, it was suggested that it read "management and temporary storage" instead of "disposal." Director Keating pointed out that "special waste" is waste that is disposed of, and after more discussion, it was noted that the wording should be "temporary storage or disposal" depending on the type of waste. That was agreed upon. Mrs. Offutt felt the wording under Policy 2.9 makes it seem as though the county will be responsible for the collection of construction debris, etc., when actually it is private enterprise. She contended that it sounds like it is a county program of collection rather than franchising private collectors. In discussion it was noted that the county is not saying they will do it, but that it is a program. Commissioner Bird suggested that possibly "plan" would be a better word than "program." Mrs. Offutt just wanted to make it clear that collection is not a county operation, and Commissioner Eggert noted there is always the possibility that it might be in the future. After further discussion, the Board felt that wording could be left the way it is. OBJECTIVE 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS By 1995, the county will have completed improvements to the solid waste facility as outlined in Table 3.C.12 of the Solid Waste 38 Sub -Element, to maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 RECYCLING AND WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION Through the recycling program, the county will have reduced the volume of 1994 solid waste to be buried in the landfill by 30%. It was pointed out that Objective 4 was not worded correctly, and that it should read "By 1994, through the recycling program, the county will have reduced the volume of solid waste to be buried in the landfill by 30%. OBJECTIVE 5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establish a regular coordination mechanism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of Solid Waste Management. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT ***** NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT GoaT--`— ------------- It is the goal of Indian River County to protect the function of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, to prevent the groundwater contamination and to extend the life span of the aquifer through water conservation. OBJECTIVE 1 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY By 1995, all natural groundwater recharge areas will be protected against all sources of contamination, and a minimum of 50% of all prime natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, identified in the Groundwater Basin Resource Availability Inventory (GWBRAI) being prepared by the SJRWMD will be left as a pervious open space. Pat Corrigan wished to know what qualifies as "pervious open space," and he was informed that it would be unpaved, not covered with a solid structure, etc. 'AVG 2 S 1989 39 BOOK UKP F1E �IL)` AUG1989 BOOK F�cE j OBJECTIVE 2 PRESERVING THE QUANTITY OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER By 1995, the county will have no net loss in the amount of the groundwater in the shallow aquifer. Commissioner Bowman suggested that we say strive to instead of will and minimal instead of no net. It was felt that the state wanted a more positive word than "strive," but agreed that we would say minimal instead of no net. OBJECTIVE 3 PRESERVING THE QUANTITY OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER By 1995, the county will have no net loss in the amount of the groundwater in the Floridan aquifer. It was noted that this also should be worded minimal instead of no net loss. Commissioner Bird wondered if it is really necessary to have anything in there. We have no ability to put any water back into the aquifer; so, why do we even talk about it. Planner Rohani noted that we have some policies where we have to coordinate with other counties to get enough recharge, and Director Keating further noted that some of our policies encourage the use of low volume irrigation systems to prevent overpumping and also recommend discouraging flood irrigation with water from the Florida aquifer, which, in effect, would keep more water in the aquifer. OBJECTIVE 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the count will have a regular coordination mechanism with other local governments and agencies for identification and preservation of the function of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS By 1992, the county will have a specific capital improvements program in place for the acquisition and protection of the prime groundwater aquifer recharge areas. - NO COMMENT ** END OF NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT ** 40 DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT Goal Provide a drainage system for Indian River County which reduces the risk of property damage and inconvenience from long term flooding, promotes stormwater recharge of the shallow aquifer, reduces stormwater pollutant loading of the Indian River Lagoon and receiving waters and provides proper floodplain management. OBJECTIVE 1 FLOOD PROTECTION The County will ensure that all new development in the county has reasonable flood protection. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE_ SYSTEMS The County will improve existing drainage systems to enhance discharge and reduce flooding, to maximize the use of existing drainage facilities, and to discourage urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the 20 -year Drainage Improvement Plan. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The county will cooperate and assist federal, state, and local agencies having stormwater jurisdiction within Indian River County. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 PRESERVATION OF FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS The County will protect and preserve natural floodplains and floodways. Mrs. Offutt referred to Policy 5.3 on Page 62, which says the County will require the preservation or compensation of floodplain storage for all new development within the 10 -year floodplain. She noted that at the P&Z meeting, it was discussed that rather than "compensation," they would provide "mitigation." Director Keating pointed out that this is not monetary compensation, but Mrs. Offutt argued that mitigating is a more accurate description. You are compensating for the floodplain; so, you are mitigating. Commissioner Scurlock noted that when you compensate, it is one for one; when you mitigate, it is not necessarily, and Director Keating agreed that was the difference. G231 41 BOOK � 6 F��E.7"" (") ,3 1989 BOOK tl e 16 Attorney Vitunac felt compensation is not necessarily one for one, but it is more than mitigation. It was decided to leave in the word "compensation." OBJECTIVE 6 RECHARGE OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER The County shall ensure that clean stormwater recharge of the shallow aquifer where soil conditions provide adequate percolation. It was pointed out that the word "that" should be removed. OBJECTIVE 7 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT The County will reduce stormwater runoff pollutant loading to waterways outfalling in the Indian River Lagoon and other receiving waters in order to protect water quality. Commissioner Scurlock asked how the Comp Plan affects the Drainage District, and Director Keating advised that staff worked with them and, in fact, used their model in developing the Plan. We say that we will coordinate with them. Commissioner Bird asked the Public Works Director if it is reasonable to state that we will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff pollutant loading to waterways outfalling in the Indian River Lagoon since there are many drainage ditches, canals, etc., over which we have no control. Director Davis believed that we can attempt to reduce the total pollutant loading from county contributed sources by the paving of unpaved roads and by requiring new development to meet the water quality standards. Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, we are not necessarily saying we are going to reduce the volume, but by reducing solids, we are reducing pollutants; so, pollutant is the key rather than volume. Mrs. Jeannette Lier inquired if there is any way to have some control of the DOT and their runoff ditches off of U.S.[ 42 that go directly into the river. She felt those do more harm than most anything in the county. Director Davis advised that the DOT is doing a positive thing with the Twin Pairs project by constructing a retention pond near the Schlitt Professional Building west of Indian River Boulevard and they will have water quality provisions within that project; so SR 60 will be cleaned up. U.S.I is a problem. OBJECTIVE 8 LAND USE The County will ensure that all future land use designations are compatible with the drainage capacity area. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 COORDINATION By 1995, the County will establish a coordinated system for managing stormwater within Indian River County. Chairman Wheeler asked if this is a possibility, and staff noted that is simply a goal, and it is addressed by the policies. Director Davis felt the policies are realities. ***** END OF DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT ***** TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Goal A safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non -motorized transportation system available for all residents and visitors to the county with a minimum detriment to the environment. Director Keating informed the Board that this is one element staff has been constantly revising, and they do have a lot of changes, mostly to the body of this, a lot of which are explana- tory. There are no additional changes to the Goals, Objectives and Policies other than what the Board has received. There may A u� 43 EOOK ��I F'.1�E 71 �S AUG 2 3 1989 � BOOK % j F° 76 be some changes to the capital improvements aspect of this identifying intersection improvements and advance R/W acqui- sition. Staff will answer any questions as this is reviewed. OBJECTIVE 1 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES By 1994, all existing roadway deficiencies will be corrected. Director Keating noted that we are very fortunate - in essence, we only have one link that is deficient. Board members had questions as to just what "deficiencies" means, and staff advised that it refers to level of service or roadway capacity deficiencies. In further discussion, it was agreed to reword Objective 1 to read: "By 1994, all today's existing roadway capacity deficiencies will be corrected." Mrs. Offutt requested that same language be carried over into Policy 1.3. OBJECTIVE 2 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The County traffic circulation system will operate at or above the minimum service levels specified in Policy 1.1. Mrs. Offutt referred to Policy 2.2 which talks about a traffic impact analysis for projects that generate a certain amount of traffic and are located within a critical transporta- tion area, as designated by the public works director. She wished to know on what criteria such a designation would be based. Director Davis explained that language is in the Code today. If the development is within 1/2 mile radius of an intersection with an existing deficiency and that is currently stressed to capacity, then we request an analysis. If it is not in an area 44 where the roadway link is stressed to capacity and the intersec- tions are operating at LOS "C," then we do not request an impact analysis. OBJECTIVE 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVIEW A county transportation system review and evaluation will be prepared on an annual basis. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 RIGHTS-OF-WAY By 2010, the county will have secured the ultimate right-of-way needed for all county collector and arterial roads within the urban area. Commissioner Bird felt we should have a map delineating these R/Ws. Director Keating noted that we have a map showing all the Thoroughfare Plan roads, and we have listings by type of road of how much R/W is required. Mrs. Offutt noted that Policy 4.1 sets minimum R/W standards for various type roads in urban areas and rural areas and wished to know the difference between urban and rural. Director_Davis explained that the difference between urban and rural is predicated on a map the DOT prepares periodically which describes the urban area. Mrs. Offutt wished to know about the increase in the proposed as compared to existing, and asked if this isn't asking for a substantial increase. Director Davis confirmed that the R/W with it is a substan- tial increase, particularly in the rural section where we are not going with curb and gutter drainage, but to meet water quality standards, we are going with an open grass swale drainage system. The necessity for the drainage treatment is what necessitates the wider R/W width. Director Keating explained that right now with our R/W standards we classify arterials under one broad brush as needing 45 P,00K d P4: r. -17U AUG 2'Q-)' 1999 BOOK 77 P°GE 771 120', and what is proposed reflects the fact that there are a lot of different type of arterials. Mrs. Offutt asked if they aren't demanding a lot of R/W for drainage and utilizing a lot more of a person's property in the R/W calling it drainage where you might have had an easement before. Director Davis advised that the drainage is not for remote areas; it is for the impact of the road itself. It is not as if we are taking R/W for drainage that would not be needed. Mrs. Offutt continued to contend that you are taking a big chunk of someone's property and asked what these increased R/W demands will do to impact fees. Director Davis answered that we had R/W acquisitions plugged into impact fee cost per lane mile calculations; so, it should not affect them drastically at this point, but as the cost per lane mile goes up in a district, then the impact fee would be adjusted accordingly. He further noted that the 14 sales tax is a new funding source in addition to the impact fees. OBJECTIVE 5 TRAFFIC CONTROL All development projects approved by the county will provide for adequate traffic control. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM By 2000, the county will have a continuous pedestrian/bicycle system providing access throughout the urbanized area of the county. Director Davis reported that we now are incorporating 4' paved shoulders in our new projects, and when a developer or anyone comes in for a R/W permit to add a turning lane, we are asking for the paved shoulders on any road widening. 46 s � � OBJECTIVE 7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The traffic circulation system will be compatible with the land use element and other elements of the comprehensive plan. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 COORDINATION The county will have a system which ensures that all transporta- tion requirements, procedures, and improvements are coordinated with all applicable governmental entities responsible for trans- portation -activities. - NO COMMENT Director Keating informed those presented that if they have any questions about how our model works or about how our system works, he would encourage them to ask our Traffic Consultant, Michael Sexton, of Wilbur Smith 8 Associates, who is present. Commissioner Bird expressed concern about requiring duplica- tion of studies, especially if projects are adjacent, and Direc- tor Keating advised our ordinance now requires them to look at the other studies that have been done in the area, and also the threshhold for requiring an impact analysis has increased. Director Davis believed in the future, as we get staffed up and get our model running, it may be possible for the county to do the impact analyses for all new development for a fee. Attorney Doug Kindler wished to know when you ask for a traffic study for any development which impacts greater than 100 on an intersection beyond 1/4 mile, how do you know the impact is 10% unless you already have that study. Public Works Director Davis advised that we have in our files an intersection analysis of every intersection in the county., Attorney Kindler asked how the 1/4 mile boundary was de- termined, and Director Davis explained that it is keyed to the trip generation rate of the new facility. We have a table, and the larger the facility, the larger the radius of the influence.. **** END OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT ***** AUG 2 3 1989 47 BOCK i* AUG 1989. BOOK , 77 PAGE 7 - 1,3 MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to provide a transportation system that serves the needs of all residents of the county, including those which are transportation disadvantaged. OBJECTIVE 1 ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICES The county will ensure that the availability of transit services in Indian River County will not be decreased. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 COORDINATION The county will ensure that all activities relating to mass transit and paratransit are coordinated with the plans and activities of the FDOT and other agencies. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT ***** PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to ensure that safe, convenient, and accessible ports and aviation facilities are available to Indian River County residents. OBJECTIVE 1 ADEQUATE AVIATION FACILITIES The county will ensure that aviation demand is met throughout the planning period. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 CONSISTENCY The county will ensure that any airport expansion is consistent with the policies of other elements of the comprehensive plan. Chairman Wheeler wished to know how we do that when we don't control any airports, and Director Keating noted that both policies are just encouraging coordination. OBJECTIVE 3 TRAFFIC The county will ensure that all county roadways providing direct or indirect access to airport facilities maintain a level -of - service C on an average annual basis and D on a peak hour/peak season basis. - NO COMMENT 48 OBJECTIVE 4 COORDINATION The County will ensure that any airport expansion plans are coordinated with appropriate jurisdictions and/or agencies. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES ***** HOUSING ELEMENT Goal A housing supply which permits all households to enjoy safe and healthful living accommodations which meet accepted standards of affordability and which are located in pleasant environments where a sense of civic pride and personal well-being can be achieved. OBJECTIVE 1 HOUSING QUALITY Indian River County shall achieve substantial improvement, within the unincorporated area, in the quality and and affordability of housing for individuals and families who choose to live within the county. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 BALANCED HOUSING MARKET The county shall seek to achieve a housing market that functions in a manner which ensures a reasonable and balanced response to housing needs for all income groups and groups with special housing needs within the community. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 IMPROVED PROPERTY_ MAINTENANCE The county shall achieve improved residential property mainte- nance practices by property owners. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 HOUSING ASSISTANCE The County shall provide direct affordable housing assistance to qualified applicants or assist them in securing assistance from private and non-profit organizations in lieu of public assistance for at least 100 previously unassisted households annually beginning in 1992. It was noted that Policies 4.3 and 4.6 were removed. U �9V3 49 BOOK. / `� rs�t 77 AUG 2 � 1939 �p BOOK PAGE j OBJECTIVE 5 BLIGHT REMOVAL The county shall, by 1993, have a program of eliminating blighted and deteriorated housing. This program will complement the proposed neighborhood housing services program. It was noted that the last sentence "This program will complement the proposed neighborhood housing services program" will have to be removed since Policy 4.6 was removed. OBJECTIVE fi SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS The county shall meet the demonstrated needs for special housing including group homes and foster care homes and congregate living facilities. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 7 FARMWORKER HOUSING The County shall meet the housing needs of farmworkers. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 HISTORIC HOUSING Indian River County will strengthen public awareness and appreciation of historic or architecturally -significant housing within the County. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The county will, by 1993, have executed interlocal agreements with municipalities for provision of housing assistance and establishment of housing programs. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF HOUSING ELEMENT ***** CONSERVATION ELEMENT Co a T---- --�� It is the goal of Indian River County to protect, conserve, enhance, or appropriately use the County's natural resources in a manner which maximizes their natural functions and values. OBJECTIVE 1 AIR QUALITY Air quality within Indian River County will continue to meet or better state and federal minimum ambient air quality standards. 50 Mrs. Offutt questioned the requirement in Policy 1.4 for a "drying -out period for land -clearing debris." She wished to know how this will be accomplished and where the debris is to be storaged while it dries out. Commissioner Scurlock advised that we have an area at the Landfill right now where we do that. He believed we had about 10 acres of material stored that we were trying to buy a chipper for; we have a burner there. Director Keating commented that there was a lot of discus - cion at the P&Z that if the ability to burn on site isn't allowed for Ag and some remote urban development, then the whole process could be worse. He felt probably part of a site will need to be used to accommodate the debris for drying out. Planner DeBlois advised that presently staff allows a 60 day period for people to remove debris, which in itself unofficially gives the drying out period, but this would make it more of a substantial requirement before the burning would occur. Mrs. Johnson wished to be sure that under Policy 1.2 regard- ing the feasibility of eliminating open burning in association with urban development, that we are not referring to Agricultural land and that they are excluded from this because it doesn't say that specifically. Commissioner Bowman believed that we all suffer from smoke no matter where it comes from. She felt there is a need to educate people on how to burn properly, and Commissioner Scurlock felt possibly that when they burn, we should require them to have a blower on site, which will cause a quicker and cleaner burn. Director Keating agreed that we could put that in the Plan, or we can leave it out and look at it some more and consider it in February, or we can put it in an ordinance. AU G 2' A89 51 EOOa / FA 77 70i AUG 2 0 089 BOOK 77 FAGE 777 OBJECTIVE 2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY Water quality within the Indian River Lagoon, the Sebastian River, and other surface waters will improve, and the County will protect and appropriately use these waters to maximize their natural functions and values. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Groundwater quality in Indian River County will be protected against degradation, and there will be no net loss of the potential yield of groundwater in the shallow aquifer or Floridan aquifer. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 FLOODPLAINS The flood storage capacity and other natural functions and values of 100 -year floodplains in Indian River County will be preserved, and risk to life and property will be reduced. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 WETLANDS There will be no net loss of the natural functions provided by wetlands or deepwater habitats in Indian River County. Attorney Kindler referred to paragraph g.2. under Policy 5.1 on Page 78 and questioned the empirical reasoning used in decid- ing on a 2 to 1 ratio and a 1.5 to 1 ratio when the objective is going to the functional net loss other than the acreage net loss. Environmental Planner DeBlois advised that those ratios pretty much reflect what the state has come to a conclusion on. The reasoning the state uses is that the survival rate of created wetlands and the quality of that wetland is generally less than that which is destroyed. Attorney Kindler pointed out that is on an acreage assess- ment, and we have functional assessment in this objective. Director Keating explained that we have an objective that relates to function and not actual aerial extent of it, and the policies are designed to accomplish that objective. The idea is if you have to go to mitigation and you use the ratio, that will help accomplish the function objective. 52 OBJECTIVE 6 UPLAND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES Sufficient upland vegetative communities to maintain viable populations of all native plant and animal species, and representative stands of each habitat type in Indian River County, will be preserved. Commissioner Bird had a question on Policy 6.4 on Page 82. He noted that he is all in favor of acquiring habitat for sea turtles, but is it really necessary to buy property 600' deep from A -1-A to the primary dune and take that off the tax rolls of the county to preserve a place for sea turtles to lay their eggs. He noted that right now sea turtles are laying their eggs along every stretch of the beach. Commissioner Bowman did not feel that is the sole purpose, and Director Keating agreed it is like the manatees, which even though they are primarily concentrated in one area, there are other impacts, i.e., with more development you will get more raccoons in the garbage, and they will wipe out the sea turtle's eggs. Planner DeBlois also felt another aspect of the possible acquisition has to do with additional species which are in that area other than just the sea turtle. Commissioner Bowman advised that she had walked through part of the coastal hammock with an expert, and it has many, many species of flora and fauna. It is a treasure. She felt we don't have enough passive parks in this county, and this could be one. It is actually a living laboratory. Mrs. Offutt later referred back to Policy 6.12 on Page 84 whereby projects of 5 acres or more shall set aside a minimum of 25% of each native plant community which occurs on-site unless such set aside areas would _not _be feasible_ given_ site specific characteristics_ She realized the last phrase had been added, but wondered if this is not an unreasonable request even at that. Director Keating noted that we have minimum open space AUG n eooK 17 77CS' AUG 2 BOOK PAGE TiO requirements in all of our zoning districts, and this would qualify for open space credit. Planner DeBlois pointed out that a conservation easement doesn't necessarily have to prohibit all uses - it just would limit it to compatible uses, and Commissioner Eggert advised that this provision is in every Comprehensive Plan south of here. Mrs. Offutt brought up the recent example of a tree being in the footprint of a building and asked at what point do we decide where this building will go, especially as this Policy refers to 250 of each native plant community. Commissioner Bowman stated that it would be very unlikely that you would have more than one ecosystem on a particular site. Planner DeBlois advised that staff's position is that this allows the flexibility for a site specific review by both the P&Z and the BCC. OBJECTIVE 7 WILDLIFE AND MARINE HABITAT There will be no further reductions in the population size of endangered or threatened plant and animal species occurring in Indian River County, and marine habitat productivity will improve. Commissioner Bird asked whether it is necessary to be quite as finite in some of our statements such as "there will be no further reductions...." Director Keating noted that a lot of the comments that come back from the state are that you have to be quantitative and identify what you want to achieve. No one will hold your feet to the fire on the objectives; it is the policies you have to follow and implement. One of the things about this plan is that we have an evaluation matrix after each element which provides a method of evaluating each objective to see how well you have done. Commissioner Bird pointed out that if you say no further reduction, and a project comes in that will affect that and we 54 ® � r approve it, then you are in conflict with your adopted plan. In further discussion it was agreed to change the wording to state that there will be no further "significant" reductions. Michael Keifer, Charlotte Avenue, informed the Board that he attended public hearings and workshops in Orlando pertaining to manatees and the marine industry, etc. He would ask that the Board consider a policy within Objective 7 to the effect that they would develop manatee protection plans and coordinate them with state, federal and other appropriate organizations. The reason he asks is that the state in September essentially is going to put a moratorium on boat slips and number of parking spaces at boat ramps until you develop such plans. Commissioner Bowman felt this is covered in Policy 7.5 and Policy 7.6. Mr. Keifer believed that is directed towards the speed zone itself, and what the state wants is for you to develop a plan. He felt we must recognize we have to consider putting together such a plan. Planner DeBlois noted that Policy 7.8 does address that in some degree, and Director Keating felt we could expand 7.8 to include establishing a plan. Mr. Keifer again referred to Policy 7.5 regarding slow speed zones and advised that the Marine Association supports the designation of the Sebastian River as a slow speed zone but would also like to see the southern portion of the Indian River that is going to be "slow speed" outside of the channel set aside for recreational uses. He believed the DNR will allow you to do this. Commissioner Eggert noted that this plan only speaks to the Sebastian River. Mr. Keifer advised that the DNR proposal includes the Indian River, and he would like the Board to call out recreational areas now. He is requesting that the Board through staff keep track of the DNR proposal when it goes to the Cabinet on September 14th AUG 2 55 KOK L- aside for recreational use. then. Director Keating noted that our Plan won't be in force by In further discussion, Commissioner Bowman believed we should make a study and designate areas for water skiing and mark them. It was generally agreed we need to track the DNR proposal. OBJECTIVE 8 RECREATIONAL USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sufficient resource-based parks and outdoor recreational oppor- tunities will be provided for public use; viable communities of flora and fauna on public recreational and open space lands will be preserved; and adverse impacts on natural resources from recreational activities will be minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 COMMERCIAL USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sufficient opportunities will be provided for the commercial use of natural resources in Indian River County, while adverse impacts on natural resources from commercial resource-based activities will be minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 SOIL EROSION Wind and water soil erosion associated with land development activities will be reduced, and areas of shoreline erosion will be stabilized, with adverse impacts to property and natural resources minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 11 HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS WASTES The number of cases of improperly managed and illegally disposed of hazardous waste in the county will be decreased, and the annual volume of solid waste buried in the county landfill will be reduced. Commissioner Bird did not see how you can promise to reduce the annual volume of solid waste in a growing county and sug- gested that the sentence in Objective 11 be ended with a period after the word "decreased." This was generally agreed upon. ***** END OF CONSERVATION ***** 56 and request that southern portion of the Indian River be set aside for recreational use. then. Director Keating noted that our Plan won't be in force by In further discussion, Commissioner Bowman believed we should make a study and designate areas for water skiing and mark them. It was generally agreed we need to track the DNR proposal. OBJECTIVE 8 RECREATIONAL USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sufficient resource-based parks and outdoor recreational oppor- tunities will be provided for public use; viable communities of flora and fauna on public recreational and open space lands will be preserved; and adverse impacts on natural resources from recreational activities will be minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 COMMERCIAL USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sufficient opportunities will be provided for the commercial use of natural resources in Indian River County, while adverse impacts on natural resources from commercial resource-based activities will be minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 SOIL EROSION Wind and water soil erosion associated with land development activities will be reduced, and areas of shoreline erosion will be stabilized, with adverse impacts to property and natural resources minimized. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 11 HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS WASTES The number of cases of improperly managed and illegally disposed of hazardous waste in the county will be decreased, and the annual volume of solid waste buried in the county landfill will be reduced. Commissioner Bird did not see how you can promise to reduce the annual volume of solid waste in a growing county and sug- gested that the sentence in Objective 11 be ended with a period after the word "decreased." This was generally agreed upon. ***** END OF CONSERVATION ***** 56 COASTAL_ MANAGEMENT_ ELEMENT Goal To protect, maintain and enhance coastal resources and provide for the enjoyment of the social, economic and natural benefits of these resources, while reducing the potential loss of life, and public and private expenditures in the coastal zone. OBJECTIVE 1 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION The County recognizes the existing natural resources and habitats of the coastal area, and by 1995 will have a comprehensive management program to protect, conserve and/or enhance these resources and habitats. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 ESTUARINE WATER QUALITY It is the objective of Indian River County to significantly improve overall estuarine water quality to the classification of "good" by the year 1999, as based on Florida Department of Environmental Regulation guidelines. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 WATER-DEPENDENT/WATER RELATED USES By 1993, Indian River County shall adopt and implement performance guidelines which give shoreline priority to water - dependent uses while decreasing the adverse ecological impacts of these uses. Commissioner Bird asked for an explanation of "water - dependent" uses as opposed to "water -related," and Director Keating explained that basically there are 3 types of uses - water -dependent, water -related, and non -water related or dependent. The definition is based on which use needs to be closer to the water to exist, i.e., marinas are water -dependent because they have to be right there.. Mr. Keifer referred to the 4 categories in Policy 3.1 and asked why we don't use the same definitions as we have in the wetland resource permit application where there is not a separation between public and private facility. Director Keating asked if leasing of submerged bottom lands uses that criteria, and Mr. Keifer stated that it does, but public/private interest has nothing to do with the dependency. Director Keating advised that it does in the leasing of submerged bottom lands. That was the whole issue in the Sea M� 57 0 EUOK f'' �c 1 lam AUG 2 3 1 J BOOK. 77 FADE 9 Oaks marina where they wanted to go public because they could get a better ratio of the pre-empted area for their dock if it was available to the public. OBJECTIVE 4 BEACHES AND DUNES Indian River County will have an adopted comprehensive beach and dune management plan by 1991, which protects, maintains and enhances a naturally functioning beach and dune system, while ensuring that no unnatural disturbances of the primary dune system occur. Commissioner Bird felt that as we go through this, we develop ourselves a bigger and bigger workload which will require more and more staff. Director Keating noted that staff tried to stagger these so that some are required in different years, and by the time we come back in February, staff will have a good estimate of how many man hours by year this will take He was confident this will be less than perceived at first shot. Mr. Keifer referred to paragraph b. of Policy 4.4 which talks of public structures a minimum of 6' wide and asked if this is talking about the ramps themselves or the cross-over struc- tures. He believed the maximum the state would allow is 81, and he asked if we can put language in that will allow 6' wide or subject to DNR approval because there may be cases where.the DNR is going to cut their criteria back down to 61, and if this says minimum of 6' and the DNR says a maximum of 61, it is 6' or less. Director Keating noted that the objective is to provide for handicapped and that is why we have a minimum of 61. The objective is not to have it under that because it might provide a barrier. Mr. Keifer asked if we have minimum standards for non - handicapped public access, and Director Keating stated that the objective is that they all should be barrier free. 58 OBJECTIVE 5 LIMITING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN THE COASTAL HIGH - HAZARD ZORE---- '—-------� --'— — By 1992, the county will eliminate public expenditure and subsidy in the Coastal High -Hazard Zone, with the exception of natural resource management. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 REDUCTION OF HURRICANE EVACUATION TIMES TO REDUCE 13QBLTC—RTSK— By 1995, Indian River County will have reduced estimated evac- uation time for a category 3 storm event to 12 hours or less. Commissioner Bird later in the meeting commented that he had read a statement which says that we will not increase densities in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone, and that means that you can't even go from 1 to 2. It was noted that was stated in Policy 6.7, and Director Keating explained that we are talking about the densities re- flected on the map here, not on a rezoning that would occur. If it was Agricultural that went to 6 upa in an area that was designated 6 upa, that wouldn't count. It was further noted that the lowest designation on the Beach is 3, and on the west side of the river, it goes as high as 10. Commissioner Bird felt that it just a very positive state- ment that doesn't seem to give us any flexibility. He would prefer to say "will discourage" instead of "shall not approve." He believed there is a senior citizen's project going in back of Marvin's Gardens which is located on the east side of U.S.I., and that would be in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone. It was noted that that has been rezoned to 8 upa. Director Keating stated that staff can substitute "will discourage" for "shall not approve" as suggested by Commissioner Bird, and this was agreed upon. OBJECTIVE 7 POSTDISASTERREDEVELOPMENT By 1993, projected post -disaster recovery time in Indian River County will be reduced, to alleviate or eliminate future risk to life and property. - NO COMMENT AUG2 3 1 59 BOOK AUG 23 1989 BOOK OBJECTIVE 8 BEACH ACCESS Sufficient and environmentally safe public access will be provided to Indian River County beaches and shorelines. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 HISTORIC RESOURCES The county will provide for the preservation and protection of historically and archaeologically significant sites and structures. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COASTAL ZONE Infrastructure in the coastal zone shall be adequate to provide the designated levels of service indicated in the respective Indian River County Comprehensive Plan elements and sub -elements, including future service areas and phases of implementation. Commissioner Bird noted that this Hurricane Vulnerability Zone keeps cropping up, and he hoped we are not painting our- selves in a corner because he is not sure how big an area that encompasses. Reference was made to the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone map found on Page 43.1, and Commissioner Bird pointed out that basically takes in everything from the ocean to U.S.I. throughout the whole length of the county, and that is your major development corridor in the county. Director Keating noted that you will not have to worry about package plants being there because the Hutchinson Island Plan prohibited any more on the barrier island, and he felt the entire length of the county on U.S.I will be served by the systems we have. Commissioner Eggert commented that this essentially is saying no new wastewater package plants will be allowed between the beach and U.S.I, and it was noted that most of this is set forth by the state. 60 =I OBJECTIVE 11 LIMIT DENSITIES IN THE COASTAL HIGH -HAZARD ZONE Indian River County shall limit densities and direct development away from known or predicted coastal high -hazard areas. ***** END OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ***** RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to provide a recreation and open space system which meets the needs of all residents of the county, is accessible to all residents of the county, and maxi- mizes the county's physical, cultural and historical resources. OBJECTIVE 1 ADEQUATE PARKLANDS The county will at all times during the planning period have a sufficient supply of parklands to accommodate the county residents at the accepted service levels. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 By 1995, the county will have 80 acres of community park in the south district. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 By 2000, the county will have developed at least 60 percent of its currently undeveloped existing park acreage. Mr. Keifer wished to know if there is a possibility that we could make further improvements to the Wabasso Causeway for a passive park, and Commissioner Bird assured him that is defi- nitely being considered and there will be continued improvements. OBJECTIVE 4 By 1995, the county's recreation system will meet demand through the coordination of public and private resources. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 ACCESS By 1995, the county will have increased accessibility throughout its park system, and will have eliminated any existing con- straints in the county's parks. - NO COMMENT 61 BOOK. 1 F, a � SU AUG 2 3 1989 BOOK 7 7FAG, 78 d OBJECTIVE 6 By 1995, the county will have increased access to the county's major natural resources, including the Atlantic Ocean, Indian River, Sebastian River, and freshwater lakes. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 7 RECREATION PROGRAMS By 1995, the county will have a recreation program with a recreation staff which adequately serves all geographic areas of the county with a range of programs. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 OPEN SPACE By 1994, the county will have at least 10 percent more publicly - owned or publicly -controlled open space than it has in 1989. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 By 1995, the county will have increased the amount of green area/open space within development projects. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will have a countywide recreation system. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 11 FUNDING by 1995, the county will have a source of funds adequate to meet the needs identified in this element earmarked for recreation. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 12 ARTS AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS By 1991, the county will have a program to facilitate the provision of the arts and cultural activities in the county. - NO COMMENT **** END OF RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ***** 62 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to have balanced and orderly economic growth. OBJECTIVE 1 LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Subsequent to plan adoption, the county will have a reduction in its unemployment rate of one percentage point by 1992. Mrs. Offutt noted that Policy 1.2 states that the county will encourage businesses that are different from the seasons of the citrus industry, and she asked if it wouldn't be preferable to say you would encourage non-cyclical businesses. Commissioner Scurlock believed it is not correct that citrus has that much of a season any more. It is considerably different than it used to be. Commissioner Eggert suggested possibly eliminating any reference to seasons and just say that we will seek businesses that supplement the citrus industry. This was generally agreed upon. OBJECTIVE 2 BALANCED ECONOMIC GROWTH The county will have a more diversified economy by increasing the number of employees of the non -top three major industrial sectors in the county by 1% each year beginning in 1992. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL_ OPPORTUNITIES By 1995, the county will have increased its overall classroom facilities. Also, post -secondary educational opportunities will have increased by 1995. Commissioner Scurlock asked how this is in our Comprehensive Plan, and Commissioner Eggert noted this is really our overall economic development plan. Commissioner Scurlock expressed the hope that the school system concurs with what we have said here. 6 3 AUG 3 1989 n00a �l 1 F', t ` 8S Fr- -I AUG 2 S 1989 �. BOOK.7 %� OBJECTIVE 4 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The county will have a minimum level of service "C" on an annual basis and a level of service "D" during the peak season on the county's system of roads and bridges and will have a coordinated system of sidewalks and bikeways by the year 2010. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 IMPROVED PERCEPTION By 1991, the county will have improved the community's perception of economic development programs. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT By 1992, the county will have adopted land development regulations that encourage economic development activity. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 7 ADEQUATE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES By 1995, the county will upgrade its potable water and sanitary sewer facilities, allowing for adequate capacity for future economic growth. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 ADEQUATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING The county shall ensure the provision of adequate and affordable housing for its residents. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The county will facilitate coordination and cooperation among the governmental jurisdictions and other public/private agencies. - NO COMMENT ***** END OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT ***** CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT Goal Indian River County will have a Capital Improvements Program which manages the provision of services and facilities as identified in each element of the Comprehensive Plan in a fiscally prudent manner, and ensures that the levels of service set in each element are maintained, facilities and infrastructure improvements are provided concurrent with development, existing infrastructure is maintained, and balanced growth is attained. 64 OBJECTIVE 1 CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES By 1990, the County shall have Capital Improvement systems which identify all existing and future needs and ensure the provision of facilities and services which meet these needs. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHHAZARDCOASTAL—AREAS By 1990, the county will have eliminated all public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas. Director Keating explained that this is different than the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone. It is a much narrower area. OBJECTIVE 3 MAINTENANCE OF ESTABLISHED LEVELS -OF -SERVICE By 1991, the county will have land development regulations which ensure that development permits are issued only if infrastructure is available to maintain adopted levels of service. NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT'S SHARE OF CAPITAL COSTS The county will have a Capital Improvements program which ensures that future developments bear a proportionate share of the cost of providing the infrastructure required to maintain adopted levels of service standards. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE REQUIRED --------- ------- ------- SERVICES AND FACILITIES The county will have a capacity monitoring system for all improvements and facilities identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan in order to ensure that the county can adequately plan for necessary facility improvements. Mrs. Offutt noted that Policy 5.3 sets priorities for different types of development, and she questioned the rationale whereby new orders permitting redevelopment would take priority over new orders permitting new developments where the applicant agrees to participate in the provision of infrastructure. Director Keating explained that generally with redevelopment you get a better utilization of existing facilities, and also it is more in -fill. AUG 2 3 1�65 9 800 ,AUG 20, BOOK .77 F',1EE -191 Planner Rohani explained that the purpose also is to get rid of blighted areas. Mrs. Offutt continued to argue that there are plenty of areas that aren't blighted that are subject to redevelopment, and she still questioned taking somebody first who is redeveloping their existing land without any financial commitment. Director Keating noted that ideally this plan will make it so that doesn't occur. ***** END OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT ***** INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to have an effective, accessible, and continuous system of intergovernmental coordination to ensure consistency among local, regional, state and federal plans and policies, to identify and resolve conflicts, and to promote cooperation regarding implementation of growth management plans within Indian River County. OBJECTIVE 1 COORDINATION AMONG ALL LOCAL PLANS The county will continue to utilize existing coordination mechanisms or modify them, as needed, to ensure that the adopted county comprehensive plan remains compatible with the school board, other local governments' plans, and adjacent counties' plans. - NO COMMENT" OBJECTIVE Z COORDINATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS By 1990, the county will have an adopted formal coordination mechanism with existing planning groups and agencies to exchange information and coordinate adopted level -of -service standards in the comprehensive plan with municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, and the state. - NO COMMENT 66 OBJECTIVE 3 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS By 1991, the county will establish a coordination mechanism with municipalities, and adjacent counties to ensure that development in one jurisdiction does not adversely affect the adequacy of public facilities and services in other jurisdictions. - NO COMMENT **** END OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT ***** (End of Review of COMP PLAN), ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously.adopted Resolution 89-82 approving the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 89-_ 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE 1982 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision in Chapter 163, Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the Local Planning Agency has prepared a report evaluating and appraising the 1982 Indian.River County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Local Plan Agency has recommended sending said evaluation and appraisal of 1982 Comprehensive Pian to the governing body for transmittal to the State Planning Agency, and / WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held on August 10, 1989, a public hearing duly advertised, on the evaluation and appraisal report at which time they assessed and evaluated the successes and failures of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan and suggested that changes needed to address defiencies in the Comprehensive Plan were addressed in the recommended Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the requirements of F.S. 163.3177, and 67 � Q� AUG 2 3 W`9 BOCK. FF,- A U G 2 3 WHEREAS, 1989 -7 BOOK 1 9 7 - FACE7- WHEREAS, the Board of County 'Commissioners has received the evaluation and appraisal report from the Local Planning Agency and has proposed amending its Comprehensive Plan based on the recommendations contained in the evaluation report, and the new requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Part II, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The above recitals are affirmed in their entirety. 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County hereby adopts the evaluation and appraisal report forwarded by the Local Planning Agency and directs the transmission of ten (10) copies of said report to State Planning Agency in conjunction with transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan revised in compliance with F.S. 163.3177. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Bird Y_ and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: .Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at public hearing held this 23rd day of August, 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ga ry Wiiee I er ,—CFial-rman ATTEST: By :rep&� r K. arton, Cl erk (SAID REPORT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) 68 Chairman Wheeler made the following announcement: The Board of County Commissioners intends to hold and advertise a second public hearing prior to finally adopting this comprehensive plan. This hearing is for the purpose of receiving public input prior to transmitting the proposed comprehensive plan to the state for their written comments. We anticipate the public hearing for adoption will be in February, 1990, approximately. However, it will be advertised pursuant to FS. 163.3184 (15) (b) M. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 89-83 approving the transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the DCA, as amended. 69 a BOOK i PACE 79 AUG 2 3 1989 ROOK 77 F'A E 79— RESOLUTION 9— RESOLUTION NO. 89-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision in Chapter 163, Section 163.3174, and 163.3177, Florida Statutes, the Local Planing Agency has prepared the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Local Plan Agency held public hearings on July 25, 26, and 27, 1989 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to the Boa'rd of County Commissioners, and recommended the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan to State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, and WHEREAS,! the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held the F.S. 163.3184(15) Transmittal Public Hearings on August 21 and 23, 1989, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184 (15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a second public hearing a the adoption stage of the Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The proposed Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Is hereby approved and ten (10) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment. 70 The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert _ and seconded by Commissioner Bird — and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye_ Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert AyE, Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ay2— Commissloner Margaret C. Bowman Aye— Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Age The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at public hearing held this 23rd day of August, 1989. ATTEST: L3' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By J.., �f, Gary ee r Chairman � r (COPY. OF SAID. PLAN. ON FILE. IN. THE. OFFICE O,E. .C.LE.RK TO THE BOARD) There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned at 4:35 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk AU G 71 Chairman