Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 15, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 AM . 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. Comprehensive Plan Revisions ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY -AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. '� JAN 15 1990 BOOK f.,.,E r, Monday, January 15, 1990 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday, January 15, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. 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 referred to the following memo from Community Development Director Keating: TO: James Chandler County Administrator �/ FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP A WK Community Development Department DATE: January 9, 1990 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of January 15, 1990. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: As indicated in an earlier memo to the Board, the county has received its ORC (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments) report from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The ORC report is the state's assessment of the county's plan in terms of compliance with state rules and consistency with state objec- tives. It is the ORC report objections and how they are ad- dressed by the county that will determine whether the comprehen- sive plan will be approved (found in compliance). According to state law, the county has 60 days from receipt of the ORC report to adopt its comprehensive plan. In adopting the plan the county must address DCA's objections. If those objec- tions are not adequately addressed, the comprehensive plan will be found "not in compliance"' by DCA. With respect to the 60 days, be advised that the gime available to modify the plan at F �J ���� BOOK � a 8 F,1it 905 the staff level is less than 60 days. Considering that the adoption hearing must be advertised, the revised plan pages must be reprinted, a staff report must be drafted, and material must be available more than a week before the hearing, that leaves much less than 60 days to do the work. In order to meet the 60 day timeframe, staff needs direction from the Board as to how some of the major policy issues should be addressed to respond to DCA's objections. Of the 200 objections identified by DCA, most'are not major policy issues. Some of the objections, however, have the potential to substantially change the county's plan, if revisions are made to accommodate DCA's objections. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Most of DCA's objections can be classified as falling within one of several categories. These can generally be defined as: technical oversights, vagueness, analysis deficiencies, urban sprawl, affordable housing, and environmental.• Some of these objections already have been or are being addressed by staff; others are policy decisions requiring board action. The following table illustrates DCA's objections and alternatives for addressing them. General Examples of I Alternatives for Resolution DCA Objection Specific Objections Technical - Map without figure number - Map without scale - Map without north arrow - Percentages that don't add Incorrect References Vagueness - Use of weasel words coordinate support - encourage - work with objectives that aren't measurable - objectives without time- frames Analysis - Policies & objectives not Deficiencies supported by data & ana- lysis - Analysis not sufficiently detailed Urban Sprawl - More land designated for development than needed based on population pro- jections - Large expanses of low density development No justification for development pattern - Densities of 1 du/10 acres too high for rural and conservation areas 2 Make minor changes specify intent of weasel words - revise objectives revise objectives Revise Analysis _ Reduce densities west of I-95 to 1 du/20 ac or 1 du/40 ac AND - Reduce densities east Of I-95 outside of urban service areas OR Justify densities & Land Use Pattern Affordable - No high density areas to Housing accommodate low cost housing --No designated group home 4 sites - No policies designed to, :i. reduce housing costs Environmental - Densities (1 du/ac) too high in environmentally areas east of I-95 - Agriculture exempted in 25% native vegetation preservation - Mitigation ratios too low Designate some higher den- sity areas for'low cost housing Designate group home sites Adopt policies to reduce housing cost such as waiver of impact fees for low cost housing Reduce densities -in envi- ronmentally sensitive areas to 1 du/5 acres Include Agriculture in 25% requirement Increase mitigation ratios The table above represents the general categories and -specific types of objections in the ORC report. While the table does not specify all 200 objections, it does provide an indication of the content and extent of the objections. At the special meeting on January 15, 1990, the staff will provide more detailed information regarding. the ORC report objections and provide recommendations for addressing them. It must be kept in mind though that any changes made to the plan must be supported by adequate data and analysis (they must be justifiable) ; also, changes in one part of the plan may affect other elements, so those indirect modifications must 'be considered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider information to be provided at the special meeting of January 15, 1990 and provide staff direction on comprehensive plan revi- sions. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he was looking at the magnitude of this and believed a lot of it is technical and something that staff would address. The important portion that involve the Commission is the philosophy part, and he hoped that is what we would be looking at. Director Keating confirmed that staff was not intending to go through the DCA's objections, etc., page by page. The DCA report is 88 pages long with 200 objections, but that actually is less than their report to the City of Vero Beach, which is an almost built -out city that is considerably smaller., He wished to inform the Board what staff is doing to address the less substantive objections that DCA had raised and then get the Board's feelings about the major issues. 3 BOOK JAN R) 19JU, Ij �I c_'� li O V r.�. —j 6 F,�rs, ao.y Director Keating stressed the staff's need for direction because of the short timeframe, pointing out that the Plan's adoption is scheduled for February 13th and after that staff has only 5 days -to put everything together and transmit it to DCA. They, therefore, need at least tentative decisions from the Board today so that they do not have to do a lot of rewriting at the last minute. When the plan is sent back to DCA, they have 45 days to review it and they then make a notification of intent either to find the plan in compliance or not in compliance. The County still has to adopt its land development regulations 1 year from the date the plan was submitted, whether it is accepted or not. If DCA does not accept the plan, we can negotiate with them and end up with a compliance agreement. The other alternative, if found not in compliance, is to go through the 120 administrative hearing process; which, in essence, is a trial in front of an administrative hearing officer, and so far, the DCA has been the winner in all those hearings. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there has been any appeal beyond that administrative process, possibly as to its constitu- tionality. He felt that in some of these cases they are getting into the very thing the Commissioners are elected for - the philosophy -of a community, our way of life. He could understand from the state perspective that there should be good planning to make sure that the infrastructure and the necessary things to support life are available for growth to take place, but.he did see some incongruities here in that some things they are recommending actually put more demand on the infrastructure rather than less. Asst. County Attorney Collins explained that the 120 hearing makes a recommendation to the Governor and Cabinet, who make the final decision. After that, any of these things can be appealed to the courts. Commissioner Scurlock brought up the mobile home issue as an example. Although we have identified that they do contribute to 4 , M M M r our community, he felt there is also an equity issue in terms of whether they pay their fair share in support services when the Legislature has allowed them to buy a mobile home tag for $120 a year, half of which goes to the School Board, and we are left to provide services to 1.8 people with $60 a year. Until certain things happen at the state level, he is not willing to vote for more mobile homes. Director Keating did not feel that we have any real problem with the mobile home issue. Even though the ORC report identified that we were a little lax in the analysis part and indicated we hadn't designated areas for mobile homes, he felt this is another case of our having something in one element that they didn't catch when they were looking at another element. Commissioner Scurlock brought up the point that they are suggesting waiving impact fees and our impact ordinance specif- ically does not allow us to provide for just waiving impact fees. Director Keating agreed and advised that is one of the things we have talked to them about, and when they say "waiving impact fees," they don't necessarily mean not collecting the fee. They are looking at other options such as the Board of County Commissioners possibly paying them out of some other source. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, they are talking about subsidizing out of the general ad valorem taxes, and he indicated his displeasure with that idea. Discussion continued, and Director Keating advised that some of the DCA staff is coming to this area Wednesday, and our staff will meet with them and hopefully get more feedback. Question arose as to the possibility of the DCA being faced with a multitude of 120 hearings, timeframes, etc., and Director Keating believed that almost all achieve a compliance agreement. Commissioner Wheeler had problems with the DCA thinking every community should be a clone of the other community. He also felt the DCA wants to take away our particular lifestyle and stressed that a big problem is that the public never gives their .JAN 15 1990 5 Boos r- !JAN BOOK I Ft.,-;E 900 input until "after-the-fact" when it starts to affect them directly. Director Keating informed the Board that as part of this process and part of the Growth Management Act, a lot broader standing for..other entities to get involved was created. For instance, we got a call from an organization called 111,000 Friends of Florida" who also review local comprehensive plans. They try to concentrate on one issue for each county. For us, they have picked out the issue of the Indian River Lagoon, and they will be prepared to comment and intervene in the process. Director Keating noted that when you look at the ORC report, you can see that the DCA reviewed our plan thoroughly. A lot of their comments related to minor and technical deficiencies which are easily corrected, but one objection was that we were not being specific enough about what we intend to do, and another objection category was analysis deficiencies and that is time consuming because we have to go back in and justify a lot of the objectives we have in the plan. In example, DCA had several comments relating to the fact that we didn't use the functional population, which is both the resident population and the seasonal population, when planning for evacuation, and he felt that could be justified by explaining that our population figures are the lowest during the months when the hurricane season occurs. Director Keating stressed that the major items we need to discuss today are Urban Sprawl, Affordable Housing and Environmental issues, as set out on the second page of staff's memo, The DCA staff said these are the 3 areas where the Secretary has major concerns, and he is the one who actually does the final sign -off on the plan. 6 URBAN SPRAWL General DCA Objection Examples of Specific Objections Urban Sprawl - More land designated for development than needed based on population pro- jections - Large expanses of low density development - No justification for development pattern - Densities of 1 du/10 acres too high for rural and conservation areas Alternatives for Resolution Reduce densities west of I-95 to 1 du/20 ac or 1 du/40 ac AND - Reduce densities east of I-95 outside of urban service areas OR Justify densities & Land Use Pattern Commissioner Scurlock referred to the last alternative (justify densities and Land Use pattern). He believed we could justify what we have done in reaching our decision of 1 unit per 20 acres if we factored in the amount of acreage within our county that has been taken out of potential future use by St. John's and now will be undevelopable, and that is the approach he would like to use. Director Keating felt we would probably come close out there if we did that, but first he would like to have Planner Loeper go over our Land Use Map, showing what it looks like right now and giving several alternatives for addressing DCA's comments. He emphasized that Urban Sprawl is actually the most important issue at DCA. They have identified we have indicators of urban sprawl, one being a large expanse of very low density development, and another big one being the fact that a lot of land is allocated for residential development at densities which have a population for the planning period much higher than is needed. They are stressing that when you go through and identify what is needed in a 20 year period of the plan, if the final document shows land 7 -0_ 4 ROOK rJS PAGE 91i and densities that way exceed that need, that is an indicator of an urban sprawl pattern. Chairman Eggert asked if anything in our analysis indicates that we are -going lower than what is designated, i.e., while this may say 3 units per 1 acre, most of this is going at 11 units per 1 acre, and are they then saying lower the density to the 11 units per 1 acre. Director Keating confirmed that is what they are saying. Commissioner Scurlock believed that at one time we directed staff to come up with zoning classifications that more accurately reflect what you really can build. Director Keating noted that staff looked at that, and in PRDs and Multi Family development, you can get your full density. Staff Planner Robert Loeper came before the Board and referred to the following Land Use maps: LAND USE DENSITY CONSERVATION ® 1:20/1:1 AGRICULTURE IZI 1:10 RURAL -1 .1:6 RURAL -2 1:/, LOW-1 3:1 LOW -2 6:1 MEDIUM -1 I 8:1 MEDIUM -2 ® 10:1 RECREATION PUBLIC • Units : Figure 2.34a PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 8 � s.[nro [oorn. F12ere 2.040/e PROPOSED LAND USE 'COMMERCIAL / -® INDUSTRIAL AREA 103.4 +r %.44 ".. Planner Loeper also had a colorized version of the Land Use Map which was developed to show the Board about where we stand at build -out condition. He noted that it has a few surprises in that it shows that in the eastern portion of the county, particu- larly between the Gifford area up to Sebastian, we don't have as much development as we thought. One of the objections DCA had was that while we had both seasonal and resident population projections, we only used resident population in calculating acreage demand Planner Loeper informed the Board that the net result of using both figures is that we add about 33,000 people, 9 BOOK F,� JAN 11_D BOOK 78 FAE �c and in the year 2010, we would end up with a population of about 176,000 as opposed to about 143,000. Of that projected number, about 100,000 would be in the unincorporated areas of the county, and those are the ones we need to be concerned with on the Land Use Plan. He explained that to determine acreage needs, we tried to use as up. -to date information on the trends in building as possible to project what type of build -out we expect to see in the future. Regarding the issue of sprawl, DCA is saying that if you are projecting that you are going to have 100,000 people, then you should not have a land mass with a density that would. permit a build -out of 400,000 people. Mr. Loeper then addressed potential build -out in the areas of the county located west of the urban service area, noting that this is where the county does not provide services such as water, sewer, etc. The figures they came up with for build -out potential for this area are as follows: St. John's Conservation Area @ 1 unit per 20 acres, or approximately 2,200 potential units. (They did factor in something for roads.) The Agricultural area west of 1-95 shows 1 unit per 10 acres, or a potential of over 11,000 dwelling units. East of 1-95 there are two areas not in the urban service area. North of 512 and west of the Sebastian River there is an area designated for rural development at 1 unit per 5 acres and this plus the area between Vero Lake Estates and the SR 60 corridor west of 74th Avenue has a potential of about 4,000 units. Then there is a small portion of that area along 74th Avenue and the SR 60 corridor that is 1 unit per acre and would have a potential of about 1,400 units. Planner Loeper advised that all told this comes up to a potential of about 18,000 residential units, and that multiplied by about a 2.2 per household factor is a population build -out of about 36,000 people. That is a relatively large portion of the expected population, but Mr. Loeper felt we can eliminate a lot of the density potential in the area. The most obvious thing would be to look at the Conservation area; that is public land, and he believed we actually could give the St. John's area a zero density. As to the Agricultural areas, the DCA is recommending that all counties reduce them to 1 unit per 40 acres, and if you 10 M look at ownership patterns in that area, most of these are in very large parcels, especially west of the St. John's area where we have 1,000 acre parcels while closer in they are in 100 acre parcels. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we could split out the area west of Blue Cypress Lake and have a designation of 1 to 40 there and leave something in between on the portion that is to the east. He noted the idea is that as you move west, your densities are much lower, and he felt that is more realistic as you are not going to have a lot of development out there. Attorney Vitunac felt we would have to make a new zoning category. Commissioner Wheeler stressed that we are playing a lot of number games with someone else's property. He brought up the example of someone owning large acreage who wants his children to be able to build on his acreage. Chairman Eggert did not see any problem with a zero density for the St. John's area, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed with that as did the other Board members. Director Keating noted that the Board actually can give any density they want out there. The DCA's challenge to us was if you are designating these lands at 1 unit per 10 acres, are you expecting that kind of development to come in here and will it be in the 20 year life span of the plan because if you don't actually expect that, it is not realistic. He also wanted the Board to realize that you can change this plan every year to reflect the fact that you have already absorbed some of your population projections so that you can put in more:out there. Another question is does the Board really want to encourage ranchettes'and things like that out there because he felt it causes problems when you have development in the area you are also saying is the best place for mining and where you have big citrus trucks running on unpaved roads. Director Keating again emphasized that this whole plan is an urban service area driven JAN 11 BOOK � 1 is F � lJAH -1 i a30 BOOK plan. The higher densities are there, and it makes sense that if you are going to allocate a large expanse of areas for Agricul- tyre, that should be the principal use there and densities should be real low: Discussion continued about various alternatives and what all this would do to land values. Commissioner Scurlock felt there is more land value there today in terms of active producing citrus than in any other use, and it was further noted that while you can raise cattle north of here, you sure can't raise citrus as demonstrated by the recent freeze. Commissioner Wheeler felt the plan is flexible and you can go in and change it annually. Director Keating agreed it is flexible, but believed in dealing with the DeBartolo issue, we have been finding out just how difficult this Comprehensive Plan process is now. Commissioner Scurlock commented that he would like to see the area west of Blue Cypress go to 1 unit per 40 acres; take the public conservation area and have zero density; and then come in on the next portion to the east and possibly go to 1 unit per 15 acres instead of 10. Commissioner Bird felt you either come up with a density that makes it feasible to do residential development or it doesn't matter what you put on it. Director Keating stated that is exactly the point we are challenged with by the DCA, who says are you expecting this development at what you are projecting. Commissioner Scurlock believed Chairman Eggert raised a good point, which is that there are two areas around 1-95 where we need to provide for some density - the node at Fellsmere which goes on both sides of 1-95 and the Oslo node in the vicinity of 1-95 which has been identified as an area for a future inter- change. 12 M M M r Commissioner Wheeler asked about the houses that are in those areas now. His point was that if you are not in compliance with the plan, you can't borrow money on your land, and this would apply to places such as the fly -in ranches. Also, there are people who just like to live on some acreage in the country, but they may not be able to afford to buy 40 acres of land. Director Keating advised that we have two kinds of non - conformities built into our regulations. "Lots of record" are not considered non -conformities because they are grandfathered in, and, therefore, there would be no problem with building back anything existing out there right now in case of fire, etc. As far as making it more difficult for someone wanting to build in a rural area by requiring 40 acres, that is true unless you can find a lot of record. But the question is - do you want to control the density of the county. Director Keating pointed out that some people want to live on 1 acre lots, but right now we have a 1 unit per 5 acre density out there. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that it is not feasible to provide the infrastructure at those densities, and also empha- sized the fact that there is an on-going water problem and water quality is continuing to degradate. Commissioner Bird wished to review possible proposed densi- ties starting from the westernmost boundary of the county, and Planner Loeper noted that it presently is 1 unit for 10 acres. Commissioner Bird believed Commissioner Scurlock suggested a density out there of 1 for 40 and then go to zero for the conser- vation area, and it was noted that continuing east the map submitted to the DCA shows 1 for 10 for the Agricultural area and then 1 to 5 for the Rural area. Commissioner Bird commented that it seems we ar-e looking at some compromise to satisfy DCA, and he felt maybe we should go back to them with the 1 to 40 and then to zero and say leave the rest as it is. JAN 16 19JU 13 BOOK. EOGK 8 FADE 917 Director Keating felt that the DCA made a good challenge he couldn't answer in regard to being realistic with our densities, and Commissioner Scurlock asked if he could justify 40 - 0 - 10. Director Keating felt 40 - 0 - 20 would be easier to justify. Discussion continued as to the number of potential dwelling units at build -out, and Director Keating continued to emphasize the whole issue is that this is a 20 year plan and that what is designated should reflect what is needed for 20 years. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the DCA, on one hand, is saying provide affordable housing, and yet, they are taking off huge amounts of potential density and concentrating it east of 1-95, which drives the land values up there. Director Keating noted that you lose about 2,300 units but putting zero density on the St. John's area. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is a need to go below the 1 unit to 10 acres on the eastern portion, possibly 1 to 15, because he would like to leave it at 1 to 10 if that will work. Commissioner Bird felt that 10 acres is a much better number - than 15, which is an odd amount to work with in dividing up property. Commissioner Scurlock wished to try it at 40 - 0 - 10, and if that doesn't make it, then go to 40 - 0 - 20, but Director Keating stated that if we go to that instead of 40 - 0 - 40, it doesn't do it because we still have a great potential. Commissioner Bowman felt that possibly there is more envi- ronmentally sensitive and unbuildable land out there than has been delineated, and Commissioner Bird believed that we are missing some acreage south of Route 60 where the St. John's reservoir is located. The Board questioned whether we have identified all the public land in the county and subtracted that density, and Chairman Eggert noted that staff took 250 off to allow for roads, green space, etc. Board members felt that we should draw in the 14 - M St. John's reservoir which is about two sections of land and that would be zero density. Discussion continued at length in regard to units per acre, and a combination of 40 - 0 - 20 as opposed to 40 - 0 - 10, and Director Keating noted that DCA was recommending 40 - 0 - 40, but he thought we could justify 40 - 0 - 20. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to be sure we keep our flexi- bility on densities around the key interchanges on 1-95 where the commercial/ industrial nodes are, and Director Keating agreed that an interchange ever coming in at Olso would be a major justification for changing our plan. Commissioner Bird noted that we generally have tended to think of 1-95 as a dividing line between the urban area to the east and agriculture to the west, but the real fact of life is that if you are looking for an area of nice future homesites for development in this county, you will need 3 things - first, a buildable piece of land, meaning relatively high and dry; second, access to it,'and third, utilities. 1-95 running through this county is built on the 10 mile ridge, which means you have got probably 1 to 2 miles of good, dry, buildable land on either side of the highway; 1-95 gives you primary access; and thirdly, it is relatively close to the other urban area where it is not that difficult to extend utilities. Commissioner Bird also felt the demand for the type development we are discussing will be in that area along the 1-95 corridor within the next 20 years. Chairman Eggert agreed, but asked whether that demand will be there before 10 years or after. She brought up the possibil- ity of having a line of property running along 1 -95: -back a certain distance designated at 1 unit to 10 acres and then further west at 1 - 20 or 1 - 40: Commissioner Scurlock believed Commissioner Bird was exactly right with his comments, especially in regard to extending utilities, and he could agree with Chairman Eggert's suggestion of having a certain distance closer to 1-95 at a higher density. 15 BOCK ��r ) A I,F 91 JAU L eLiu Boor. F, He talked about keeping the same distance back from 1-95, but making a logical determination in following property lines. Board members agreed with the concept of a higher density for a certain distance around the 1-95 corridor with the other densities as discussed before. Some discussion arose about areas around Fellsmere where people go who want to live on 5 or 10 acres out in the country, and it was telt that should be left alone unless the DCA wants to tackle it. Director reating informed the Board that the DCA cannot rind a plan not in compliance unless they attend the final adoption hearing if requested to by the county, and we already have re- quested they attend. He believed the foregoing discussion has given staff the basic direction they need as to Urban Sprawl. AFFOKDABLE HOUSING Affordable Housing Specific objections ( Alternatives for Resolution - No high density areas to accommodate low cost housing - No designated group home sites - No policies designed to reduce housing costs Designate some higher den- sity areas for low cost housing Designate group home sites Adopt policies to reduce housing cost such as waiver of impact fees for low-cost housing Director Keating explained that DCA's objective in address- ing affordable housing, in essence. is to make sure that communities provide for taking their fair share of affordable housing so that it is not concentrated only in certain communities. Commissioner Bird noted that you can pay lip service to affordable housing all you want, but for it you have to have affordable property, affordable building costs, and affordable tinancing, plus the intrastructure, of course. It is an undeni- able fact that our land values are high in this county, and that, plus our impact fee structure, makes it difficult to create areas 16 M M. r 1-6 where you can provide affordable housing. Either the government will have to subsidize some of this or we somehow have to create incentives for private developers to do it. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he has met with the local Association of Builders on 3 occasions, and over 6 years, has asked them to come in and assist the county in an effort to reduce the cost of construction in relation to complying with our ordinances. We need their analysis and suggestions in regard to such things as reducing minimum square footage requirements, smaller setbacks, etc. Possibly we could work together as a joint venture to come up with a designated area of sufficient size to allow a planned type of community with a mix of single family and multi family; there is some ability for some tax exempt bond issues, etc. In spite of our efforts, however, we have never had anyone actually come in and spend the time to try to do this. Commissioner Bird felt we have to take the lead and organize public meetings and workshops as he did not think we can depend on the development community to take the initiative. Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss the possibility, for instance, of just reducing side yards by 2' so that you could end up with an extra lot. He noted that we have some very old subdivisions that were platted many years ago, such as Vero Lake Estates, and that is the only area where you can build affordable housing. In some of these areas, it turns out nicely, but in some such areas, you just end up with a hodge-podge of unpaved roads, no property drainage, etc. If we took a more active role, maybe we could end up with something that would be more pleasing aesthetically. Director Keating agreed that is an issue we can put in the plan. He believed the DCA's objection is not so much what we had in the plan, but that we hedged and weren't specific; we just said we will study it. 17 BOOK JAN, L working with the building industry, possibly forming a partner- ship, and going out, in example, to Vero Lake Estate which has been a problem for us, and acquiring a good segment of that. This would not only get an existing problem off our backs, but could end up. -being something positive. Commissioner Bird noted that there isn't anywhere you can go in this county today and create a subdivision, plat it, and sell lots in it anywhere close to what you can buy lots for presently out in the Vero Lake Estates area. Even if you put in improve- ments out there to double the price of the lots, you still couldn't recreate that anywhere else. Chairman Eggert felt that was a good idea and also noted that this perhaps would further encourage something to come into that industrial node. Director Keating commented that if the Board is saying they would be amenable to approving a policy to do some acquisition and do a partnership project to provide low cost housing, he felt that would be two good initiatives. With regard to what the DCA suggested about impact fees, he believed he knew the Board's answer, but even though they are a great means of financing a lot of infrastructure improvements, there is no doubt they hit the hardest on the lowest income since you have the same fee for each type of single family unit regardless of size. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that you can't waive impact fees. You can subsidize them out of general ad valorem taxes, but the utility customer is a different base. There are only about 12,000 utility customers, not 86,000, and he cannot envision any time where every residence in this county will have utilities. Commissioner Bird noted that rather than putting the county in the housing business, he would prefer to word it that we will work aggressively and cooperate with the private sector to create affordable housing and use whatever governmental power we have to 18 M M M BOOK �� PAGE 921 Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss the concept of working with the building industry, possibly forming a partner- ship, and going out, in example, to Vero Lake Estate which has been a problem for us, and acquiring a good segment of that. This would not only get an existing problem off our backs, but could end up. -being something positive. Commissioner Bird noted that there isn't anywhere you can go in this county today and create a subdivision, plat it, and sell lots in it anywhere close to what you can buy lots for presently out in the Vero Lake Estates area. Even if you put in improve- ments out there to double the price of the lots, you still couldn't recreate that anywhere else. Chairman Eggert felt that was a good idea and also noted that this perhaps would further encourage something to come into that industrial node. Director Keating commented that if the Board is saying they would be amenable to approving a policy to do some acquisition and do a partnership project to provide low cost housing, he felt that would be two good initiatives. With regard to what the DCA suggested about impact fees, he believed he knew the Board's answer, but even though they are a great means of financing a lot of infrastructure improvements, there is no doubt they hit the hardest on the lowest income since you have the same fee for each type of single family unit regardless of size. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that you can't waive impact fees. You can subsidize them out of general ad valorem taxes, but the utility customer is a different base. There are only about 12,000 utility customers, not 86,000, and he cannot envision any time where every residence in this county will have utilities. Commissioner Bird noted that rather than putting the county in the housing business, he would prefer to word it that we will work aggressively and cooperate with the private sector to create affordable housing and use whatever governmental power we have to 18 M M M make this happen. It certainly would be his second preference for us to actually buy property or do the development ourselves. Chairman Eggert asked how we are going to provide money for this. She believed one of the things the DCA is looking for is for us to find a way to acquire these lots. Perhaps they could be sold off. Commissioner Scurlock noted that you can go out and identify a piece of property for a purpose - you can float tax exempt bonds; have loans for borrowers who normally would not be able to qualify; set up scales of income levels; prepay impact fees and provide a deferred payment structure; make use of your Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. There are many ways to do'it, but it is complex and will require working together and having the private sector willing to subscribe. In the ensuing discussion, the Board continued to stress the need to work with private industry. Chairman Eggert pointed out that we need several levels of affordable housing - not just low, low, but moderate, etc. Commissioner Scurlock felt there is a need to blend housing because he believed it has never worked to identify just one area and put all the low cost housing there, and he felt we could develop a program that has a blend. Chairman Eggert agreed that there are a number of different housing needs in this community - not only for the poor, but for the elderly, for those with only moderate incomes, etc. Director Keating tried to pin down the feedback he is getting from the Board, and Commissioner Scurlock felt that it is for the county to take an aggressive roll as discussed and form a committee or some formal structure to see if what we are proposing is actually doable. The possibility of working in the Oslo area was brought up, and Director Keating confirmed that is one of the target areas. He believed.that staff can take the Board's comments and put them into some specific action -oriented words. 19 1p,00Ki F.'.�% JAN 15 1990 'SAN 15 1990 ROOK 1 Fr�,1i Chairman Eggert stated that she definitely would want to have a workshop with the, private sector and the builders, and she would be willing to chair a committee as discussed. Commissioner Scurlock agreed he will make the advice of the Finance Advisory Committee available as well as from Utilities. Director Keating informed the Board that the DCA agrees this is a tough issue and that it does not have easy answers. What they want is for local government to take the initiative. Chairman Eggert believed we should indicate that we will support giving the private sector the initiatives. She further noted that the DCA brought up a lot about substandard housing, and she wondered if we didn't include what we are already doing about that. Director Keating stated that the DCA's major concern was that there weren't real strong identifiable policies as to how we are actually going to take care of the blighted areas, and he believed we just have to make what we are doing a little clearer. ENVIRONMENTAL Specific Objections I Alternatives for Resolution Environmental - Densities (1 du/ac) too high in environmentally areas east of I-95 - Agriculture exempted in 25% native vegetation preservation - Mitigation ratios too low Reduce densities in envi- ronmentally sensitive areas to 1 du/5 acres Include Agriculture in 25% requirement Increase mitigation ratios Director Keating did not feel that a lot of the items in this category are major substantive policy issues. One issue is, and it is one that is causing a lot of concern and problems in other local governments. One of their points, which is also an objection that was made by the Regional Planning Council, is that while we have a policy in the Conservation Element that requires setting aside and preserving at least 250 of each native 20 community on a development site, we exempt Agriculture from that in our plan. The DCA does not feel Ag should be exempted. Question arose as to the definition of "native community," and Director Keating advised that it would some type of ecosystem that hasn't been altered, possibly a hammock area or wet prairie. Improved pasture or citrus grove would not be a native community. The state is saying why are native communities any less desirable in an Agricultural area, and is not that Agricultural area many times the first phase in the development of land. He gave the example of a grove owner who had an 100 acre site, which included possibly 10 acres of hammock and 10 acres of wet prairie, or 20 acres, and explained he would have to set aside 5 of those acres. Discussion arose about mitigation being allowed on another site, and Director Keating believed that the Regional Planning Council is leaning towards having Agriculture adhere to the 250 requirement, but allowing them to overcome that requirement by putting on record a binding legal agreement stating that whenever that site changes hands or goes into development, then the mitigation would occur whether it be monetary or actual estab- lishment of a community. Commissioner Scurlock brought up the need for property for disposal of effluent and discussed the possibility of forming a partnership with Ag interests where they would have a vehicle to participate with us to create artificial wetlands through a monetary contribution to the County. This would accomplish two things. It would allow us to have a place to dispose of our effluent, and it would allow them to use their lands more properly. Commissioner Scurlock noted that it is amazing what they have done in the Orlando project where they created about 1200 acres of artificial wetlands. Commissioner Bowman advised that land actually had been a wetland before it was converted into pasture, etc. Discussion ensued as to it being easier to create new wet- lands than to reestablish an existing one that has been impacted. 6 21 F -v ®® ROGK JAN 1 �� 99 "'JAW 1,'-5 1990 BOOK 78 f'Au 9L) Planner DeBlois felt that applies a lot to emergent wetlands. Some of the other agencies do have concern about the more established forested wetlands, cypress swamp areas, and also there is still the issue of the, upland area's that aren't too easily recreated on other properties. Commissioner Bird was sure that it would take many years to recreate a cypress swamp, but as far as mitigation is concerned, he did feel that the Grand Harbor project is an excellent example of what can be done. Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to see it written into the plan that no cypress can be cut in this county. She stressed that it would be much better if they would use the melaleuca trees for mulch as we have an overabundance of them. Director Keating believed if the Board is indicating that we should leave in the 25% set aside and then put in the additional condition about a monetary mitigation that wouldn't be due until the property actually goes into development, that would serve to accomplish the objective. He noted we could also put in the coordination with the county to develop mitigation banking areas that are related to reuse of wastewater effluent. Commissioner Bowman brought up the sand scrub areas, and Director Keating believed Planner DeBlois made the point that some of the upland areas are more difficult tG deal with from a mitigation standpoint. Hopefully the CARL Program acquisition up at the St. Sebastian River will get some of that sand scrub area. Director Keating informed the Board that there are several other issues under the Environmental section; for instance, the density we allocated in environmentally sensitive (ES) areas east of 1-95. We have 1 unit per acre now, and the DCA felt that was too high. We tried to explain that the purpose of it was to encourage the density transfer and actually get restoration of altered wetlands, but in looking at it again, he felt we could accomplish the same thing by reducing those densities to 1 to 5 22 M M M M r M acres which would be relatively consistent with the City of Vero Beach in their new R-1AAA District: Commissioner Bird believed common sense shows that we are not going to allow it to be developed at any density; what we are talking about is trading it to -the upland area, and when we do trade it to that area, we are not allowing the density to exceed whatever the allowable density is for that area. Planner DeBlois felt we might suggest 2 tier density, and have a very low density, if at all, within the wetland itself and possibly have another density for the transfer density incentive. Chairman Eggert noted, in other words, it could be 1 unit to 5 acres within the ES area, but then allow 1 unit to 1 acre for the density transfer. Planner DeBlois advised that the DCA gave us a figure of 1 to 40,•and he felt that might not be so unreasonable from the standpoint of development within the wetlands, but from the standpoint of density transfer, possibly we could have a 1 to 5 transfer incentive. Commissioner Bird expressed his preference for a 1 to 1 transfer incentive. He believed it has worked for us up to this time. Discussion continued about making it 1 to 40 in the wetlands since we do not intend to have development in the wetlands area in any event, and then have a density transfer figure of 1 to 1, and the Board agreed with that concept. Director Keating advised there are just two other environmental issues he would like to discuss, and they are related. The DCA did not think that there were enough initiatives taken to protect the Lagoon. Director Keating personally felt they.missed a lot of things in the plan; however, it is acknowledged that a major source of water quality degrada- tion in the Lagoon is from the drainage canals. One of the big issues DCA had regarding drainage LOS (level of service) was that JAN 1 ,� 199U_ Z3 MON �� FtJ,_• � RDbK78 rt,Ou there was not an LOS applied to existing development; in other words, we did not have a lot of good standards for retro -fitting. Commissioner Scurlock felt possibly we should create storm water management as a utility, and Director Keating agreed that we need to show some real action in regard to exactly what is going to be done when and what improvement we will be looking at. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel much can be done about this until we get a better situation in terms of control with the water management districts and drainage districts. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that if you are talking about a surface water utility, which she agreed is the ultimate solution, you are going to have to deal with FDOT and all their outfalls. Commissioner Scurlock believed that Attorney Vitunac is going to Tallahassee in regard to abolishment of these special districts. Attorney Vitunac clarified that he is going to attend a seminar about the Uniform Special District Act. He believed what the Board is talking about are the water control districts set up by Special Act. They predate most other special districts in Florida, and you really would have to put on a political campaign in order to abolish them and take over their function. He advised that counties have the power to do exactly the same things the water control districts are doing, and the reason they came into being is just that counties weren't around when people needed the function provided by the water control districts. It probably would take another Special Act to abolish them. Chairman Eggert believed that we can certainly express our concern, beginning with the Legislative Delegations, that the water districts do not seem to have to make plans to correlate with the comprehensive plans. They are creating a lot of our problems, and we would urge the Legislative Delegations to encourage more participation between the counties and the water districts. 24 M I_ J Public Works Director Davis confirmed that staff has been considering more cooperation with the drainage districts rather than recommending that we take some action to abolish them. He informed the Board that some of the tough issues regarding the Lagoon relate to areas where direct discharge of stormwater is occurring with no treatment. This is happening in such places as The Moorings area, Vero Shores, and some other developments along the river. Many of those are privately maintained systems, and he was not sure how we would implement a storm water utility in the areas where the R/Ws are privately dedicated. Commissioner Scurlock asked if those systems don't have to have a permit to discharge, and Director Davis advised that is no current stormwater permit required for ones that were built prior to 1978. Fortunately, the unincorporated area has a minimal amount of those developments, but there are 4 or 5 privately maintained systems that need cleaning up. The rest are within the City of Vero Beach, and he believed they will have quite a job retrofitting. Attorney Vitunac did not believe these systems have a grand- fathered right to dump forever in the river. They may be grandfathered from the permitting, but that is not the type of right that can withstand a subsequent change in the law that requires them to go back and retrofit. In discussion it was noted that the costs involved in this might eventually force them to come to us for a public utility. Commissioner Bowman asked if they wouldn't be the nucleus of a surface water utility the same as we are taking over the package plants, and it was believed we probably will see this occur in the next decade. Director Davis noted that they are also addressing in our plan a way to assess and evaluate the water quality impacts from Agricultural lands, which means that somehow we need to monitor that and perhaps develop a permit to have a citrus grove. That opens up a whole new arena. 25 'ROOK X99® A BOOK Director Keating advised that one of the areas where we looked good in the plan was that we are looking at substantially increasing the sanitary sewer service area, and we are showing that we are -pulling a lot of package plants out of use. DISCUSSION REGARDING INCLUDING INDIAN RIVER MALL IN THE PLAN Director'Keating felt staff now has all the direction they need but for one issue, and this is a logistical issue. He explained that right before the Comprehensive Plan was submitted, staff was propasing that the Indian River Mall be put in the plan, but the Commission directed we take it out of the plan and have the applicant go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. We have had the first Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing and the rezoning hearing, and he just wanted to find out if the Board's policy as to having them go through that Comprehensive Plan process is still in effect. Director Keating explained that the rules either were changed, or we did not realize what they were when all this occurred. What happens is that once your new plan is due, and for us that was September 1, 1989, the State considers that from now on that is going to be the plan you abide by, and they will no longer accept any amendments to your old plan. This puts you in a limbo period from the time you submit your draft until you adopt your new plan, which will be February 13th. If you want to change the new plan, you do it at your tinal adoption hearing. For the Mall to go through separately, you would be adding 6 months to the process. That is one alternative, and that is the way we are proceeding now. The other alternative is to throw it in at the final adoption hearing. The advantage to that is it gets things done sooner. The disadvantage is that DCA has not reviewed the Mall and we did not get any ORC comments on that. Director Keating felt we have a better chance of getting our plan found in compliance if we proceed as we are proceeding now and do not include the Mall at the final adoption hearing, and that is what staff would recommend; however, whatever the Board's decision is, staff would like to know it now so they can adjust the various elements in the plan accordingly. Commissioner Bird did not want to do anything for one mall that we are n-ot doing for the other; he wanted to keep them equal and let the market dictate who will be the successful developer. He asked if it would keep Indian River Mall on a parallel course with the other mall if we put them back in the Comprehensive Plan at the final hearing. Director Keating advised that the other mail (Shopco) has everything done, except that they have not submitted a -site plan yet, but they are waiting on Indian River t3oulevard. The Indian River Mall is substantially behind. In fact, today is our deadline to get comments to the Regional Planning Council regarding the third review of their URI, and he believed we still have a lot of unresolved issues on it. The effect of including them in the adoption hearing on February 13th would be to make the DRI approval the only factor in their timing. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he agreed with the concept of keeping them equal, but he couldn't see slowing one down because the other one hasn't done something. Chairman Eggert inquired about the status of Indian River Boulevard Phase 111, and Public Works Director Davis reported that on Phase III the permitting obstacles seem to be somewhat behind u�s except for the Corps of Engineers permit, and the R/W is now proceeding fairly rapidly. Regarding Phase IV which goes up to the Harbor Mall, applications have been filed..for the permits, and R/W acquisition is 40% complete. We hope to have the R/W all acquired..within the next 3/4 months; however, the Corps may not be able to issue our permit until we have secured the R/W, including the mitigation area. Director Davis advised that we hope to have Indian River Boulevard open to 53rd Street .in December of 1992. 27 JAN IF IS20 BOOK F,1GE 93.E It was noted that Shopco can start construction betore that time but can't get their C.O. until the Boulevard is open. Discussion continued regarding which mall has to do what in relation to -being able to build. Director Keating informed the Board that, besides getting their zoning, traffic is a big issue with the Indian River Mail, and we still are not satisfied with their analysis. Right now the improvements that we see that there is no question about are 6 laning SR 60 from 58th Ave. to 66th Ave. - paving Walker Ave. - signalization improvements on SR 60 - and some widening of King's Highway. What we are having some problems with is that the applicant doesn't see any need for 'improvements on 66th Avenue other than signalization on SR 60. Director Keating again stressed that the down side of including them in our plan is that we would be throwing in something big that the DCA has not looked at yet. Chairman Eggert commented that if we put the mall in, that obviously results in lowering residential density, and Director Keating agreed it would result in taking about 1200 units out of the plan. Commissioner Scurlock did not believe they are anywhere near ready; so,. what does the 6 months delay do to them? Director Keating noted that the Regional Planning Council has to make a decision on this latest DRI submittal; he reviewed the various possibilities in the event it is found sufficient or insufficient and telt altogether it could work out to 2/3 months ditterence if it isn't included in the plan. Attorney Collins wished to elaborate on the down side. He stressed that we are charged on adopting a plan with amendments made in response to their comments, and if we throw in something new, he believed it could throw them ott balance. Chairman Eggert inquired what staff felt about our chances of being in compliance. 28 Director Keating believed that the DCA is anxious to find us in compliance, and with what we have talked about revising today, he believed we will be found in compliance. Commissioner Scurlock felt we should go on just as we are going on presently, and Commissioner Bowman agreed we shouldn't throw anything new into the works. Commissioner Bird was still concerned as to whether he did the right thing when he voted before to take them out of the Comprehensive Plan, and Commissioner Eggert noted that she had a lot of problem with the fact that they would not go through the same public hearing process as Shopco did if they were included in the plan. Commissioner Scurlock turther pointed out that the differ- ence is that one mall went out and bought property that was already zoned commercial, and the other bought residential property. Chairman Eggert believed the Board in general has indicated that we really do not want anything to mess up the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:15 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk Cha irm 29 N 15 `�J� _ BoaK `16 FhArl.Jr e�- „